Commons Sitting of 4 January 1916

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on Thursday, 23rd December, 1915—met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
GERMAN SEA-BORNE COMMERCE (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 2, 1916).
Copy presented of Statement of the Measures adopted to intercept the Seaborne Commerce of Germany [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Five Orders in Council, dated 22nd December, 1915, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Supplement to the Forty-fourth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for 1914–15 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1914. Vo. LXLIX. Part IV. Imports and Exports of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order 9,647, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 31st March, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURTS (ENGLAND) FEES.
Copy presented of Treasury Order, dated 10th December, 1915, regulating Fees in County Courts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 23rd December, 1915, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transactions between Insurance Commissioners and Societies) Regulations, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 406.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 21st December, 1915, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Withdrawal of Approval) Amendment Regulations, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 407.]

FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1915.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 23rd December, 1915, made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Fifth Report of the Proceedings of the Development Commissioners, being for the year 1914–15 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 408.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the urban district of Tottenham, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

County borough of Brighton;

Urban district of Brierley Hill

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

HEALTH OF MUNITION WORKERS COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Report on Welfare Supervision of the Committee appointed by the Minister of Munitions with the concurrence of the Home Secretary [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RENTAL OF SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS IN SCOTLAND.
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the circumstances connected with the alleged recent increases in the rental of Small Dwelling-houses in Industrial Districts in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS)
The following Papers, presented by His Majesty's Command during the Christmas Adjournment, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95:—

1. Destruction of a German Submarine (Miscellaneous, No. 1, 1916;,—Copy of Memorandum of the German Government in regard to incidents alleged to have attended the destraction of a German Submarine and its Crew by His Majesty's Auxilary Cruiser "Baralong," on 19th August, 1915, and Reply of His Majesty's Government thereto;

2. Army,—Copy of Report on Recruiting by the Earl of Derby, K.G., Director-General of Recruiting.

3. Board of Education,—Copy of (i.) List of Certified Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children, on 31st July, 1915; (ii.) List of Schools and Classes for Blind, Deaf Defective, and Epileptic Students recognised under the Regulations for Technical Schools, etc., for the year ending 31st July, 1915;

4. Evictions (Ireland),—Copy of Return of Evictions in Ireland during the quarter ended 30th September, 1915;

5. War Loans and Small Investors,— Copy of Interim Report of the Committee on War Loans for the Small Investor and of the Treasury Minute thereon, dated 28th December, 1915;

6. Judicial Statistice (England and Wales),—Copy of Judicial Statistics, Part I., relating to Criminal Proceedings, Police, Coroners, Prisons, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and Criminal Lunatics for England and Wales for 1914;

7. Coal Mining Organisation Committee (Departmental Committee),—Copy of Second General Report of the Depart-
788
mental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the conditions prevailing in the Coal Mining Industry due to the War.

Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

NEW WRIT
For the Borough of Newington (West Division), in the room of Captain Cecil William Norton (Manor of Northstead).—
[Mr. Gulland.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    FOOD PRICES (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any communications from the public authorities to the effect that there is distress among old age pensioners caused by the increase in the price of food; and whether, in view of the fact that the Government Committee on Prevention and Relief of Distress will not allow any payment to be made out of the Prince of Wales' Fund unless there has been an actual diminution of income, he will consider the advisability of increasing the pensions of such old age pensioners as are recommended by the pension officers as being in special need of this additional assistance?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I fear I cannot adopt the suggestion contained in the second part of the question. As already stated in reply to a previous question by my hon. Friend, it is feared that if every case of hardship due to the special circumstances of the War is met by a grant from public funds, the heavy expenditure entailed by the War will strain the resources of the country almost to breaking point.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has my right hon. Friend or the Government considered at all the position of these old age pensioners who

    789
    are struggling along on 5s. a week, and paying 2s. for rent—has the Government given any consideration to their deplorable situation?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but the circumstances for the reasons I have given are not exceptional. There are a great many cases of extreme hardship consequent upon the rise in prices.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not have been better to give the 2s. 9d. given to the starred men who attested under the Derby scheme to these old age pensioners?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is a question for the War Office.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has the Government considered any other expedient beyond that of granting public money—have they made any suggestions whatever to the local authorities or to the Prince of Wales' Fund? Have they considered any expedient by which these old people could be helped and prevented from starving?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire what steps the Local Government Board can take.

    OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE FRONT.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, considering the decision to allow the official photographs from the front to be shown as' films in public places, he will consider the possibility of obtaining from the French Government leave to exhibit their films showing the work of their troops?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am not aware of any restriction upon the exhibition of French Government films.
    Sir C. HUNTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the French Government if he can have these films?
    Mr. TENNANT: The matter rests entirely as a commercial matter upon the laws of supply and demand. If there is a demand for them, undoubtedly they will be produced.
    Sir C. HUNTER: Would it not be much more educational to people here if they had films of the real fighting?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am all in favour of carrying out what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view. I am only uncertain as to the manner in which His Majesty's Government could act to that end.

  DEFENCE OF LONODN.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement about any recent developments or changes in the anti-aircraft de-fences of London?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not in the public interest that any such information should be given.
    Mr. KING: Can we know whether Sir Percy Scott is still in command of the guns?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, he is in command of them.

    TEMPORARILY UNFIT FOR ACTIVE SERVICE.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if. in view- of the shortage of labour, men returned from active service and temporarily unfit for further service are allowed to return to civil life?
    Mr. TENNANT: Men who are medically unfit for service abroad or at home, and who are not likely to become fit within six months, are discharged from the Service; but men who are temporarily unfit are not discharged. I recognise the necessity of returning to civil life men who are no longer fit for military service, but it is necessary that the permanent unfitness should be conclusively established.

    OFFICERS OVER FORTY-FIVE.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers over forty-five years of age who are found permanently unfit for general service by a medical board may be informed that they are allowed to return to civil life?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I fear such an intimation would not be in the interest of the Army nor of the State at large. A

    791
    very large number of officers who have been found permanently unfit for general service are of the greatest use for training purposes and their return to civil life would be a loss to the Army from every point of view.

  RECRUITING.

    LORD DERBY's SCHEME."
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the starred men who attested under Lord Derby's scheme each received 23. 9d.; and, if so, whether he will state the amount of money so expended.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Forster): Any man attested was entitled to 2s. 9d. for the day of attestation. I am unable to state how many starred men actually drew this money.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my hon. Friend not in possession of Lord Derby's figures on that point?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes. but although the men were entitled to the money some of them did not get it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How much has either been spent or is owing to the men?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the pledges given to individuals, classes, and trades under Lord Derby's scheme received the sanction of the Cabinet; and (2) whether he will issue as a Parliamentary Paper the pledges given to individuals, classes, and trades or professions in connection with Lord Derby's scheme?
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister if he will state how many recruits have been obtained by ordinary enlistment since the conclusion of the Derby campaign on 12th December?
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government can now announce what is the proportion of eligible unmarried men who came forward under Lord Derby's scheme; and what is the proportion which he considers sufficiently substantial to justify His Majesty's Government in holding the married men who enlisted to their pledge?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith):I will deal with these questions in my statement to-morrow.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the statement he is to make to-morrow, give complete returns from every Parliamentary Division in the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot give that undertaking.
    Mr. THORNE: Shall we get them at any time?

    MACHINE GUNS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether no report upon our lack of a sufficient number of machine guns, as compared with the German equipment in this behalf was received from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief or any of our generals on the Western front until upwards of ten months had elapsed from the commencement of the War; or whether such reports, if received, were not communicated to the Minister of Munitions?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; recommendations for increase in the scale of machine guns were received from Field-Marshal Sir John French before the date indicated in the question, and steps were taken to provide considerably more than the number for which he asked. These recommendations, of course, formed the basis of the statement of requirements for the War Office which was communicated to the Ministry of Munitions.
    Sir J. D. REES: Was the Minister of Munitions mistaken in the reference he made to this matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think I indicated that there had been a misapprehension.

