§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said in the few minutes it was his intention to take up the time of the House, he desired to speak more as regards the principle which underlay this Motion, rather than to deal with the rate of wage paid, or what should be paid. No doubt some of his hon. friends would go more into detail during the debate. We were sometimes told to "think Imperially," and to dream of Empire. Those who lived in constant and close contact with the worker, and had exceptional opportunities of knowing his feelings on public matters generally, found that, in his quiet and thoughtful moments, he cared very little about the number of square miles we might add to our territory, or how many square inches on the map we were able to paint red. He was more concerned, and rightly so, as to how he could make his home, which was his empire, brighter and happier, and as to how he could lessen the care and anxiety caused by the dependence from week to week, and from day to day, upon employment, in order to earn sufficient to meet the daily wants of his wife and family. His measure of comfort was to a large extent dependent upon the amount he was able to obtain for his labour. He was informed that the wages paid in the Government factories and dockyards was much less than the trade union rate paid for similar employment by outside firms. Some years ago, on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar this. House passed what was known as the fair wages clause, to apply to Government contractors. As to whether that had been honestly carried out or not, it is not his province to-night to inquire. This he would say, that this House was in duty bound to pay to its own workmen as good a standard rate of wages as that which they rightly demanded should be paid by their contractors. In using the words standard rate of wages in his Resolution, he desired the House to understand that he meant the trade union rate. This was a Lancashire phrase, and both employer and employed in that county clearly understood what it meant. They had to 554 look at this question from all sides. The taxpayer should not be called upon to pay more to his workmen than he is himself able to obtain by trade union effort. The workman in the employment of the taxpayer should be content with the trade union rate. On this matter he spoke with some little experience. As a member of a municipal corporation for a number of years, and for a time chairman of the tramways committee of that corporation, it was part of his duty to negotiate for settlement the wages and conditions of labour in that department. The consideration of the ratepayer as well as the workmen was always before his mind, and he believed in this and in no other way could a fair and equitable settlement of these matters be made. There might be certain occupations in the Government factories and dockyards to which it might be difficult to find a similar class outside, or in which any organisation amongst the workpeople could be found. In these cases, their duty was to see that the wage was fixed at such a standard as would permit the workman and his family to live in a condition of comfort and respectability, equal with that of workmen in Government employment who were able to obtain the trade union rate.
There was a feeling amongst some hon. Members that these questions of wages and conditions of employment amongst Government workmen should not be too often brought before this House, and there was a feeling that certain hon. Members who represented dockyard and similar constituencies were too often pressed in matters relating to these particular constituencies, and that at elections dockyard questions occupied an undue share of the time of candidates. He was prepared to admit there was some truth in all this, but he did not see how, under the system at present adopted, it could be avoided. The remedy he would suggest was that all Government workers in every Department should be granted full trade union rights and conditions. It was said that the workmen were allowed to combine, but the logical effect of this combination was denied them. They were not permitted to select those whom they deemed best able to lay their 555 grievance before the head of each Department, who by the way was the representative of those right hon. Gentlemen who were for the time being the responsible representatives of this House and the country. He was aware that various concessions had from time to time been granted, but the one cardinal principle of trades unionists, namely, that the workmen in combination shall have a right to appoint whom they think proper to conduct any negotiation with their employer, was denied them. At present he understood no one who was not a workman in the employ of the Government was allowed to represent the workmen. He spoke from twenty years experience as a worker in the mill, and as a trade union official, and in this he should have the full corroboration of his colleagues—that upon the acceptance of this principle largely depended whether the workman's organisation was of material value to him or not. The workman's executive might be trusted to appoint only such men as had experience and tact in dealing with these matters, and he said without hesitation that if this House desired that these matters should not occupy so much of its time, the only remedy was to give the workman the same right of combination and representation as that obtained by his fellow workman in outside occupations. This House should not, in his opinion, be the place to settle any of these technical trade matters, but should be more of a Court of Appeal, where serious differences and only serious differences should be brought for its consideration. In this matter, Sir, he only claimed what was the accepted principle of all the great trades and occupations of this country. On the whole it had worked well. The placing of responsibility on the men's representatives tended to widen their view of the situation and caused them to act wisely and judiciously.
