CLAUSE 3.—(Differences to which Part I. Applies.) (Hansard, 1 July 1915)

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, after the word "differences" ["the differences to which this Part of this Act applies"], to insert the words "whether existing or apprehended."
I think, in view of the drafting of Clause 1, we ought to have these words here.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The wording in Clause I governs the rest of the Bill; therefore these words are assumed in Clause 2, and the Amendment is unnecessary.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, after the word "repair" ["the manufacture or repair of arms"], to insert the words "or transport."
I think this is a more important Amendment than the last. It certainly makes the meaning clearer.

§ Mr. WARDLE
I hope the Minister of Munitions will not accept these words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

§ Mr. KING
It is very strange the way in which one trade or another wants everybody else to have this Bill. Let us not discuss this matter in any sectarian spirit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think the words which come in the latter part of the Clause will cover transport in so far as it affects the production of munitions of war. The London tramway strike very seriously affected munitions at Woolwich. We have taken power in the latter part of the Clause in a case of this kind, where transport affects munitions, to deal with the matter.

§ Mr. THOMAS
I do hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. There are many objections to it. Take, for instance, the railwaymen, who would be covered. They already have machinery which provides for an independent chairman, and if any dispute arises the 1980 machinery is already in operation. There are many other trades in the same position. It would be a mistake to introduce these words and bring in other trades, and so create difficulties instead of removing them.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to withdraw my Amendment, though I am sure I am right.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, after the word "vehicles" ["ammunition, ships, vehicles, or any"], to insert the word "aircraft." I understand that this Amendment is going to be accepted.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move to leave out the word "or" ["or any other articles"]. This is purely a drafting Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am told that somehow or other this Amendment is mixed up with the next, and that to accept this Amendment means the practical acceptance of the next Amendment, which raises a very important question. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

§ Mr. KING
I will not move it.

§ Mr. S. WALSH
had an Amendment on the Paper—after the word "articles" ["any other articles required"], to insert the words "other than coal or cotton."

§ Mr. G. TERRELL
Would it not be more convenient, Mr. Whitley, if the next Amendment were taken before that of the hon. Member for Ince? If it is accepted, then I think it covers the first.

§ Mr. WATT
On a point of Order. Would it not be better to take the Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Islington?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid it is rather difficult for me to solve a point of that kind. I think the best way would be to take the Amendments as they stand on the Paper, and it may be that one discussion will clear up the whole matter.

§ Mr. S. WALSH
I understand that the Government themselves propose to bring forward an Amendment at a later stage which, I believe, will more effectively meet the object I desire by the words that I am submitting. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Before the Amendment is withdrawn—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has not moved it, and there is therefore no Question before the Committee.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I beg to move it.

§ Mr. WALSH
I do not move it.

§ Mr. G. TERRELL
I beg to move, after the word "articles" ["any other articles required for use in War"], to insert the words "of a similar character." The Amendment which I have on the Paper is put forward simply for the purpose of making the Bill clear. In the Bill this is the definition Clause:— Manufacture or repair of arms, ammunition ships, vehicles, or any other articles required for use in war, or of the machines, or tools, required for that manufacture or repair. This is referred to as munition work. The other day when we passed the Ministry of Munitions Bill we had a definition, which said that munitions of war meant anything required to be provided for war purposes. The terms were, "Munitions, warlike stores, or material, and everything required for the equipment, transport purposes, or in connection with the production of munitions."
I do not want to limit the scope of this Act, but it is clear there is a very great difference, indeed, between these two definitions. I do not know where the line is to be drawn, but I think when the matter is under consideration this point should be made perfectly clear and definite; that we should know exactly what it is the Government wish to include. I am quite willing to support anything, only it should be stated clearly what is intended.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I hope the hon. Member will be prepared after the explanation I offer to withdraw his proposal. The intention is this, that we should include, in addition to arms and ammunition, ships, and vehicles, any other article which you can say is manufactured or repaired. It does not include raw material, but it does include anything that is manufactured or repaired, and, of course, that is required for use in the War. I do hope we shall not put in these limiting words, because I am assured on competent authority that there is no kind of controversy more appreciated by lawyers and more disliked by other members of society than a controversy over words, either 1982 "like," or "of a similar character." Lawyers have a name for it which I will not attempt to repeat.

§ Mr. G. TERRELL
Are we to understand that the widest interpretation is to be put on the Clause, or that this is probably not as wide an interpretation as is in the Ministry of Munitions Act, which I have just read. The interpretation there was very much wider than the interpreta-of this Clause.

