ORDNANCE FACTORIES.

HC Deb 13 June 1911 vol 26 cc1459-97

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st, day of March, 1912."

Colonel LOCKWOOD

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £50.

I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will not be in the least surprised that I take this the very first opportunity to move the reduction to call attention to the question of wages, more especially as regards the districts of Waltham Abbey and Enfield. The question of the wages of the workers at the Government arsenals was raised last year when the Government obtained the assistance of the Labour party by a promise that they would appoint a Committee to inquire into the question. That promise they fulfilled, and it is as regards the report of the Advisory Committee that I have to speak to-day. I am perfectly certain that my friends of Woolwich and the hon. Member who represents that Division (Mr. Crooks) will not think that the men whose cause I am pleading to-day, the men of Enfield and Waltham Abbey, are the least jealous of the rise that has been given to the men in Woolwich and that has been denied to them. On the contrary, we are delighted that they should have obtained that rise, and what I ask is why that rise has been denied by the Government to the men of Enfield and Waltham Abbey. On 15th March, 1911, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his statement as to what increases he was going to make, remarked:— That will apply to Woolwich, Pimlico, Deptford and West India Docks. Mr. Hohler: What about Chatham? Mr. Acland: That comes under the Admiralty. I cannot say. Mr. Hohler: At Chatham there is the Ordnance Depot, which comes under the Army. Mr. Acland: It applies to the places I have named, and not to places I have not named."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1911. col. 2336, vol. xxii.] I am under considerable difficulties in arguing the case for the men because I am unable to lay my hands on or to see the report of the Advisory Committee. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Woolwich, asking if the report would be laid on the Table replied:— It will not be laid on the Table, and for this reason—it was presented to us on the strict condition that it should not be published. It contains a considerable amount of information; our conclusions were based on the information which was given, and only given under a pledge of secrecy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1911, col. 2338, vol. xxii.] I would ask the Committee to remember that that applies, not only to myself, but to all of us, and places us in a very great difficulty, because the Treasury are in full possession of those figures on which they have acted; and we have only the report of the men to go upon. The men themselves at Enfield and Waltham Abbey have issued a pamphlet giving particulars of information taken from returns from eighty per cent. of the employers in the district. Those returns show that the minimum rate of pay for labourers is roughly 7d. per hour. In all the schedules of wages paid by the Co-operative Society, the Enfield District Council, and the Enfield Education Committee, trade union conditions are observed, and the labourers in all cases and in all classes are paid 7d. per hour. The hon. Member for Woolwich interpolated a remark on 15th March, and asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office:— Mr. Crooks: Have you considered that Waltham and Enfield are within the twelve mile radius within which trade union rates are recognised. The only answer made to that point by the Financial Secretary was that he was very sorry, but that he could not go behind the advice of the Advisory Committee. We have not seen that report; we are totally ignorant of it, and therefore I am unable to produce the figures which are at the command of the Financial Secretary. The men at Enfield and Waltham Abbey, I am perfectly convinced, and I believe they understood so at the time, proved their case for a rise in wages. They showed clearly that every article of consumption and the cost of provisions on which men live have risen from 1901 to 1910. I am anxious to compress my remarks as much as possible, but these figures are rather important as showing why the men at Enfield and Waltham Abbey think they are entitled, with the other arsenals, to a rise in their wages. Bacon has gone up from 70s. to 84s., American lard from 46s. to 74s., Danish butter (firkins) from 119s. to 136s., Canadian cheese from 55s. to 63s. 6d.; household flour from 24s. to 29s. 9d.; sugar (Tates No. 1 cube) from 16s. 7½d to 23s. 3d., and the other sugar from 13s. 3d. to 19s. 10½d. Those are the principal articles of consumption for a workman and his family, and the figures are hardly likely to be contradicted. They show that the cost of provisions has risen in the districts I have alluded to the same as in Woolwich. I come to the question of rents. It is acknowledged that the rents at Enfield and Waltham Abbey are lower than in the neighbourhood of Woolwich, Deptford and Pimlico. This was explained to the Committee, but it was pointed out that at Woolwich and those other places the tenants were allowed to sublet and therefore they only paid practically half the rent, whereas at Waltham Abbey and Enfield subletting was not allowed, and therefore the men there had to pay the full rent. Therefore when it comes to the question of rent the men in those districts pay very nearly the same as at Woolwich and the other arsenals. Though, I confess, the accommodation is, perhaps, better.

I have shown by the return of the employers of labour that eighty per cent. in the district pay a higher rate of wages than the minimum rate of 7d. I have alluded to the question of rent, I have shown the increase in the price of provisions, and I would also say that Enfield and Waltham being a wide district, the cost of distribution to the tradesmen is greater. That also probably accounts for a rise in the provisions. The whole of my argument tends to this that the cost of living in those districts that have been cut out of the rise in wages is equal to the cost in these districts where the increase has been granted. Owing to the fact that I am not able to produce the report I am not able to go into the matter as fully as I could wish. I am awaiting with same anxiety the answer of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury upon that point. In order to show that I am in earnest upon this matter I have moved a reduction of £50. There is another point, which is a different point altogether, and one which I have always made my own, and I am particularly anxious about it. I do not wish to claim that I am more anxious than other people about it; but this is a question with which I have been more in contact than other Members, and I therefore feel very deeply upon it. I ask for a minimum wage of 30s. per week for men employed in the danger-houses. My case is so good and so strong that I am not in the least anxious to overstate it. The facts themselves are good enough to go upon. In 1910, when I brought this question forward, an answer was given by the present Lord Haldane, and in that answer he waltzed round the question with an agility, metaphorically speaking, of which he alone is capable, and he proved to his own satisfaction, perhaps, but certainly not to my satisfaction, that the men employed in these danger-houses were never in many cases in any danger at all, and that it was an absurdity to call them danger-houses. He argued on these premises of his own, and went on to argue on no premises at all. At all events, he apparently satisfied the House, because, as he said, he had watched the stirring of the acid with a wooden spoon for about three minutes and had once carried a lignite or cordite stick with him and had left it in change of the unfortunate man who looks after our hats and coats below. He suggested that therefore there was no danger at all in the manufacture of cordite. He further said:— There is nothing dangerous if the regulations are properly observed."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1910, col. 1323, vol. xiv.] Hon. Members know very well that you cannot always have all the regulations properly observed. No machinery is perfect, and the human machinery is full of imperfections, and you can no more prevent acts of carelessness on the part of men employed in these danger-houses, causing risk to themselves and to the men employed in the danger-houses adjoining them than you can stop the sun in its course. That is one reason why I urge that you should give these men a minimum wage of 30s. per week. It is not much to give a man who places his life in danger. It is not very much to give a man whose wife and children are in danger at any time of being left without a breadwinner. Even throwing sentiment aside, I do think the House should agree that the man who takes up that sort of work is, at all events, entitled to a minimum wage of 30s. The then Secretary for War, the present Lord Haldane, said my fallacy was— in thinking that because the work is done in a danger-building, therefore it is dangerous. For instance, the filling of cartridges with nitro-glycerine is work which we do not pay, and rightly refuse to pay, at special rates, although the work is done in buildings with the word 'Danger' on them "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1910, col. 1324, vol. xiv.] He omitted to state that there had been an explosion for which no cause could be assigned and no reason has ever been discovered. The action of chemicals is unknown in many cases. The greatest chemists of the day are always discovering new properties in chemicals and new facts with regard to chemistry. In these cases, such as filling cartridges, every precaution is taken, and I agree that we cannot be too careful, but even when all that is done the mere fact of working among these chemicals makes it a dangerous trade, and it ought to be paid as a dan- gerous trade, and the men ought to have the minimum wage which I venture to suggest.

On the occasion I refer to Lord Haldane proved to his own satisfaction that, although there were some processes which were dangerous, others were perfectly safe; but I ask how could he be sure that the man in the dangerous process was carrying out every instruction which had been given to him; and if he did not carry out all these instructions, would he not distinctly endanger his life and the lives of the men employed in the next building to him? If this work in the danger-houses is so safe and so easy, will the Financial Secretary tell me why many of these men are searched and stripped to the skin before they go to work. I do not complain of these precautions. I think they are right. I think they should take every possible precaution, but my point is that after you have taken every precaution these men are still in danger, not only every day, but every hour of their lives. In one of these particularly safe processes the other day there was a lead floor, and a plumber was employed to do the necessary repairs. The floor was cleansed, and every supervision was exercised and every precaution taken before the plumber went there to do the work, but when he began there was at once an explosion. That shows that no matter what precaution you take there is always danger, and I presume the Noble Lord would not be able to say that the plumber had contravened any of the regulations.

