NAVY STRIKE

Hokitika Guardian, 21 September 1931, Page 5

NAVY STRIKE

OFFICIAL COMMENT.

(United Press Association.—By Electric

Telegraph.—Copyright.)

■RUGBY, September 18.

In a debate in the House of Commons on ihe unrest in the Atlantic Fleet, Mr \V. G. Hall (Labour), who initiated the discussion, emphasised that the cause of the unrest was solely hostility to the cuts in pay, which hit the married men particularly, and in his view broke the contract regarding pay and allowances confirmed by successive Governments. Letters from the men showed That they would accept any reasonable cut which did not bring tragedy to their homes. He was glad that the Admiralty had acknowledged the existence .‘of special hardships. Commander J. M. Kenworthy, /Labour), claimed that Mr Hall’s speceh would serve to correct wrong impressions, and the sensational inaccuracies published in some quarters abroad. TECHNICALLY IXEXCUSABLE. Sir AusFen Chamberlain, who earl’er in the day had made a statement giving an assurance that ca«es of hardship would be considered, but that any further refusals to carry out Orders 'would be dealt with under the XaVal Discipline Act, in reply edminend’ftg the actioh of the Command-er-in-Chief. .The action of the men, though technically inexcusable,:, had been marked neither by rowdyism, nor disrespect. The movement never had been general, and many had never deserted their dutv at all. It had been profoundly distasteful to ask the Navy, for sacrifices as part of the payment which had to be made for past policy. OFFICERS’ PAY. As for the sacrifices demanded, 'be emphasised the point that naval officers had in fact, suffered previous cuts not shared by the men. The present cuts brought all ranks to post--1925 rates of pay, but he reeognised that those who had undertaken financial and domestic liabilities in the expectation that there would not be cuts, would suffer special hardships, ‘ and the Government’s final decision in such cases would be thoroughly and •quickly reached. Adjustments were , possible, but the Government could not allow the poliev of retrenchment to be eaten away. He agreed that the pre-1925 men might have expected their rates of pay to he secure. The 'only excuse 'for disturbing this ivas the existence of a national crisis, and lie was sure that when the men realised' the emergency, and that cases of special hardship would be alleviated. •, they would rearlflv accept their share of the universal Sacrifice.

Ah appeal had been niade that there should be no victimisation for what was past:-' He agreed"- that " tbe memory of the last few days should be wiped out. The past was past, auft it was to the interests of everybody to forget it.