§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. Member sees the limit here is that the article shall be an article which is manufactured or repaired, whereas, of course, the wider definition would not be so limited. So long as the article is an article needed for the use in the War, and so long as it is an article manufactured or repaired, we want to include it.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I beg to move, after the word "the" ["or of the machine"], to insert the word "metals."

§ Mr. HOGGE
I should like an explanation why this is included, and for this reason: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is one industry in the country which depends upon the use of burnished copper in making photographs for illustrations. That copper can be sold after it has been used. It cannot be burnished in this country. The right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind, in any use he makes of any metal, that he can always have the old copper so long as the trade can have the burnished copper.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is one, reason why I want these words inserted, especially in the case of copper. In the case of the copper or spelter industries a strike would be more fatal than perhaps in any other to the production of munitions.

§ Mr. LOUGH
I beg to move to leave out the words "and also any difference as to rate of wages, hours of work, or otherwise as to terms or conditions of, or affecting employment or any other work of any description if this part of this Act is applied to such a difference by His Majesty by Proclamation on the ground that in the opinion of His Majesty it is expedient in the national interest that this part of the Act should apply thereto."
1983 The object I and my hon. Friends had in putting this Amendment down has been met, and I am satisfied with the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has made to meet us. He has put down on the Paper an Amendment of his own, and, so far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied to withdraw my Amendment and accept the words the right hon. Gentleman has put down lower on the Paper. I think it meets the whole case, and I hope my hon. Friends will take the same view.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
As the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly stated, after consultation with himself and with hon. Members behind me, the Government agree to confine the operation of this Proclamation to strikes that affect, either directly or indirectly, the output of munitions of war.

§ Sir RYLAND ADKINS
I also put down this Amendment. I am not going to put the House to the trouble of discussion, but this is the only opportunity that arises in Committee for emphasising the very great dislike and great objection there is, on constitutional grounds, to give power of this kind to be exercised by Proclamation. This House has never shown itself unwilling to give exceptional powers asked for by the Executive in a crisis like the present. It is a much further step to go and take definite powers to be exercised by Proclamation. Therefore I am very glad, indeed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions has put down a later Amendment, to which reference has been made, in which the Government, of course, will take very wide powers, directly or indirectly, and which will cover most things in this world of ours. At the same time it is desirable to recognise the exceptional and dangerous character of action by Proclamation. Under the circumstances I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite, and will not take up the time of the House further.

§ Mr. WATT
I also put down this Amendment. The point I objected to has been stated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, namely, the power to be exercised by the Minister by Proclamation. If there is an Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman to overcome that evil, possibly my hon. Friends will take the view that we do?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
As to the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I 1984 quite agree with it. I do not like legislation by Proclamation. I am glad there is a change in the hon. Member opposite. I have always thought that he was in favour of this sort of thing.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
That is one of the few cases in which the hon. Baronet is always in error.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the Amendment to be moved by the Minister of Munitions will cover the one put down by the hon. Member for Blackburn.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I beg to move to leave out the words "it is expedient in the national interest that this part of the Act should apply thereto," and insert instead thereof the words, "the existence or continuance of the difference is directly or indirectly prejudicial to the manufacture, transport, or supply of munitions of war."

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Does not my Amendment, Mr. Chairman, cover this? Mine is weightier, and says in seven words what the Minister of Munitions takes twenty to say. But if the right hon. Gentleman can really assure me that there is no legal difference, then I am prepared to accept his Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I can assure my hon. Friend we wish to avoid litigation, and that is one reason why we have to explain, perhaps, at greater length in an Act of Parliament than we do in the short speeches we deliver in this House. For that reason I am advised—and here I really must take advice—that it is necessary to have seventeen words in place of the hon. Member's seven.

§ Mr. R. MACDONALD
I beg to move, to leave out the words "by His Majesty by Proclamation on the ground that in the opinion of His Majesty it is expedient in the national interest that this Part of this Act should apply thereto. This Part of this Act may be so applied to such a difference at any time, whether a lock-out or strike is in existence in connection with the difference to which it is applied or not," and to insert instead thereof the words, "by Resolution of the House of Commons."
I move this Amendment because I have a very rooted objection to acting in this way by Proclamation. If the Amendment 1985 which is going to be moved by the Minister of Munitions is carried, that gives him enormously wide powers. It is not that I do not want him to have power to prevent strikes that would limit the supply of munitions, but I think he ought to exercise that power with the full knowledge and assent of this House. We give him certain powers now under clearly defined and specified limitations, and he proposes at the end of the Clause to widen those powers in such a way that they really become indefinite. I am not moving this Amendment because I wish to hamper him, but because I think that constitutional methods ought not to be abandoned by this House. If he comes here and gives us reasons why he wants certain powers—why he wants to apply this Clause to certain conditions—the House will not only listen to him, but will give him his powers with alacrity. But I for one am not prepared to give him powers to extend Clause 3 by Proclamation under conditions which he himself might, of his own free will and on his own initiative, exercise.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to injure or embarrass me in the slightest degree in the production of munitions. However much he and I might disagree about the War and its object, he is just as anxious as I am in wishing to bring it to a speedy conclusion, and he must know perfectly well that one way to bring that about is to accelerate the output of munitions in this country and among the Allied Powers. But whatever his object may be—and I accept his statement upon that—this Amendment, if incorporated in the Bill, would seriously embarrass the Government in the production of munitions, and I think when I point this out to him he will withdraw the Amendment without further argument. What does this Amendment mean? It is really a limitation of the powers of the Minister of Munitions and not an enlargement. My hon. Friend says, "I should be in favour of much wider powers if inserted in this Bill." I thought he said he would extend it to other trades.

