§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Service of the Ordnance Factories."
§ Mr. BARNESI notice that there is a saving on this Vote, and I should like to have some explanation of the source of the saving, as I understand the workmen in the arsenal and the ordnance factories generally are not being paid as they ought to be paid. Their wages are not up to the ordinary standard paid by good employers. This saving may be the result of that, and I would like some explanation from the tight hon. Gentleman as to how it arises.
§ Mr. NEWMANI would join the hon. Member in asking for information as to the exact nature of this saving. No one will deny that while it has been a good year for trade, expenses of living have gone up and wages do not command the same buying power as they did several years ago. Therefore many of my Constituents are anxious to know what is the exact meaning of the saving in wages. Of course, it must mean a reduced staff. We have got a reduced staff, I believe, in the small arms factory, and consequently the wages are less than last year. I put it to the Secretary of State if it is a wise policy to reduce our staff just now? In the near future we are bound to have a lot of work in the ordnance and small arms factories at Enfield and elsewhere. We have got, for instance, a new rifle nearing completion, and there are other things we want. We want, I understand, a better and a stronger Maxim gun. The question of motor transport is—
§ The CHAIRMANThis is a matter for the main Vote and not for Supplementary Estimates.
§ Mr. NEWMANThen I confine myself to asking what about these wages? Has any representation been made during the last two years from those employed in ordnance factories, that the wages they get now are really not a fair wage owing to the increased cost of living?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter to be raised when we get to the Estimates for the year.
§ Mr. NEWMANI will make a third trial, and ask how has this estimated saving of £38,000 in wages and police come about? It must be in police. Is it that the men are so well behaved that fewer police are employed than before?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having made a saving on the Estimates. There is no reason to suppose that the result of that saving has been in any way detrimental to the public service. I am sorry that my hon. Friend behind should suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has done wrong merely because he has shown a small decrease in the amount of wages paid. I am not in favour of vote-catching of that description, and unless it can be shown, which no one has attempted to prove, that the right hon. Gentleman has reduced wages in an unfair degree, we should congratulate him on having had the courage and the sound common sense to conduct the affairs of the Ordnance Factories in a businesslike manner. I would like some slight explanation of the increase in material and stores and how the Appropriation-in-Aid for Vote 9 of the Navy has been so much larger than was originally supposed.
§ Mr. CROOKSI am exceedingly sorry that the hon. Baronet did not keep on a little longer. He congratulated the Secretary of State upon his courage in standing up against the demand for an increase of wages, and looked upon it, as a matter of fact, as common sense. That is the delightful kind of argument we are so used to in this House. On platforms a different kind of story is always told about the desirability of His Majesty's Government giving at least a living wage to every man who needs it Of course, you do not get the same kind of argument here. The Ordnance Vote, fortunately for the House and those of us who, for good or evil, represent Government constituencies, is always put down for the fag-end of the Session, and we get few opportunities throughout the year of raising the grievances that exist, because whenever we raise them on the Estimates we are told that they come up on the Ordnance Vote, which represents a vote of £100 in this case. Then we learn that there is a saving of £38,000 on last year's Estimate, which is a little bewildering to the ordinary mind. I want to put clearly that a request has been made that some of this money should be spent on wages. A very long letter has 559 just been sent from the War Office. It is always a long letter when they do not want to give anything. They use language like this which the workman does not understand, and they call attention to the fact that it is 66D, 1972. Whatever that has to do with the subject, nobody knows. It may be some kind of identification mark. The request has been made by a deputation asking the War Office seriously to consider paying the same rates of wages as other common-sense employers outside.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter which must be raised on the main question.
§ Mr. CROOKSI am after some of that £38,000, and I thought I was in order in showing how much better it could be spent than saved. An application has been made to the War Office that they should give an addition to the recognised rates of wages for engineers. This has been declined because somebody in the War Office says that the rates paid are the current rates.
§ The CHAIRMANThis really does not arise on the Supplementary Vote. You can ask the Minister how this saving of £38,000 has been made. There can be no indication of any change of policy in what the hon. Member asks. That must be on the Votes for the year.
