§ Mr. BARNESI rise to support the hon. Member who has just spoken, and to express my opinion that we are getting into a condition of things in which the powers of the officials are increasing and the power of the House of Commons is lessening, and Ministers are becoming mere gramophones, drawling out replies given to them by their permanent officials behind the scenes. I want to fix that particularly in regard to one of our Departments. I desire to raise a question in which the Admiralty are implicated. It is a question of some importance to workers, as well as to this House, if, as I assume to be the case, this House desires that its decision and directions will be duly respected and carried out by the Government Department. I do so with regret, and only as a last resort, because in interviews with Admiralty officials and with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who represent the Admiralty on the Front Bench, I have tried to get redress in regard to the administration of the Fair-Wages Resolution. I have tried to do so by correspondence, by interviews and by questions put upon the floor of this House, and all these methods have absolutely and signally failed to get any satisfaction whatever, and now, with what may be a forlorn hope, but in the hope, at all events, that the House of Commons itself might be induced to have more respect in the future than in the past to its own decisions in regard to the Fair-Wages Resolution, I bring this matter forward.
Let me give the House the facts in regard to what ought to be the position of a public Department in the letting of public works. There are two Resolutions on the Journals of the House, one of them was adopted as far back as 13th February, 1891, and that Resolution set out the conditions under which public work should be let to contractors. I will not trouble the House with the full terms of it, because there is a great deal of it germane to the Sweating Commission, which had just concluded its labours, but the gist of it is this: that public works should be done only at such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workers. That remained in operation until two years ago. Certain things were found to be unsatisfactory, and on 10th February, 1909, that Resolution was amended. Another Resolution was adopted improving the old Fair-Wage Clauses, and stipulating that in future this work should be let to contractors who paid rates of wages 1137 and observed hours of labour not less favourable than those only recognised by good employers, and failing that basis, or the absence of such recognised wages and hours those which in practice prevail amongst good employers. That was adopted over two years ago. I say with-out the slightest qualification or hesitation that that Resolution, as well as the earlier Resolution which I read has been flagrantly disregarded by the Admiralty officials during the whole of my experience in trying to have effect given to it.
I have had cases during the last year or so in which I tried to induce the Admiralty to give effect to either of these two Resolutions. Three of these stand out in my mind in the last year. First, of all, I asked a question in regard to labourers in certain Glasgow workshops, and I was told to produce detailed information, and I did so, and gave the names and the amount of wages paid to certain workmen in these shops. I was asked for more information, and the whole thing was let slip through without anything being done. I had an other case from Motherwell, where work was being done for Rosyth. I gave the names of the men, and I gave, further, statements that not a single man in that shop was being paid in accordance with the Fair-Wages Resolution, and the upshot was that while I was giving the information, and while I was being bamboozled by the Admiralty officials, the whole work was done, and the matter slipped into the region of forgotten things.
7.0 P.M.
I want to fix the attention of the House on one case which came to my notice this year. My hon. Friends sitting near me May perhaps supplement what I say from their own experience of other cases. I want to fix the attention on this case which came within my own experience as an illustration of the methods adopted by the Admiralty in not giving effect to these Resolutions. In the early part of the year I learn that a certain shop in the west of London was full of Admiralty work. I knew that that shop was a notorious blackleg shop. That fact is perfectly well known to every man in London with any knowledge of the engineering trade. It is known not only to every workman but to every employer of labour as well. It is known to every man who has any knowledge of the engineering industry that that particular firm does not pay, and will not pay, the standard rate of wages, that it will not employ trade union labour, that it is not a member of the Employers' Federa- 1138 tion, and that it is altogether a blackleg shop, in which we cannot get a footing. That, I say, is perfectly well known to everybody with any knowledge of the engineering trade. Therefore, having failed to bring the Admiralty to book on the other matters to which I have referred, I thought to myself, "Here, surely, I have a case which is so absolutely clear that the Admiralty will not be able by any means whatever to wriggle out of it." Therefore, on the 1st of last March, I put down a question asking whether it was a fact that this particular firm had on hand Admiralty work, and whether one of the conditions in connection with giving them the work was that the firm would be expected or had subscribed to the Fair-Wages Clause. I was told that it was quite true that the firm had Admiralty work, that no complaint has been made in regard to it, and that the firm had subscribed to the Fair-Wages Clause. In the innocence of my heart I thought that that would refer to the Fair-Wages Clause adopted by this House two years before.