§ Mr. MACDONALD
I said I would rather give those powers if you asked for them specifically.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
There are certain trades with which the Government do not wish to have powers of dealing under this Clause. We only want powers where strife in that particular trade would 1986 interfere with munitions. I have given one or two cases. I have given the case of tramways. I only want such powers where a strike or lock-out would interfere with the output of munitions. Supposing Parliament is not sitting—for, after all, Parliament must have a certain amount of recess—supposing we have six weeks' recess, and suddenly there is a great dispute on the tramways or with regard to a particular railway or some particular works on a railway, and supposing I have to wait until Parliament is summoned together in order to have a Resolution submitted to the House of Commons. It is of the greatest importance that I should be immediately in a position to proclaim that particular strike and deal with it there and then. As a matter of fact, this is a limitation. There is only one alternative, and that is to take complete powers with regard to all the trades in the Kingdom. This is a method of avoiding that, and limiting the power I should otherwise possess under this Bill.

§ Mr. HODGE
I think that I would agree with the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. So far as my trade is concerned, I do not think there is the slightest chance of a strike, because we have the machinery necessary to prevent strikes; but we are included in the Bill, and will make no grumble about it. I think, however, trades in the Bill have a right to grumble about others being excluded. I think for the purposes of the War all trades ought to be included. Take the tram strike in London. It was a disgrace to the tramway men that, in this great crisis in their country's history, they should have made it impossible for workmen to get to Woolwich for the purpose of making shells and other munitions of war necessary to save the lives of our troops at the front. However, the Government have decided that certain trades are to be excluded. But I do not see that we should be the least bit squeamish, when we are applying it to a large number of trades, if those not coming directly under it come under a system of Proclamation, if they do anything injurious; because, when all is said and done, the steel made by the steelworkers cannot be taken away if the railwaymen go on strike. In the same way we cannot make steel if there is no coal to make it. They are just as essential to the production of munitions of war as the steelworker, the engineer, the brass-founder, the ironfounder, and anybody 1987 else. One of the things that has amazed rne—and I am speaking for myself, and not endeavouring to speak for anybody else at the moment—is that the Government do not cover all under the provisions of the Bill.

§ Mr. THOMAS
I think if ever there was a time when it was necessary for us to realise the difference between speaking in the House of Commons and being quite certain that we could carry those speeches into operation, it is now. It is useless for one to proclaim his patriotism or his anxiety as to the War merely in this House. The time to do that, the place to do it, is when you are faced with the difficulty outside. It would be no measure of my support to give lip service in the House if, when I was faced with a hostile crowd outside, I did not adopt the same policy. Therefore, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have said long before this Bill was heard of or talked of, just what I say now, that in my opinion there ought to be no dispute to-day that is not capable of adjustment without resorting to a strike. That is the view I have not only expressed but to which I have tried to give effect, and have succeeded. That is an entirely different matter, however, from giving my support to anything when I know I cannot carry the men with me. What I do beg the House to remember is, that anyone who gives his support, and is not satisfied in his own mind that he can carry his men with him, is not rendering a service but is rendering a disservice. Therefore we are faced with this position: The Minister of Munitions, as we understand, decided to exempt certain trades. The first effect of that is to allow other trades to ask, "How is it we are not exempt?" That is inevitable, and we have got to face it. That renders the position of those of us who are included ten times more difficult.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think the observations which my hon. Friend is making now would come better on the next Amendment which I propose. I think he will find, if he waits until I move it, that it will meet the point he is making.