§ Mr. CROOKSWe never get the Ordnance Vote in the ordinary way. This is the only opportunity which I have seen.
§ The CHAIRMANI am not sure, but I think Vote A might be used by the hon. Member to raise a question of the kind, in addition to the Ordnance Vote.
§ Mr. CROOKSShould I be in order in moving a reduction of £25?
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that would not make any difference to the subject.
§ Mr. CROOKSThe appeal has been made that no money should be spent and the answer is we cannot get any more money. We have pleaded in this House, and our plea has met with general approval, that the money paid to boys and workmen should be extended to widows of workmen if the men die unexpectedly before they are dismissed or the medical certificate was sent out saying that they were medically fit for discharge. It was said that the War Office had no money to do this sort of thing. Then they come 560 down calmly and say they have saved £38,000. There ought to be some explanation. In this Supplementary Estimate the right hon. Gentleman said, "How little I want compared with what I might have wanted." It does seem to be a favourable opportunity to do what has been asked. We are entitled to have some ray of hope held out for these widows.
I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £50.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI wish to ask a question or two about Item E. It has reference to "buildings and fixed machinery for other Departments." I do not know what that refers to, whether to some other Department than the Ordnance Department, and whether it means buildings generally.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman may ask the Government what the buildings are, but he cannot raise any general question about buildings.
§ Mr. J. WARDI had better proceed with buildings, then, until you, Sir, say that you do not think they are within the item, or until someone representing the War Office says he thinks they are. It is rather haphazard.
§ The CHAIRMANIt would be very much better for the Government to say what the buildings are.
Mr. BAKERI quite agree that it is convenient that I should make some explanation on the points which have been raised. Attention has been called to the saving of £38,000 in wages, and a suggestion has been made as to the motives underlying that saving. A few words of explanation will clear away some misconception. As yell, Sir, stated, no new policy underlies any of the details of this Estimate. We stand precisely where we did in regard to policy and to pledges given through the Secretary of State. With regard to this particular saving, it has arisen in this way: The Ordnance Factories Estimates were brought forward, and were—contrary to what was said by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway—discussed in the early part of last year. Provision was made for some margin in regard to the orders which it was thought would likely be required to be dealt with. That margin has not been found necessary. I need hardly say that it is quite impossible for the War Office or the authorities of the Ordnance Factories to foresee the 561 orders which may come in to them during the year from the Navy, from India, from the Dominions, and from other Departments. We provided rather in excess of the orders that came in, and the result is that, not having had the full amount of orders we expected, a smaller amount of labour, has been necessary and a smaller amount paid in wages A further point which makes the matter clearer, is that the work we have had to execute has been extremely expensive in the way of materials. It depends entirely upon the particular kind of work brought to us, and it has been expensive work that we have had to do. For example, there were large orders from the Admiralty for filling cartridges and shells with explosives, the materials of which are of the most expensive kind—cordite and things of that sort. The amount required for labour was not at all in proportion to the amount spent on materials.
§ Mr. CROOKSThe hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I point out that the words "Wages and Police" are on the Paper, and not the words "Materials."
Mr. BAKERI do not complain in the least of the hon. Member having raised this point, and I am only endeavouring to give an explanation of why there is an apparent reduction in wages. It is not a reduction of the rate of wages at all; it is simply a reduction of the original Estimate presented to this House, because it so happens that there was less work than we anticipated there would be. I assure the hon. Member that it is nothing more than that. The hon. Member for Stoke asked me a question with reference to Item E, referring to "buildings and fixed machinery for other departments." There are two items of £16,000, and one cancels the other. This £16,000 has been spent entirely in one particular direction. It has been devoted to improving the proof butts at Woolwich—a very difficult and a very necessary work to have done, because modern guns are growing heavier and heavier, and we have to alter the proof butts in order to keep pace with modern gunnery, and to bring them up to the modern fireproof test for the new and heavy guns manufactured at the Arsenal.