There are some answers which I expect to be made to this proposal. One will be that this idea of a minimum wage of 30s. for men in danger-houses is, strictly speaking, a heretical and uneconomic doctrine. I confess I am not prepared to argue on those lines. I have been a Member of this House for nineteen years and I have never known a single Session when a doctrine of the sort which is described by some hon. Members as uneconomic and heretical has not been brought forward and passed with acclamation by a majority in this House. Therefore it is rather late in the day to accuse me of being economically unsound because I produce this demand for a minimum wage of 30s. for these men. There is another argument which may be used against me quite fairly. People may say, and hon. Members may say, "Do you pay 30s. per week to every one of your labourers?" I admit frankly that I do not. They may say, "Don't you belong to a railway company and do they pay a minimum wage?" I do, and I acknowledge that they do not. I make my opponents a present of that. I know it is a fact. But I will ask the House not to allow the fact that I may be unworthy, or if they like to say it, that I am a vote-catcher, or anything of that kind, not to allow, on considerations of that kind, the men for whom I plead to suffer. Do not blame them for any deficiency of mine; I am willing to take care of myself. To accuse me of inconsistency leaves me quite cold. This life is full of inconsistencies; all men, and, not least, Members of Parliament, are equally full of inconsistencies. I ask the House not to think of who it is that pleads for the men, but to think of the men themselves, and not to deny them this request, which is not a favour but simple justice and simple fairness, a minimum wage of 30s. per week in the danger-houses where they are employed.

In order that this question and the question of the wages of the men in the Enfield and Waltham Abbey districts may be raised, I have moved the reduction. I may be accused of wanting to catch votes, and I would like to say that when I voted against the 30s. minimum wage, as I did in days gone by, I obtained a bigger majority than I do now when I am advocating it. Therefore, nobody can say I am anxious about votes, and that I am bringing these matters forward for that reason. The men at Enfield are also much hurt by a remark made by Lord Haldane when he said that some employers of labour who had been over the factory had remarked that they would not like to take on these men because they had such an easy time of it.

Mr. CROOKS

He was thinking of the permanent officials.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

Perhaps that may be so, but I think if he had looked at the figures showing the turn-out of rifles, and compared that with the work of private firms he would see that the average was very much in favour of the Government factories. A Birmingham private firm manufactures rifles at a cost of £4 3s. 9d., whereas during the same period the Enfield Small Arms turned out rifles of exactly the same pattern at a cost of £2 18s. 2½d Bayonets, too, show a considerably smaller cost when manufactured in the Government factories than they do when made in private factories. Therefore, I think that that remark of Lord Haldane's cast an undeserved slur upon the men in the factories, and I shall await with some interest, not to say anxiety, the answer of the Financial Secretary on the points I have put before him. I beg to move the reduction that stands in my name in order that the men at Enfield and Waltham may receive the same advantages that their fellow workers in other factories obtain, and also that the men who daily, hourly, every minute, endanger their lives in order that the country may benefit by their work in the danger-houses of the Government factories, may receive at least the minimum wage of 30s. a week.

Mr. NEWMAN

Having regard to my connection with the district wherein the Enfield Small Arms Factory is situated, I rise to second the Motion so well proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Those of us who were in the last. Parliament—both my hon. and gallant friend and myself were—will remember that the questions of Enfield, Waltham, and Woolwich were fully and prominently before the House. At Enfield we had deputations, debates, and processions. If I had not already learnt the lesson from across St. George's Channel I would have learnt it then; how extremely easy it was to take part in an agitation, to make speeches, to become an agitator, and how extremely difficult it was to get anything done. Last year about this time I had the honour of introducing a deputation to Lord Haldane, the Secretary of State for War, from the Enfield Small Arms Factory. To meet the suggestion of log-rolling, and to disabuse the minds of the Committee of any feeling on that score, let me say that the deputation consisted of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented Enfield for twelve years on the Conservative side of the House; the hon. Member who represented the Division on the Liberal side in the 1906–10 Parliament; the third speaker was a local Labour leader, and I was there as introducer. That deputation dwelt n three cardinal points. We were received courteously, spoken softly to, and promised many things, and it is some of those promises I want to test this afternoon. The first point was the "feed and speed" question. That system produced a good deal of discontent and unrest, and I hope and believe that it has been done away with. Then I take the second point—that of a minimum wage. As a result of our appeal to the Government in the last Parliament the question was referred to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, and the men were allowed to state their case. After a year's delay, on March 15th, the Financial Secretary was able to announce the decision. He said that there would he a small rise for Woolwich and Pimlico, and no rise for Enfield or Waltham. He gave reasons for this decision. One of the reasons was, he said, that the Committee found— that there was no justification for an increase at Enfield and Waltham; they found the rate of wages there was quite different in general employment from that which prevailed in the London districts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1911, col. 2337.] That speech might have given to some the impression that the Financial Secretary was quite ignorant of the geography of his own country. A person unacquainted with the circumstances would have imagined from what the Financial Secretary said that the Enfield Small Arms Factory and the works at Waltham were situated somewhere in Arcady; that these places were surrounded by agricultural land, that the labourer there looked after his three acres and a cow, and his pigs, and that his wife attended to the making of honey. Is that the case? The other day I had the honour of taking a very prominent Colonial statesman to the Enfield Factory. We drove in my motor-car, and one of the officials of this House was with us. My visitor said the drive was one of the most impressive he had ever had. Why? We passed through twelve miles of streets, houses flanking us on either side. Enfield is simply part of London. As a matter of fact, if I were inclined to split hairs and be perfectly accurate, I could say that if you drive along the road to Waltham, and pass over a certain small bridge that crosses a stream, and immediately on passing over take a shorter road off the main road, it leads you into the Small Arms Factory. I do, therefore, say that to say that Enfield and Waltham should be treated differently because they are outside the London district is to split hairs. It may be said that this is one of the small questions that are obvious, but we have a broad case. What is it? Our factory has been where it is for seventy years; it was situated far from London at one time, and living may have been cheap then. But the cost of living has altered, has gone up. The great figure man, the Datas on the opposite side, the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Money), not long ago in the "Daily News" said that the cost of living in this country had, in his estimation, increased something like 20 per cent. in the last ten or twelve years. Members of this House have seen the figures pointing out the exact rise in the cost of commodities and goods at Enfield and Waltham. These figures cannot be contradicted. What is the other point that the Financial Secretary made in his speech? It was that the firms in the district did not pay a better minimum wage than we do. I rather suspect that when he comes to reply that he will dwell on the fact that there are a certain number of market gardeners in the district who do not pay wages higher than 23s. or 24s. a week. Enfield district is a great market gardening district. We have there Rochford's. Members in this House may grow grapes by the bunch: they grow them by the ton. Messrs. Rochford may only pay 24s. per week. Let us see what Messrs, Shepherd and Lawrence pay. They pay 23s. each, while Messrs. Rochford pay 24s. As a matter of fact, whether it is right or wrong, that trade draws a number of young foreigners over to these nurseries to pick the brains, and to learn the trade of these great growers. They accept a very small wage, and they come into competition with the native labourer, and, as we all know, the pay amongst market gardeners is not as good as among other branches of trade; but if we look at matters from the broader point of view, and if we take the District Councils and manufacturing industries, we find they pay on an average as high as 27s. a week, and if when we taken into consideration a 50 per cent. rise in the price of food, and compare the average rate of wages paid in other branches of business and of industry, a rise from 23s. to 27s. is not too much to ask. We do not ask, and we know that even Members of the Labour party do not ask a minimum wage of 30s., but we do ask that the workers at Enfield Small Arms Factory should be put upon an equal footing with the workers employed by the District Council and other good employers of labour in the district.