In conclusion, he asked the Government to give this Motion their favourable consideration. There was nothing extravagant in its proposal. It was the minimum demand of every trades unionist in this country, and, if adopted, would only put the workman in the employment of the State in the position enjoyed by the men employed by a very large proportion 556 of the municipalities, and of hundreds of thousands of their fellow workmen in the employment of private firms. By adopting this Resolution the Government would put themselves in line with those great municipal corporations who were setting a splendid example in raising the standard of living of thousands of their fellow countrymen. He begged to move.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)in seconding the Motion, said that all they demanded was a just interpretation of the Fair Wages Resolution, coupled with a due consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission on Sweating, in which an increased sense of responsibility on the part of employers was advocated. As to the alleged difficulty of defining the "current wage," he had always contended that the point would be got over by taking the trade union rates for skilled labour, and the wages paid by municipalities and public authorities in the particular districts for unskilled labour. To show the present condition of affairs he would give two or three illustrations. In the factories at Woolwich, 2,600 men were employed as engineers' labourers at a wage of 21s. per week, whereas men doing the same class of work for Messrs. Armstrong, at Newcastle, or for Messrs. Mather and Platt, at Manchester, received 22s. and 23s. respectively, notwithstanding the difference in house-rent in London and the provinces. In the Royal Naval Victualling Yard at Deptford, although an increase of 1s. had recently been given, only 21s. per week was paid to men, 80 per cent, of whom did equally exhausting physical labour, who worked side by side with contractors' men in receipt of higher wages, and with the knowledge that men working in the docks in the vicinity obtained from 24s. to 30s. for precisely similar work. In the Royal Clothing Factory at Pimlico, men employed as warehousemen, and rated as third-class, received only 21s., whereas a similar class of work in the city of London was paid for at a much higher rate. A further grievance at Pimlico was the fact that, owing to a vicious system of classification, men at 21s. a week not only did the same work as, but actually had to superintend, others in receipt of higher wages. 557 With regard to women, of whom 1,500 were employed at Pimlico, the smartest bands were put on certain garments and paid by the piece; being naturally anxious to earn as much as possible they did the work very quickly, and the time thus taken was set up as the standard for all the workers in the factory, with the result that the less fortunate women were scarcely able to earn 10s. a week.
The gist of the question lay in the matter of housing. Twenty-one shillings was by no means a fair wage within the county of London. Men working in the Government Dockyard at Pembroke Docks could obtain far better lodgings for 3s. than men engaged at Woolwich or Deptford could get for 8s. Where rents were high Government wages should correspond, and the Home Department had recently recognised that principle by their action in regard to the police. The only advantage Government workers possessed over other workmen was in the greater constancy of their employment, but he contended that that advantage should be so used as to benefit the ratepayers and taxpayers by securing the best possible class of workmen. The other advantages frequently urged could be obtained by the men themselves from any friendly society by the payment of about 6d. per week. The Government were distinctly not doing their duty to the taxpayer. Cheap labour was bad labour. Not only in London, but throughout the world, the best employers recognised that it paid to give if anything a little more than the current rate of wages in order to get the élite of the labour market. The workman's health was his capital, and, just as the capitalist sought to invest his money safely and at as high a rate as was consistent with safety, so, too, the workman had a right to invest his capital governed by similar considerations. Men on low wages were not likely to succeed commercially or in any other sphere. Many of the great social difficulties which existed had been created by the fact that men who were used as machines, and worn out, left behind them a worn-out progeny. It was not only the duty of the Government to be in the first flight of employers, 558 but it was the interest of the taxpayers also; for what made the population stronger and healthier could not ultimately make it poorer. Men who were properly paid would be able to leave behind them children who, having been well housed, clothed, and fed, would be able to hold their own against the nations of the world. He bagged to second the Motion.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House is of opinion that the wages paid to the unskilled workers in Government factories and shipyards should be not less than the standard rate of wages paid for similar work in other employments in the respective districts."—(Mr. Shackleton.)
§ SIR JOHN GORST, (Cambridge University)in supporting the Motion, reminded the House that in 1893 it unanimously passed a Resolution declaring that—
No person in Her Majesty's naval establishments should be engaged at wages insufficient for proper maintenance, and that the conditions of labour as regards hours, wages, insurance against accidents, provision for old age, &c., should lie such as to afford an example to private employers throughout the country.That Resolution was accepted by the present Leader of the Opposition, who admitted its application to all branches of Government employment. That Resolution, like the present Motion, was general in its terms, because it was impossible for the House to do more than express the principle upon which the Government ought to act, leaving the bonâ fide carrying out of the principle in its details to the Government themselves. The difficulty in the application of such a Resolution was in respect of what was called unskilled labour, which often did not enjoy the protection of a trade union, and which must rely on the sense of justice of its employer. That reliance should be absolute where the Government was the employer, and no man should be employed under any circumstances by the Government at a wage insufficient for maintenance. But the proper wage must vary greatly from place to place owing to the factor of house rent, and therefore in each place the Government ought to pay their men what a good employer would pay. He 559 could not believe that the Government would object to this Resolution, or that they would fail loyally to observe it if placed on the Journals of the House. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion had given instances which seemed to be at variance with the Resolution of 1893, but he hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would be able to assure the House that the facts had not been quite accurately stated, or, if they had, that the matter would be at once looked into. In conforming to this principle, the Government would be doing, not only what was just, but what was in the interest of the nation, because they would obtain better value for their money.