§ Mr. J. WARDNow I know what the buildings are, I wish to ask a question on the subject. I want to know whether the Department employed a contractor for the work on these butts and whether the contractor paid the wages recognised as fair for this class of work; or, if the 562 Department did it themselves, whether they paid wages considered as fair in London? I grant that the Department is not nearly as bad as the Admiralty, but at the same time it has once or twice tried to back up the Admiralty by making reductions in the wages of its own workmen for the purpose of supporting the other Department. I would like to know whether the work is done by contract, and, if so, whether fair wages were paid to the men?
§ Mr. NEWMANI understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the wages are not so great because less work than they expected came forward. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a big order came from Australia for 50,000 rifles, and that the small arms factory lost the order because they could not tender a low enough price, and, when the hon. Gentleman says less work came forward, was it that the small arms factory could not tender successfully owing to their high rate of charges?
§ Sir F. BANBURYAm I right in saying that there is an Amendment for the reduction of the Vote before the Committee? If that be so, there is really no danger to the Government, and it would be an excellent opportunity for the hon. Member who moved the reduction to take a Division.
§ Mr. CROOKSHow good of you!
Captain CRAIGIn view of the fact that the prices of materials have gone up, may I ask whether the bulk of the £142,000, arises from the price of materials? May I ask further whether a higher price is being paid for cordite very much better in quality than the cordite for the purposes of the ordnance factory was in past years? If the Department are paying more for material it is obvious there must have been some change made in the class of cordite, or is it of the same class as before? The present Lord Chancellor when he was Secretary for War made a most interesting speech one afternoon upon the subject, pointing out the difference between various classes of cordite, and explaining to the House that, in view of spontaneous combustion that took place in some of the stores, it was hoped by scientific research to be able to discover whether something could not be done to preserve the cordite and to secure for the ordnance factories a better quality of it than had been in use in the Army and Navy for blasting purposes and so on. I 563 ask therefore whether this item covers an improved class of cordite in the various services?
§ Mr. CHARLES DUNCANI take it this particular item covers the workmen employed at Woolwich Arsenal, and that therefore it covers the wages of the men employed there.
§ The CHAIRMANWe have been informed that there has been no change in the rate of wages or position at all. It is simply a difference in the amount of labour employed, and therefore any question dealing with the rate of wages or position is not in order.
§ Mr. C. DUNCANThat is exactly the point. We contend that there has been a change which was partially given to one section of the men, and not to another.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member means that sonic increase of wages was given to one set of men and not to another.
§ Mr. CROOKSA decrease of wages.
§ Mr. C. DUNCANAs I understand the position is that 2½ per cent. has been given to skilled workers at Woolwich Arsenal in lieu of advantages they had prior to the introduction of the Insurance Act. The 2½ per cent. was not given to unskilled workmen although they have equally with the skilled men lost privileges.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter of policy which should come up on the Vote for the year.
Mr. BAKERI was asked a question as to the rate of wages paid by contractors. There is no question of a contractor's rate of wages.
§ Mr. CROOKSMay I ask the representative of the War Office whether it is not the fact that those employed on turning shells are now paid a considerably less rate than was originally estimated for in the year's Estimate, and that there has been a serious reduction in the amount of money paid for shell turning compared with the earlier part of the year? May I ask whether boys have not been employed at lower rates, so reducing the charge throughout and making a considerable reduction in the amount of wages paid?
§ Question, "That a sum not exceeding £50 be granted for the said service," put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again put.
564Captain CRAIGWill the hon. Gentleman give some explanation with regard to the question I asked about cordite?
Mr. BAKERThere has been no change whatever in the cordite, which I only introduced by way of illustration. There has been no change of policy, and the question of cordite really does not arise at all.
Captain CRAIGI distinctly gathered from what the hon. Member said that the question of labour did not enter into this at all, and that it was really the cost of materials, such as cordite, that had risen in the market, and that a higher price had to be paid for explosives to fill the shells.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLI see an item of reduction on police. In that connection I desire to be assured that none of those police have been withdrawn from any of the magazines of the country, because it must be perfectly apparent the great importance of looking after the magazines.
Mr. BAKERNo change of that sort has occurred. With reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Down (Captain Craig), I did not say that the price of cordite had changed; but what I pointed out was that orders involving the use of cordite meant the employment of less labour in proportion.
Original Question put, and agreed to.