asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any award was ever given for the invention of the submarine indicating nets; if so, who was the individual who received the same; and could the information be given by the Admiralty as to the number of submarines that the nets were the means of destroying?

The Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors awarded £1,500 to Mr. F. R. S. Bircham, late Commander, R.N.V.R., in addition to £150 which had been paid him by the Admiralty for the use of a design of indicator net put forward by him in October, 1915. No other sums have been awarded in respect of the nets, but several small awards have been paid for details connected with their use. Indicator nets have been credited with the destruction of two enemy submarines.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the actual number of fifth-class artificers who were recently drafted from the "Fisgard" to naval establishments for 12 months' service afloat to qualify for fourth-class certificates; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding that they had signed for 12 years' service, they have received compulsory notice of discharge in 30 days and are thus deprived of their certificate of efficiency to secure employ- meat in the position for which they have trained; and will he consider the advisability of reinstating these men until they have completed at least a further year's service in order that they may not add further burdens to the Exchequer by way of unemployment benefit, for which they have been informed in their discharge notices they are eligible?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the retention of the engine room artificers, fifth class, who left the "Fisgard" in January last for another 12 months in order that they might leave the Service fully trained instead of being partially trained as at present?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the possibility of transferring the engine-room artificers, fifth class, who have been so unexpectedly discharged from the Royal Navy and can find no other employment, to the Air Force?

I am pleased to be able to announce that the Air Ministry have expressed their willingness to take over a large number of the surplus engine-room artificers, fifth class, provided suitable terms of transfer can be arranged.

Will the Financial Secretary answer that part of my question relating to the retention of the engine-room artificers or say what will happen to them?

If they are not taken over by the Air Ministry, they will be in the same position as everybody else who has had to be discharged, but they have the advantage of a strong recommendation

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Admiralty proposes to introduce a new system of witnessed pay-sheets for their employés and abolish the necessity of their providing receipt stamps; and, if so, when?

As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will inform the House of the precise nature of the assistance which has been promised to the Government of Northern Ireland in the creation of a Royal Naval Reserve, referred to by the Premier of the Northern Parliament?

The Board of Admiralty would view with much pleasure any support which the Government and people of Northern Ireland can give in the direction of maintaining the strength and efficiency of the Royal Naval Reserve in Northern Ireland, or of the establishment in Northern Ireland of a division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. There is, of course, no question of creating separate Naval Reserve Forces for Northern Ireland.

I beg to give notice that on this day week, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I intend to tall attention to national expenditure in Northern Ireland and other directions.

If such a force is established in Northern Ireland, will there be an extra charge?

There is no question of establishing a separate force in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. It is merely a question of the establishment of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in Northern Ireland and will involve no more cost than any other Division.

Is the First Lord not aware that the establishment of such a force would be an increase of the total establishment?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why delay is taking place with the proceeding of the work on the battleship on the Tyne; if he is aware that the pattern-makers, who ought to be among the first to start on the job, have not yet started; and, as there is no scarcity of materials, will he state why the pattern-makers and other workmen are not yet employed?

No unavoidable delay is taking place in connection with the work on the battleship in question. The drawing office staffs are engaged in the preparation of the necessary working drawings for issue to the shops, and pattern-making can only commence as these drawings become completed.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give a date on which the clasps awarded to the Royal Navy (A.O. 2051, C.W. 1654, August, 1920) and sanctioned by His Majesty will be given; and what is the cause a the delay of over two years?

I regret I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for South Battersea on the 13th December last.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is not very satisfactory? Is it the fact that the question of Army clasps is standing in the way? If so, is he aware that the clasps for the Navy have been approved, while those for the Army have not even been considered? That being so, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the question?

I am afraid I am only in a position to give the same unsatisfactory answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether naval ratings in dockyards outside this country are subject to reduction under the recent Order?

On the assumption that the Order for compulsory discharge of naval ratings is referred to, the answer is in the negative.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that under a recent Admiralty order those crane-drivers, engine-drivers, etc., who are required by the nature of their work to be in the dockyard, sometimes as early as five o'clock in the morning, in order to get ready for the work of the day are no longer paid overtime but have to take a compulsory holiday without pay to make up for the extra time worked, an arrangement which compels them to work many hours longer than other men without receiving any pay at all, the only extra remuneration given being the quarter-hours of the hour and a quarter; that this change is causing universal dissatisfaction; and can he see his way to revert to the old arrangement whereby these men were paid overtime for the extra hours worked?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This arrangement was made on the initiative of the trade union side of the Industrial Council, who have now asked that the question may be reconsidered. This is now being done.

Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Admiralty fully appreciate that that account is entirely wrong?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to increase the number of naval schoolmasters; and, if so, whether it will consider the advisability of allowing engine-room artificers now being discharged on reduc- tion of the personnel of the Navy, in view of their sea experience, to take the examinations, in common with men from His Majesty's dockyards, for the position of probationary naval schoolmaster?

Schoolmasters have not yet been entered up to the full number required. Should engine-room artificers, on discharge, apply to be entered as schoolmaster candidates, their entry, as in the case of all other applicants, would depend on their qualifications and training.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether 50 years of age is to be retained as the age for the compulsory retirement of warrant officers and naval officers promoted from that rank; and, if so, will similar pension and gratuity conditions be applied on their retirement as under the last reduction order?

It is the intention to retain 50 as the age of compulsory retirement in those warrant officer branches in which the age was reduced to 50 under the special scheme of retirement. The answer to the last part of 'the question is in the negative.

Are these who were not retired under the recent Order and whose services were not dispensed with if compulsorily retired at some later date, to get similar conditions to those laid down in the recent Order?

In future the age will be 50, and the conditions applied will he those applied on retirement on termination of services previously.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he proposes to introduce legislation to repeal the Coastguard Service Act, 1856; whether any steps will be taken to reduce the Coastguard before such legislation has been passed; whether he can state what will be the effect of the proposed reductions; and on what principle it is proposed that they should be carried out?

The legislation required to enable the Board of Trade to carry out their new duties is under consideration, and a Bill will, no doubt, be introduced as soon as possible. Arrangements are being made to discharge the personnel of the Coastguard (other than that required for the Naval Signalling Service) with compensation or pension as the case may be, but every endeavour will be made to recruit the personnel required for the Board of Trade and Customs Services respectively from the discharged Coastguard, those retained being selected according to their qualifications in signals and wireless telegraphy and to their general suitability.

Are we to understand the men will be discharged before such legislation is proceeded with?

I do not think that necessarily follows.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that legislation was under consideration. If legislation is necessary, are you going to carry out the discharges before it is passed?

I should like to have notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the uneasiness which prevails in the lower deck ratings of the Navy owing to the lack of opportunities for promotion; whether he is aware that large numbers of men of proved ability have no chance of promotion; that many men have been discharged at the climax of their careers during the past two years, and that wardroom officers who had risen from the ranks have figured prominently in recent compulsory discharges; and whether further discharges are to be made at the close of this month.

The large surplus of officers on the list has naturally and unavoidably prejudiced the chances of promotion to a great extent during the past few years, but the effect of the reductions which have been made will be to remove these surpluses entirely and thus restore the flow of promotion, though necessarily not to the same extent as before the War owing to the reduced total establishment of officers. All the retirements which were cue to be made in the warrant officers branches were completed last year and promotion to gunner and gunner (T) was resumed in November. No further retirements of lieutenant ex-mate are contemplated, although a few already selected have not definitely left the active list but will do so before the 31st March. These retirements will not effect the next selection for mate, which is not due to take place until December next. I may add that, at the last selection in December, 1922, six candidates were selected and this number would have been greater had a sufficient number of qualified and recommended candidates who were suitable for promotion come forward.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the compulsory termination of the engagements of men to be discharged before the end of the current financial year, the Admiralty will give them the opportunity to rejoin when recruiting commences in their respective branches; and whether they will be permitted to rejoin in the rating they held on discharge?

When recruiting re-commences it will be open for discharged men, in most cases, to reenter, but it will not be possible to allow them to count their former service, as this would largely reproduce the conditions which have required the present. discharges.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent innovation whereby naval ratings may he discharged from His Majesty's Service with a month's notice despite the fact that by reason of conduct and efficiency their retention is desirable, the system of discharge by purchase will be abolished and one month's notice on the part of ratings desirous of leaving the Service will be accepted as final and their final discharge authorised?