I was told that no complaints had been made with regard to this particular shop. That threw upon me the onus of proving that this firm was not conforming to the conditions of the Fair-Wages Resolution, I submit that that was not fair. A statement by a Member of this House is surely of sufficient importance to warrant the Admiralty in making some inquiry as to whether or not the statement is true. I committed myself, as I now again commit myself, to the statement that this firm is a blackleg firm. Why should net the Admiralty, in view of such a statement, make some inquiry on its own initiative as to whether or not there is some truth in the statement? There is no difficulty in the matter. The Admiralty might have gone, for instance, to the War Office, who know perfectly well the conditions of labour and the rates of wages that ought to obtain. They pay those rates of wages themselves, or they observe conditions at Woolwich Arsenal, at Pimlico, at Enfield, and at Waltham Cross, all based on those rates of wages. Or the Admiralty might have gone to firms on the other side of the river, almost within sound of my voice, who work for them, such as Messrs. Siebe and Gorman, who make diving tackle; or to Messrs. Hills, who built a "Dreadnought" for them. They might have satisfied themselves in this way, or they might have gone to the Board of Trade. We have a Government Depart- 1139 ment that issues returns in regard to these matters. The First Lord of the Admiralty might have gone or have got one of his subordinates to go to the Library of this House, where he would have found set out in black and white the rates of wages observed by all decent and good employers throughout London in connection with this trade; and having done that, he could have sent somebody to Hammersmith to ascertain what wages were being paid by this firm as compared with the wages they ought to pay.
The Admiralty did nothing of the sort. They put upon me the onus of proving that this firm were not paying wages of the standard that they ought to pay. That puts us in a very difficult position. We have no knowledge of these outside shops. They are in the outer darkness. We have no members there. Our members cannot get there. I am not saying anything against the men employed there, except that they are more or less dependent upon these employers. They are not members of any trade union; therefore it is extremely difficult for us to get evidence. But I did what I could. I sent to the executive of my own union, who, I believe, made representations to the Admiralty, pointing out this very difficulty, and asking the Admiralty to make inquiries as to what wages the firm were paying. Through my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnard Castle Division (Mr. Arthur Henderson) I got in touch with the local secretary of the Moulders Union, from whom I got a letter stating that he was willing to come and give all the information that the Admiralty required of him. I got at some risk to those involved—therefore I cannot say anything as to how I got it, except that it came from the shop itself—information of a detailed character, showing the wages paid to certain men, and the wages that ought to be paid in accordance with the Fair-Wages Clause. I submitted all that information to the Admiralty. I waited four or five weeks before asking another question on the floor of the House. I was then told that the information was not ready and that I must repeat my question later on. I did so a fortnight later, when I was told, to my amazement, that the information which I had supplied had been duly considered, that inquiry had been made in regard to this particular shop, that, in so far as my information was correct, it did not apply to the work being done for the 1140 Admiralty, and that, so far as the Admiralty work was concerned, it was being performed under the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution.
I knew that that was not true; but I did not know how fiat statement could possibly be put into the mouth of the hon. Gentleman who gave the answer. Therefore, I put other questions. I put a question detailing the particular contract that had been entered into between the Admiralty and this firm at the back end of last year. I asked whether that contract was subject to the terms of the resolution adopted by this House on 10th March, 1909. I asked by what means the Admiralty had satisfied themselves as to what the firm were paying, and also what they regarded as the district covered by the terms of their inquiry and in regard to which the conditions ought to have been imposed upon this firm. After some little time I was told again that the information was not ready. It was not until the day before yesterday that I received finally the answer to this detailed question. I now find how it is we have not got what we ought to have in regard to this particular firm. In the first place, the resolution adopted by the House two years ago is not yet in operation so far as this particular work is concerned. In the second place, I am told that the Admiralty officials have made inquiries as to what wages are being paid in the locality in which this firm is situated. It seems to me that that is a very easy way of evading the terms of the resolution. If the Admiralty officials make the locality sufficiently small they can justify any wages or any conditions that any firm like to observe. For all I know they may have gone 300 or 400 yards outside Messrs. Gwynne's workshop gate, and, having decided in their own minds that that was the locality which was to determine what Messrs. Gwynne were to pay, that would determine the current wages in that particular district. But, after all, there is surely a common-sense interpretation of Resolutions adopted by this House, and the common-sense interpretation of the Fair-Wages Resolution adopted two years ago is that the district covered by the employers' association and the workmen's association ought to be the district to which reference should be had in giving effect to the Resolution. That was not done; therefore the Admiralty justified this firm in paying practically any wages they liked.