I cannot think that 23s. is adequate remuneration for the work done. There is a little book of rules issued to every man employed in the factory, and rule 79 says that the Government and the Small Arms Factory are giving a good amount of pay per hour, and require a good amount of work for each hour; that is, of course, a very good rule, but the converse of that rule is equally true, namely, that if the men give a good hour's work they ought to get a good hour's pay. I join with every confidence in asking that Enfield and Waltham should be put on a better footing on the matter of wages. We do not ask for very much; the increased wages would not cost more than £200 a year, and surely it is not too much to ask for that sum of money in order to give these men a proper living wage when we are so ready to vote ourselves £400 a year in the near future. In Enfield there are less men employed now than formerly. In 1906 political fortune cast me by the wayside, but the Financial Secretary to the War Office was in the House. January 1910 saw me back again in this House and the Financial Secretary out of it. Then later that year the hon. Gentleman came back, but the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary did not, but to-day the Financial Secretary and the Under-Secretary are with us, though the Noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War has been translated to another sphere. I have been always reminded of what was called the "Acland" pledge. The Financial Secretary, about 1906 or 1907, addressed a meeting somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Small Arms Factory, and he then stated that the Government were not going to reduce the number of workers below 2,000. People have said to me, "What about the Acland pledge?" Now the hon. Gentleman is here in this House and so am I, and I ask him now, "What about the pledge he then gave?" As a matter of fact, I asked a question some time ago of the Under-Secretary of State for War, and I find the numbers employed in the Small Arms Factory were not 2,000, but 1,848. As a matter of fact, these figures included the building works department and the accounts branch; therefore we are in reality down to something like 1,800 workers, while we have room for double that number.

I want again to hark back to last year and to refer to a speech of an hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Yorkshire. I heard that speech, and much appreciated it. He pointed out that he had done what I wish more Members of this House would do—namely, that he had gone down to Enfield himself and made inquiries on the spot, and saw how things were. The hon. Member is a business man, and he went into investigations in the factory, and he discovered that while the machinery was there and the superintendents were on the spot, the men to do the work were absent. He found the machinery at Enfield standing idle; dozens of machines were idle, and, as a business man, the hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that that was a rather unfortunate state of affairs. I recollect being on a deputation to the Noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War, and he pointed out to us that if the factory was to secure contracts, they must tender at lower prices than outside firms. The workers at Enfield are perfectly prepared to meet that. I think they ought to have a preference, but they say no, that they are perfectly prepared to go into competition and tender with other firms. But if they are to tender as against other business firms, and if they are to be brought into competition with them, they ought to be treated on a business footing. We cannot have machinery standing idle and high financial charges; we ought to be making some effort to put matters on a business footing so as to keep the machinery engaged and to produce proper results. I recently read the report of the Hotchkiss Company; the chairman congratulated the meeting on having a good year; but he made it very plain that it was not because the Hotchkiss gun had done so very well, but because the company had turned their attention from the making of guns to the making of motor cars. Their cars had been very largely sold in very many parts of the world, and they were able to pay big dividends, and hoped to pay bigger still as the years went by.

4.0 P.M.

The Birmingham Small Arms Factory were competing in the manufacture of rifles; but they could not keep their machinery going all the time in that branch, and so they turned to making bicycles and motor cars, and they had been successful in turning out the best small motor car the world has yet seen. So good were their small cars that they have been absorbed now by what used to be their rival companies. In the memorandum the Noble Viscount issued, introducing the Army Estimates a short while back, he alluded to the very great change he was going to introduce into our Army. He told us he was going to supersede horse traction in the Army Service Corps by motor traction. I wish to make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary. If the Birmingham Small Arms Factory can turn out the most luxurious cars the world can show, surely we at Enfield ought to be able to turn out the best motor lorries. Supposing you were to resolve to shut down the Small Arms Factory and sell it to someone to manufacture other goods. Supposing the company undertook to manufacture goods there, what would they do? They would begin to manufacture motor cars. Here you have a good railway line, an admirable canal, and everything conducive to the making of good and cheap motor cars. I would urge the Under-Secretary for War and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, when they are considering not only the interests of the Small Arms Factory but other factories as well, to remember their own small arms factory first, because it is the greatest stand-by the British Army has in case of emergency. We do not want the skilled hands employed in these factories scattered all over the kingdom.

Some three months ago I presided at a dinner given to twenty-eight young men from the Small Arms Factory who were going to Western Australia. Some of them told me that their fathers, and in some cases their grandfathers, had been employed at the Small Arms Factory. I ask is it a sensible thing to lose the industry of these men and send them to Australia. Surely it would be better to devise some means of keeping them at home. We shall shortly have to manufacture a new rifle, and I hope that will bring a large accession of work to the Small Arms Factory. Under these circumstances, surly it would be better to keep these young men from going abroad to Western Australia and other foreign lands. Upon the occasion I have referred to I heard the emigration officer say how fortunate Australia ought to consider herself to get such splendid material, and he also said how foolish he thought it was for this country and for our Government to allow these young men to go. I promised on that occasion that upon the first opportunity that occurred to me I would bring this matter before the House. I wish to support the representations which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Epping. I feel sure that the few small points I have raised will receive sympathetic attention. I know they are only small matters, but I am sure they will lead to greater efficiency in the Small Arms Factory.

Mr. CROOKS

I rise to support what has fallen from the hon. Members who have preceded me. Why Enfield and Waltham Abbey should be counted as being outside London in this matter I cannot understand. It is only when men are classed as unskilled that you place them on a separate scale. You already pay the London trade union rates to other skilled workmen at this particular factory, and why do you make an exception in the cases which have been referred to? I can understand you saying to those employed at Enfield and Waltham: "You are outside London, and therefore you come under the country rate of wages." That would be consistent, but there is no consistency whatever in your action. I look with considerable apprehension upon the new departure, which was to be such a great advantage to the workmen—I refer to the Advisory Committee. Who are they and what do they advise? Are there to he more secret dossiers? Are we to have more Holmes' circulars going round? If so, we are against that kind of thing. Has the Government gone behind its own Committee in this matter? I think I am entitled to say that the Committee strongly recommended a larger increase in wages owing to the cost of living and other things than you have already given. I think in this matter we stand upon a pretty firm basis when we know that you already pay trade union rates to the Londoners employed there.

In a speech which was made on 15th March upon the question of leaving out Enfield and Waltham we were told that it was different employment. You can call anything different employment. The employment of a Cabinet Minister is different to the employment of a private Member. There is a difference between employment in the General Post Office and the Board of Trade. You say: "We take the rates outside, and if the reports show that there has been an increase in the rates outside we shall make the increase." What do you mean by outside? Do you mean places like Devonport, where men are employed at something like 21s. per week? I cannot understand why you want to get behind this Advisory Committee without making public exactly what they say. I think we might have had their findings placed before us. I cannot believe that the War Office will stand aside and refuse to give the information which we are justly and honestly entitled to have. There is no sense of justice in adopting such a course. Parliament stands for justice all round, but we do not always get it. Some time ago the War Office promised that there should be a re-grading of the men above 24s. and 23s. per week, but up to mid-day to-day this had not taken place. When is this matter going to be considered? Are we always going to be referred to the Treasury, who will tell us that they are full of sympathy and some day when the House is in a good temper they may be persuaded to do something. We have heard all about the market value of people. No one ever does get their market value, because if you are strong enough you get too much and if you are weak you get too little.

I wish to ask a question or two about your minimum establishment. Nothing was ever so serious or so ill-advised as the proposal to reduce the Arsenal to 8,000 men. It is a moral impossibility for you to run the Arsenal with anything like safety with only 8,000 men. Your own officials have advised you that you cannot run the Arsenal efficiently with less than 14,000 men, and under these circumstances why have you reduced the number to 8,000. Nobody has saved anything out of it. You have disbanded a number of practical workmen who had reached the very highest possible standard of efficiency in the manufacture of war material, and when you require them in the future you cannot take such men out of the street as you did a little time ago. You will be told that the reason the number of men at. Enfield is less than 2,000 is because you want to keep it at a standard which will allow you to expand it. You cannot expand the number with new men in a hurry. What was the condition of things before the Boer War? It is well known that but for the extraordinary activity shown by your men you would have been landed in far greater disasters than you were. Your chief superintendent of factories has already told you that you ought not to get the number at the Arsenal below 14,000. What is the use of spending millions on the Army and Navy if the national workshop is depleted below the efficiency point? In this matter you will never be able to compete with the outside contractor. At Woolwich we are burdened with a staff of people against whom I do not wish to say a word, but they are installed there as an ineffective establishment charge. You have to pay for your foremen and managers, and any private individual would tell you that he could not run his concern like you do. A private individual would not have a lot of wasters idling their time away, because he could not afford it. The least number of men you can employ in the arsenal in order to pay the establishment charges is 14,000.