§ Mr. THOMAS
I am satisfied, but I do want the House to appreciate what I am saying in regard to any hon. Member getting up here and saying, "I am in favour of this or that." You may applaud it, but it is valueless unless we carry the men with us. What I am anxious for is to see 1988 that in this Bill all the powers we can give are given. I want to see the position of the country such that, from now until the end of the War, we shall never hear of a strike. That will not be accomplished, I repeat, by mere clap-trap from this floor. We should strive to mould this Bill in such a way that we shall be sure afterwards of carrying our men with us, and that certainly is the way I am going to approach this question.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think you had better dispose of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester. It does not deal with such a wide point as this. Does the hon. Member press it?

§ Mr. MACDONALD
I do not wish to press it. I understood an Amendment was going to be put down by the Government to meet this point.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend. I cannot say it meets this point, but it meets the point raised by my hon. Friend in his speech.

§ Mr. MACDONALD
I understood that an Amendment was going to be put down which would meet the point I had in mind when I put down this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a strong objection to my Amendment, that difficulties might arise when the House of Commons is not sitting. At the same time, my mind is not the least changed with regard to the method of applying a Proclamation, and I think the House in some way or other should insist on having an opportunity of considering the scope of those Proclamations.
There is just one thing the House must remember. If it is possible for a Minister to apply powers given to him to a specific trouble in the railway industry, then the trade is not excluded, but he cannot juggle with this matter in that way. If the right hon. Gentleman had made this Bill more comprehensive, and faced the consequences, good and well, but he has not done so. Consequently, having laid down as a general principle that certain trades are not going to be included, it is not good enough to ask us to give him powers to apply to specific troubles in those trades the very powers he is applying to the general trades under the general operation of the Clause. That is inconsistent, and it is really for the purpose of making the Bill run more smoothly that I suggest some other method of 1989 widening its scope other than by a Royal Proclamation. Under the circumstances I do not press my Amendment, and, having made my point, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words, Provided that if in the case of any industry the Minister of Munitions is satisfied that effective means exist to secure the settlement without stoppage of any difference arising on work other than Munitions work, no Proclamation shall be made under this Section with respect to any such difference. We have heard a good deal about trades that object to coming under this Bill. I do not think they object so much to provision being made to prevent disputes and differences ripening into strikes and lock-outs. I have not met a single trade which objects to machinery for that purpose. I know they object to some of the machinery in this Bill on the ground that they have machinery in existence at the present moment, or are prepared to set up machinery, which they think would be better suited to the conditions of their particular trades, and which experience has taught them would be better suited than the machinery of this Bill. The first great trade that I had the privilege of meeting which presented to me this view was the miners trade, and they were just as anxious to avoid disputes during time of war as any other trade, but they say experience has taught them that the method they suggest is one which commends itself to hundreds of thousands of people in the trade, and is most likely to work without any friction. As far as the Government is concerned, it does not matter to us what the machinery is so long as it will guarantee us against strikes and lock-outs. We are not wedded to the machinery we suggest ourselves, and if the miners can produce some kind of mechanism which is more likely to stop disputes than that which we suggest we shall be happy to 1990 adopt it. Consequently they pass this resolution after two or three conferences: That in order to prevent a miners strike during the War, we are prepared to enter into an agreement with the colliery owners of every district by which all disputes can be settled by representatives of the owners and the workmen; and in case of the two sides failing to settle any dispute an independent chairman to be called in with full powers to settle. That is practically the machinery set up by the Act of Parliament about three years ago. I think it is desirable where machinery is set up in a particular trade to which the men are accustomed for settling a dispute, that machinery should be adopted. I am told that there is machinery of that kind, in fact, I know there is. Of course, we cannot possibly assent to a proposition excluding miners or railwaymen or anybody else from the general provision that no strike or lockout should be permitted to interfere with the providing of munitions of war. A proposal of that kind we could not possibly accept, for it would be a national disaster, and if such power were not incorporated in this Bill, and a big dispute took place, Parliament would be bound to take immediate steps to prevent it. It is much too serious a matter, because the whole machinery on our side would be paralysed by differences which ought to be settled. What we propose, and I am glad to say that it has the acceptance of the Labour leaders, is the Amendment I am moving. This Amendment means that if there are effective means of settling a stoppage other than that provided by the Bill no Proclamation should be issued, and that machinery should be allowed to operate. On the other hand, if the existing machinery is not effective the Government will be in a position to issue a Proclamation under the provisions of this Bill.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I think there ought to be no hesitation whatever that miners should come under the full operation of this Bill. The industry with which I am associated makes no privileged claim that miners should be placed outside the scope of this Bill. I am not a lawyer, and therefore I am not able to quite understand the meaning of the words which have been suggested, and they seem to me very ambiguous. I understand if this Amendment is passed that in any coal mine supplying coal to the Government or to the railway companies if a dispute arise in any of those particular collieries, and the trade union is unable to arrive at a satisfactory settlement with the owners, the Government would then have the 1991 power to come in and settle the dispute. Is that so? What constitutes "work other than munitions work"?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The words in the Bill are "manufacture or repair," and we must have a provision of this kind to cover that case. In the case the hon. Baronet refers to of supplying coal to the Admiralty, that is not a manufacture. Whatever machinery the Government regard as effective for the settlement of the dispute, that machinery would be put into operation, but we must be satisfied that it is effective.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
My right hon. Friend is of course aware that in many cases the men absolutely refuse to take any notice of their leaders, and I could give him a case of a colliery in South Wales with which I am connected where during the past three months this has occurred time after time. In a case of that kind how are you going to proceed? In that particular colliery where they have repudiated the officials of the organisation, would that colliery be proclaimed although not supplying coal to the Admiralty but to the railways? Will my right hon. Friend answer that point? Assume that a colliery in the North or South of England is supplying coal for the purposes of a railway which is necessary to enable munitions work to be moved. If the railway companies are unable to move the raw material naturally a difficulty at once arises. If a dispute takes place at a colliery supplying coal to the railway companies, and the union officials are unable to agree with the owners, would that come within the provisions of the Act? I take it that it would, but not being a lawyer I cannot quite follow the exact meaning of those words. Unions like the Society of Engineers and other great unions are coming under this Act, and I do not think that the miners representing some 230,000 men have ever been consulted. There are no more loyal, brave and patriotic men ready to do their duty than the miners, and I do not think, if they had been consulted, that they would have asked for the special provision which the right hon. Gentleman has given them.