Even if the Admiralty had been disposed to give effect to the Resolution adopted 1141 twenty years ago, things would have been different. I understand that in regard to this particular firm, although more than two years have elapsed since we adopted the last Resolution, that Resolution is not yet in operation. If the Admiralty had given effect to the Resolution of twenty years ago this firm would have been obliged to toe the mark in regard to something like decent conditions. What is that Resolution? The Resolution of 13th February, 1891, lays it down that wages are to be paid which are generally accepted as current in these trades for competent workmen. Who regards the wages that this particular firm are paying as generally recognised as current for competent workmen? I gave to the Secretary to the Admiralty the names of men who were being paid certain rates of wages. Those rates are 2s., 3s., and in some cases 4s. or 5s. less than the wages perfectly well understood by the Board of Trade and by engineering employers and employed as being current in the trade. He knows as well as I do, or could know if he went to the Library, that the wages paid to moulders in London are two guineas a week, to a fitter or turner £2, to a blacksmith two guineas, and to a pattern-maker £2 4s. All these are starting rates of wages paid by every good employer in the London district. Yet these men, whose names I have given to the hon. Gentleman, are being paid 2s., 3s., 4s., or 5s. a week less.
I have set out the facts; it is not necessary to do more. I think I have said enough to show that in this particular ease—and this is only an illustration of other cases—the Admiralty are setting at defiance and at naught the duly registered decision of this House in regard to competent workmen. I ask the Admiralty to turn over a new leaf. I go back to the time, a few weeks ago, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite brought forward the case of Master Archer-Shee, who had been unjustly dealt with by the Admiralty. I am loth to believe that this House can only stand up for those who have rich and influential friends. On the contrary, I am willing and anxious to believe that this House is ready to see that decisions in regard to poor men as well as in regard to rich men are duly given effect to if the House will only carry its mind back to the occasion when the Archer-Slice case was brought on, and apply to the Admiralty, in regard to giving effect to the Fair-Wages Resolution, the same standard as it then applied, 1142 the Admiralty, and possibly other Government Departments as well, may be induced to give a more fair and square interpretation to the decisions of this House than they have yet done. I hope that that may be so.
§ Sir WILLIAM BULLI labour under the disadvantage that I did not hear the whole of the hon. Gentleman's indictment of the firm in Hammersmith, and therefore he will perhaps forgive me if I do not cover all the points. But there are one or two to which I would like to refer. I made inquiries some three or four months ago, and I should like to tell the House with what result in regard to the hours of labour and the rates of wages paid in the London district. I was assured by the heads of the firm that they do pay something over and above the rate of wages accepted in the London market. I was told that definitely by the head of the firm. Shortly after that one of lie employés of the firm wrote an anonymous letter to the heads of the firm saying that unless they paid £50 he would tell the Admiralty exactly the rates that they paid, and would cause them to lose their contract. They consulted me upon the subject, and it was a very serious matter. The result was that I applied for a warrant, and the man was arrested. He was charged at the West London Police Court and sentenced to nine months for blackmailing. He had a fair and square opportunity of proving his case, and of stating whether ho was right in regard to the particular questions that he brought forward. He did nothing of the sort. Immediately after that a round-robin, or petition, was signed by the workmen employed by the firm without any reference to the employers whatever. In this case they one and all stated that they were thoroughly satisfied both with regard to the rates of wages and the hours of labour. The question is one affecting constituents of mine—I frankly tell the House that I am their solicitor—and I thought I would like to make clear to the House what I knew, in reply to what the hon. Gentleman opposite said.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI think the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not altered the position in the slightest degree. I take it for granted, even if the man had proved that the firm had been paying less than the London rate of wages, the despicable attempt to get £50 from them would have still got him nine months, and deservedly so. I take 1143 it, therefore, that the mere sentencing of the man for the attempt to blackmail is no proof whatever that the firm were not sweaters in any shape or form.
§ Sir W. BULLIt could have been pleaded in mitigation?