It will still be necessary to maintain the system of discharge by purchase. Recent orders for the compulsory discharge of a certain number of naval ratings were necessitated by the very large reductions in the Fleet.

Is not the Government under an obligation to these men?

No. This is an isolated case affecting a relatively small number of men, and the recommendation would not be justified.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are taken to ensure that firms to whom Admiralty coal contracts are allotted comply with the Fair Wages Clause in respect of their supervisory electrical staffs; and whether he will have special inquiries made into the rates paid to such staff by the Powell-Duffryn and Ocean Coal Company?

All collieries contracting with the Admiralty should observe the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons. If the hon. Member contends that the Resolution is being infringed by the Powell-Duffryn Coal Company and Ocean Coal Company in respect of the electrical supervisory staffs engaged in the execution of a contract for the supply of coo., for naval use, and will furnish me with full details, the Admiralty will inquire into the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty propose to devote any and, if so, what sums towards the maintenance of airships?

The recommendations of the Admiralty with regard to the desirability of contributing to the maintenance of a commercial airship service are now under consideration by the Government.

Will the House have an opportunity of voting directly on the issue whether the Admiralty shall take over air work?

That question has been answered by the Prime Minister.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has come to any final decision on the subject of presenting the Estimates classified as to the purposes of expenditure on the same plan as the Army Estimates, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure?

The answer is in the negative. On the general aspect of this matter I would invite attention to the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1921, paragraphs 17 to 23. Reference to that Report will show that the Committee were of opinion that it would be wise to await fuller experience of the results obtained from the operation of the scheme in the accounts of the Army before extending the system to other Departments. The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate that any radical change in the form of Estimates and accounts would require the concurrence of the Committee on Public Accounts.

Was not that recommendation made two years ago? Is it not now time to deal with the question?

I think we had better wait for fuller information.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made by the various signatories to the Washington Treaty in scrapping the units of their fleet in excess of their establishment under the said Treaty; whether a specified date was arranged for the completion of their respective disarmament; and, if so, when does this time expire?

As the reply to the first part of the question is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. and gallant. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As regards the second part, the date of rendering unfit for further warlike service ships to be scrapped under the Washington Treaty is six months after the date of the Treaty being ratified by all the signatories.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the United States of America had in commission at the time the Treaty was signed any capital ships which should have been scrapped under the Treaty, and if any progress has been made with scrapping them?

A very considerable number of ships were under construction which fell due to be scrapped, as well as some of the older vessels. A beginning has been made with the scrapping of the latter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the ceding to Brazil of two French destroyers in exchange for two ex-German steamers, and what effect this has on the Washington Agreement?

I am informed that this report is without foundation.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether six ex-German mine sweepers have been secured by the Argentine Government; whther these mine sweepers were covered by the Clause in connection with the German fleet in the Treaty of Versailles; and what armament, if any, these mine sweepers carry?

Ten ex-German mine sweepers were sold by the firm of Hugo Stinnes to the Argentine Government in August, 1922. All war material and warlike characteristics were removed from these vessels and surrendered to the Allies under Article 192 of the Versailles Treaty. They were. then, in accordance with Article 181 of the Treaty, available for commercial use.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that an ex-lndian civil servant is employed in writing the naval history of the War at a salary of £500 per annum while in receipt of £1,000 a year pension; and whether he will give the work to some naval officer who is at present without an appointment?

As regards the first part of the question, my hon. Friend is misinformed. A pensioned Indian civil servant is employed in the naval branch of the historical section of the Committee of Imperial Defence at a salary of £500 per annum. He is not engaged in writing the naval history of the War, but is responsible for the selection and arrangement of Admiralty papers of historical interest. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by the Prime Minister on 5th December and the First Lord of the Admiralty on 21st February last.

Is not this ex-civil servant in receipt of £1,000 a year as pension? If so, ought not this work to be given to someone else?

The answer to the first part of the question is that that is so. With regard to the second part, this gentleman was appointed to the work some time ago on the recommendation of the Admiralty, and I have yet to know that the receipt of a pension is a sufficient reason for discharging a man.

Does not justice demand that men entirely out of employment should be given this work?