§ Mr. S. WALSH
I rise for the purpose of supporting the Minister responsible to the House and to the nation in the attitude which he has taken on this matter. There was one point on which I specially agreed with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). Mere professions of loyalty 1992 are nothing at all, and theoretical vapourings about "we all ought to be in, or none," are equals valueless. We have got to face the facts of the case to-day, if we have never done so before. The great desire of the nation and the great desire of the Minister is that all industries necessary to the nation's life shall be kept effectively at work. The point, then, becomes one of procedure. Can you do it best by availing yourself of the existing machinery which over a long course of years has proved immensely effective, or can you do it best by erecting a constitution on paper which will almost certainly collide with the existing machinery and introduce chaos where you desire organisation? It is because we feel and know in the mining industry that the existing machinery, handled by people conversant with it for a quarter of a century and more, has produced great good in the past and is just the kind of machinery to be useful in the present that we have met the Minister.
First of all, the Minister received from us that which he had a right to demand, that the organisation as a whole should assure him that no stoppages of work should take place during the continuance of the War because of the application of this existing machinery. We gave him that assurance by resolution, and every member of the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain has taken upon himself the responsibility of entering into an honourable and open covenant with the Minister and with the nation that no danger need be feared so far as the Mining Federation is concerned. We have the machinery. Is it necessary to go into the whole question what that machinery consists of? It is not necessary at all. We have given the solemn promise, and we know better than any other Member that promise will be redeemed.
I would like to say, just by way of addition, that for nearly six months I have been sitting with several other Members on a Committee which had for its special object the better organisation of the mining industry, so as to keep the output as high as possible and to prevent it from receding, although, as the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) has said, nearly 250,000 men have joined the Colours. Three employers on the one side and three workmen on the other side, under the presidency of Sir Richard Redmayne, of the 1993 Home Office, have been sitting all these months. What have they agreed upon? They have agreed that in the best interests of the nation as a whole it is desirable that voluntary arrangements be entered into between employers and workmen on the basis of mutual good will. We are calling every lodge in the whole of Great Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales to send delegates to a mass meeting to be held in a few days. We are asking responsible Ministers, probably the chief Minister himself, to attend and lay before the whole of this vast audience the immense responsibility which rests upon them, and we feel sure that by such methods the highest national interests will be secured. If you go athwart the ordinary well understood lines upon which the miners' organisation has acted in the past you are sure to produce discord—and, indeed, it is almost certain that you will produce disaster. It is because the coalmining industry is so vastly different from anything above ground that the many difficulties which arise, and which are best handled by the existing organisation, constantly on the spot, would prevent any successful application of a Clause such as this, without the Amendment suggested by the responsible Minister.
There is not an industry in the country the members of which are more loyal There is not an industry in the country the members of which, when properly appealed to, would be more willing to give their best efforts than the miners. There is not a position that has ever come before this House—I think I have on many occasions given proof of my devotion and loyalty to this nation—upon which I have ever been so absolutely convinced that the Minister and the miners are in the right, as in the matter of this Amendment. I do most earnestly hope that the House will accept it, will fortify the Minister in the Amendment which he has submitted, and will secure that position so far as the mining industry is concerned which the safety of the nation requires.