§ Mr. J. WARDThe man would have been sentenced if there had been mitigation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division has done the workmen employed both directly by the Board of Admiralty, and by the contractors, a great service in bringing the question forward. I am delighted to find that the skilled workmen of these departments are in exactly the same boat as the unskilled workmen, because as long as it was only the navvies and the labourers who were being sweated by the contractors of these Departments there seemed to be very little chance of getting any improvement. But now that we are going to enlist the skilled workmen for the purpose of denouncing the interpretation that has been placed upon the Clauses and resolutions of this House by the Board of Admiralty there is a chance of getting some solution of the difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division has stated what was the object of these resolutions, and not merely the resolution which was finally adopted. The resolution first proposed by my hon. Friend was amended by the proposition put forward on behalf of the Government by the President of the Board of Trade.
I would like to make quotations from the speech of the President as to what the Government meant to do, and how they meant, to operate the Clause that t hey were then asking the House to adopt. I could take a quotation as to their intentions, how they were going to enforce this Clause, and then take the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division. The promises were all right. But they have never been performed! I think, if my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars can take it from me, that unless there is an alteration in what he terms the official clique at the Admiralty that there is never going to be the slightest alteration with reference to the interpretation of this Department as to fair wages. I am not, of course, able to enter into the subject so fully as I should like, but if the Premier was here, as he was a moment or two ago, I should certainly have liked to have asked him 1144 for a day to discuss the methods employed by the Admiralty for interpreting the Fair-Wages resolution of this House. I feel certain that we should make such a case out, if it were only by deputation, that he himself would see that we have a great grievance, not merely on the Labour Benches, but the whole of the Members of this House on whichever side they sit£that it can be shown that there are deliberate attempts made by the permanent officials of the Admiralty to nullify the decisions of all parties in this House.
Make no mistake these Resolutions were adopted unanimously. It is not the Resolution of the Labour party. It is not the Resolution of the Liberal Government. As a matter of fact, spokesmen on the other side of the House, both in the Conservative party and of the Irish party, supported the Resolution as an agreed proposition, that something ought to be done to make Government employment of the status at least of "the first flight of employers." Everybody agreed with that as a policy. Yet what is the fact? I have had the honour, through my hon Friend the Financial Secretary, of having an interview with, I suppose, the gentleman who really decides these questions, the Director of Works. What did he tell me? I referred to the case at Portsmouth, to the complaint there that the contractor employed by the Admiralty was paying a certain wage, 5d. or 5½d. per hour, whereas the local contractors, when they employed either navvies or labourers in cases of building, severing, or gas or water construction, paid the uniform rate of 6d. per hour.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)In the building trade?
§ Mr. J. WARD"In the building trade?" says my hon. Friend. It reminds me of the conversation which I had with the Director of Works. He told me plainly to my face, in the presence of the hon. Gentleman, that there was an entire difference in digging a yard of earth for the foundation of a building to the digging of a similar quantity if it was for the foundation of a wall for a dock. He told me—somehow or other—that it came up lighter. There was a difference in the law of gravitation as applied to it! If it is the same amount of work in the building trade—
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWhat I said was if there was an agreed rate between the building contractors—
§ Mr. J. WARDThat is a fact, and a great deal more is the fact relating to this subject, as I think the hon. Gentleman will immediately see. I need not, however, enter into that part of the controversy. But it amounts to this: that when a dispute occurred the local civil engineer was instructed by the Admiralty to find out what was the proper wage. He wrote a letter, which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the discussion of the Fair-Wage Resolution, to the local Contractors' Association, asking what was the fair minimum wage for labourers and navvies. The Secretary of the Employers' Association replied, and said that the proper wage for navvies and labourers as a minimum was 6d. per hour. I daresay the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench will take that for granted, otherwise I will quote from the actual letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I say that the agreed rate that was current amongst all the best employers in the locality was then known, and it was 6d. per hour. If it was not the intention of the Admiralty to take the advice of the contractors at Portsmouth as right, why did they write to them? Why did they officially communicate and ask for the rate of pay? I never could understand until this or last week why it was that they did not at once accept the 6d. an hour as a proper rate. What, then, did I discover when I went to the Admiralty the other day to consult about this in relation to another question and another works?