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said that, as the Motion was simply carrying to completion the Resolution passed by the House in 1891, he hoped it would be accepted by tire Government, and that the House, irrespective of Party, would unanimously agree in passing the Motion. He congratulated his lion, friends on the moderation of tone which had marked their speeches. The House was not asked to accept any proposition as to hours or wages. Parliament was not competent to lay down a "living wage" applicable to all classes and conditions throughout the country; but they could declare that the Government ought to be a model employer of labour. By setting a good example, the action of the Government would beneficially affect wages generally; but, on the other hand, if the Government stood on the level of the bad employer, wages would be prejudicially affected. The proposition put forward by this Motion was really unanswerable. The House had passed a Resolution under which contractors who did work for the Government were bound to pay the recognised rates of wages. Surely it would be the height of hypocrisy, in the face of that Resolution, for the Government of the day to refuse to observe the same rule. Over and over again pledges had been given by responsible Ministers that the Government should be a model employer. But while they all desired the Government to pay a proper rate of wages, they also remembered that they 560 were present as the trustees of the taxpayers, and from that point of view he contended that it was not a right system that wages should be raised by the Government in the Departments under their control as the result of Parliamentary debates. For this reason he supported the Resolution of his hon. friend, and also because it placed the rate of Government wages on a sound and unassailable basis. His only regret was that the Resolution did not extend to skilled labour as well. He hoped that this question of wages would be placed on such a sound basis as to render such debates unnecessary in the future. They had gone up very considerably in regard to some of these matters. He knew there were a certain number of unskilled workers in Government employ who were only receiving 21s. a week. They would probably be asked what was the current rate of wages. In the London district, ever since the year 1899, the minimum rate for unskilled labour was 6d. per hour, and if it was true that the Government were paying below 6d. per hour they were not carrying out the Resolution of the House or putting themselves in the category of good employers. Probably they would be asked how they were going to decide what the current wage was. He noticed that his hon. friend in his Resolution used the term "standard rate" and not "current rate." The standard rate of wages meant the rate agreed upon by employers and employed and paid practically by all employers. When the Fair Wages Resolution which he introduced in 1891 was accepted by the House, he defined fair wages as the wages paid in any particular trade which were fixed by negotiations between employers and employed. That was his definition of current or standard rate of wages, and he hoped it would be on that basis that the Government accepted it.
He wished to refer to the Report of the Committee which inquired into the Fair Wages Resolution in 1897. That Committee was presided over by the present Lord Ridley and it contained a majority of hon. Members opposite. In the Report of the majority, which included the hon. Member for Peckham, there appeared a paragraph in which it was stated that the Government ought to throw its 561 weight on the side of better rather than worse conditions of employment, and the Committee cordially endorsed the view that any agreement tending to regulate the rate of wages or the conditions of employment which might be come to between masters and men should be recognised and encouraged. The majority of that Commission, therefore, desired to endorse the view put forward by his hon. friend that the Government should take as their basis the rates of wages recognised between employers and employed. Very likely they would be told that there were many cases in which there was not a recognised rate of wages. No doubt it would be difficult for the Government, in some cases, to say what was a fair rate of wages to pay to the men they employed. It might be said that some authority would be needed to settle what was the standard rate of wages in districts where no recognised rate prevailed. Such an arbitrator existed in the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. He had had a vast amount of experience in this matter, and he found as a rule that the Departments were very anxious not to get at loggerheads with the contractors, and it was distasteful to the officers of the Department to have to inquire into the wages paid by their contractors, and consequently it was very difficult to get a proper inquiry in regard to such matters. What happened at the present moment when a dispute arose in regard to a contractor was that it was spread over such a long time that the contract was generally over before the dispute was settled. With regard to the so-called privileges enjoyed by men in Government departments, he thought they had been very much exaggerated. Those privileges had been estimated as being worth between 6d. and 1s. 6d. per week. He thought this question ought to be inquired into by some authority which was not personally interested in the matter: and it seemed to him to be a question for the Labour Department to decide. The Resolution before the House was one which he did not think the House could possibly disagree with. They had already pledged themeselves that those employed by the State should receive a fair rate of wages, that the State should be a model employer, and that the men employed should receive the current rate of wages. 562 His hon. friend, by his Motion, was only doing what was very essential, and that was putting into a definite and concrete form a Resolution which had already been passed by the House. They had it in black and white already, that the Government should pay the recognised rate of wages, but, if this Resolution were carried, it would be an absolute instruction to all the different departments of the Government to do what the House desired, it would relieve the House of Commons of a difficult discussion on rates of wages, and place the Government in the category of really being good and model employers.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,) Derbyshire, N.said there was nothing to complain of in the tone of the debate, and he was glad to be able to contribute to the harmony by saying at once that the Government were prepared to accept the Resolution. He thought it would be extremely difficult for any Government, after the Resolutions of 1891 and 1893 had been accepted by the House, to demur to the Resolution which was now before them. He maintained, however, that the Resolution they were now considering did nothing more than formally declare what was now the policy of the different departments of the Government. The departments had honestly and generously striven to carry out the two Fair Wages Resolutions of 1891 and 1893, which had teen accepted by the present Government. If any proof was wanted that the Government were carrying out the policy embodied in those Resolutions they had it in what had been said during the present debate. They had had a very interesting debate, and a great variety of points had been raised, but, with a very trifling exception, scarcely any reference had been made to the terms of the Resolution before them. Contractors and other matters had