You have had two or three Committees inquiring into this question. You had the Henderson Committee and you had the Murray Committee. The Henderson Committee reported that there were fifteen shops where less than half the machinery was in use. They drew attention to the increased cost of production by the reduction of output, or, in other words, the wastefulness from the point of view of national economy of keeping site, building and plant idle. They reported that they were— not unmindful of the fact that the Woolwich plant is capable of manufacturing implements of peace, but in view of the enormous extension of work it could advantageously carry out for the Army and the Navy, they held that— it was necessary to look in other directions for work. The Committee further came to the conclusion that— We are further of opinion that it will only be by utilising the plant in time of peace that the country can look with any confidence to possess a body of workmen of sufficient number and sufficient training as will make expansion in the time of emergency possible without the risk of failure from an excessive influx of strange and unskilled labour. That is the unanimous opinion of the Committee appointed by Lord Haldane, and why has this recommendation not been carried out? No doubt we shall get the same old answer, that there is nobody here to answer this question, and that inquiries will be made. It is wonderful what a number of inquiries are going on at the present moment. We asked questions about this matter, and the Secretary for War replied, "We have to compare prices." Let me compare prices. The trade tendered for a job at £7,964 and the Arsenal at £9,633 12s. It was therefore argued it was so very much cheaper to go to the contractor, but let the House mark this. There was to be added to the price of the trade, for general indirect expenses, no less a sum than £2,417, and, although the contractor's price looked a trifle under £8,000, it was really £10,381, while the Arsenal price, including this general indirect expenditure, worked out at £9,633 12s., showing, in a word, that you put on 50, 60, and even 100 per cent. in the Arsenal for what I call dead charges, which no one else, under any circumstances, could stand, and all the time you expect the men to speed up and to do marvellous things which no mortal man can do. The result is he cannot show up what he ought to-do. I have an extraordinary letter here from two lads who were discharged from the Arsenal. They even wrote to the King to know why they were discharged. I do not know whether they received any reply, but I suppose the letter was sent on to the War Office, and there will be an inquiry into it. That will take a couple of years, or probably we may hear no more about it. If you had gone on in your ordinary way, you might have kept these lads, and they might have been useful to you. I am not sure whether we have a Committee, but, if we have not one, we are going to have one, to inquire what is to become of lads in blind-alley occupations. You are making them yourselves, but I suppose, so long as you keep on the broad lines of big guns, and keep up the Territorials, the rest does not matter.

I make no apology about vote-catching in bringing these matters before the Committee. How are these people going to be represented unless somebody gets up and speaks for them. We are here to ventilate the grievances of our constituents. I suppose, in a general way, I am a man of peace, but surely, if you go on spending these huge sums—and you are spending millions upon millions more than you ever spent before—the proper place in which to keep some of the expenditure at any rate is your own workshops. You have your own machinery and your own plant, and what ordinary business man would put out work if he could do it at home? It is only when you come to the Government that you find the contractor has complete control. You could do lots of work at the Arsenal you never touch. I go to the War Office, and say, "You have got the plant and men clever beyond description, and you can make gun-mountings here and absorb your extra men." They say, "Of course we can, we can make gun-mountings, that is just the job we can do, but you must go to the Admiralty." I go to the Admiralty, and they say, "Yes, oh, certainly, but we have just placed all our orders. If the War Office will make an application we will consider it." Then I go to the War Office, and they say again, "We can do nothing without the Admiralty." I go back to the Admiralty, and I say, "The War Office says you can." They reply, "Yes, I know, but we have not got the plant; that will be expensive." Is not the intellectuality of the Treasury Bench in passing on to the next question marvellous? Sometimes I envy them. They were educated at the University; I was not. It is marvellous the way they get round us. They will get round us this afternoon. Look how filling it will be to the men of the Arsenal when they know they have been considered. I have been to deputations and the last words you hear are "Good morning, gentlemen, mind the step." I notice the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Seely) shakes his head, so perhaps there is going to be an improvement. Long ago, when the other Government were in power, they told us the same old story. They have a pile at the War Office, and they bring them out when they are wanted. "Your communication has been duly received, and it will be referred to the proper department," which is usually the stokehole.

This is a very serious thing. Woolwich, when it first sent me to Parliament, had 25,000 men working at the Arsenal. They have now got down to something under 11,000, and it is all the fault of the wretched Labour party—every bit of it. May I seriously plead with the Government. Here, with plant and machinery and with establishment charges running on which the taxpayer must pay, surely it is only reasonable you should keep on the men you may require from time to time. You will remember the conclusions of the Henderson Committee. You need not have discharged a single man if you had acted upon their conclusions. Do you remember the policy of the Murray Committee of permanent officials. This policy has resulted in the charge for establishment and indirect expenditure being in creased from 40–50 per cent. to 100 per cent. and over. I go further, and say that the policy of the minimum number of people to be employed there is against national economy. The Estimates of both the Army and Navy could be considerably reduced by the Ordnance Factories being kept fully employed. The discharges have dispersed the workmen who saw the country through the South African War to the four corners of the world, and the best workmen are now looking askance at the Government. Surely the nation should aim at keeping its own plant fully employed, utilising its machinery and workers in the manufacture of implements of peace when they are not required for munitions of war. Surely the nation should aim at safeguarding the continuity of employment for its own workmen as an example to private employers. Of course, we have no right to go into the thousand and one things that crop up, but we have pointed out over and over again that, if industry was properly organised we could reduce unemployment to a minimum. Yet your own people reduce down and down recklessly and carelessly.

Take 30s. a week, if you like, as being your minimum wage, would that remove all fear of trouble and want, even with your insurance scheme carried successfully through the House? No, there still remains behind an everlasting dread of coming to want the common necessaries of life. God knows I have pleaded many times in this House and out of it that if you want good service you must pay good wages. Any contractor will tell you he gets better value for high-paid labour than for low-paid labour. All your great successful contractors will tell you that. Let the Committee mark this—I say it clearly and fearlessly—that the greater proportion of accidents to workmen employed is among the low-paid. You will find your badly paid men are knocked out quicker than the well-paid. The proportion of accidents is greater, and you get less return for your money. You have the pick of the men, and surely, as a model employer, you should pay the best wages. You may say you can get plenty of men for that price. Of course, you will always get plenty of men, worse luck. There are too many men and too few jobs, simply because of the lack of organisation, but, because there are three after a job, that is no reason why you should starve the one who gets it. Surely he is entitled to decent wages and decent subsistence. I assure the Committee, where men are well paid, you get the better return. Men who go to work with the burden of domestic worry round their necks cannot be expected to exercise as much care as men who go out from their homes knowing perfectly well everything there is all right. How would you like this to happen. It does happen, even with your increased wages. When a man goes out on a Friday, very frequently the last words he hears shouted downstairs are: "Bill, don't take all the bread with you, we shall not have any more until you come home." That means they have exhausted this marvellous income which the Government are paying for good service. Just imagine a man waiting all through Friday to be called for his money, thinking how the young'uns at home are getting on and whether the old woman was able to borrow a shilling to get them something to eat. Think of that kind of worry. It is unknown in this House, but it is known all too much among the employés of the Government.

Sir JOHN ROLLESTON

I should like to offer a few general observations on the Reduction so well moved and so ably seconded. I wish to do so as representing a constituency in which large numbers of workmen employed in the factories at Enfield and Waltham live, and who, through their leaders, have made various requests tome to endeavour to effect the removal of certain grievances of which they complain. The opportunities for the discussion of their grievances in this House are infrequent. We were given to understand a special occasion would be offered, but in that we were disappointed. The Resolution proposed in April last by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) appeared to present such an opportunity, but, as the time was largely taken up by an academic, though useful discussion, the grievances of the workmen were crowded cut. If that Resolution had gone to a Division, I should have voted for it in the interests of large numbers of my Constituents who are employed in the manufacture of arms and explosives, the latter, of course, a trade involving risk and danger. These men complain, and rightly complain, that the cost of living has risen and that house rent is as great in the neighbourhood of Waltham and Enfield as in London and Woolwich but notwithstanding this they are denied a rise of wages which has been granted elsewhere. They also complain that they do not receive the minimum wage which is paid in other trades and factories working alongside the Government factories. These complaints are authenticated by figures, but the only figure to which I shall venture to call attention is that referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Epping as to the relative cost of the production of rifles in the Sparkbrook Factory at Birmingham and the Small Arms Factory at Enfield. The cost of rifles at the Birmingham factory was one-third more than that at Enfield. The same comparison held good in regard to bayonets.