The Director of Works told me frankly that he got the letter from the Employers' Association at Portsmouth saying 6d. was the proper rate, but that, he was not satisfied. Therefore he wanted to find out what was the general rate in the locality. So he actually went all along the South Coast, down beyond Devonport, and Heaven knows where, to find out the lowest rate. He endeavoured to discover, as a matter of fact, the rate of wages of the lowest paid labourer along the whole of the Southern Coast of England, and found that it came out something like 5½d. per hour. He said to me, "Of course, directly I found that that was the rate, I fixed upon that rate." Eventually, after negotiations and questions in this House, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty used his influence, his great power, and authority, and he succeeded in persuading the local contractors, in the overwhelming majority of cases, to observe the working conditions and the rate of wages Still, there are a 1146 number of cases at Portsmouth Docks today who do not get the proper rate from the employers, and who are obliged to work for the lower rate.
Take the case of Rosyth. There was one case found there. Exactly the same principle applies. The Board of Admiralty have the opportunity of finding out what was the rate for navvies in the locality. Mr. Anderson, of Glenferry, reported that he never paid less than 5½d. per hour. Mr. Robinson, a contractor, at the present time pays the navvies that are working for him in the locality 5½d. and 6d. per hour; 5½d. is the lowest rate paid by Mr. Moseley, and 6d. the lowest rate paid by Mr. Martin. As a matter of fact, Mr. Martin goes on to say that no other rate than 5½d. or 6d. per hour has ever been paid in that locality until the Board of Admiralty had some contractors down. Wherever the Board of Admiralty gets a contract, down go the wages at once! Take your own roads and your own docks. Mr. John Baxter, the well-known contractor of the locality, was making roads at Dunfermline at the same time that the Admiralty let their contract, and he states that he never thought of paying a navvy less than 6d. an hour on that class of work. The Board of Admiralty let the contract to a Mr. McArthur to build the roads alongside where the ordinary contractors of the district are making other roads. The men want 6d. per hour, the, same as the other contract ors pay, and the Board of Admiralty allow their contractors to employ navvies at 5d. per hour—to work alongside private firms who are paying 6d. per hour. Then they say that is maintaining themselves as amongst. the "first flight of employers." It is a jolly rum machine they fly in, that is all I have to say.
Let us take another case. These cases can be well understood. Let us take the difficulty which the Admiralty has got into in this case. This is all that I wish to say relating to the subject now, because what I am doing now is not so much to get any explanation, as that I am speaking with a view of a possible demand from our side that we shall have a day for the discussion altogether of Admiralty wages. It is quite clear that there is no chance of getting anything like a definite arrangement and proper pay unless we do bring the subject before the attention of this House in a proper and substantial way. What has happened. Even at the present time how can you explain that 5½d. and 6d. are paid by everybody in Dunfermline except by Government contractors easily explained.
1147 I go to the Board of Admiralty and I interview the Director of Works, whom I take to be the real villain of the piece, upon the subject. What does he tell me? He tells me that he looked through the papers and that he found out what was the wage paid at that place. He would not take the rate settled between the workmen themselves and the employers of the locality. No, that is 5½d. and he does not want his contractors to be compelled to pay that. He would not take the case of Grangemouth where the rate signed between workmen and master is sixpence, that would be too high; it would make the Board of Admiralty as employers of labour act as decent men. There is no doubt about it, that a little straight talk here is the best way of getting at this business. I state distinctly that the Board of Admiralty permanent officials do not want their contractors to pay proper wages. Most distinctly is that so, or such decisions as have been given by the Board could never have taken place.