been dealt with, but with the exception of the few observations made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Newington nothing substantial had been raised against the action of the Government. He did not wish to be led away from his subject too far, but, judging from the debate, he thought those who were responsible for 563 the administration of the different departments could claim that no substantial charge had been made in the course of the debate that there had been any departure from those Resolutions. By their past action the Government had proved that they were model employers of labour, and they were determined to go on setting a good example to private employers in that respect. But there were two sides to the question. The character of the Government as employers of labour was not solely to be judged by the rates of wages which they paid their workmen. They had also to prove that they conducted their departments in a business-like manner. It was just as important that they should be able to set a good example to private firms in the economical and satisfactory conduct of their business as in the payment of fair wages. He thought that a tendency had been shown on the other side somewhat to depreciate the advantages which belonged to Government employment. Upon this point he would like to mention that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in 1893, when he was speaking as the Secretary of State for War, stated that the Government employees had many natural advantages, such as continuity of work irrespective of seasons or weather, holidays, sick pay, and other advantages. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of that speech dwelt upon those advantages and testified to their value. The hon. Member opposite had valued those advantages at 1s. 6d. per week, but he thought that was rather under-estimating them.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONexplained that what he said was that he had heard those advantages estimated at 6d., and in some cases at 1s. 6d. per week.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that to reckon their value at from 6d. to 1s. 6d. was, he thought, a somewhat low estimate. The Government had no difficulty in getting plenty of the best labour, which showed that they were able to hold their own in competition with those who had similar employment to offer. He did not think any serious accusation had been made against the Government. They were fully prepared to take their position as model employers. 564 At the same time, it was due to an important body of contractors not to assume a position which would make it still harder for them to do the work required of them. Obligations had already been placed upon them by Resolutions of the House. And those obligations had been honestly and genuinely carried out. But if they were going to force the pace too much they might injure employment throughout the country. He undertook on behalf of the Government that they would continue to deserve the reputation of being good employers of labour. He might mention that only about a year ago cases were brought to the notice of the present Secretary of State for India which the right hon. Gentleman investigated for himself, and he afterwards caused adjustments to be made which he thought had the approval of all Parties in the House. These were questions which required the closest investigation, and he assured hon. Members that any cases which were brought to the notice of the Government would be dealt with carefully and honestly upon their merits. At the same time it should be realised that they had to take also into their consideration their duty to the taxpayers of the country.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated that he had brought forward one or two minor matters. He had actually brought forward a number of cases where the Government were employing men at Woolwich, Deptford, and Pimlico at wages as low as 21s. per week, whilst the current rate of wages for unskilled labour, even for crossing sweepers, was 24s. per week. Those were not minor matters but the gist of the whole question.
§ MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)expressed his gratification at the decision of the Government to accept the Resolution, but did not agree that they were entitled to the description of model employers. The current rate of wages in London for unskilled labour was about 30s. As the Government demanded the best service they should pay the best wages, and if they were to be regarded as model employers they should keep up the reputation claimed for them by the treatment given to the workers. He and 565 his friends would not be satisfied with the passing of Resolutions and thon getting no further. When he heard of the privileges and advantages of Government employment he only wished that Members on both Front Benches could realise what Government employment meant to some people. When going round a Government establishment some years ago he was taken to the tailoring department, where there were some women employed. He was told that they were the widows of men who had served the Government faithfully and well, and that they got 11s. a week. "Why, that is starvation," he said. "Oh," the chief of the department replied, "but it's constant." He hoped it would not be thought for a single moment that he was complaining of the present Government any more than of previous Governments. He joined with those who said it was very nearly time that this question was settled once for all, and that they should not everlastingly be putting the wages of men and women up to a sort of Dutch auction, and saying to them "Vote for these men and you will get so much more." It was positively immoral. What they asked was that the Government should accept the trades union rate of wages as the standard rate. Two Resolutions had already been passed agreeing to that, but still there were men and women in the Government employment working for less than ordinary employers could get them for. When he asked for an increase of his own wages from 40s. to 44s., he was met with the reply that with the increase sick allowance could not be paid. He agreed to the condition, and with 1s. a week insured himself for 14s. a week sick allowance with medical attendance. His wife and family had therefore the benefit of 3s. a week extra. He could not see where the advantages of Government employment came in. In His Majesty's dockyards shipwrights were paid a rate of wages which, if paid in private dockyards in connection with the execution of Government contracts, would cause the Admiralty to call attention to the fact that the conditions of the contracts were not being complied with. The rates of wages were: Thames, £2 2s.; Mersey, £2 2s.; Tyne, £1 19s. 6d.; Clyde, £1 18s.3d.; and Belfast, £1 18s. 3d. In His Majesty's 566 dockyards the rate was £1 11s. It appeared to him that the privilege of being in Government employment was the privilege of being allowed to work for a low rate of wages. If they wanted quality as well as quantity they must pay for it. He did not complain of the quality of the men the Government got. He thought they got too good men and women for the money they paid. There were ledger keepers starting at 23s. and rising by an annual increase of 1s. a week to 30s.; and storemen rising from a minimum of 21s. to a maximum of 24s. a week. It was simply impossible for a man with a family to live in anything like decency within the metropolitan area with a wage of less than 30s. a week, in view of the amounts which were required for house rents.