These are remarkable figures, and they tend to show that the cheapness in the case of the Enfield factories is produced at the expense of the workers. We have been told that the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade has repeatedly listened to these statements, as expressed from time to time by representatives of the workmen. We know that nothing has been done to meet these grievances. I can only hope that the ventilation of this subject in the House this afternoon will cause the Government not only to listen to these complaints, but to find some remedy for them. Why should these men be called upon to work for a less average wage than is paid to workmen in other trades and factories alongside them? It appears to me neither intelligible nor just. I submit, indeed, that they have a special and peculiar claim for consideration. It is said, and truly so, I think, that arms keep the peace. It is generally accepted by civilisation that the manufacture of arms is in the interests of peace. But whether it be for peace or for war these men are employed in a calling which is necessary for the defence and security of this country, and in which any trade disturbance would be a great calamity. I can only hope, therefore, after the discussion of this afternoon, that these grievances will meet with a remedy at the hands of the Government. The men who use these weapons when they have been produced—and the explosives which make hem effective—hold a very high place in popular favour, and deservedly so, and when, unhappily, war breaks out this is shown by the consideration extended to them from all quarters. They meet not only with encouragement, but they receive much more substantial tokens of the desire to make them feel that their terrible duties call forth the sympathy and the gratitude of their countrymen. Why should not those who contribute their labour for the proper equipment of our fighting forces, especially when their work is attended with danger to life, receive equal consideration? I can only hope that this country will no longer allow itself to he under the reproach of under-paying any of its servants, especially those whose work is essential to its upkeep and safety. I can only say on behalf of those who have the right to call upon me to speak for them in this House that I hope that their complaints may be fully met and promptly remedied.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland)

I hope the Committee will not think it any slight if I rise to reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have been more or less connected with this question—with a brief interval—since 1906, and I am practically responsible for these men whose case has been brought before the Committee today. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I commence what I have to say with a few figures as to the actual wages now being received at Enfield, Waltham, and Woolwich. I think anyone not knowing the figures might have come to the conclusion, after listening to this Debate, that there is a very considerable portion of our men at these places who at the present time are on the 23s. rate. At any rate, it has been spoken of as being quite a common rate, and we have been charged with paying it to a very considerable number of men. But in the case of Enfield I find we are only paying at the present time to twelve time-workers. There are some piece-workers, thirty in number, but their average pay is 32s. per week. There are, however, only twelve men on time-rate who are on the 23s. rate at all, and only two of them are wholly at 23s., the other ten began at 23s. and, of course, will rise. I may quote some more figures. There are only 2¼ per cent. of our men on the 23s. rate; there are less than 1.2 under 24s.; there are 3.07 on the 24s. to 26s. scale; 1.91 on the 26s. to 28s.; and 1.97 on 28s. to 30s. In all there are 10.36 of the 1,800 men below 30s. per week minimum at Enfield. I ought to add this that we are not leaving these wages alone either at Enfield or Waltham. Increases have been made at both places. It is true I stated in the Debate from which quotations have been made that in accordance with the Report of the Advisory Committee the current rates for unskilled workmen in the Enfield and Waltham district differed from those at Pimlico or Woolwich, and, according to that Report, we should not have been justified in making the same increase at Enfield and Waltham as we did at Woolwich.

I said we had come to the conclusion that it was right to re-estimate the value of the privileges so-called which were given, and that instead of estimating those privileges as being worth 1s. in the £, we were in future only going, as far as the ordnance factories were concerned, to estimate them at 6d. in the £. There is also the question of danger, with which I will deal presently, but we have estimated that not quite in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In pursuance of the decision as to the value of the privileges, there is no longer a 23s. minimum for anyone either at Enfield or Waltham. The minimum for those few who are on that rate has been made 23s. 6d., and there will be only twelve receiving that rate at Enfield. With regard to Waltham, it is true there is a larger percentage of men than at Enfield on the lower rate. There are only thirty-four men on the 23s. rate, and by the revaluation of privileges they are raised to 23s. 6d., and all the men at 23s. 6d. are now to be raised to 24s. Still dealing with wages, and coming to Woolwich, I should like to say this, that not only have we increased the minimum there from 23s. to 24s. for approximately 200 men, but we have also, in accordance with the pledge I gave at an earlier date this year regraded men that were doing any work which is not merely unskilled, or "fetch and carry" work. For instance, 200 men have gone from 23s. to 24s.; fifteen men from 24s. to 24s. 6d.; fifty-six men from 24s. to 25s.; 136 men from 24s. to 25s. 6d., and fifteen men from 24s. 6d. to 25s. 6d. Thus I have carried out the pledge which we gave that the type of labour should be referred to the Advisory Committee in order that they might deal with the prevailing rate for that type of labour, and that we would act in accordance with their report. It now receives an average of 25s. a week, which, with privileges, is an exact compliance with that report.

Mr. CROOKS

Will you allow me to give particulars of the men who have not been re-garded?

Mr. ACLAND

I do not say that the re-grading is complete. We had to wait several weeks for a conference with the Admiralty before we could carry it out. The re-grading involved considerable numbers of men and certain men who were on scales of wages have had their scale raised. Thus we have raised the scales of certain writers and messengers. There are other grades that will undoubtedly be affected. I have given the hon. Member for Woolwich examples involving 200 or 300 men where unskilled men have been re-graded because their work involved a certain amount of skill and responsibility, and of others who have had the beginning point of their scale of wages increased. Before I deal with the case of Waltham I should like to say that if there are any figures which any Member of this House would like to have brought to the notice of the Advisory Committee, figures which they think have not hitherto been considered sufficiently, I will pledge myself that they shall be referred to that Committee, and that the Committee shall be asked whether they justify any change in the proposals laid down for a general rate for unskilled labour in those districts. Further than that, I pledge myself to act absolutely in accordance with the Report of the Advisory Committee. It is I admit in one way, and it must be unsatisfactory, that we have not been able to publish the report of this Committee. I quite agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and other hon. Members in regard to that, but there really is a good deal to be said for our position. I certainly very strongly desired that we should be able to publish that report, because had we done so, it would have been impossible for the hon. Member for Woolwich to say what he said that he was justified in asserting that we had gone behind that report and had not not acted up to it. I cannot prove that these statements are untrue, unless I am in a position to put the report in the hands of hon. Members. It is the fact that the report has not been presented to the House, but it is also the fact that in obtaining the figures which went to make up their averages, the Committee were only able to get them under a pledge that in no sort or kind of way should they be published. There may be employers who have no objection to their rates of pay being published, but there are also employers who have the very greatest objection to that course being taken.

Mr. W. THORNE

That is because they are so exceedingly low.

Mr. ACLAND

Yes, I cannot deal with that, but if a Government Department makes inquiries as to what the rates are, they have to find out what the low rates are as well as the high rates, and when the persons who pay the low rates say they will only give them on the understanding that they should not be made public and the public department gives that pledge, it is impossible for them to go behind it.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

Were not these figures given by the men?

Mr. ACLAND

I think they were, but I am not sure of that. I think the figures quoted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were laid before the Committee, and if so it makes it stronger that in spite of all those figures being laid before them, the Committee felt compelled to find that far lower rates were as an actual fact being paid than those which we pay.

Mr. PETO

From the report of a society is appears that a minimum wage of 26s. is paid, and it appears that builders and others are paid 7d. an hour, but you tell us that that is only in the nursery.

Mr. ACLAND

That is not the case reported to us by this Advisory Committee. But I am not going to quote from their report, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman would at once get up and say I must lay it on the Table. But I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, however, that what I state is the fact. I will, if the hon. Member wishes it, ask the Advisory Committee to reconsider these figures, or to reconsider these figures with other figures which it might be desired to put before them, and I will only say that any of our wages, if not in accordance with these figures, shall be brought into accordance with them. I go on to the question of danger. There are circumstances which make it proper that higher wages should be given, and the danger of the occupation measured by the accidents which occur in it is certainly one of those conditions, but I venture to put this before the Committee: that the only way in which you can judge of the danger of the occupation is by ascertaining the risk, and the only way in which you judge of the risk is by finding out what, as a matter of fact, have been the accidents which have occurred. I cannot recognise the argument that because an occupation would be dangerous if precautions were not taken, therefore the occupation is a dangerous one. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has disarmed me by referring to the fact that he is one of the directors of a great railway company; he told us that he has the dividends to consider, and quite frankly said that we ought not to expect him to be consistent in his two capacities.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

I did not say so. I said I did belong to a railway company which did not pay a minimum wage, but because I advanced the argument that these men were worth 30s., I did not wish you to visit that upon the men.