Let us take this ease a little further. The signed rate at Edinburgh is 5½d. per hour, the signed rate at Leith 5d. per hour; a little higher up and right opposite their men there is a signed rate of 6d., and a little higher up another rate of 5½d. per hour. There is no rate of 5d. in the whole district where their works are being executed. You would naturally think if they wanted to be in the first flight of employers, and if they did not fix upon the special rate at Grangemouth of 6d. per hour, that at least they would go no lower than the rate in the locality of 5½d. per hour. "Oh, no," they said, "men have worked in the locality for 5d." I asked them with whom, and they said McAlpine. But I said, "Surely McAlpine is your own contractor who is paying these men 5d." They say that has nothing to do with it, that he gets men at 5d. per hour, and that as long as men can be got to do the work for that the Director of Works says that the Resolution of the House of Commons is complied with. That is an entirely different view held by the Admiralty of what was the decision and wishes of the House of Commons from what mine is. I understood that if the Board of Admiralty knew decent fair good employers paid a certain wage to their workmen that the Admiralty would insist on their contractors doing the same. I do not want more, I only want that. But it seems to me as a matter of fact that the Director of Works is really a sort of agent 1148 to find out what is the lowest rate in any locality so that that might be fixed as the rate to be paid by their contractors. I have stated these facts to the House before, and no consideration was given to them. This Debate goes on, and I suppose it is quite an easy matter to get over to-day, and to let the thing pass by all right for a little while until it comes up again. Then you will have another half-hour's roasting, and you will go on again with no real intention of rectifying a single grievance of the men. Therefore I am only bringing the subject forward and supporting my hon. Friend, not for anything I am going to get out of to-day's Debate, but in order that we may ask the Whips and the Government for a day to discuss this subject to bring forward the pros and cons, and to deal with the absolute failure on the part of the Admiralty to give that interpretation in the frankest and fairest terms which we thought ought to be placed on the Resolution of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. FALLEThe hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) made out a strong case which has been made stronger by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. John Ward), and a case which I know myself and cordially support. The hon. Member for Blackfriars says that practically in all his endeavours to put this matter right he has failed, and more than that, he has practically been flouted. I would suggest that his remedy is a very simple one. He has only to vote against the Government. I do not ask him to vote against the Government so as to turn them out of office, but to vote against them in order to put the fear of the Labour party into their hearts. On every occasion when we thought we might have the support of the Labour party that support has been given to the Government. I think if another course had been followed all of us might be in a better position than we are. There would be less talk of insufficient pay in Government contracts and less talk of insufficient pay in Government dockyards. If the Director of Works had a fear of the Labour party, I do not think we would have heard the story of him going round after he discovered that the rate was 6d. to find out that it was 4d. When he found it was ed. he would have accepted that as not too generous a wage for hard labour. I am also very glad to hear the proposal to ask, which means to insist, on a day to discuss the whole matter. If that pro- 1149 position is brought forward they will find me in the same Lobby with them. Not merely are those men, in my opinion, very badly paid, but in many instances Portsmouth dockyard men are sent away in such a way that they lose the whole day from the hour at which they are so sent away. That means a very serious matter to men who can only earn the very small wage that those men can earn working the hours they are allowed to work.
I desire to draw attention to a question which has been brought up here again and again, namely, the question of the engineer officers. I shall hope to-night that we will hear something from the Financial Secretary with regard to them. Those officers have been very badly treated, and, what is more, I am sure the Board of Admiralty know that they have been very badly treated, Their pay has been cut down about 6s. per day in face of regulations and promises that have been made to them, and I believe in face of all considerations of right feeling. I have not the faintest doubt that those officers would not be so treated by individual members of the Admiralty. No individual member would treat them as the Board of Admiralty collectively have done. It would not be possible for them to do so. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Blackfriars speak of the Archer-Shee case and express pleasure that poor men's cases were equally well looked after as those of the rich. I remember when we had the Horn case, which was the case of a very poor woman, that the Labour party went into the Lobby against us. The majority was something over forty, and even if that majority had been reduced to twenty that would have had a wonderful effect on the ways of the Admiralty. When I say the ways of the Admiralty, I do not mean the ways of individuals, but the ways of the Board of Admiralty. The last time we had a discussion on this matter it was promised that the Archer-Shee case and the Horn case would be looked into. At the same time, in the Horn case, there was a trifling matter, involving about £25, and it is almost time that we should have a decision on that point. This is the case of a poor widow, with seven little children, who may have to pay the solicitor in the case. It may be, and I know it is the fact, that the solicitor will not press the matter, but the fact remains that she is anxious to have the difficulty settled, and out of the small sum which she got of £250 the 1150 sum of £35 looms very large. I hope we will hear a satisfactory account of what is, being done in the Horn case.
§ Mr. SUTTONI think after what we have just heard from my two hon. Friends with reference to the Fair-Wages Clause that the Members of this House ought at least to be consistent and carry out that Clause when they give contracts to employers in this country. I have to make a charge against the Admiralty of not carrying out their Fair-Wage Clause in connection with a firm in Manchester, that of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co. A question was put to the First Lord of the Admiralty on 25th April with reference to that firm not paying to their workpeople the standard rate of wages. The answer given to my hon. Friend who put the question was not a satisfactory one at all. I wish to say that Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co. are employing men, men who are termed handymen, in doing work that ought to be done by skilled workmen, and whose wages should be 38s. per week, which has been agreed between the Employers' Federation and the Workmen's Federation. The firm are employing the handymen at 24s. and 25s. per week. It was said, in reply, that an inspection has been made of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co.'s works, and that they are satisfied. I want to say that the men have not been consulted so far as this inspection is concerned, and that a director of the firm has simply brought the inspector through the firm without any consultation at all with the men. That, to my mind, is most unfair. For many years I was connected with a public body, and when a charge was made that a firm was not paying the recognised rates of wages we used to summon the employers and the workmen to a conference and hear the two sides. I think it is only fair that the Admiralty should at least have the workmen there along with the inspector from the Admiralty and listen to the statements from both sides. But I am informed that that has not been done. I say that if the Admiralty allow contractors to do this kind of work it is unfair to those fair employers, especially in that district, who are paying to their workpeople the standard rate of wages.