Members of boards of guardians were struck by the fact that 90 per cent. of the applicants for medical orders were women whose husbands were earning from 21s. to 24s. a week. When the guardians said, "You should be in a position to get medical attendance for yourself and children," the applicants would say, "Could you do it?" What was the use of always talking about the market value of labour and stating that plenty of men could be got? That argument might be carried right up to the First Lord of the Treasury. Did the House of Commons realise its responsibility to those who too frequently were not on the register at all? It was a remarkable fact that the treatment men got in a good many places was affected by the fact whether they were or were not voters. He was against influence being brought to bear through the ballot box. Of the male workers in the Government employment at Pimlico, 80 per cent. were only getting a guinea a week. Rents in the district were 10s. a week for three rooms; 8s. for two rooms; and 6s. for one room. Could a man be a decent citizen under those conditions? The Government should take good care that bad employers should not be able to point to them as an example in regard to the rate of wages paid. He hoped the House would realise its enormous responsibility in regard to the lives of men and women 567 whom the Government employed at low wages. If a man could not earn as much as would keep his home in decency and comfort, his wife must go out and help to supplement the income. He urged them not to pass the Resolution unless they meant to act up to it.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said that anybody listening to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury might have thought that he was returning thanks on behalf of the Government for a Resolution acknowledging their munificent liberality in the treatment of their employees. He was glad to see the Prime Minister present, because he wished to remind him that he made this a plank in his election programme at Manchester in 1895; and he presumed he had come with the intention of telling them what he considered to be a fair ' wage for unskilled labour in the Government's employ. He hoped he did not agree that the Government was already setting a good example to private employers. The hon. Member recalled the fact that the Resolution of the Member for Cambridge University some years ago was received in precisely the same way as this Resolution, and the present Leader of the Opposition, who was a member of the Government then in office, said they had ceased to believe in what was known as competition or starvation wages, being convinced that starvation wages meant starvation work. What was the outcome of it all? Did they prove to be model employers? No, they immediately established, in London, wages of £1 and 19s. a week. By dint of perseverance the representatives of this class of labour had succeeded in getting their wages increased by 2s. and 1s. respectively; but still the Government must know they did not now give a fair subsistence. It was said dockyard representatives were always clamouring for more money for their constituents, but this was perfectly untrue. He challenged anyone to say that he had put forward any demand of an extravagant character or that was not justified. He reminded the House that the rate of pay at Devonport was lower than in London, and he declared that the Government in no single trade paid anything like trade union rates of wages. He wanted the Prime Minister 568 to tell them what he meant when he said he would accept the Resolution; let him tell them what the Government was going to do to render it a reality instead of it being, as it had been in the past, a mere farce. Would he give to the workmen the same privilege of dealing with their employers as workmen employed in private employ? Would he allow them to form a committee of trades and to bargain for fair terms. If he would do this they would get rid of that detestable and disgraceful system of the presentation of their demands in the form of petitions. There ought to be some machinery set up whereby these men could come face to face with their employers, so that they could put their case and make their demands. Then if the Government thought them unfair and excessive they could be referred to some independent authority, such as the Board of Trade. It was a most unpleasant task for those who represented this particular class of labour to have to speak in the House on the matter, but it was their duty. He feared that, unless they got an assurance as to how this Resolution was to be carried out, it would end in this mere expression of acceptance they had heard, and that they would be compelled to revive the question from time to time. He therefore hoped the Prime Minister would favour them with his views before the debate closed.
