MR. PIKE PEASEI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have been made to work the Woolwich Arsenal on five days per week only; if so, will this entail the re-engagement of some men already discharged or under notice; and what will be the monetary loss per head per week to those at present employed.
§ MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give us also about the alleged dismissal of 3,000 men after the promise given last week?
§ MR. HALDANEI had this morning, when I read the statement in the newspapers, no information whatever, and I have endeavoured to find the source from which the report, which professed to be authorised, proceeded. I have been unable to do so. It was certainly not 526 sanctioned by the War Office, and I have sent out an official contradiction this afternoon. There is no truth in it of any sort or kind. As we have already indicated, about sixty men per week at present will be the rate of dismissal. In answer to the hon. Member for Darlington, I have to say that arrangements have been made to close most of the shops in the Arsenal on Saturdays, commencing from the 4th prox. This will not entail the re-engagement of any men already discharged. The monetary loss to men on day-work will be about one-tenth of their rating. The reason of the arrangement is that the men were very properly desirous to agree to a certain shortage of work rather than let their comrades be discharged.
§ MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us for how many weeks these dismissals of sixty men per week will go on?
§ MR. HALDANEThey will certainly go on into the summer. It is impossible for me to say how many weeks.
§ MR. CROOKSHas the minimum yet been fixed?
§ MR. HALDANENo.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of doing what most big industries do in similar circumstances— placing the men on short time?
§ MR. HALDANEThe men have been willing to go on short time in order to avert the discharges, and I think the arrangement is in practical working order.
§ MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYMay we understand that the 3,000 may still be correct?
§ MR. HALDANENo, there is no intention of the immediate dismissal of 3,000 or 4,000 men, nor has any number been fixed upon as the ultimate limit of the establishment. We are not working out anything at haphazard. Our purpose is to get an establishment in time of peace which will expand in war to what we may require. That entails, obviously, keeping a certain amount of surplus 527 machinery idle in time of peace, and keeping a strong staff, so that the establishment may be a nucleus of the minimum establishment required. What is the minimum staff required to keep that establishment effective we do not know, but when we have ascertained it we shall not allow it to sink below that. The reason of these reductions is that the enormous establishment of 1902 was duo to the necessity of making up for the wastage of munitions of war. The late Government reduced the establishment by about 5,000 or 6,000 men. I have reduced it by about 1,300, and I shall have to reduce it still more to get back to the proper minimum. How far I shall have to go is being carefully worked out by the best expert assistance at command. I have watched it myself, but I am not yet in a position to say what the extent of the reductions will be, and I do not wish to excite any hopes that I may not be able to fulfil afterwards.
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)Are there at the present time quite 2,000 fewer men employed than there were in 1898?
§ MR. HALDANEI cannot give figures from memory, but the hon. Member will remember that 1898 was a time when we had been making preparations for the Nile and other small expeditions, and there was an immense deal of military work on hand, although the great war had not commenced.