In the interests of the fair employers the Admiralty ought to see that the Fair-Wage Clause is carried out. They ought at least to be consistent, they ought to be model employers, not only with skilled workmen, but with unskilled workmen as 1151 well, as my hon. Friend here (Mr. John Ward) has pointed out. I know this particular firm has a body of unskilled workmen at a very small wage indeed. I should like to remind the Members of this House that in Manchester the Corporation has already established a minimum wage for unskilled labour of 25s. per week, and yet I believe that this very firm which is in Manchester pay their labourers about 18s.or 19s. per week, which is not a living wage. I therefore appealed to the Admiralty to see that these handy men are not started in this way while we have skilled workmen walking the streets unemployed. The Admiralty ought at least to be model employers, and it is unfair to a man who has served seven years apprenticeship to a trade that he should be pushed out by a handy man at a less wage. I think it is the duty of the Admiralty to push this matter forward.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) has charged the Admiralty with deliberately setting aside registered resolutions of this House. That is the gravamen of the charge which has been made. I can assure hon. Members that that criticism is not well founded. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) was very severe upon the permanent officials of the Admiralty, and went so far as to say that there appeared to be a permanent official clique, and that the director of works was the villain of the piece. In all these matters of administration the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Civil Lord and myself are responsible, and not the permanent officials, who can make no reply to these charges. I desire to say most frankly that the proposals of those permanent officials, when they come to us, are very carefully and painstakingly considered by us, and therefore we must be responsible.
§ Mr. J. WARDIt is lucky for us that they do come through you.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI want to take full responsibility for this part of the administration. I make no complaint of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow. He complains of the delay in reference to the fair wages resolutions of 10th March, 1909, getting into our contracts. My hon. Friend says: "Here you are, the new fair-wages resolution superseded the resolu- 1152 tion of 1891, and it is not yet in your contracts." The old Fair-Wages Resolution, as the hon. Member knows, was confined entirely to the question of wages. The new Fair-Wages Resolution not only includes wages but hours of labour, and it includes the phrase in regard to the conditions of employment generally. The new resolution is very much wider in scope, and its incorporation into our contracts so that it would have contractual effect is not a very easy matter. I am trying to explain that some delay is inevitable in incorporating into a contract to give legal and binding effect the new Fair-Wages Resolution, because of the extended scope of the ground it covers.
It was passed on 10th March, 1909. In June, three months after the date of the passing of the resolution by this House, the Treasury appointed an Advisory Committee. In September, 1909, six months after the passing of the resolution, the Advisory Committee made certain recommendations as to the best means of giving contractual effect to the Resolution. The Fair-Wages Clause was inserted practically forthwith in all our annual contracts for the supply of stores and material, a very short time after the recommendation of the Advisory Committee as to the best way of giving it contractual effect. As far as shipbuilding is concerned I admit there was considerable difficulty in regard to the contracts. Legal advice had to be taken. It is one thing to pass a general resolution, and quite another thing to put it into a contract and see that it has legal and binding effect. The Admiralty Order which stated that the contract must be put in as from the date given was issued on the 16th of January this year, and I am bound to express regret that the process which I have described of giving legal and binding effect to this Resolution, more particularly in our shipbuilding contracts, necessitated such an absorption of time. From the beginning of this year, however, it will be in all our contracts. With regard to the Hammersmith firm in the West End of London the criticisms have been directed really against the terms of the resolution. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division said that the Admiralty would have to see that this firm was paying a standard rate of wages.