§ MR. PLATT-HIGGINS (Salford, N.)said that the proposition of those who supported the Resolution came to this—that if rents in a certain locality were high the wages of the labourers should also be high in order to pay the proprietor of the houses an undue rent. It was most unjust and unfair that the taxpayers should be called upon to put their hands in their pockets to hand over to the worker a high wage, and that he in turn should hand this increased wage to the proprietor of property to pay an extortionate rent. The Government should consider whether they could not remove all their factories and shipyards from the metropolitan area. This would be by far the best solution of the difficulty.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)said it was beginning to dawn en the House of Commons that the Resolution which had 569 been accepted in so cheerful a mood by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not the kind of Resolution some Members expected would have been moved, It was beginning to dawn upon the men at Woolwich, Deptford, and elsewhere that a Resolution accepted by the House and the Government would be strangled in a month, and they would say to the Government, which whispered good things in the ear on Wednesday and broke them to the hope on Saturday afternoon—"Thank you for nothing." He was sorry to disturb the harmony of the House, but he disagreed with the view which had been taken of this question by the House of Commons in the last twelve years. Since 1888 many attempts had been made to deal with the conditions of employment, the hours of labour, and the wages paid; but none of them had been satisfactorily settled except that which fixed the eight hours day in all Government departments. When the eight hours day was appointed they were told that it would be unfair to the outside contractors and to the taxpayers. He had always thought differently, and believed that those who worked long hours did not produce the same class of work as those who worked shorter hours. The result of the Government adopting the eight hours, instead of the nine or nine and a half hours, instead of having increased the expense of Woolwich and other arsenals, had lessened it. He applied the same test to wages, and maintained that if they paid 21s. to a workman they would only get 19s. worth of work. The higher the wage paid, the more good work was got. No attempt had been made to approach this subject on scientific lines. The Government of both Parties had sheltered themselves behind the word "fair." An hon. Member had said that no one could define what was "reasonable." What was a fair wage? It might be that Mr. Brown at Deptford would pay what he considered a fair wage, and Mr. Jones would pay what he thought a fair wage at Battersea, but they would not pay the same amount. "Fair" was an unsatisfactory term, and might be interpreted in one way by a generous employer, and in another by a mean employer. The same remark applied to "current rate of wages," and "standard rate of 570 wages." The Resolution, therefore, did not please him.
The Secretary of the Treasury had said that the Government wished to be a model employer. He disputed that the Government was a model employer. They were not even in the first flight of good employers, for while wages in private enterprise had increased all over the country from 40 to 60 per cent. the Government had failed to make a similar advance to the workmen in their employ. At one time the wages paid by municipalities to their employees were as bad as those paid to Government workmen; but he was glad to say that through the exertions of some of the members of the London County Council that condition had been altered. The London County Council, the School Board, and the Metropolitan Asylums Board were model employers, and he asked the Government to follow their example. As an illustration, he had interviewed a sweeper, now a watcher, who, thirty-five years ago, only received 19s. 6d. a week for working ten hours a day, Saturdays included. But he now got 30s. a week, with an eight hours day. A great deal had been said about the privileges and the emoluments enjoyed by the Government employees, but these, in his opinion, had been grossly exaggerated, and he believed that the men at Woolwich would commute them for a cash payment of 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week in addition to their present wages, and the men at Deptford for an additional 4s. or 5s. per week. For the payment of 1s. a week the members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers got 10s. a week when unemployed, 10s. a week when sick, 10s. per week for superannuation allowance, £12 for funeral expenses, and £5 for insurance, migration, and other advantages. He was prepared to say that if the wages of the workers in the Pimlico establishment were raised from 21s. to 27s. or 28s., the men would be able to obtain all their privileges cheaper than they now enjoyed them. They would never settle this question until the Government followed the example of the municipal authorities. It was ridiculous that the Imperial Parliament should be a sub-Committee on the wages question; and 571 preposterous that its time should be wasted in discussing the policemen's boots, soldiers' coats, or Government workmen's wages when they ought to be discussing greater problems which pressed for settlement.
The London County Council at its inception was troubled with such questions, but a resolution was passed that the rate of wages to be paid should be the rate agreed upon between the employers' association and the trade union, and in practice obtaining in the area where the work was executed. The result was, that there was no log-rolling at Spring Gardens; no pressure was brought to bear on members; there was no demand for fancy rates; and municipal government went on uninterruptedly, all because they adopted a sensible rule. He advocated the adoption of the same rule by the Government. It avoided friction, it closured agitation, it saved public bodies from log-rolling and from endless petitions containing grossly exaggerated statements. Until the Government adopted a similar policy, they would never be free from organised pressure, sometimes improperly applied, which their many industrial dependents could bring to bear upon them. He contended that cheap labour meant redundant labour. He knew that if they employed men at 21s. a week, there would be 100 more men than would be necessary if they were paid at a decent rate of wages. He was glad to have the approving nod of one of the best employers in the engineering trade in the country. Cheap labour meant redundant labour, because no one living in London could give the amount of labour he ought to give if he were only paid 21s. a week, and out of that had to pay 8s. 6d. for rent. The result was that the Government service was too often filled up by redundant men—men who did their work in a malingering way, and who did not intend to do a great deal of work. And, considering the example set to them by those who ruled in high places, they could not be altogether complained of. The Resolution would be a failure and a sham unless it were clearly established that the current rate of wages should be the trade union rate of wages. He, therefore, moved to add at the end of the 572 Resolution the words "And such wages shall be those agreed upon by the trade union and employers' association, and in practice obtained where the work is performed." If that Amendment were accepted, Members of the House would be saved from pressure and log-rolling. It might be said that the Government gave preference in their employment to Reserve soldiers and pensioners. If that were so, people who received pensions or other emoluments had no right to lower the standard of wages and comfort of their fellow workmen. It was hard that the civilian worker of this country should be handicapped by competition with the ex-soldier and sailor who, being in receipt of a pension, could work for a lower wage. It was time that this kind of thing was stopped, and the acceptance of the Resolution before the House would stop it. It was also desirable that elections should not be influenced by promises on the part of candidates to get increased pay for dockyard workers. At the last election at Devonport the successful candidate secured his return by such a promise.
