asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what cuts are anticipated in the Malta Dockyard; what steps he will take to keep discharges as low as possible; and if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to allocate merchant ships to Malta for repair.

The future industrial strength of Malta Dockyard has not yet been settled but the policy of the Admiralty is to keep discharges to the minimum by undertaking as much alternative work as possible. Control by licence of repairs to merchant ships is confined to the United Kingdom. But Malta Dockyard has authority to accede to requests to undertake repairs to merchant ships provided capacity is available.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the total daily rates of pay of confirmed engine room artificers, 4th class, and of the same men immediately on promotion to Acting Sub-Lieutenant (E), respectively.

The total pay of a confirmed engine room artificer fourth class depends on his service and qualifications. A representative rate would be about 73s. 6d. a week, which might be supplemented by watchkeeping certificate allowance of 7s. a week and marriage allowance of 40s. a week, if he were qualified for them. Immediately on promotion to Acting Sub-Lieutenant (E) an officer receives pay of 77s. a week. If married, and over the age of 25, he would also be eligible for marriage allowances of 87s. 3d. a week; if under the age of 25 the marriage allowance would be 45s. a week. The rates quoted in both instances do not take account of Service, accommodation and victuals.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have just had a case drawn to my notice where a man loses £36 a year on promotion, and in view of the fact that that is likely to deter young artificers from accepting promotion, would he look into the matter with a view to removing the anomaly?

We are already considering it. A special rate of pay, assessed on the pay and continuous additions in the nature of pay made to them on the day before promotion, may soon be granted.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the propaganda drawing handed out on H.M.S. "Triumph," showing a fat sailor and a starving civilian together with charts of the sailor's rations compared with those of the civilian's; and whether, in view of the implied suggestion that Service families and other civilians are being half starved to maintain excessive Service rations, he will discontinue this form of propaganda.

Yes, Sir. H.M.S. "Triumph" is serving on the Mediterranean Station and the issue of the drawing was the sequel to a talk given to the ship's company on the results of the economic crisis, and on the consequential necessity for strict economy in the use of rationed foodstuffs. No letterpress was issued with the drawing and it is evident from subsequent inquiries that the ship's company took the drawing in the way it was intended and not as reflecting any increase in the comparative stringency in the United Kingdom. I am unable to accept the suggestion that the issue of this drawing constituted propaganda of the type described by the hon. Member.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had many letters from Portsmouth complaining about it, and, allowing for lack of opportunity for getting unrationed food, will he bear in mind the fact that members of the Service do not like to feel that they are getting an unfair advantage while their families suffer hardship?

They are not getting an unfair advantage. The fact remains that they are getting somewhat better rations, and it is necessary that they should, in consequence, save everything possible.

Can the hon. Gentleman say who gave the lecture?

It was given by a Service officer on board ship.

Can the Minister explain why the extremely corpulent naval rating shown in this drawing, who had obviously been engaged in consuming his shipmates' rations, should be wearing three good conduct badges?

Would the hon. Gentleman take steps to stop this kind of lecture as being quite irrelevant?

It is perfectly correct that a lecture has been given, and I have taken no exception to it, and I have no intention of stopping it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, in view of the many assurances given since October, 1946, regarding the new salaries scales for Scientists in the Armament Supply Department, he will now state how the matter stands.

A further meeting was held with the Staff Association concerned on 22nd October, as a result of which they have submitted more detailed representations in writing in support of their particular claim on behalf of these production chemists. These written representations are receiving urgent consideration, and special steps will be taken to see that definite proposals are now put to the Association with the minimum of delay.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on how many occasions in the last 12 months or latest convenient period claims for damages at common law arising during the claimants' war service in the Royal Navy have been resisted by the Admiralty on the ground that such claims were out of time and Statute-barred.

Admiralty records are not kept in a form which would enable this Question to be answered without a very great amount of work. Claims for damages at common law by present and former members of the Royal Navy in respect of incidents arising during their war service are, however, very infrequent. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind and will let me have the necessary details, I shall be glad to investigate the matter.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in these cases, the principle is adopted of recognising that it is extremely undesirable to invoke the Statute of Limitations in the case of claims made by ex-Service men who served in the last war?