§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Amendment was the result of an arrangement between the miners' leaders and himself. He is aware that there is another great trade in the country, namely, the cotton operatives, opposed to coming within the compulsory arbitration Clause of this Bill. I should like to ask whether the Amendment has been submitted to them, and 1994 whether it has their approval, as I understand that it has the approval of the miners' federation.

§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh), particularly with reference to what he said as to the patriotism of those connected with the mining industry. I am sure that the Committee has listened with great satisfaction to the assurance which he has given on behalf of the men themselves that there is no intention on their part to create any difficulty during the War. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated upon the solution of the difficulty at which he has arrived. The only point we are concerned about is really the most effective method of preventing disputes. That can be dealt with, either by existing machinery, which the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied is efficient, or as provided by the Bill. I understand he has reserved power in the Bill to make the Proclamation only in cases where no efficient machinery is in existence. There has been for some considerable time past, and there exists to-day in the mining industry, very efficient and very well-tried machinery to deal with such disputes, and I feel quite sure that in the temper with which both the mine-owners and the miners themselves approach this question there will be no danger in accepting this particular Amendment. After all, the question turns far more upon the temper and upon the intentions of the parties themselves than upon any written enactment, and it is only by cultivating good relations between the employers and the employed, both in the mining industry and in other industries, that we shall secure avoidance of any disputes during the period of the War.

§ Sir R. COOPER
Most of us will feel that we have got to be guided in this matter by the Minister of Munitions, but there are two points which I should like to raise. First of all, I cannot follow the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh). Only this week the ordinary machinery so completely broke down in South Wales that it took three Cabinet Ministers to go down to settle the dispute. Secondly, I cannot understand the desire of hon. Members below the Gangway to exclude coal owners from having to give up a share of their profits as other munition manufacturers are going to do. Why should they be excluded? Why should not they be included? If this Amendment 1995 is passed, then, as I understand Clause 4, you will not bring the coal owners of this country under the Clause, and their profits will not be touched by this Bill.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think I had better answer the questions which have been raised. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) supposes a case of a dispute in a colliery supplying a railway company with coal, and he wants to know whether in that particular colliery this Proclamation could be applied. That depends entirely upon whether it is directly or indirectly connected with the output of munitions. If the running of the railway were essential for the purpose for the transport of munitions, then certainly in that case the machinery would have to be effective, and, if it were not effective, we should have to take other steps.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
If they settle the dispute, would it then apply?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No, we do not propose to proclaim cases where disputes are settled. The second question put to me by my hon. Friend was a very important one. He said, "Suppose the men repudiate the action of their leaders and refuse to accept the decision?" Then certainly a Proclamation would apply, because those are not effective means, and Proclamation comes in where, in the opinion of the Ministry of Munitions, the means are not effective. If these are effective means, then we need not have a Proclamation. If they repudiate the action of their responsible leaders, then we shall certainly have to take other means by way of a Proclamation. That is the answer to the two points. I think the hon. Member will find that it is pretty watertight. We have considered this very carefully. He wants to see that, at any rate, there is a guarantee that there is no stoppage. That is the point that was put to the miners' representatives. I said, "Nothing short of something which is an effective guarantee." Personally, I should be prepared, and so would the House of Commons, to take their word, but there is always the possibility of the men perhaps repudiating the action of the miners' leaders. Therefore, they cannot always give a guarantee.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Or the masters.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes, there is the possibility of the masters repudiating 1996 the action of their committee. It has happened. The masters have refused to follow their leaders. Therefore, it is not enough that we should merely have machiney which appears to be all right on paper. We must have a guarantee that the machinery is effective, and, if it broke down as machinery, then we should have to substitute other means to suit the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) put to me the question whether I had consulted the cotton operatives. I saw the miners' leaders because they sought an interview with me, and if the cotton leaders had asked me of course I should have seen them. I have had a resolution from them. I am sorry that I cannot lay my hands upon it at the moment. It is substantially the resolution passed by the miners' leaders, which is a guarantee that there shall be no stoppage or strike during the War, and to the extent that it is effective we give exactly the same terms to the cotton operatives. This does not mean the exclusion of any particular trade. It is the adoption of machinery which is ever so much better, but if there is effective machinery in the cotton trade for making impossible, during the War, stoppages or strikes we shall certainly avail ourselves of that machinery. There is no difference here between our action with regard to the cotton trade and the action we propose to take with reference to the mining industry. The Amendment which I have moved is applicable to every trade alike, and for that reason I hope my hon. Friends will now see their way to accept it.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Does the moving of this Amendment prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking a percentage above the profits which otherwise he would get?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
This has nothing to do with profits. It is purely a question of stopping strikes and lock-outs.