§ MR. KEARLEYI did not.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was referring to the junior Member for Devonport, who ought never to have been elected, but who was chosen because he promised an addition to the dockyard workers' pay of 1s., 2s., and even 3s. weekly. He begged to move.
§ MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)seconded the Amendment. He complained that workers in Government establishments in Ireland were equally in a disadvantageous position. They found that the Government was by no means a model employer. At Ivybridge the labourers got 16s. weekly while private employers like Guinness and the railway companies were paying 21s. This conduct of the Government only encouraged private individuals to cut down wages. Another grievance Irish workers—especially in Dublin—suffered from was the high rents extorted, and the result was that the Government employee, what with getting several shillings below the standard rate of wage and having to 573 pay exorbitant house rent, was in a most unfortunate position.
§
Amendment proposed—
At the end of the Question to add the words, 'And the standard rate of wages shall be those recognised by associations of employers and in practice obtained by the trade unions in such trades.'"— (Mr. John Burns.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words he there added."
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)said that those who were principally concerned in representing the interests of Government employees were quite prepared to be told that those who were employed by the Government had certain advantages. They had the advantage of continuity of employment, and they were in a position to look forward to a pension. But Government employees were divided into two classes—namely, the established and the hired class. The latter class did not receive a pension when they left the service; but only a gratuity represented by a very moderate sum, and therefore did not derive any very great advantage in that respect. Then, again, in many of the grades a very long time elapsed before any rise in pay was given, and in many departments much more was expected of the workman than was the case formerly. He had no desire to take up an attitude of hostility towards the Government, because he thought they had shown a desire, wherever possible, to meet the reasonable demands of Government employees; and it was not to be expected that with a wave of a wand or the stroke of a pen all demands could be met at once. During the last few years a good deal had been done. But the Government employees were at a disadvantage as compared with other workmen employed by municipalities and private firms. The average wage for an ordinary labourer was 24s. a week, but in the Government employment it was 20s., and on the establishment 19s. Joiners on the Thames, Mersey, Clyde, Belfast, and 574 Tyne earned a wage of £2 per week of fifty-two hours, which worked out at about 9¼d. per hour. In the dockyards the pay was for forty-eight hours £1 11s. to £1 12s. 6d., or about 8d. an hour. Then in the Government employment there were many anomalies requiring attention. There were anomalies of classification. There was a scale of pay and pension in the Ordnance Department at Woolwich, introduced in 1902, and never yet extended to Portsmouth or Devonport. Again there was a strange differentiation made in the pay of the employees in the Army and Navy Ordnance Departments. He did not regard the Government as unjust or niggardly, but the method of Government employment was so complicated that it required great care and attention to make it systematic.
§ MR. SHACKLETONsaid he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Battersea, because it more clearly expressed the object he had in view and would be more easily understood throughout the country.
§ MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)said he would have had no difficulty in accepting the Resolution, but he had some doubt as to how it would have benefited workmen, and he had been anxious to ascertain from the Government what action they really proposed to take in regard to it, how they would bring it into operation, and what increased demands would be made on the taxpayer, or whether it would meet the same fate as similar Resolutions passed in previous years. He fully concurred with the object the hon. Gentleman had in view, but he would suggest to him that it was taking a somewhat unfair advantage of the House to spring on it, an important Amendment at eleven o'clock, without any previous notice of it appearing on the Paper, and when a large number of Members had left the House under the impression that the Resolution would be put from the Chair 575 in the form in which it was originally moved. The hon. Gentleman was usually a close observer of Parliamentary procedure; and he was sure he would admit that the course he had adopted was exceedingly unusual. The Amendment was a very important one; and he regretted it had not been put on the Paper, as if it had been it would have removed any criticism which he might be disposed to offer to the Resolution. He agreed the Amendment was necessary, as without it the Resolution would be a mere pious expression of opinion; but the course adopted in regard to it was very inconvenient and unusual. The Resolution was on the Paper for some days, and there was every opportunity of putting the Amendment down also. He was familiar with Government factories in the London area but none of them were within his constituency; and he was, therefore, free from any personal pressure in the matter. He had, however, always felt that it was not fair for the Government to take advantage of the position of pensioners, and secure their labour at a lower rate than would have to be paid to men who did not enjoy pensions. He did not think it was creditable to the State Departments to expect men to live in decency, let alone comfort, in the metropolitan area at a wage of 21s., 22s., or 23s. a week. Such men were only a few pence above the poverty line; and it was quite impossible for them to live decent and comfortable lives. That ought not to be tolerated by the State, which should readily grant the rate of wages paid by the model employer. He hoped the Resolution would not be grudgingly accepted by the House, but that it would be accepted cheerfully. He did not think it was to 576 the credit of the State that the present condition of affairs should have been permitted to exist for such a long period. He went further, and said that he did not understand the old cry which was brought forward year after year, that if wages were increased in the Government factories the increase would go into the hands of house jobbers, who would charge exorbitant rents. Lord Goschen, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, said that if wages were increased at the Deptford Victualling Yard, rents would immediately be increased. Why should not the Government in the vicinity of those great factories make provision for the housing of its employees just as the model employer did? He was not altogether in favour of too much State interference, but there were cases where a labourer had to be near his work and not have to spend hours in travelling backward and forward. In a place like Woolwich some attempt ought to be made in this direction. In conclusion, as representing one of the largest constituencies of working men in the country, he desired to support the Resolution.