  AIRCRAFT.

    LARGE AEROPLANE CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, without giving hurtful information to the enemy, he can state what progress has been made in developing the Aircraft Service during the last three months, particularly in regard to the construction of large aeroplanes utilising several engines capable of developing great horse-power and of attaining a high rate of speed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am, of course, always glad to give, through the medium of answers in this House, information which is hurtful to the enemy, and I may state that aeroplanes of the type mentioned in the latter part of the question are being constructed from several different designs. If, however, I were to give details, that would be information which would not be hurtful to the enemy but might even be of assistance to him.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the construction of this type of aeroplane is being pushed forward at the highest possible rate?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I can give that assurance.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the Royal Flying Corpus experienced flying officers are rapidly raised to the rank of general; and whether corresponding promotion is made possible to those officers who have been pioneers in the Royal Naval Air Service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I understand that the officers of the Royal Flying Corps who have been promoted to the rank of general are all officers whose regimental seniority is such as to qualify them for this promotion in their own arm of the Service. None of the pioneers in the Naval Air Service are of such seniority as to justify their promotion to flag rank.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, on several occasions during the last few months, young flying officers with no knowledge of war have been sent out to the front and appointed flight commanders over the heads of men who are experienced flyers; and, if so, what is the justification for this course?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; I know of no case which can be described exactly in the terms chosen by the hon. Member. He will, however, of course, be aware that promotion to the rank of flight commander is entirely by selection, and there is a possibility, in the case of promotions made amongst officers serving in the Expeditionary Force, of the promotion of junior officers over the heads of officers more senior in the Army. The justification
    794
    would be the ability of the officer promoted. I think the hon. Member will see that, in regard to flying, seniority is not the first consideration to be taken into account.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree; but this question does not relate to officers who have been to the front with the Expeditionary Force, but to officers promoted from here to flight commander-ships?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not say that is an impossibility, but skill ought to be the first consideration.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree.
    Mr. TENNANT: And it is.

    ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when Commander Briggs and Commander Smyth Osborne were appointed as wing commanders, there were none of the pioneer officers of the Royal Naval Air Service on the squadron commander's list worthy of promotion to wing commanders, and who is responsible for the system of passing over the flying officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pioneer officers of the Air Service are, generally speaking, young officers with little experience outside actual flying. The Board of Admiralty which is responsible for all promotions in the Royal Naval Air Service is perfectly satisfied as to the appointments of the officers in question, and the services of the pioneer officers have not been overlooked.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does Commander Osborne know anything about the Royal Naval Air Service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should think so.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the rate of pay of a commander, second in command of a ship; what is the rate of pay of a wing commander in the Royal Naval Air craft Service; and whether the wing commander's extra pay is in consequence of the risks and experience needed in the Air Service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay of a commander second in command of a ship is 22s. a day. He is entitled, in addition, to an allowance of 5s. a day if serving in a ship bearing the flag of a commander-in-chief, or 2s. 6d. a day if serving in a

    795
    ship bearing any other flag or broad pennant. The pay of a wing commander, Royal Naval Air Service, is 40s. a day. The rate is inclusive, nothing additional, either in the form of command money, or specialist allowance, or flying pay, being payable. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the extra pay for great experience in flying, and have those two officers that great experience of flying?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It arises out of the two questions.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what air experience had Commander Briggs and Commander Smyth Osborne when they were recently graded to the rank of wing commander over the heads of all other flying officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These officers have taken their pilot's certificate, though they had little air experience when graded. They possess, however, other special qualifications.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have they qualifications which entitle them to the rates of pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If they are wing commanders they get 40s. a day.

    GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has any official information regarding the employment of a considerable number of able-bodied men, including men of military age, in laying out a new golf course near Gleneagles Station, on the main line of the Caledonian Railway; whether this golf course is situated in a bleak and sparsely inhabited tract of country owned by an English company; and whether, having regard to the absence of local interest in the scheme and the desirability of releasing men for military or other national service and for productive labour, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As the result of inquiries I have made, I am informed that
    796
    about forty-four men are employed on the golf courses at Gleneagles, mainly on the maintenance of the courses. The number is being gradually reduced, and it is expected that a reduction of about one-half will be effected in the course of a few weeks. Of those employed five are eligible for military service, all of whom have been attested. The men employed are stated to belong to the district, and the ordinary labourer's wage current in the district is being paid. The golf courses in question have been constructed by an English company, which was formed for the purpose of building a hotel and laying out golf courses at Gleneagles. Whether the ground belongs to the company or not I do not know. I have no power to take any action in the matter, but I think it very desirable in present circumstances that labour on golf courses should be reduced to a minimum.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Board of Agriculture should lay out some small holdings instead of golf courses?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Board of Agriculture have nothing to do with laying out golf courses.

    WOODMEN (FURLOUGH).
    Captain CLIVEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will apply to the War Office to allow woodmen serving with the Forces at Home a month's furlough for work in the woods, in the same way as was done for men for harvest work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The whole question of the employment of soldiers on work in connection with agriculture is under reconsideration, and I will see that the case of skilled woodmen serving with the Forces is not overlooked, as it is of very great importance.

    HOTEL LICENCES, HONG KONG.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the licence for the Grand Hotel at Hong Kong is now held by a man of German nationality, and the licence for the Peak Hotel by a German who has recently been naturalised, both being of military age; whether at the licensing

    797
    board meeting the unofficial members all voted against the grant of the licences to these two men; whether, when these licences were refused last year, they were granted by an overriding order of the Government; what action has been taken on the present occasion; and what are the reasons inspiring official policy in this matter?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Governor informs us that the licensee of the Grand Hotel is thirty-four years old, left Germany in 1897, and had no intention of returning. His sympathies are stated to be British, and he married in 1903 an Australian wife, whose father lives with the licensee. He has held a licence since 1909. The licensee of the Peak Hotel is of the same age, and has resided in Hong Kong for eleven years continuously, was naturalised in 1911, and has been licensed seven years. The Governor states that both bear good characters. One licence only was opposed last year, and was granted on appeal to the Governor in Council. On the present occasion both licences were refused by the unofficial majority, but were granted on appeal to the Governor in Council, one member alone dissenting. No question of policy was involved, and the Executive Council acted throughout in a judicial capacity under the licensing ordinance.

  MUNITIONS.

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (CANTEENS).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Minister of Munitions how many canteens in connection with the controlled establishments are run by his Department; how many are under the management of voluntary agencies; whether he will state what those agencies or associations are; whether he is satisfied with the present management; and what steps the Board of Control is taking to start these canteens either within or without munition works?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I am informed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) that they have not, up to the present, undertaken the direct management of any canteens, their duty being rather that of super-
    798
    vision and control. Some 120 canteens have been established by about a dozen voluntary societies, and the Board have power in suitable circumstances to make Grants to approved societies in aid of the capital expenditure incurred for this purpose. The management of these canteens must be satisfactory to the Board.
    A recent concession by the Ministry of Munitions under which consideration is promised to approved expenditure on canteens at controlled establishments in calculating the profits at such establishments will, it is hoped, induce many employers to provide canteens for their workers. At a considerable number of munition works such canteens already exist, and some of them are managed by the workers or by joint committees of employers and employés. The Ministry of Munitions is providing canteens in the national projectile and filling factories, and in conjunction with the Central Control Board is taking active steps to encourage the establishment of canteens in "national" and "controlled" establishments. I understand that the Canteen Committee of the Board is in direct communication with a large number of employers in the principal munition and transport centres.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of these canteens are run by the People's Palace Association, a voluntary organisation working for profit?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot tell that without notice.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will you inquire?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes.

    TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he could give an estimate of the time lost by foremen, managers, and workmen in attending the sittings of munitions tribunals?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid that it is quite impossible to obtain statistics on this subject without an amount of labour which would be very disproportionate to the advantage obtained.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not give some idea of the futility of the Act?
    Dr. ADDISON: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is not a very large amount of time being unnecessarily wasted by requiring people to attend these tribunals?
    Dr. ADDISON: A considerable amount of time must necessarily be involved, but it does not necessarily follow that the time has been wasted.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions what is the cost of the working of the munitions tribunals up to 31st December?
    Dr. ADDISON: Up to the 30th November the total expenditure on sixty-five munitions tribunals was £6,502. The figures for December are not yet complete.

    SUNDAY EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions in how many cases men have been brought before munitions tribunals for refusing to work on Sunday; and in how many cases penalties have been imposed?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available.

    DILUTION OF LABOUR (CONFERENCES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether ho could state the results of his recent conferences at Glasgow and Newcastle; and what further alterations he suggests in the Amending Bill to the Munitions Act as a result?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend's visits to Glasgow and Newcastle were undertaken with a view to explaining the necessity for the scheme for the dilution of skilled with unskilled labour promulgated by the Ministry of Munitions on the advice of the Central Munitions Labour Supply Committee. It is too soon to say what practical result has been achieved. The visits had no direct connection with the Amending Bill to the Munitions of War Act. The Government Amendments have already been circulated.
    Mr. THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to suppress the Report?
    Dr. ADDISON: There is another question on the Order Paper on that subject.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it due to the fact that the Minister of Munitions had a hostile reception at Glasgow that reports were suppressed?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend went there because there was considerable
    800
    misconception in the area and hostility arising out of it. He went in order to try to meet it.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Did he succeed in removing the misconception?
    Dr. ADDISON: I hope so.

    SKILLED WORKERS FOR NATIONAL FACTORIES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions what progress he has made in securing his additional 80,000 skilled workers for the national factories?
    Dr. ADDISON: As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, it is hoped to obtain these men by the dilution of skilled with unskilled labour, the withdrawal of men from the Colours whether serving in this country or abroad, the training of semi-skilled men for special operations, the utilisation of the services of mechanics from overseas, and the withdrawal of men from occupations not essential to the national interest. All these operations are in progress, and it is anticipated that their combined effect should produce the necessary results, given the whole-hearted co-operation of the interests involved.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper— whether he has made any progress in securing the additional 80,000 skilled workers?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, considerable progress has been made in securing them, as my hon. Friend will see from my answer. A great many facts are involved and we cannot separate one from another.
    Mr. ALDEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has succeeded in withdrawing any skilled workers from the front?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, a considerable number.

    SALE OF INTOXICANTS (WOOLWICH).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that Sir Frederick Donaldson told the Control Board that there was no drink problem in Woolwich and that further restrictions were unnecessary; will he explain why, after that expression of opinion, Sir Frederick Donaldson was removed from Woolwich Arsenal; and why were the present restrictions enforced?
    Dr. ADDISON: Sir Frederick Donaldson's views on this subject were last expressed in a letter dated 3rd September, but the statement in the question does not correctly represent the view expressed by Sir Frederick Donaldson. Sir Frederick, at the request of my right hon. Friend, has recently been engaged in America upon an important temporary mission on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions. The decision to entrust him with this mission was in the interest of the production of munitions, and had, of course, no connection whatever with his opinion on restrictions on the liquor traffic, and I regret that my hon. Friend should have conveyed such a suggestion in his question.
    Mr. COWAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that convictions for drunkenness in the area in question have decreased by 50 per cent. since these restrictions were imposed?
    Dr. ADDISON: I believe that is so.

    SUPPRESSION OF GLASGOW PUBLICATION.
    Mr. ANDERSON: (by private Notice:) I beg to ask the Lord Advocate upon whose authority and by whose orders the Scottish labour paper "Forward" was seized, and what was the ground for such action?
    Mr. PRINGLE: (by private Notice:) I desire to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question of similar import, namely, whether the Glasgow newspaper, "Forward," of 1st January, has been suppressed, and, if so, under what Regulation or Order in Council this has been done; and whether the editor will be brought to trial and proceedings conducted in public?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE(by Private Notice:) I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the current issue of "Forward" has been seized by the police, and, if so, can he state whether this has been done because the paper published a report of a recent meeting held by the Minister of Munitions, and showing that he received a hostile reception from organised labour on the Clyde?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, and I will at the same time reply to a question to the Lord Advocate of which the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division has privately given notice. I have not yet received the official report of the details of the action taken against the newspaper "Forward," but I understand that action was taken by the com-
    802
    petent military authority in Scotland under Regulation 51, Defence of the Realm Regulations, at the instance of the Ministry of Munitions. The ground for the action taken was an offence under Regulation 27. It does not necessarily follow that there will be any trial.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What about free speech?
    Mr. TENNANT: The ground for the action taken was an offence under Regulation No. 27. It does not necessarily follow there will be any trial.
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I ask whether it has become an offence and a crime in this country to give a truthful account of the reception accorded by organised labour in Glasgow to the Minister of Munitions, and whether we are to look upon this as the first fruits of Conscription?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I trust my hon. Friend will draw no such conclusion. The Orders under which this newspaper was proceeded against was submitted to the legal authorities in Scotland, and I have their assurance that they were perfectly legal and in order.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Munitions went to Scotland as the champion of free speech and appealed to the working men there on that ground to hear him, and used the name of the hon. Member for Leicester for that purpose; and does he think it is in accordance with the professions with which he went there that this should be the first action after his visit?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am assured that this newspaper published, was about to publish, and did, in fact, publish articles; whether they were in the nature of news or articles I am not aware, as I have not seen them; certainly they did publish something which was distinctly against the Defence of the Realm and dangerous to the country. I am assured that was so. Such an article would be dangerous to the country if it were to be an article asking the makers of munitions not to produce them in the numbers required. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    Mr. THOMAS: May I ask whether the War Office which alleges that it is responsible for this action has taken into consideration the effect it is likely to have upon the workers in suppressing labour papers and not those which are doing the most mischief?
    Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware until the hon. Gentleman's statement that this paper was an organ of organised labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not."] I am very doubtful about it. I do understand this newspaper did incite the workers on the Clyde to abstain from the production of the munitions which are necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Withdraw!"] That must be not a question of opinion but of fact, which is perfectly ascertainable. If my information is correct, then there can be nothing more to be said.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if instructions were issued to the Press not to report meetings held by the Minister of Munitions and only to insert the official report, which gave no proper account?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, they were!"]
    . Mr. ALDEN: May I ask the Minister of Munitions whether, as a sensible man, he will, not see that this whole business is stopped if he wants to stop the dissension and discontent going on in labour circles?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): My hon. Friends did not give me any notice of this question being raised. If they had I should have supplied myself with a copy of the paper, and could have shown the House that this paper has been deliberatetly inciting the workers there not to carry out an Act of Parliament which has been passed by this House in order to promote the output of munitions.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister of Munitions this plain and simple question? Is it not the fact that this issue of the paper was suppressed because it contained a report of the right hon. Gentleman's meeting in Glasgow, and the Under-Secretary of State for War said just now that proceedings had been taken under certain Sections of the Defence of the Realm Act, and may I ask if those Sections of the Act deal only with two offences—first of all,, action prejudicial to recruiting—
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not now asking a question; it is more like a speech.
    Mr. THOMAS: May I ask the Minister of Munitions whether the time to have
    804
    suppressed this paper was not when the articles that he complained of appeared and not when the paper reported what actually happened?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is very likely the hon. Gentleman is right; it ought to have been suppressed before.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that facilities are given for a discussion of this matter on the Adjournment on Thursday? [An HON. MEMBER "Get rid of the Minister!"]
    The PRIME MINISTER: I knew nothing about this matter. I heard nothing of it until I came to the House to-day.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: It is tune you resigned.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I hope my right hon. Friend will see that a large body of opinion in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider a large body of opinion in this House that desires a discussion on this administrative action without any judicial action being taken at the same time.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider the matter.
    Mr. DILLON: Arising out of these questions and these answers, may I ask the Under-Secretary for War whether he will now consider the desirability of dealing with the "Times" and "Daily Mail"?
    Several HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. SPEAKER:A question of that sort cannot be answered on the spur of the moment.
    Mr. HOGGE: If "Forward" was not suppressed because it contained an accurate account of the proceedings between the Minister of Munitions and the men's conferences on the Clyde, will the right hon. Gentleman see that that portion, at all events, is reissued and circulated to the public?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the reason, I am assured by the Lord Advocate.
    Mr. KING: Can we have a copy of this paper placed in the Library? Or, if that is not possible, can it be published as a White Paper and circulated?
    Mr. COWAN: Is it not the case that similar proceedings have been taken against another paper issued in Scotland, belonging to what is known as the Harmsworth or Northeliffe Press?