I think the main difficulty is the question whether the claim is more than a year old. I agree that there may be cases when a claim more than a year old might be considered, but, in general, there is this rule that a claim must not be more than a year old.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Admiralty is continually chasing "hostilities only" ratings, who appear to have no redress? Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if there are any works projects in hand in the Rosyth area for providing accommodation for Admiralty employees displaced from hostels in the neighbourhood.

Yes, Sir. Three huts in Castle Road, Rosyth, were adapted earlier in the year to provide sleeping accommodation for 37 men who are messed at the adjacent British Sailors' Society Hostel. In addition, work has commenced upon the conversion of a hutted camp in Admiralty Road, Rosyth, which will provide accommodation for about 86 men.

Can my hon. Friend tell me when the extra accommodation is likely to be ready?

The last accommodation to which I referred is expected to be completed by March, 1948.

Is the Minister aware that this question of accommodation for workers at Rosyth is very serious, that, in one hostel, Rosyth workers have been refused food in an effort to starve them out, and will he send a naval patrol to deal with that situation?

I am afraid that naval patrols do not have to undertake that particular job. We are aware of the position, and we are doing all we possibly can within the limited time at our disposal to see that, at least, the Admiralty men displaced will have some accommodation.

Does all this indicate that Rosyth Dockyard will be kept on a permanent basis with a proper staff?

I am afraid there is no reason for that assumption at all.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the request to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to receive a deputation from the Dockyard Chargemen's Association has been refused.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why consent was refused to the request to receive a deputation from the Amalgamated Association of, Royal Dockyard Ex-Apprentices and Apprentices.

The only bodies with which the Admiralty negotiate on behalf of Admiralty industrial employees are the Shipbuilding Trade Joint Council and the Admiralty Industrial Council. Neither the Amalgamated Association of Royal Dockyard Ex-Apprentices and Apprentices nor the Chargemen's Association is recognised by the trade union side of these councils, and their requests to send deputations were, therefore, refused.

Is the Civil Lord aware that recent Admiralty decisions have menaced the very existence of the trade union specifically mentioned in my Question, and, in these circumstances, is it not somewhat arbitrary and oppressive to refuse to receive these people and discuss the matter with them?

I do not see that it is arbitrary and oppressive. I think the proper way to carry on negotiations with regard to the wages and conditions of workpeople is to recognise the existing trade union machinery. We have these councils set up for this purpose, and it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that the Dockyard Chargemen's Association has not been recognised by the trade union side of the Joint Industrial Council. It is only recently that they were permitted to go along to that Council.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the matter which the deputation desired to raise was not a question of wages and hours, but a far broader question, and, if his refusal to see them was founded on a previously false belief, will he now agree to see a deputation from this substantial body representative of a good many of the men employed?

If the representatives of this body want to make representations outside the functions of the Admiralty Joint Industrial Council and they will write to me, I will consider them, but I am not prepared to receive a deputation upon industrial matters affecting wages and conditions from any organisation outside the Joint Industrial Council.

Would the Civil Lord say if the real reason is that this union is not affiliated to the T.U.C.?

I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is not the real reason. Actually, this Association was only set up as a result of the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, and, as that Act has since been repealed, we are now reverting to the former position.

Is it not usual for dockyard Members of Parliament to be allowed to bring a deputation? Why was I refused this privilege?

I do not think it is at all usual. I am always ready to see as many people as I possibly can, but if the deputation is to serve no useful purpose I cannot see any reason for receiving it.

Will my hon. Friend say whether it is not the practice that all matters affecting both chargemen and apprentices are covered on the Admiralty Joint Industrial Council at the present time, and would it not be adding extra work to what is already covered by having Members of Parliament dealing with industrial matters?

Oh.

In view of the fact that the Minister first told me that he could not receive a deputation without a Member of Parliament, and that, when I said I was coming with a deputation, he further refused, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will arrange for conferences in London of naval attachés to British embassies, similar to the conferences of military attachés which are held from time to time.

The question whether such conferences would, on balance, prove to be of advantage in the case of naval attachés is under examination.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that not only military attachés but air attachés meet in London at least once a year, and should not the Royal Navy be in the van in this matter?

I am aware of that, and we consider that there may be an advantage in that suggestion, and we will look into the matter further.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that we might obtain from the foreign naval attachés such information as we cannot get in the House of Commons?