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J, BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.said there was much with which he personally sympathised in the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea; but he was surprised that the hon. Member should have moved this Amendment, because it was quite impossible for the departments of the Government concerned to examine it, and it would obviously be most improper for the House, as the representatives of the taxpayers, to come to a decision upon it after three-quarters of an hour's 577 debate. Therefore, although the discussion had proved interesting and might prove useful, he did not suppose that the hon. Member desired that the House should be asked to vote on this matter. The hon. Member himself had told the House, in language of a most impressive character, how difficult and dangerous these questions were, and that for the House to be constantly dealing with questions of wages, on the inspiration of persons who were returned by employees of the Government, was a great misuse of our Parliamentary institutions. He concurred with the hon. Member. One of the dangers to which that House and also the municipalities were exposed was that electoral pressure might be brought to bear upon them to modify the rate of wages, possibly to the advantage of a certain class of employees, but, on the whole, to the disadvantage of the great body of the workmen in the country. With the small opportunity which he had had of examining the Amendment he did not profess to be able to give useful guidance to the House; but it seemed to him that there were very great difficulties in the way of this Amendment, because it was based on the supposition, not merely that skilled labour was organised, but also that unskilled labour was organised. There were organisations of unskilled labour; but to say that the great body of unskilled labour in this country was organised was really to mislead the House; and, unless there were wages agreed upon between employers on the one side and those who represented organised labour on the other, this Resolution as amended really lost all its meaning. There were other difficulties in laying down a hard-and-fast rule of 578 this kind. Did the hon. Member propose that the rate of wages should be fixed according to the rate, prevailing in the locality, or according to the average of the various wages prevailing over the whole country?
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid in the locality where the work was executed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURasked how they were to deal with cases in which the Government was practically the only employer of skilled labour of a particular kind, such as at Enfield, Woolwich and the dockyards. In those cases there was no open market which would enable the Government to have a sure guide as to what the local wages were in certain classes of labour. If they took the average of the whole country, they all knew that the trade union rate of wages varied largely, and the Government must be forced in such a case to strike some kind of average which would have something in the nature of a national basis. In regard to unskilled labour, the difficulties were still greater, because the Dockers and General Labourers' Union was not a universal organisation, and the wages were not dealt with between the employers and the employed in the simple manner which would enable the Government to fix a rate without difficulty and doubt. He understood that the Dockers and General Labourers' Union had fixed 6d. an hour as the rate of wages in London. But that was not for continuous employment but merely for a number of hours, a day, or a week. How could casual labour of that kind be compared with regular employment at the dockyards, for instance? What this Government had promised to do, and 579 what preceding Governments had promised to do, was to endeavour, so far as they could, to follow the example of the best employers in the various districts in the trades in which they themselves were concerned. The Government therefore proposed to go on in accordance with the principles involved in the Resolution which they had accepted; but it was unreasonable to ask them now to accept a rider to that Resolution of unknown effect, and the result of which they had had no opportunity of considering.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked how the right hon. Gentleman would define a standard rate of wages if not in the direction of the Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not understand the hon. Gentleman's interruption. The endeavour of the Government must be to act as indulgent and benevolent employers, and to pay the current rate of wages arranged between the good employers and the various classes of workmen in the various districts where they had factories and workshops.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that was the trade union rate of wages.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if that was what was meant, why add this rider?
§ MR. SHACKLETONFor clearer definition.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Government must be allowed to consider whether the general definition of the Resolution 580 was or was not modified by the rider which had been sprung upon the House. Surely they should allow the Government, the magnitude of whose Estimates they denounced when other matters of expenditure were being discussed, to consider whether those Estimates would not be enormously increased, to the detriment of the working classes and every other class of the community, by the rider to the Resolution. He thought there was extreme danger in the growth and increase of direct employment by the State. He did not like the system; and he feared, from the speeches which he had heard that night, despite their moderation—with the substance of which he agreed—that this danger was more imminent even than he had anticipated.
§ MR. SHACKLETON moved that the Question be now put.
§ MR. SPEAKERI cannot put that Motion upon this Amendment which was only put from the Chair at twenty minutes past eleven.
§ COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)said he was prepared to vote for the Resolution as it appeared on the Paper, but it was unreasonable to ask the Government to go any further. The Government were great employers of labour and the condition of service which they offered were the best.
§ And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
§ Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.