§ Mr. HODGE
I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, When this part of this Act is applied to any difficulty concerning work other than munitions work, the conditions of labour and the remuneration thereof prevailing before the difficulty arose shall 1997 be continued until such difficulty is settled in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 of this Act. I apologise to the Committee because this Amendment has not been placed upon the Paper. It is not my fault. We took advantage of the offer of the Minister of Munitions to meet him and, if possible, come to an agreement on certain points. I understood that the suggestion I am making had been accepted, and that the right hon. Gentleman intended to give effect to it by putting the Amendment down, but he has not done so, and, of course, I have not had an opportunity of doing it myself. The point is that, so far as munitions of war are concerned, the various trade unions have agreed that laws, written or unwritten, shall be put aside; semi-skilled labour will take the place of skilled labour, and women will take the place of men, if they can do the work. That was agreed to, as far as the production of munitions was concerned, without trouble, doubt, or hesitation. But the workshop may be a controlled one in which civil or commercial work is being carried on at the same time, and the employer may say to his workmen who are doing this civil or commercial work, "I want the same relaxation of rule on our commercial work as you have granted so far as munitions are concerned." We say that the employer has no right to ask such a thing, and, if he does try to get such a concession, he ought first to consult our views, and come to an agreement with the workmen before any such relaxation of rules is put into force. We want to be protected in that way in controlled establishments. Agreement must be come to before any alteration of conditions is effected.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The one thing I am a little afraid of is that the wording of this Amendment will interfere with the retrospective action of awards. I am not sure whether that is safeguarded, say, for instance, in cases where, as a result of the award wages are put up. I do not know whether it would render it impossible to have an increase of wages operating as from the date of the award.

§ Mr. WARDLE
This question was put before the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and the particular wording was given to him. This Amendment applies not so much to the question of wages as to the question of innovations or changes in rules which may be adopted in workshops other 1998 than those working on munitions of war. We wish to safeguard the position so as to ensure there shall be no innovations or changes of that kind except by agreement. The real object of the Amendment is to prevent these changes coming into operation, whether from one side or the other, until they have been settled by agreement.

§ Mr. DUKE
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot meet the difficulty by introducing into the hon. Member's Amendment words which would maintain existing conditions provisionally until the award has finally disposed of matters? That might be done by the insertion of half a dozen words.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am rather sorry I did not see the actual words before. What I am afraid is that the Amendment as framed might defeat the object which my hon. Friends have in view.

§ Mr. HODGE
We are not bound up in any form of words. If the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with us, as I think he must be, he will perhaps undertake, on the Report stage, to put in words which will cover the point we desire. I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Perhaps the better plan would be to insert the words here, and, on Report, if necessary, we can alter them. I will undertake the responsibility of doing that.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I wish to say a few words in explanation of a statement which I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I said that I should have been very delighted to meet the cotton operatives had they expressed a wish to meet me. I now understand that they saw the President of the Board of Trade upon this question. They did really communicate with the Government, and I want to make that plain.

§ Mr. CLYNES
On the Motion that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the argument that he adduced against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for 1999 Leicester, he can give an assurance that at least during the time the House may be in Session he will not exercise the personal power conferred on him by this Clause without some consultation with the House or some reference to the subject. If he agrees to do that I think the moral ground of objection disappeared. While Parliament is in Session the House should have an opportunity of considering these questions before the issue of the Proclamation. We are not accustomed in this country to be governed by Proclamation, and I believe there is a general feeling in all parts of the Committee against this instrument being applied without some opportunity being afforded to Members of the House to consider the situation. I believe, too, the moral effect of that consideration would go a long way in settling any serious dispute that might be pending in the country. Therefore I hope we shall have some such assurance as I have suggested.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) has been a little severe on a few sections of workmen who have exercised the right to strike in certain of the lower-paid trades. Happily for the mass of the men whom he so ably represents, they are highly paid and powerfully organised. They enjoyed high wages before the War began, and in many instances they have received considerable advances during the last half-year. But that position is quite unlike the position occupied by millions of other workmen and workwomen in this country. I say millions deliberately, because, as a matter of fact, the majority of the wage earners in this country have not yet received any advance whatever during the period of this War. Some industries powerfully organised have been able to look after themselves, but still a powerful organisation like that of the cotton operatives has not been able to get any advance of wages, and not five persons in a hundred in the cotton trade, in which so many thousands are employed, have received any advance. Consequently the pressure of the burden of high prices in regard to coal and other commodities which are necessaries of life is felt very severely indeed. While we are considering these matters we ought to bear in mind that these people are not in receipt of high wages and have had no advance during the period of the War.
I wish also to put a question in relation to the words "as affecting the employment 2000 on the manufacture." I have my own view of what they mean, but I understood the Minister of Munitions to state, for instance, that coal was a commodity of which it could not be said it was directly affected by this work. Take the case of quarry workers and chemical workers. The product their labour produces is eventually used in connection with the manufacture of munitions of war, and into the smelting of steel and into various branches of the iron and machine trades these products eventually find their way. I desire to ask whether chemical workers and limestone producers would be considered as being outside the first portion of Clause 3? I ask these questions because I am intimately acquainted with such sections, and naturally such points will arise.