Mr. ACLAND

I quite accept that, but the point I think it is fair to make is that just as in the gunpowder factory at Waltham, if regulations were not observed and if precautions were not taken, there would be an enormous number of deaths by explosion, so also in the case of railways, there would be far greater loss of life to the men employed in the stations or shunting or as drivers or guards, unless again there also a great number of rules were laid down and a great number of precautions were taken. No one has suggested, however, that the fact that there are occupations in which there are elements of danger which would arise if these elaborate precautions were not taken by the railway companies should, ipso facto, be taken as an argument for increasing the wages of the men. Coming to the figures with a view to ascertaining whether risk is one which ought to be met by an increase of wages, I find that there has recently been published the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Office on accidents in factories. From that Report one may obtain fairly detailed figures as to what the extent of those accidents really is, so that we can compare them with the figures which we can ascertain from Waltham and Woolwich in regard to accidents in the danger buildings. These figures I will give to the Committee. The trade which has the highest accident rate is the ship-building trade, with a percentage of 7.67 accidents in a year. That means that a man would have an accident normally in the ship-building trade once in every thirteen years. Then you come to the metal trades, and you find the percentage in metal extraction is 4.81, and in metal foundrying and in making machines, conveyances, and tools 4.21. The figure for railways is rather higher than for metal work and lower than for ship-building, namely 4.72. Then you come clown to working in wood which is 2.56; working in paper which is less, and the lowest of all, and a very safe occupation, is cotton-weaving; cotton-spinning is higher.

Cotton-weaving is the lowest, and the figure is.97. Taking.97 as being really 1 per cent., that means that in cotton-weaving a man or woman would have an accident once in a hundred years if he or she lip ed so long. Surely one would expect to find that at Waltham, and at Woolwich the figures in the danger buildings would be higher than those which I have given, but at Waltham for seven years past, from 1903–4 to 1909–10, the average for all accidents, including explosions, is 1.08 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many were fatal?"] I do not know, but I will give the figures as I have them.

Mr. BARNES

Will the hon. Gentleman give us the percentage in the danger buildings alone?

Mr. ACLAND

I do not know, I will give the figures as I have them. Waltham is practically altogether a danger factory, or nearly so. If there was a big explosion nearly everybody might be killed.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

No.

Mr. ACLAND

These figures include the whole of the accidents and all the accidents due to explosions, and I may point out that if you include all the accidents due to explosion the percentage is only slightly higher than the percentage in cotton weaving, is only about one-fourth of that in metal work, and only one-fourth or a good deal less than in railways, and only one-seventh of the accidents in shipbuilding. I can give the hon. Member who has just asked the question as to accidents from explosives alone the figures as to Woolwich, though I have not them with me in regard to Waltham. In the last four years, which are the only ones for which we have a record of the exact number of men employed in the danger buildings, there have been thirteen accidents through explosions at Woolwich. No one was killed and six men were injured. The percentage of accidents due to explosions in the danger buildings was.2, and that works out in this way, that a man would only have one accident if he worked for 500 years in these danger buildings. This has been shown by these figures to be one of the safest trades that are engaged in in this country, and therefore we cannot possibly give higher wages because of the danger. But I think it may fairly be recognised that in order to produce that safety very particular care has to be taken by special regulations having been made and enforced. The men have to wear flannel shirts, they are not allowed to take matches into the building at all, and there are many other such regulations, and although I entirely deny that higher wages ought to be given because of the danger, yet I do admit that there is some claim for a slight increase in wage owing to the very careful precautions that have to be taken and the very strict conditions under which the men work.

5.0 P.M.

Therefore we are going to increase up to 25s. at Woolwich the men employed in the danger building, and up to 24s. the men employed similarly at Waltham, and if the Advisory Committee were again referred to, and in spite of their first report did come to the conclusion that the rates paid for unskilled work are the same at Waltham as they are at Woolwich and Pimlico, then of course the pay given in the danger area at Waltham would be brought up to the higher figures which we have given at Wolwich. The hon. Member (Mr. Newman) referred to the establishment there and to a pledge with regard to the numbers whom we kept. I have no recollection whatever of any pledges of the kind, and I think it is unlikely that any such pledge was given in 1906 or 1907, because I was not Financial Secretary until 1908.

Mr. N EWMAN

It may have been 1908

Mr. ACLAND

At any rate, when we come to 1908 a pledge given then would be too late to have any real effect, because the matter had been quite clearly laid down by the Secretary of State era 15th August, 1907, and this is what he says:— The numbers kept would not be allowed to pass the limits laid down in either direction under normal circumstances. He guarded himself most clearly by using these words, and it has, unfortunately, in the case of Enfield, though not, I think, either of Woolwich or of Waltham, been necessary for us to go below the limits which were then laid down, which were from 1,900 up to 2,000. The number employed at Enfield now is slightly under 1,800, but there is this to be observed, that we have reached that number not by making discharges, but simply by wastage, by allowing people to go and find other work, those leaving who come to the age of sixty or sixty-five, or whatever age it is that they are allowed to stay on till, or who have died or resigned or anything of that kind, so that we have, although we are below the lower level of the establishment laid clown, avoided inflicting the hardship of dismissing men. There is this also. The hon. Member referred to the very great hardship on the neighbourhood of having less money to be spent in wages in that neighbourhood, and that is a very considerable point. But, although the men have been steadily decreasing at Enfield, the total amount of wages has been fairly steadily increasing. I find the wages paid in 1905–6 amounted to £158,000, but the total wages paid now are £195,000, an increase of nearly £40,000 a year, in spite of this decrease in the number of men employed, which shows not only that we have very considerably increased the minimum wage, but that we have graded men up very considerably in accordance with the skill of the jobs they are called upon to do. The average wage at Enfield has increased in these five years from £1 12s. 9d. a week to £1 19s. 10d., so that, from the point of view either of the average wage or of the amount of wages circulated in the district, although we have had to go below the limit of 1900, which was stated in the first place, yet there is a larger wage per head and a larger amount of wage circulated in the districts than there was before.

The hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) made several points against me, and I should like to reply to two or three of them. He said: "If you give to a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers the same rate, whether he works at Waltham or Enfield or Woolwich, or anywhere else in the London area, why do you not give the same rate to the unskilled worker?" The answer is very simple, because the Amalgamated Society of Engineers is organised, and the unskilled workmen are not organised. When we employ a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers we give him the wages which actually prevail in the area. If they enforce for their members a 39s. rate we have to give, at any rate, 38s., recognising our privileges at a shilling, and so on. If the wages of unskilled workmen were so organised that it was possible for this committee or any one else to say that, as a matter of fact wages for unskilled work were the same at Waltham and Enfield as they are at Woolwich or Pimlico, then, of course, we could follow exactly the same practice as we have to do in regard to skilled workmen and give exactly the same rates. But after all, when this House asks, as it did last Session, that these matters might be referred to the Advisory Committee in order that, it might report to us what is the local rate prevailing in accordance with the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause, and when we ascertain that the local rate is lower in one place than in another, we cannot go behind that.

The hon. Member also raised the very important matter of the establishment. He said it would have been far better if he had not reduced Woolwich so low but had kept 12,000 men in the factories there instead of 8,000, and, of course, it would have been better—for Woolwich. But I think if I tell the Committee what the figures are with regard to the distribution of work in our own factories and the outside trade they will see that we have gone as far as we reasonably could in giving a considerable proportion of our work to our own men and making the burden fall on the outside contractor. Generally in these Debates I am backed up on that matter by the representatives of Birmingham or Sheffield, or Bow and Bromley (Mr Lansbury), for instance, who, I am sure, would back me up if he were here, who have contractors who make rifles and other things for us in their division, and who have been far harder hit by the policy of reduction of armaments which we have had to pursue since the war than our own factories have been. Our rule used to be that our own factories got 40 per cent. of the total work we had to give, but last year they got 60 per cent. of the work for the Army, and the outside contractor only got 40 per cent. If we had not adopted that policy of the minimum, if we had gone on with our policy of keeping the proportions the same between our own factories and the outside trade, the number of people employed at Woolwich, instead of being kept at 8,000, would be something between 5,000 and 6,000. I urge, with some hope that the Committee will believe it, that the policy of maintaining a minimum and keeping it as steady as we possibly can at a fixed number, irrespective of what our orders for the year may be, and making the outside trade suffer when anyone has to suffer, is a policy which, at any rate, is good for our factories, bad and difficult though it may be for the contractors outside. After we have, if we are to be safe in the matter of expansion of war material in time of war, to make it worth while for the great outside firms to keep certain plant which may be used for our production when war comes, and I think, in giving 60 per cent. of our work to our own people, we are doing the least that we can reasonably be expected to do in keeping alive the outside firms at all.