    GAS UNDERTAKING, FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the opening of the War the gas undertaking of Frankfurt-am-Main was in the hands of a British company and has now become the property of the municipality, and whether this transfer, which was contemplated by a pre-war arrangement made by the company, has had the attention and sanction of the Board of Trade?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I understand that the arrangements for the transfer were submitted to Parliamentary counsel, and received his approval.
    Mr. KING: Did it receive the approval of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The consideration and approval or disapproval of this particular matter has been referred to the Parliamentary counsel who deals with it, and the Board of Trade has assented to his opinion upon it.

    COAL SUPPLY (ERITH).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the result of his inquiry into the shortage of supply and high price being charged for coal at Erith; and whether he intends to take any action to remedy these conditions?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I asked the London Merchants' Coal Prices Committee to look into the matter on my behalf, and I am forwarding the hon. Member a copy of their report.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps the Board of Trade take themselves to see that the arrangement come to with the merchants is carried out?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It depends upon circumstances. Any case such as that which the hon. Member has reported is looked
    806
    into when any complaint is received. We have every confidence that the merchants are doing their best to carry out the arrangement.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Have the Board of Trade any machinery for seeing that it is carried out, apart from a Member asking a question in the House?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There is no such machinery.

    GERMAN SHIPS IN UNITED STATES PORTS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the German ships now detained at United States ports are to be sold to Scandinavian Governments and delivered at Scandinavian ports with the consent of the British Foreign Office on behalf of His Majesty's Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such arrangement.

    ADVANCES TO ALLIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prune Minister whether, in view of the fact that on 13th October it was estimated that our advances to our Allies equipped and maintained 3,000,000 men in the field, the present conditions remain as they did in this respect last October; and, if not, whether our advances to our Allies today are greater or less than they were three months ago?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have given the House all the figures which I am at present in a position to give as to the advances to our Allies. I may add that on the occasion referred to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary quoted an estimate of the number of our Allies soldiers which could be maintained in the field by an expenditure equivalent in amount to our advances, and it is open to anyone else to make similar estimates.
    Mr. KING: Was that estimate based upon the figure that each soldier in the field costs £230 a. year or £300 a year?
    Mr. McKENNA: It was based on the figure that the cost to the Allies is less than the amount stated by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us to-morrow, in connection with the Bill to be introduced, some further figures which will enable us to judge generally of the whole financial, military and political situation as it is now?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope called upon to do so.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS ACT.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister if he will state who will answer questions in connection with the Statutory Committee on War Pensions and Allowances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Questions will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state the names of the members of the Statutory Committee of the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, the name of the chairman, and the name of the paid vice-chairman; whether he can say if instructions have been given for the setting up of the local committees, or whether these will not be set up until the Statutory Committee gets to work; and whether he can give the address of the offices, temporary or permanent, of the Statutory Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to be able to state that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has consented to act as chairman of the Statutory Committee. I will circulate the names of the Committee. I understand that instructions for the establishment of local committees will be issued when the Statutory Committee meets. No final decision has been arrived at as to the Committee's offices.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend not expedite the formation of the local committees, which do not depend at all upon the Statutory Committee, who are to gather together the claims throughout the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That will be considered.
    Mr. HOGGE: Who is the paid vice-chairman?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have not given his name.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why not?
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether the paid vice-chairman has been appointed, or is about to be appointed, or whether we are to know who he is before his being appointed?
    The PRIME MINISTER:! said I would circulate the names of the whole Committee. The vice-chairman is Mr. Cyril Jackson.

    LORD KITCHENER.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister, in view of recent adjustments in the military commands, what are now Lord Kitchener's duties?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Lord Kitchener'is continuing to discharge the duties of Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his duties are now less military than political?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot discriminate between them.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the duties have been transferred to the Ministry of Munitions?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has he any duties at all

    GENERAL VON DONOP.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister, in view of the transference of the functions of the Ordnance Department to the Ministry of Munitions, what are now the duties of General Von Donop?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Stanley Von Donop is the technical adviser to the Secretary of State for War on all Artillery matters. He is also responsible for the administration of the Directorates of Fortifications and Barrack Construction.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is that a new post?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; not at all.

    INTER-PARLIAMENTARY INTERCOURSE.
    Sir EDWARD BEAUCHAMPasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of a scheme to promote inter parliamentary intercourse between French Deputies and Members of this House; and whether the proposals which have recently been put forward by a member of the French Chamber of Deputies in this connection have received the support of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have heard of these proposals, which are, I understand, designed to promote a fuller understanding between the French and British Parliaments. Such an object must obviously command the sympathy of His Majesty's Government, but this particular movement is entirely of a private nature, and has not in any respect an official character so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned.

    MINISTERS (LATE SITTINGS).
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War and at least two Cabinet Ministers were detained at the House of Commons by the prolonged discussion on the Vote for the further 1,000,000 of men and Supply on the 21st December until a very late hour; and if, to save the time and health of Ministers engaged in prosecuting the War, he will take the necessary powers that all measures brought in by the Coalition Government shall at each stage be put from the Chair at eleven o'clock or earlier during the continuance of the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. As at present advised, I am afraid the hon. Member's suggestion is impracticable.
    Mr. FELL:Could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange that at any rate a Cabinet Minister should not be expected to attend personally after eleven o'clock?
    The PRIME MINISTERindicated dissent.

    SERBIA.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will give the House an opportunity to discuss the treatment of Serbia by this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind the hon. Member that I have promised that a general statement would be made, which will include the Near East, as soon as it is possible to do so in the public interest.

    ORGANISATION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state that all the available scientific ability of the country has been organised and utilised in the most efficient way with a view to coping with problems introduced by the War; whether the roll of such scientific committees as exist has been mainly that of criticism and advice with regard to suggestions and inventions sent in from outside; and whether any body of scientific workers is definitely charged with the study of actual war conditions so as actively to examine, devise, or invent appliances which might be helpful to the Allies in the field?
    The PRIME MINISTER:In reply to the first part of the question, every endeavour continues to be made to achieve the object referred to. As regards the second part of the question, the activities of the scientific committees have by no means been limited in the manner suggested. The third part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the scientific ability of this country is being utilised to the utmost, and that the actual results have indicated that this has been done?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are doing our very best with that object.

