asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which were the principal naval establishments on the Mediterranean station recently inspected by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty; and what was the principal object of this inspection?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary visited the naval establishments at Malta and Gibraltar in order to acquaint himself personally with the local conditions obtaining there.

May I ask whether this visit was made in company with the Secretary of State for War, and whether it had any reference to the proposals to base the Mediterranean Fleet on home ports?

No, Sir.

Is it intended to cut down the dockyards at Malta and Gibraltar?

I have nothing to add to what I have said. The Parliamentary Secretary visited these naval establishments in order to acquaint himself with the local conditions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question, as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary was accompanied by the War Office representative?

Yes.

What did the trip cost?

Does that mean, supposing that there is no work to do in the dockyards, that the men will not be discharged into poverty but into comfort? Are the Government going to see to that?

I do not think that arises out of the question or the reply.

That is for Mr. Speaker to decide.

That is a point for me, and the right hon. Gentleman took the words out of my mouth.

But, arising out of the reply: Are these men going to be discharged and no provision made for them to live? Are they simply going to be thrown on the scrap heap in the same way as 600 men have been thrown out at Beardmore's at Parkhead just lately by a Labour Government? [Interruption.] Yes, but we are up against hard facts, and I am not going to sit here—[Interruption.]

The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not the way to behave in the House.

On a point of Order. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member's question does not arise out of the question on the Order Paper.

That is for you to say, but I have a right, when I put a question, to get an answer, and it is your duty, Sir, to see that I get an answer. [Interruption.]

I am not going to have any controversy with the hon. Member. He really must obey the Rules of the House.

I am supposed to have some judgment as well as you.

Order!

The hon. Member's supplementary question did not arise out of either the original question or the reply.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the decision to standardise the six days' leave with pay by closing the Royal Dockyards for a week each August has caused dissatisfaction; and, if the decision continues to stand, if he will state what the position of an employé not entitled to the leave will be during the week the Royal yards are closed?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to close all the dockyards during the next August bank holiday week in order that employés may take their week's holiday with pay at the same time; and whether, owing to the diversity of opinion, before any decision on this matter is reached a vote will be taken of the men concerned?

After full consideration of the representations on behalf of the men concerned put forward through the machinery of the Industrial (Whitley) Council, the Board have decided, in the interests of economy and efficiency, to grant the six days' leave with pay in Admiralty industrial establishments by closing each of them for a week during the usual holiday period. The actual week to be adopted in each case, and other matters arising out of this decision, will be discussed at further meetings of the council, and the Admiralty do not propose to adopt any other method of ascertaining and discussing the views of the men than that provided by this machinery.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this point the Whitley Council has not represented the views of the men? Surely, if a week's holiday is to be given, the convenience of the men in relation to the holidays of their children should be consulted?

We have to consider the most economic and efficient way of carrying out the general decision of the Government in this matter.

May I ask if this decision is going to apply to the staff at the Admiralty, and why it is, when economies are necessary, that the workers have always to suffer?

I do not quite follow the question of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the Admiralty staff; I do not know whether he means the civil staff at the dockyards or at the central office in London. There is no need to follow the same practice in regard to the central staff, because you do not get the same difficulty of the on costs in industry. That is the governing factor in this decision. As regards the latter part of the supplementary question, I should have thought that the actions of the Government show that we do take into consideration the case of the workers.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in spite of the declared readiness of the Admiralty to explore avenues for alternative work in the dockyards, his Department has declined to undertake by Devonport Dockyard either the design or the erection of a 2,000,000 cubic feet gas-holder which it is proposed by the Plymouth City Council to erect at St. Levan Road, Devonport, at a cost of £32,000; and whether, seeing that the work involved would provide the employment of local labour, he will in future see that it is the policy of the Admiralty not to reject offers of this nature but actually to seek them?

The invitation to tender for this work was warmly appreciated and carefully considered by the Admiralty, but it was found that to accept the invitation would require a detailed and particular knowledge of the designing and erection of modern gasholders, for which a special staff would be required without any prospect of further orders. The utmost that the Department could, in the circumstances, offer was to tender for the fabrication of the steelwork, this being the portion of the work which would, in fact, give employment to dockyard labour. An offer was made to undertake this part of the work.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when he announced that it was the intention of the Government to explore avenues for giving employment for the dockyards, the city council of Plymouth offered this work to the Admiralty in conjunction with other tenders, and that the Admiralty wrote a most off-hand letter refusing the work? Is it the policy of the Government to explore avenues for alternative work or to reject them out of hand?

Is it not true that this proved to be an important scheme, and is it right for Liberal and Labour Members of Parliament to raise false hopes in the dockyard workers?

That is an expression of opinion.

Yes, but you will agree?

With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), may I say that there is no possible foundation for the statement that an offhand reply was sent, and I submit to the hon. Member that he would be the first to criticise any action taken by us to provide alternative work which afterwards proved to be economically unsound. As there was no prospect of any further work of this kind for the dockyard, it was decided not to engage a special staff to design and prepare plans only for the purpose of submitting tenders.

Seeing that negotiations are now proceeding at the Conference in London, which we hope will be successful in restricting navies, may I ask whether the Admiralty is making any provision to ensure that my fellow engineers who will not be required will find some work in the dockyards?