With regard to the overstocking of the factories at Woolwich with foremen and other people at high salaries, there is, of course, something in what the hon. Member says. It is, I am sorry to say, easier to dispense with the ordinary workman, because you know that on emergency the gates will be thronged with men capable of doing the work. It is easier to reduce these men to this minimum than it is to discharge all our foremen and higher officials who get acquainted with the rules and methods of the arsenal, but we have done a good deal in the direction of reducing our foremen to assistant-foremen and assistant-foremen to markers-out to keep pace with the diminution in the work turned out. A good many men who were foremen in the good times of the war are now only assistant-foremen. Some have gone altogether, and some have been reduced from assistant-foremen to lower positions.

With regard to the employment of boys the hon. Member said several things which I felt rather deeply—that we are expressing sympathy and saying it will be considered, and that a committee shall be set up, and that sort of thing. There is some- thing in it. I cannot and I do not pretend that we are now able in any of our factories, as we ought to be, to absorb all the boys we take on when they come to the age when they no longer ought to have boys' wages. The matter has been very much complicated, of course, by the fact that we have been reducing, and at Enfield, for instance, are still reducing, as much as we possibly can by wastage, and are not able at all to take on fresh people of any kind. That has not been wholly the case at Woolwich, but it has been so at Enfield—so that it has been almost impossible for us to find work for everyone if we are to take on the boys when the boys become men. It has also become complicated very much recently by the necessity of having to absorb into our own factory as many as we possibly could of the men hitherto employed in the torpedo factory which was doing work for the Admiralty. We have been able to absorb 142 men employed in the torpedo factory in the different departments of our factories, and that has undoubtedly made it far more difficult to take in the boys as we ought to do. But there is this to be said, that, if there is any doubt about boys being kept on at all, it is perhaps better to make them go at seventeen, when they will have learnt something but have not yet become incapable of learning anything more, having taught them factory habits and workmen's habits, than to keep them on till twenty-one and discharge them into an employment which is already overstocked.

Mr. NEWMAN

Does that apply to Enfield as well as to Woolwich?

Mr. ACLAND

I am not quite sure about that. At Enfield, of course, we have a certain number of trade lads who are in a different category from these boys at Woolwich. They are skilled, and they attend technical classes and so on, for which provision is made with assistance from Government funds, and we look forward, of course, to taking them on in our own service. I think that is the case with the most important class at Enfield, but if there is any other class I will inquire and let the hon. Member know. I can only admit, therefore, with regard to boys that there is still a good deal to do. It is, of course, perfectly right that we should not employ boys in work in which they cannot find employment when they get to the age of manhood. Our task has been difficult by reason of our reductions, and by reason of taking these men from the torpedo fac- tory, and it is also difficult because demands are made upon the arsenal, and it is quite natural that we should take on old soldiers and give then a preference when workmen are to be taken on, and also by this fourth reason, that the demand is naturally made that when men are to be taken on we should try to take back some of the men who have previously been discharged. All these things will pass away in time, and when they have passed away we aim at not employing more boys than we shall have a reasonable probability of absorbing. I can only say, in conclusion, that though things work slowly, perhaps, with regard to the increase of wages and the improvement of conditions in our Government factories, yet there is an undoubted movement. Things have undoubtedly improved. You have for instance, looking back over the past five years, an increase in the absolute minimum wage at Woolwich from 21s. to 23s., and now to 24s. You have, besides this re-grading, which gives the men not only an increase of 1s. a week, but to every one who is doing anything except purely and absolutely unskilled work gives more than an increase of is., so that the average will be 25s. You have, therefore, in five years an increase in wages to 25s. at Woolwich, and you have at Waltham and Enfield other men who in the same period have increased from 21s. to 23s. 6d., or 24s. to 24s. 6d. There is also this re-grading according to the amount of skill possessed, which has been gradually going on. The figures which I have given show that at Enfield, at any rate, there has been a considerable increase in the gross wages paid, in spite of the decrease in the number employed. I cannot say that the wages paid to unskilled men are altogether unsatisfactory. The wages are low for unskilled men—lower than under many of our municipalities. We admit that some of the municipalities pay wages which are a good deal higher than we pay, but we pay well up to the average of the good employers. An increase of 4s. in five years is not so bad. I would give the Committee the assurance that this matter will again be brought before the Advisory Committee if they desire me to do it.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

The Financial Secretary to the War Office referred in the course of his speech to a question than which it is impossible to imagine one more important to this country. I mean the distribution of work for war materials as between Government factories and those undertakings which are equipped by private capital, and which provide for the manufacture of the same kind of commodities. I rise for the purpose of reminding the Committee that Woolwich and other constituencies where Government factories exist are not by any means the only constituencies in this country which are interested in the question of the distribution of this particular kind of work. The hon. Gentleman said that, whereas formerly the rule was that the Government factories should get 40 per rent. of the work which was to be done for the Government and that the outside factories should get 60 per cent., that has been changed, so that 60 per cent. goes to the Government factories and 40 per cent. to the private factories. I confess that I forget when that sufficiently alarming new departure was taken. I hope the War Office will not allow themselves to be driven any further in the same direction, because, apart from other reasons, this is a question of profound public importance. It is clear that from military considerations of the highest kind it is absolutely necessary that the Government should have private enterprise in this country to turn to in cases of emergency, that those sources of supply should be varied in their character, and that they should be geographically distributed in different places. Assuming that that is a fundamental necessity, it is obvious that you cannot expect to get private enterprise to come forward and supply your necessities unless you afford some degree of security, without which private capital will not be embarked in enterprises in connection with which the demand must he of a fluctuating kind.

I remember approaching the War Office on this subject after the period of difficulty through which we passed in the the South African War, and I represented that a previous promise given by the War Office appeared to myself and friends not to have been properly observed. The War Office were then putting up at Woolwich plant which we at Sheffield thought that they should not put up. We were told that we had to come under that new departure, and that the Government could not do away with men necessary to supply a certain minimum quantity of war material. The particular thing to which our representations had reference was a big forging press for the purpose of making the forgings out of which great guns are made. We had to submit to this change of policy, but it was accompanied by the promise that the policy was in future to be that whereas it was clear that the demand for war material must be to some extent of a fluctuating and uncertain kind, it was right iii the interest of having a constant supply of private capital ready to enter the market and to take the risk of putting up gigantic and extensive plants that the ordinary and non-fluctuating demand should primarily and in the first instance go to private traders, and secondly that the emergency and fluctuating demand should be supplied primarily by the Government Departments. There has been the change which the hon. Gentleman indicated in his speech, and I hope that is to be the end of any change we are to hear of in that direction. I wish to remind him and the Committee that just as there are great working classes at Woolwich and Enfield profoundly interested in this great question, there are no4 less important communities living in long rows and streets in other places to whom this very question of the uncertainty of employment is quite as dangerous, quite as significant, and quite as disquieting as it is to many of the workers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. HOHLER

I desire to say something with respect to the question of the wages paid to labourers. I think I have great reason to complain of the way which I have been treated by the War Office in this matter. Shortly after I entered the House the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) raised the question of the wages paid to those men, and a division was prevented by a promise made on behalf of the Government that they were willing to refer the question of the wages of these men to the Advisory Committee. That promise was accepted, and as the result of that undertaking, which I understood was given in all honour and good faith and that it would be carried out, I thought the proper course was to communicate with Lord Haldane, Secretary of State for War. I wrote to him in March, 1910, with reference to the wages of the men at the ordnance depot, Chatham. These wages, in my judgment, were ridiculously low, and I gave the Secretary for War particulars as to the number of men employed and the wages paid. The worst of them were paid 20s. 6d. a week, out of which they had to pay house rent of 5s. 6d. I said that if he required further informa- tion I should be glad to supply it in relation to an important body of men in my Constituency. That letter was acknowledged on 13th April. I was told that the Secretary of State for War agreed, at any rate, with what I said as to the rate of wages.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have been looking through the Vote, and I cannot find anything about the depot at Chatham in it.