    MUNITIONS OF WAR (AMENDMENT) BILL—NEW CLAUSE.
    Mr. LEIF JONES(by private Notice:) I beg to ask the Minister of Munitions if he is in a position to state in what way he proposes to give effect to the agreement come to with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers on the subject of dilution of skilled labour and the remuneration of unskilled and partially skilled men?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In order to give effect to the agreement to which my hon. Friend refers, I propose to move a new Clause, enabling the Ministry of Munitions

    811
    to give directions with respect to the wages and conditions of employment of unskilled labour brought in to supplement or replace skilled labour in controlled establishments. Copies of the proposed new Clause have been sent to all Members by post, and copies are also available in the Vote Office. Owing to the Adjournment, it has not been possible to place this Amendment on the Order Paper. I should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether, under the circumstances, by consent, I can move this new Clause, or whether it will be necessary to move to recommit the Bill for this purpose, either before or after the Report stage of the rest of the Bill has been taken?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the Clause can be moved on the Report stage. Being a new Clause, notice of it must be given, and it should appear in print with the other Amendments. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to move to recommit the Bill, either before we commence proceedings on the Report stage or at the conclusion of those proceedings. If he moves that the Bill be recommitted in order to insert this particular Clause, the discussion will be limited to the Clause, and when the House goes into Committee the Clause can be moved and inserted if thought fit.

    HOME SECRETARY (RESIGNATION OF SIR J. SIMON).
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House whether, since the Adjournment, any members of the Cabinet have resigned, and whether any resignations have been accepted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, to my great regret, resigned. The matter will be dealt with to-morrow.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if a decision has yet been reached as the time of valuation of the approved societies?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Robers): Since the date of my last statement on this subject
    812
    the staff both of approved societies and of my Department has been still further depleted by enlistment, and it has become clear that it would not be justifiable under present conditions to press for the completion of the work incidental to valuation. Any long postponement would be unfortunate, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, and it has therefore been decided to make a beginning at the earliest date consistent with the fulfilment of more pressing national needs.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can we not have a little further information about this matter— will it be now, next June, or next Christmas, or the following year, or when?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think I can make any more definite statement at present, in view of existing conditions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Can the Prime Minister state what will be the business to-morrow and on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow, I shall ask leave to introduce a Bill dealing with Military Service.
  On Thursday, we hope to give an opportunity for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins):—
  "Prosecution of the War,—That, with a view to increasing the power of the Allies in the prosecution of the War, His Majesty's Government should enter into immediate consultation with the Governments of the Dominions in order with their aid to bring the whole economic strength of the Empire into cooperation with our Allies in a policy directed against the enemy."
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the House sit on Friday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We shall see. I do not know why it should.
  Mr. SHERWELL: In view of the unusually large number of Members who desire to take part in the discussion of the Bill which he has promised to introduce to-morrow, will the Prime Minister give facilities for more than one day's discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think anybody knows in the least what the Bill is going to be.
  Mr. ALDEN: In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has resigned, does not the Prime Minister consider it extremely probable that a large number of Members will wish to take part in the Debate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Of course I shall see how things shape.
  Mr. BOOTH: Will the Prime Minister consider that a still larger number of us wish to push on with the Bill?

  MUNITIONS OF WAR (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of a new Clause—(Remuneration and Employment of Semi-skilled and Unskilled Labour.")
  This new Clause was promised as a result of certain consultations which I had during the Recess both at Glasgow and afterwards with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers in London. The Prime Minister promised that a Clause of this kind should be inserted in the Bill if the Amalgamated Society of Engineers were prepared to accept it and, on the strength of it, to proceed with the scheme of dilution. The agreement was arrived at only late on Friday night; the draft had to be prepared very carefully, and it was settled only yesterday. As soon as it was settled I took every step to enable Members to get copies of it, so that there should be full opportunity for examining it before it was moved. The object is to give power to the Ministry of Munitions to enforce what is known as L3—a circular issued with regard to a minimum wage in munition works throughout the United Kingdom. The process by which it can be enforced at the present moment, in the absence of an Amendment of this kind, is rather cumbrous, and it was pressed upon us by the representatives of organised labour that it was very desirable that there should be a provision for enforcing a minimum wage.
  Mr. KING: I think it would be much more for the convenience of the House that we should take the recommittal after the Report stage on the other portions of the Bill. We shall then have the benefit of seeing the spirit in which the Minister of Munitions is after his visit to the Clyde. I say that in no invidious or unfriendly spirit. In the course of the discussion which we are bound to have on many points on the Report stage it will be inevitable that the right hon. Gentleman should give us the point of view at which he has arrived after close association and conference with the workers. We should also have an opportunity of considering the Clause in print, with the

  821
  assistance of persons who are skilled in this Bill, its drafting, and its objects. I see two Amendments which I should like to put down—Amendments which I think are reasonable and would be accepted. It will be difficult, if we go immediately into Committee on the Clause, to put forward any Amendment with any chance of its being accepted. I therefore appeal confidently to the Minister of Munitions to leave the recommittal until we have taken the Report stage on the rest of the Bill.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I share the view of my hon Friend the Member for North Somerset. I appreciate, of course, the spirit in which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Munitions met the Amalgamated Society of Engineers on Friday. But those of us who delayed the taking of the Munition's Bill before the holidays feel now that our position then has been absolutely vindicated by the necessity shown of the conference with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Unfortunately, however, the new Clause of the right hon. Gentleman only reached the great majority of us before noon to-day. In these circumstances it is impossible to judge the effect of the words employed. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring faithfully to carry out the pledge given to the engineers, but I make bold to say that no Member in the House is able to say what is the effect of the new Clause. Under these circumstances time should be given to the House to consider the matter, and it might well be that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend should be adopted by the Minister of Munitions.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will be necessary, I take it, to move to insert consequential Amendments in Clause 6. I cannot move them unless the Clause is inserted in the Bill. It makes no difference whether they are inserted before or after, but it will make a great difference so far as the convenience of the Committee is concerned. It will obviate the necessity for discussing certain Amendments on the Bill. In the second place, it will allow us to amend Clause 6, which we could not do if this were not inserted. It will be for the convenience of the House that the thing suggested should be done at this stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair]

  MUNITIONS OF WAR (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Remuneration and Employment o Semi-skilled and Unskilled Labour.)
    (1) The Minister of Munitions shall have power by Order to give directions as to the employment and remuneration of semi-skilled and unskilled men employed in any Controlled Establishment on munition work being work of a class which, prior to the War, was customarily undertaken by skilled labour; or as to the time rates for the manufacture of complete shell and fuses and cartridge cases in any Controlled Establishment in which such manufacture was not customary prior to the War, and any direction so given shall be binding on the owner of the Establishment, and any contractor or sub-contractor employing labour therein, and the workers to whom the directions relate; and any contravention thereof or noncompliance therewith shall be punishable in like manner as if the Order in which the direction is contained was an award made in settlement of a difference under Part I. of the principal Act.
    (2) Where any difference reported to the Board of Trade under Part I. of the principal Act relates to a matter on which the Minister of Munitions has given or is empowered to give a direction under this Section, the Board may, in lieu of referring the matter for settlement in accordance with Part I. of the principal Act, apply to the Minister of Munitions to give a direction under this Section.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. KING: I take this opportunity of calling attention to two Amendments that have occurred to me. I believe if I had had a little longer I could have suggested more. Both, I think, are points of substance. In respect to the power that the Minister of Munitions here takes upon himself to give directions, I do not like the words "Employment and Remuneration." Something definite ought to be said as to the conditions of employment. I should like to take the words which come, I think, in Clause 6 of the Bill—"Rates of Wages, Hours of Labour, and Conditions of Employment." If they are introduced they will make it quite clear that the powers taken with regard to women workers will be exactly the same and on all fours with the powers