I have stated in the House that we are making careful inquiries all the time with a view to providing alternative work wherever possible; and the hon. Member may rest-assured that inquiries in that direction will be continued.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a number of established drillers, riveters and machinists employed in Portsmouth dockyard have been served with notices of discharge as being redundant after 20 years' service, and have been offered alternative employment at greatly reduced rates of pay, some on the lowest rate for skilled labour; if he will inquire into the matter; and if he can say how these men's pensions will be affected?

Owing to a dearth of work on riveting, drilling, caulking, etc., a number of workmen, including 14 established riveters and one established machinist have become redundant. The alternatives are discharge on reduction with pension and/or gratuity earned by service or such other employment in the dockyard as is available at the appropriate rate of pay. They have been offered the only available employment, which is in the grade of painter's assistant, and it is open to the men to accept or reject this offer. By remaining in employment, these men retain a possibility of filling vacancies that may arise in their former grade. The effect on their pensions if they accept cannot, therefore, be estimated as pensions are assessed on the average earnings for three years prior to retirement.

Will these men continue to pay their establishment fee of 2s. 6d. a week?

I should imagine so, but I do not want to be committed to that statement. I would like to make inquiries. I shall do so and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that at any rate their wage will be lower than that of any other hired men in the yard?

I have already stated the facts, and, if the hon. Gentleman requires any information arising out of them, I shall be pleased to give it to him.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the reasons for the abandonment of the cruiser programme in His Majesty's Dockyards; whether he will give particulars of the effect of the Government's decision on employment in His Majesty's Dockyards and of the loss of money on the Dockyard Vote; and what steps are being taken to provide alternative work for the workpeople in the dockyard towns who would have been engaged?

I assume the hon. Member is referring to the cancellation of His Majesty's Ships "Surrey" and "Northumberland." The suspension of work on these ships was decided upon by His Majesty's Government in July last for reasons of high policy fully set out in the statement the Prime Minister made in this House on the 24th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 1304–11). As very little work had been done on these ships at that date the recent decision to regard them as cancelled is of no material significance and was taken as a matter of administrative convenience in connection with the framing of the Navy Estimates. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers that have already been given on various occasions to questions in this House, showing that it has not been necessary to reduce dockyard employment in consequence of stopping work on these and other ships. As regards the future, I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the question of alternative work. The matter continues to engage the attention of the Admiralty.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the abandonment of two cruisers is going to have no effect whatever on the employment in the dockyards? Does he mean to say that he cannot provide any estimate of the number of men who would have been employed if the cruisers had been built?

I should have thought that the hon. Member, representing a dockyard constituency, would have known that a good deal depends upon the other classes of work done for the Navy with the particular yard, and that, as there is more than one yard, when a ship is being constructed in one yard arrangements are made with the various yards and the work is spread over Up to the present I have had no difficulty, and I do not anticipate any difficulty.

Will the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that some of us have never made a party question out of the dockyards, and will he look at some of the promises that some of the Labour men have made?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the projected cruise of the East Indian squadron down the coast of East Africa has been postponed; and whether any other arrangements have been made to show the British flag to our traders on the East African coast?

I have no information as to any postponement of the cruise on the East African coast. It is anticipated that His Majesty's Ship "Effingham" and His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise" will leave Aden for the cruise about the 1st of May.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, whether any other arrangements have been made to show the British flag to our traders on the East African coast?

I think the answer to the first part of the question makes an answer to the second part unnecessary.

But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is not only protection for our ships but for our trade as well? It is very important to show our flag if we are to keep our markets against the competition of the Germans and Americans.

The Government have already taken note of that, and the hon. and gallant Member may be confident that we shall do all in our power to do what he desires.

May I ask what connection there is between cruisers, implements of death, and trade?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the increase or decrease in the naval Estimates in each of the next five years which would result from fixing the British cruiser-strength at 50?

There are at present 54 British Empire cruisers built, and four in an advanced stage of construction. The effect on British Estimates of fixing the total at 50 must clearly depend on the size of cruisers retained, the type of cruiser built in replacement of those that become obsolete, and the rate at which the change is effected. Decisions on these questions depend on the conclusions of the Naval Conference.

Has any estimate been made as to whether the cruisers will be of 10,000 tons or smaller?

That does not arise out of the original question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of lower-deck ratings were invalided from His Majesty's service during 1929.

The percentage of lower-deck ratings invalided from His Majesty's Navy during 1929 was 1.37.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the Christmas leave recently given to the majority of the crew of His Majesty's Ship "Selkirk" has meant unnecessary discomfort and hardship to those remaining; and if he can see his way in future to give the periodic leave, to which men employed on fishery protection duties are entitled, from their home ports?

I am having inquiries made and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the saving to the Naval Estimates in each of the years 1930 to 1936 if replacements of battleships as provided for in Article XX of the Washington Treaty be deferred until 1936?

Assuming that the ships would be of the maximum displacement allowed by the Treaty, namely, 35,000 tons, the estimated cost of building them, which would be saved if none were laid down until the beginning of 1937, is:

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with regard to the instructions recently issued requiring all officers at certain stages of their naval careers to submit photographs of themselves to the Admiralty, he will state for what purposes these photographs are required; and at what stages of their naval careers officers have to submit them?

As the answer is long and detailed, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.