§ Sir J. SIMON
As my hon. Friend has raised two points, perhaps I may be allowed to deal with them now, because I am sure that the Committee as a whole will desire that we should not have a very long discussion on this Clause in view of the very important matters which remain to be raised. I should like, in the first place, to deal with the first point put by my right hon. Friend. He urged that, at any rate if the House of Commons were sitting, it might be possible and desirable that the Minister of Munitions should intimate to the House and announce plainly to the House how far he was finding it necessary to exercise, from time to time, the power to secure the extension of this Clause by Proclamation. I have the authority of my right hon. Friend for saying that he thoroughly sympathises with that suggestion. The difficulty which we felt, and still feel, in regard to the proposal that we should get a Resolution from the House of Commons remains, but it is certainly an advantage that an intimation and plain announcemet should be made to the House as promptly as possible—that is to say, immediately—if any occasion is found to arise when this Power of Proclamation must be exercised. [An HON. MEMBER: "After or before?"] It would be much better that it should be done openly and publicly. I am convinced it will only be done in cases where public necessity requires, and, if public necessity requires it, I am convinced that the whole House of Commons will approve of it. My right hon. Friend is asked if he will invite the House of Commons to discuss the exercise of that power. When you are dealing with a matter which 2001 is so urgent, it requires to be dealt with immediately; but he says he will immediately announce the action he has taken and he will thereby expose himself to the criticism which the House, in case of need, will administer, and he will thereby promptly be able to ascertain whether his action is such as receives the support, as I trust it will, of the whole House of Commons. To that extent I am glad to be able satisfactorily to answer the question raised.
The other question raised by my hon. Friend was with regard to limestone workers and chemical workers. I doubt whether, at this moment, we can make a precise list of those who are and those who are not coming within the first part of this Clause. I am not so familiar with the trades as the hon. Member, who speaks with special authority, but I should think that chemical workers, supposing the chemical was required for use in war, might well come under the words dealing with those employed in the manufacture of articles required for use in war. I am not quite clear that limestone workers could be described as being engaged in a manufacture. I should have supposed not. At any rate, that is the dividing line. Anyone who is employed in the manufacture or repair of any article that is required for use in war comes within the first half of this Clause. Any extension is an extension limited to the necessities of the War and is secured, as the Committee knows, by Proclamation. I am very glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that, so far as opportunity offers, the Proclamation shall certainly be intimated to the House forthwith.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
This Clause is very important in view of the Amendment which has been carried and which was moved by the Minister of Munitions in regard to meeting the difficulties of the cotton trade and the coal trade. I should like to know now whether that Amendment will apply to the iron and steel trades. They are manufacturers of munitions. The iron and steel trades, to my knowledge, never do strike. There is a probability that they may come within the Bill. The iron and steel trades are in favour of conciliation and arbitration. Every dispute must go before a standing committee within seven days of its arising. They have a standing chairman. Since 1868 they have never had a strike—I am speaking of the north of England—except on one occasion, namely, in 1882. It is very hard, when these men 2002 continue in work regularly, without any strike and without any bother, having their process of settlement of disputes continuous as it is by this method—in which they are an example to all trades in the country—that there should be a probability of bringing them within a Bill like this, when trades that do strike, such as the cotton trade and the coal trade, are really to be exempted. I remember the Truck Act of 1896. When that measure was going through the House of Commons these trades came and obtained exemption, but they forced the Truck Act upon women's trades. That is what I complain of. To-day we have seen trades coming here and practically getting exemption. I want to know now from the Home Secretary whether trades that have their boards of conciliation and arbitration, if they elect to continue those Boards—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I must protest. The hon. Member ought to have listened to the Amendment which I read and the Committee accepted.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
I thought we were on the Question, that the Clause should stand part of the Bill?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, but the hon. Member only needed to have read the Amendment, or to have listened to it, to know what the Committee has done and to get an answer to his question. We cannot go into that question now.