    823
    now taken in regard to the dilution of labour. In the second part of the Clause I think we ought to have a reference to Section 5 of the Act in order that where labour is diluted by women or girl workers the same conditions shall apply as in the other part of the Act. I propose, therefore, when the Clause has been read the second time, to move Amendments in these directions. If the Minister of Munitions has followed me, I hope he will realise that these Amendments are not obstructive, and not merely drafting Amendments, but do deal definitely with points of clearness and policy which require to be met.
    Mr. HOGGE: Before we agree to this I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us a little more exactly what is the precise effect of this new Clause. In a question that was put down to-day I recalled to the mind of the Minister of Munitions that he had asked only a few weeks ago for 80,000 skilled and 250,000 unskilled men for the purpose of garrisoning the munitions factories. One would like to know whether the effect of this new Clause will do away largely with the necessity of getting these men directly from the Labour Exchanges, or from any other of the sources to which he has alluded. I take it that the scheme of dilution will so adjust unskilled labour that he will have to provide for other parts of the munitions work skilled men who are at present employed on more difficult work. Will the effect of this Clause tend to diminish the present necessity for these additional 330,000 men, or is this over and above anything the right hon. Gentleman has yet counted upon? If he would, in a sentence or two, explain the real effect of the Clause, some of us would be very much obliged.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Clause relates solely to the dilution of labour in any controlled establishment or munitions works. As my right hon. Friend knows well, there are many establishments engaged upon munitions work that are not controlled establishments. In these skilled workmen are being asked, just as skilled workmen are being asked in the controlled establishments, to surrender their status and allow various alterations. This Clause, while it gives directions so far as the skilled workmen in the controlled establishments are concerned, will not give directions to the skilled workmen who are making concessions and
    824
    agreeing to the relaxation of rules in establishments which are not controlled under the Munitions Act. I do not suggest that this is a matter that can be properly dealt with in this Clause, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this Clause is the proper occasion to ventilate the grievances of these men. I know for a fact that this matter is very keenly felt by a large number of workmen in different parts of the country. For example, there are workmen employed in the engineering establishments of the railway companies. These men are at present largely engaged in munitions work, and they are uncontrolled establishments. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend intends to change this, but at present a process of the dilution of labour is going on. Will my right, hon. Friend take into consideration the position of the men who are making concessions there, and see that they obtain as adequate protection for the future as the skilled men in controlled establishments? The Committee, I think, will agree that this is a point that deserves consideration, for these men are as patriotic as their brethren in the controlled establishments, and they ought to receive the same consideration from the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This only applies to establishments where we are asking the workmen to suspend their trade union regulations. It does not go beyond that. My hon. Friend says there are other establishments which are not controlled, but in those establishments the process of dilution is not operative under an Act of Parliament. Take railway establishments. If it is done, it is done voluntarily until those establishments are controlled. This is simply a proposal that there shall be dilution in certain works where certain conditions apply. Wherever those conditions apply then this Clause will be operative. Beyond that it is not operative.
    Mr. BYRNE: I should like to ask whether this Clause has been submitted to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and whether it has their approval?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I, of course, accept my right hon. Friend's explanation. I was quite aware this only applied to controlled establishments, and it was because of that that I thought it was inadequate. What I suggest to my right hon. Friend

    825
    is this: that while dilution is being carried out, by a bargain, in controlled establishments, nevertheless it is going on in other establishments. It is going on, for example, in the works of the Great Western Railway Company at Swindon. If a "workman objects to it there, and seeks by the ordinary trade union methods to safeguard his position, he, equally with a man in a controlled establishment, would be guilty of an offence under the Act. He is prevented from defending himself even although he is not in a controlled establishment. I think if he is prevented from maintaining his old pre-war conditions the Minister should give the same Clause in these establishments. Under Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands the right hon. Gentleman has the power to declare Government factories, etc., controlled establishments. Could he not, by a slight extension of Clause 1; deal with establishments such as the engineering works of railways, the men in which may be partly engaged on munition work and partly on railway work. There is a provision in the original Act which provides for control in so far as the establishment is engaged on munitions. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking—I think ho could get the machinery under the Act—to extend the benefit of control to those workmen, I think it would do a great deal to meet their wishes, and to remove an apprehension which they justly feel.
    Mr. ANDERSON: When we were discussing this matter in Committee I moved an Amendment which dealt with this question of semi-skilled and unskilled labour, and I am very glad that the Minister of Munitions is now going to take this power. One thing I hope is that he will have more than the power, and that he will enforce the power, because, if he likes, this may be a real thing, or remain very largely a dead letter. I think there is a moral duty, a real obligation on the Minister of Munitions to deal with this matter, for the reason that these unskilled and semi-skilled men are no longer free, as they used to be, to go from establishments where wages are bad to establishments where they can got better wages. If they are legally debarred from doing that it is an absolute obligation on the Minister of Munitions to see that they get good wages where they are.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am very sorry to make a second speech, but my first was not
    826
    answered, and I must put my point again. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the effect of this Clause will do away with the specific need of his present intention to secure 80,000 skilled men and 250,000 unskilled men for the national factories? Will this dilution of labour, by transferring unskilled men to work which is skilled, by consent of these unions, provide the amount of labour wanted, or is this altogether outside of that provision? I should like to know that, as it might alter my attitude towards the Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It depends entirely upon whether the bargain is carried out. The 80,000 men come out of the ranks of skilled labour in other works. They say, "If you insert a Clause of this kind we will do our best to carry out the arrangement," but they are the same men wanted as before, and not additional men. It is simply because the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and other societies say that, if a Clause of this kind is inserted guaranteeing fair' payment to unskilled men, they will do their best to carry out the process of dilution with unskilled men.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not think my right hon. Friend quite appreciates my question This is a proposal by which ho hopes to get a great many more men, by a process of dilution. The other men he mentioned were for the distinct purpose of national factories, as he told us in a speech. He said he still required 80,000 skilled men and 250,000 unskilled men over and above what he had got. Docs this Clause at all affect the provision of those men?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I understood the question of my hon. Friend; I am sorry he does not understand my answer. This is simply a means of getting those skilled men; they are not additional to anything I stated before tried to persuade them to assent to a dilution in regard to work which can just as well be performed by unskilled men. I hope it will be easier to get them if this Clause is carried, because there will be a guarantee with regard to payment.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I am very pleased that the Minister of Munitions has introduced this Amendment on this particular point. When the Bill was before the House last I did my best, at any rate, to impress as strongly as I could the desirability of embodying the wages rates fixed

    827
    by the Labour Supply Committee in this Bill. I am very sorry that I did not succeed in inducing the Minister in charge of the Bill to apprehend the seriousness of the point that was being made with regard to this matter. The difficulty is this: the Labour Supply Committee has issued certain recommendations with regard to the wages of women, and that, I understand, comes under the original Bill. The same Committee issued a further recommendation with regard to the wages of unskilled workmen, and that is not in the Bill. That is where the whole of the trouble has arisen. It is obvious that there was bound to be trouble on this point. I could not quite see how any escape was to be made from it, for, after all, one has to remember the circumstances under which men are working to-day. I am sometimes inclined to think that, owing to the enormous amount of work the Minister of Munitions has to do, it is difficult for him, the same as it is for most men, to keep in touch with the positions that are created in connection with the production of munitions. It might be just as well, therefore, to point out now that the men working under the Munitions Acts are not allowed to strike at all, and, consequently, it is obvious to anybody, after five minutes' consideration, that where the rates of payment in any munition work create difficulty, it is going to be an exceedingly difficult thing indeed to put the matter right. If the men are not allowed to strike, there are other methods which they can employ, and these will be employed. Everybody who has been in a workshop knows that there are a thousand-and-one ways which can be brought into operation in order to bring to naught any Bill passed through this House, and it is just as well to realise this fact. If the men are not given a fair and straight opportunity of voicing their complaints and of bringing those complaints to fruition, it is obvious that ill-feeling is going to be created. It seems to me that the way to meet all these difficulties, or at any rate most of them, is the method which I have pointed out several times. Questions of difference have to be brought before a certain committee on production. I know cases that have been hanging for several months— some of them for over six months. It is true that the men can come out on strike after the difference has drifted along for six weeks, but they do not want to strike,
    828
    and the workmen are just as desirous as the Minister of Munitions to go on producing munitions, and they do not want to strike. All they want is to have their differences settled. The difficulty is that where these questions of difference arise the Committee which considers them is so overloaded with work that these questions hang over for months and months, and this is the cause of a good deal of the friction which undoubtedly exists. I am convinced that the mere fact of putting this Clause in the Bill will avoid a great number of the differences which would have had to come before the Committee on production. I believe that the Engineers' Union have been largely animated by the desire to avoid these difficulties in insisting upon this particular condition being embodied in the Bill.
    I think the Amalgamated Society of Engineers are perfectly right in the view they take, and I believe the result of their action and of this Amendment will be to save an enormous amount of friction which otherwise would have been created. I would go further, and say that if we expect the workers of this country to do their best under the Munitions Act, surely it is infinitely better that we should seek, as far as we can, to co-operate rather than fight. It seems to me that under the Munitions Act in the past it has been rather a question of increasing the number of differences rather than increasing the number of agreements, and there does not seem to me to have been that speeding up put into the operation of meeting and smoothing these differences quickly. I wish that any language of mine might reach the ear of the Minister of Munitions in order to get him to attend to this business of speeding up the treatment of these differences. I am confident that that is where the whole difficulty lies, and after we have put this Amendment into the Bill there will still be a very large number of differences to be dealt with by the Committee on Production. As long as these difficulties accumulate and are held over, so long you are bound to have unrest and difficulty and suspicion in the minds of the workmen. I hope that whatever may be said here to-day the Minister of Munitions will give his attention to this point which I have hammered at time after time until I am sick of it. In my own union there are as many as forty cases waiting to go before the Committee on Production. I know how difficult it is to keep telling the men to remain peace-