Mr. HOHLER

That is quite likely, because the Financial Secretary to the War Office some time ago did not appear to know of the depot at Chatham.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That makes it quite clear that it does not come under his Department.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)

It comes under another Vote.

Mr. HOHLER

This is part of the Ordnance Vote. I find that Chatham is not specifically mentioned, but it appears to me that this question can only be raised under the Vote for ordnance factories. This is just the mistake which the Financial Secretary fell into when I raised the point in regard to Chatham. He said it came under the Admiralty. I pointed out that it came under the Army Ordnance Vote. I submit that I am perfectly in order in raising it. This is the only point in the Vote on which I can raise the question. It is as much involved in this Vote as the Arsenal at Woolwich or any of the Army ordnance factories. It is part of that very Vote. Lord Haldane, through his secretary acknowledged the letter I wrote to him, and stated that the question of the wages of the men employed at Chatham was involved. I am entirely in order in calling the attention of the Committee to the matter on this Vote.

Mr. ACLAND

I would point out to the hon. Member that the wages Of these men come under Vote 8, Subhead A. That is not the Ordnance Factories Vote.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The first thing we have to satisfy ourselves about is whether it is in order to raise the question on this Vote. I am still unable to find anything which has to do with the wages of these men at Chatham. This Vote is for Ordnance Factories, and not for a depot.

Mr. HOHLER

Under Vote C you have first of all "stores at Chatham depot." Then you have under Vote B the wages of the men.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That certainly would not do to make the question in order. This Vote is for the manufacturing establishments, and not for places where the manufactures are stored or used.

Mr. HOHLER

I am not sure that they do not manufacture at Chatham.

Mr. ACLAND

I am.

Mr. HOHLER

The Financial Secretary knew nothing at all about it. He said that it came under the Admiralty Vote. When did he learn that they do not manufacture at Chatham?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to pursue his inquiries elsewhere.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

I am unable to accept as satisfactory, or half satisfactory, the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He never attempted to tell me why the wages in the two localities I have spoken of are not l o be raised in the same way as was done at Woolwich. I have put to him the fact of rent and provisions being the same. What more evidence can he want, and what satisfaction is there in asking me shall he refer those questions to the Advisory Committee again? I do not want him to do that, because he has already told me that the men themselves have placed that before them. Then what result does he expect to ensue from a fresh reference to this Advisory Committee? I ask a specific and plain answer to a plain question: Will the Government or will they not place Enfield and Waltham Abbey on the same footing as Woolwich? Will they or will they not give a minimum of 30s. to the men employed in the danger-house?

I was astonished when I heard the Financial Secretary say that the reason why they did not pay the unskilled labourers a minimum wage is because they took advantage of his weakness, and that because he was not organised they said: "We shall give you a less wage. Because you are a poor weak, unorganised man and cannot assist yourself, therefore we, the Government, the model employers, who are going to set an example to the rest of the country, shall take advantage of your weakness and your ignorance and refuse to pay you in the same proportion as the skilled labourers." I think that such an argument is unworthy of any Government, and that it is still less worthy of a Government such as is in power at the present time. I am unable to go into questions of.9 or.1 where men's lives are concerned, or to agree with what the Financial Secretary said that Waltham Abbey or the factories where they make these dangerous materials are as safe to work in as a cotton mill. Let him go down and see for himself, and see whether the men who work in these factories are working in the same safe zone as when working in cotton factories. I have not asked a single man to vote with me, but, I am going to take a Division on this point, and I do not think that anybody can say that I am asking too much in demanding that these factories, in the first place, shall be treated in the same way; and, in the second place, that the men who work in daily and hourly danger of their lives should be given a minimum wage of 30s.

Sir JOHN ROLLESTON

The Financial Secretary to the War Office does not appear to have answered a question addressed to him by myself. Can he explain why the same rifle should cost £4 3s. 9d. in Birmingham and £2 18s. 8d. at Enfield? This is not quite consistent with his statement that the wages at Enfield have been raised by some £40,000 a year. The information which I ask for would be very interesting to the Committee and also outside.

Mr. ACLAND

With reference to the rates of wages. Last Session the House asked us to refer these matters to a Committee, and if we are to stand on that policy we cannot be asked suddenly to go

back on the decision which we then came to at the request of the House to fix a rate of wages which would be in accordance with the local rates reported to us privately. There was very considerable pressure last year to refer these matters to a Committee and to make our rates in accordance with the local rates reported to us by that Committee, and when we have done that., as we have, it is, I submit, very difficult to go back on that policy which was deliberately pressed upon us by the House and adopted by the War Office at the request of the House last Session. We have done what the House asked us to do and we cannot go back on that policy at the present time. With regard to the cost of the rifles, I do not know where the hon. Member has obtained his figures, but even if the cost were as different as he says in the two places, still it would be, I think, justifiable in the interests of the country in time of war, not to get all our rifles manufactured in one place. The possibilities of expansion at any one place must be limited, and even if prices vary considerable I maintain it would be justifiable to encourage manufacturers to keep a staff going which they could put in full working order for us if the emergency arose. Of course if the hon. Member will be kind enough to put down the prices I will look into the figures which he gave me, and see whether they are justified or not, and consider it on that basis. But even if the difference in prices were considerable I cannot admit that it would be right to abandon the practice of placing orders with outside persons.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £50, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 139.

Division No. 247.]	AYES.	[5.40 p.m.
Adamson, William	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Pointer, Joseph
Alden, Percy	Falle, Bertram Godfray	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Fell, Arthur	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Fisher, William Hayes	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Baird, John Lawrence	Forster, Henry William	Smith, Albert(Lancs., Clitheroe)
Balcarres, Lord	Gilmour, Captain John	Sperar, John Ward
Barnes, George N.	Glanville, Harold James	Stanier, Beville
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc. E.)	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Sutton, John E.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Swift, Rigby
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Hudson, Walter	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Jowett, Frederick William	Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Lansbury, George	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Bigland, Alfred	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Thomas, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Bowerman, C. W	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Bridgman, W. Clive	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Bull, Sir William James	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Wardle, George J.
Butcher, John George	Newman, John R. P.	Weigall, Captain A. G.
Cautley, Henry Strother	Nield, Herbert	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Copper, Richard Ashmole	O'Grady, James
Crooks, William	Parker, James (Halifax)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel
Doughty, Sir George	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Lockwood and Sir J. Rolleston.
Duke, Henry Edward
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Greig, Colonel James William	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Armitage, Robert	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Hancock, J. G.	Pirie, Duncan Vernon
Banbury, sir Frederick George	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Price, Sir R. J (Norfolk, E.)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Pringle, William M. R.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)	Harwood, George	Radford, George Heynes
Barton, William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Boland, John Plus	Higham, John Sharp	Robinson, Sydney
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hinds, John	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Brigg, Sir John	Horne, C. Sylvester (Ipswich)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Brunner, John F. L.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Johnson, W.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Shortt, Edward
Byles, William Pollard	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Cameron, Robert	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Smith H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Carlile, Edward Hildred	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Spicer, Sir Albert
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	King, Joseph (Somerset, North)	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Chancellor, Dr. William Allen	Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)	Summers, James Woolley
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Leach, Charles	Tennant, Harold John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Lewis, John Herbert	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Logan, John Herbert	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Verney, Sir Joseph
Corbett, A. Cameron	Maclean, Donald	Walton, Sir Harry
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	M'Laren, Walter S. B., (Ches., Crewe)	Waring, Walter
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Marks, George Croydon	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Dawes, J. A.	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Webb, H.
Dickinson, W. H.	Menzies, Sir Walter	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of	Mond, Sir Alfred	Whitehouse, John Howard
Elverston, Harold	Mooney, John J.	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Fenwick, Charles	Neilson, Francis	Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Gelder, Sir W. A.	Nicholson, Charles N.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Norman, Sir Henry
Gibson, Sir James Puckering	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Ginnell, Laurence	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Resolution agreed to.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday); Committee to sit again tomorrow.