§ Mr. BARNESI said nothing about standard rates. I read from the last Resolution, and from the Resolution of twenty years ago. I said that you were 1153 required to pay wages generally current in each trade for competent workmen, and I say this firm is not paying those wages.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI misunderstood the hon. Member. My hon. Friend says we have to see that firms conform to the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution. A Clause was put into the contracts carrying out the Resolution of 1891. That Clause in the first instance was put in by the War Office, and it was afterwards adopted by the Admiralty. It was confirmed by the Select Committee of 1896 and it provides for wages "current in the district for competent workmen." We are dealing with the old Clause. I made a close personal investigation into this case, and I can assure my hon. Friend that so far as Admiralty work was concerned the firm undoubtedly was and is satisfying the terms of the old Fair-Wages Resolution, namely, that they pay the rate of wages current in the district for competent workmen.
§ Mr. BARNESUpon Admiralty work?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes, for Admiralty work. Two men engaged by this firm gave evidence that that was so. I spent a very great deal of time in going into these matters, and I found that they were paying the wages current in the district for competent workmen.
§ Mr. J. WARDDoes the hon. Gentleman know that every code of rules for workmen in London applies for twelve or twenty miles from Charing Cross?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am quite prepared to discuss that point with the hon. Member. The inquiry was confined to the wages current in the district, and in the case of this particular firm the rates appeared to be the same as those established by Messrs. Thornycroft when doing work at Chiswick. As far as I have been able to ascertain the rates which were established at that time in conjunction with those of Messrs. Thorny-croft appear to have been established and continued, or if they have changed at all they have changed in the direction of an increase. The only comparison we could make was with other similar firms in the district. We made that comparison, and let me say on behalf of this firm that they readily gave us every information. I may say that if they got a further contract from us my hon. Friends may take it from me that it will include the New Fair-Wages Clause, which will 1154 have to be strictly enforced. With regard to w hat the hon. Member for Stoke said about the Portsmouth case, that was again a criticism of the terms of the Resolution passed by this House, and we are not called upon to adjudicate upon that point. All we are called upon to do is to see whether these firms are paying the rate current in the district for competent workmen. What we did in Portsmouth some time ago was we took analogous work. We considered all the cases and ascertained as far as we could the rate of wages current in the district for competent workmen. My hon. Friend says we got something better, because we got 6d. per hour in certain cases.
§ Mr. J. WARDThat statement clearly shows that the permanent officials decided upon the lower rate, as they always do, and it was only the intervention of the hon. Member that enabled the workmen to get justice.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat is not so. On the contrary, I decided upon the original rate. I pointed out that some of these men on the heavy work might very well be paid 6d. an hour, and the contractor agreed to it. But I doubt whether I could have enforced that in a court of law under the terms of the Resolution. With regard to Rosyth, I have got here all the lists down to April, 1911. At Rosyth they pay general labourers and navvies from 5d. to 5½d. per hour. In the contract at Leith for the new graving dock general navvies and labourers are paid 5d. to 5½d.
§ Mr. J. WARDIs that the agreed rate?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat is what is paid. That is the rate paid for competent, workmen in the district.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. J. WARDIs not the agreed rate a minimum of 5½d. an hour? You are taking one of the lowest paying contractors in the locality.
§ Dr. MACNAMARASome of these contracts are not Government contracts at all. The new graving dock at Leith is not a, Government contract. I do not know what they undertake to pay, but they pay their general labourers and navvies 5d. and 5½d. My hon. Friend speaks as if Messrs. McAlpine's contract was with us. I am dealing with their contract for an extension of the harbour. I do not know what it is that they undertake to pay, or whether there is a Fair-Wage Clause or not; but I do know that they are paying 5d. and 5½d.
§ Mr J. WARDThey are advertising for men at 5½d.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAt Newport there is a contract by Messrs. Gibb, who pay 5d. and 5½., and at Dunfermline 5d. and 5½d. is also paid. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that all I desire to do, all the permanent officials desire to do, and all the members of the Board desire to do is to painstakingly and carefully administer the letter and spirit of the Resolution, and, if the hon. Member has any quarrel it is with the terms of the Resolution, and not with our administration, which is fair and judicial on the materials placed in our hands. With regard to giving a day, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and not for me. If it is suggested I desire to hide or to obscure the administration of the Board in ascertaining what rate of wages will carry out the terms of this Clause, I may say that I have no desire of the kind, nor do I wish to evade any discussion. I am convinced the more fully the House goes into our detailed administration of this Resolution, the more it will see I am entitled to claim we do judicially and fairly take the contractual obligations, and see they are carried out.