    829
    fully at their work, and that their case is being attended to. They reply to me, "Yes, you are sitting in an office in the House of Commons, and you are not in a workshop where you have to grin and bear these difficulties every day."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): They are dealt with by the Amendment on the Paper.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I am glad to hear it. By speeding up dealing with these differences, 99 per cent. of them will disappear in a very short time.
    Mr. CLYNES: I join with my hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan) in the general welcome extended to this Clause, but I do not want to repeat any of the arguments that have been adduced in its favour. I wish to ascertain whether the Minister of Munitions has received any assurance that this new Clause will satisfy those who have made representations to him. I think there is a good deal in what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan) as to the overworked state of several representative State Departments in the Board of Trade, and in the Department presided over by Sir George Askwith, because of the enormous number of cases that have to be remitted to them. If any amendment of the Munitions Act can effect the settlement of these questions in the workshop, or as between representatives of the employers and employed, instead of having to be remitted to already overworked officials, I am sure the production of munitions will be very greatly facilitated and improved. It is a fact well within the experience of many of us that the difficulties which this Clause seeks to remove in the case of controlled establishments also exists extensively in the case of establishments that are not controlled. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman definitely whether he can answer the question that this Clause goes as far as meeting the eases put to him repeatedly by many of us, and specifically within recent date by the representatives of the engineers' organisation. If this Clause does not really meet that ease, then I think this will be only one of many amending Clauses that will have to follow to remove difficulties hereafter that might as well be removed now. There are hundreds of non-controlled establishments where precisely the same grievances exist relating to skilled and unskilled
    830
    labour, and surely this is an opportune moment to remove those difficulties.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would like now to answer one or two of the questions put to me. Most of the difficulties which have been raised are met by the Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with the speeding up of the settlement of disputes at works where there are bonâ-fide differences. With regard to what has been said about railway shops, that is a matter which is not under the control of my Department, and it comes under the control of the Board of Trade. This Clause has been inserted to speed up settlements, and I agree with what has been said that there is no greater source of irritation than the keeping alive of grievances of that kind and putting off their settlement. I feel sure that if the Clause on the Order Paper is inserted it will have the effect, to a certain extent, of remedying grievances of that kind. Of course, it is very difficult to secure the smooth working out of all these difficulties of arbitration, but we do our very best in regard to these matters. My only reason for not extending this power to establishments which are not controlled is that as Minister of Munitions I have absolutely nothing to do with them. This is purely a power given to me as Minister of Munitions to deal with establishments under the control of the Ministry, and once I go outside that I shall be invading the function of the President of the Board of Trade and interfering with machinery which has been set up in times of peace and which on the whole has been working rather well. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers suggested that we should take powers like these, and we have adopted their very words in the Clause. We have carried out their suggestion literally by adopting the words of their circular.
    Mr. HODGE: When this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion I pointed out that in many of the large railway workshops they would seek to take advantage of this dilution scheme without complying with the wages conditions and other regulations, and we put it to the hon. Gentleman who was deputising for the Minister of Munitions that power ought to be taken for the purpose of placing those shops under the control of the Minister of Munitions. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman is aware that that is one of the points which the representative of the Amalgamated Society of Engi-

    831
    neers has strongly put before him. I believe there was an Amendment of my own down for the purpose of making it mandatory on the right hon. Gentleman to take over these establishments, and I believe it would do very much to allay irritation if we could have an intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that he intends in those large railway workshops to make them controlled establishments.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether this Clause has the approval of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have already explained, the Amendment adopts their very words. With regard to the control of large railway establishments, it is very gratifying to me to be asked to have more labour under my control. I have visited many of those establishments and had frank talks with the workmen, and they confine most of their objections to the scheme of dilution, and that is what they were most concerned about. My recollection is that they did not worry me very much about anything in the Munitions Act. We had a good many conversations, and they were practically confined to the question of dilution and the conditions under which it should be applied. What they were most worried about was the change in their trade union regulations. It is that of course which affects them most. They are afraid of the permanent effect. There is a good deal to be said for putting railway establishments under control, and there is a good deal to be said against it. I would rather like to hear what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has to say upon the subject. At the present time the railway establishments are under the President of the Board of Trade, and it is not for me to argue that they would be better under my control.
    Mr. HODGE: They are making shells.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Some of them are, but after all their shell work is a very small proportion of the whole of their engineering work. Most of the work which they are doing is either making or repairing locomotives. I should be very surprised if 20 per cent. of their work was shell work. I am not sure that 10 per cent. is shell work. When only 10 per cent. of their work is shell work, they object to be treated as if they were shell factories. I am afraid if they were put under control
    832
    with all the conditions of a controlled establishment, they would find it a reason for not turning out shells, and I want their assistance very badly, more especially for turning out big shells. I can assure my hon. Friend that whatever there is to be said for making them controlled establishments there is a good deal to be said against it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not think the matter is quite disposed of by the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. There are, at present, apart from this Amending Bill, three different classes of establishments in this country. There are controlled establishments, uncontrolled establishments, and Government establishments. The Minister of Munitions can bring the ordinary establishment which is not controlled under his control if he likes under the original Act, and under this Bill he can bring all Government establishments under his control. It is true that there is a difficulty about controlling railway companies under the original Act, but in view of the desirability of relieving the situation in these railway works it might be worth his while to take powers under Clause 1 of the present Bill to make a railway establishment a controlled establishment, with such conditions and restrictions as may be thought necessary both by his own Department and by the Board of Trade. I think that would meet the situation. It would not bind the right hon. Gentleman to take them over as controlled establishments. He would only have power under Clause 1 to do it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have the power now.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, subject to the objections which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I assure my hon. Friend that there is full power now to declare them controlled establishments, but it is an important and serious question of policy in the interests of railway administration.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman has the power, but if he were to do it under the original Act it would be subject to all the conditions as to profits which appear in that Act, and I can understand his not desiring to deal with the railway companies in the same way in which he deals with ordinary companies.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The railways are national.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, and consequently the principle of dividing profits could not apply. I understand that is the objection to dealing with the railway establishments under the original Act; but under Clause 1 of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is taking power to make Government establishments controlled establishments, subject to such modifications and exceptions as are necessary to adapt the provisions to such establishments, and if he brought the railway companies within the Clause he would be enabled to put in the exceptions and modifications which would meet the special conditions of those companies. I merely ask him to consider whether, in order to meet this special case, he would not insert the words "or any railway company"?
    The CHAIRMAN: That really is beyond the purpose of this Committee. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps bring forward his Amendment on Report.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "employment and remuneration," and to insert instead thereof the words "rate of wages, hours of labour, or conditions of employment."
    These words are to be found in Clause 5 of the Bill, and I propose this Amendment in order to bring this new Clause into line with that Clause. I have commended this Amendment to the Solicitor-General, and I hope that he will see his way to accept it.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): The effect of the Bill as drawn is the same as the words proposed by the hon. Member, but his words are used in another Clause, and I agree that it is very desirable to have the same words in the two Clauses.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment.
    Bill, as amended, in Committee and on recommittal, considered.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 1 of the Principal Act.)
    Sub-section (2) of Section one of the principal Act shall have effect as if after
    834
    the words "in any case in which they think fit may" there were inserted the words "and in the case where the difference is a difference between an employer and persons employed which appears to the Board of Trade a bonâ fide difference and which the Board have failed to settle by such steps as aforesaid, shall within twenty-one days from the date of the report."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Clause brought up; read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Minor Amendments of Principal Act.)
    In Sub-section (3) of Section five of the principal Act, after the words "if he thinks fit, allow," there shall be inserted the words "or require"; and in paragraph nine of the Second Schedule to the principal Act, for the word "fourth," there shall be substituted the word third."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. KING: This is admittedly an Act which in small details of drafting and in many ways permits of amendment. I have suggested a number of small points, and I hope that some of them may be accepted. All my Amendments are drawn with the object of making the original Act and the Amending Act more clear and more workable. They are not put forward in any spirit of obstruction or with any object of restricting the right hon. Gentleman's operations, but with the sole object of making the Bill clear and effective.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the Clause, to insert beginning of words,
    "In Section three of the principal Act there shall be added after the words 'affecting employment on, in both places where those words occur, the words 'or in connection with.'"
    Section 3 of the principal Act begins,
    "The differences to which this Part of the Act applies are differences as to rate of wages, hours of labourer otherwise as to terms or conditions of or affecting employment on."

    835
    The words I want to add are "or in connection with," in order that there can be no question what exactly "employment on" means. I want to give the Minister of Munitions a clear field for his operations, Without his being obliged to prove that it is "employment on" when the point may be raised that it is only "in connection with," or in a secondary or subsidiary connection. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. It is quite a point of substance which possibly has been taken and which very likely may be taken.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member has obviously studied with great care the wording of the principal Act, and has drawn up a number of Amendments dealing with various points. But he will understand that if one introduces into a later Act a number of small Amendments to an earlier Act it is calculated to lead to complications, and will necessarily require the two Acts to be read together. He is, therefore, quite right in saying that one must draw the line somewhere. I want to meet him, if I can, and I will therefore accept this Amendment, but I hope he will not press the other one.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: After what the Solicitor-General has said, I will not press my other Amendments.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of Section (7) of principal Act.)
    "Section seven of the principal Act is hereby repealed."—[Mr. principal.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Section (7) of the principal Act which it proposes to repeal is one of the most important, and has turned out to be, in fact, one of the most irritating provisions of the original Act. Since the passing of the original Act we have had a great growth of discontent and a great accumulation of grievances, and I think all observers—certainly those who have most closely investigated the question—will have come to the
    836
    conclusion that this provision of the original Act has been not only most fruitful of grievances, but a continuing source of annoyance. It was provided under Section (7) that a workman engaged upon, munitions work could not leave his employment without a certificate from his employer that he had left with the employer's consent, and that if the employer withheld such consent and refused the certificate the employé could appeal to the munitions tribunal, which was empowered to grant a certificate if in its opinion the employer's consent has been unreasonably withheld. Should the workman fail both to secure the assent of the employer or a, favourable judgment from the munitions tribunal, then, if he still persisted in his desire to change his employment he was bound to go idle for a period of six weeks before he could obtain any other employment.
    I am perfectly certain that the vast-majority of the Members of this House were absolutely unaware of the importance and gravity of that provision when it was being passed. I remember when I protested against it on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill in this House, at a late hour in the evening, I could barely obtain a decent hearing; yet all the prophecies I then made that you were putting workmen on munitions work in a position of slavery which would breed discontent have been fulfilled in every part of the country. It is only necessary to look at the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh dealing with the position of affairs on the Clyde, as more than one passage in that Report discusses questions that have arisen under this system of "leaving certificates." I am prepared to admit that at the time the original Act was passed there was a case for some restrictions upon the mobility of labour. I agree that serious inconvenience has been caused in many engineering shops by the light-heartedness with which men were changing their employment, and that that condition of things required amendment' But at the time I held that the remedy which the Minister of Munitions proposed was far too drastic, and that it would have been possible to restrict the mobility of labour not in this one-sided way against the workman but in a way which would be equal alike to employer and workman.
    I was induced to assent to it not because of the charges made against workmen but by reason of the case put up for the Government by the late Home Secretary (Sir

    837
    J. Simon), whose departure from the Government in such honourable conditions we all appreciate. That case was that workmen were being bribed by employers to change from one employment to another, that employers were offering increased wages, so as to buy workmen from other workshops, and that it was necessary to put an. end to that state of things. But what was the cause of such a state of affairs having arisen? It was entirely due to the short sighted and wasteful action of the Government. At that time the Government were prepared to pay any prices so long as they' could get delivery, and employers knew that so long as they could deliver they could get what prices they liked. In consequence of that situation, there was a most extraordinary competition in the labour market. Employers were competing and over-competing with each other, and, in view of that, a case was made out for this particular provision.
    But now the situation has largely changed. Employers have no longer the same inducement, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions has effectively restricted their profits, and at the same time he has also done something to reduce the high prices which were being given to contractors. Under these circumstances, there is no inducement at the present time to employers engaged upon munitions work to compete against each other for workmen, and there no longer exists the conditions which it was alleged did exist at the time of the passing of the original Act, and which were said to render these restrictions on the freedom of workmen necessary. It must be remembered this was not the only restriction imposed upon the workman under this Act. He was prevented altogether from engaging, under the usual conditions, in collective bargaining through his trade union, and at the same time Section (7) put an end to individual bargaining. We say that the conditions which were alleged to justify this provision at the time it was passed are gone. That is my first point. My second point is not only are they gone, but the experience of the working of this provision has been so disastrous and so calamitous as to render it absolutely essential that the provision should be repealed as early as possible.
    These and other provisions have produced a state of things upon the Clyde bordering on revolution. I am not exaggerating when I say that. We are told by some of the Press that the truth should not
    838
    be told to this House. Others are heading a campaign against hiding the truth, but the latter are only anxious to tell the truth so far as it suits them. The conditions on the Clyde have been systematically concealed from the public by the Government, and by the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman is the head. There have been labour difficulties, and frequently notes have been sent out by the Censor to the newspapers asking them not to publish anything about them. There was a rent strike, partly arising out of those difficulties, and the particulars of that were suppressed by the Press Bureau, although a Bill had to be passed through this House to deal with the question. My right hon. Friend has now seen with his own eyes what is the condition of things. He has made a pilgrimage since the Second Beading and Committee stage of this Bill, and has seen the men themselves—where, indeed, they would consent to meet him. They did not always consent to do that. In one of the greatest shipbuilding yards on the Clyde—the Fairfield—the men were so aggrieved by the conditions Of slavery under which they were labouring that they would not agree to see him.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never went near Fairfield. I never asked anyone there to meet me. I went to Weir's, but I never went to Fairfield.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman was at Weir's, then?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend either speaks the truth or the untruth. I say his statement is untrue.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then I withdraw the statement that the right hon. Gentleman offered to go to Fairfield and that the men refused to meet him. But he went to Weir's, or rather he desired to go, and there was a refusal. He went to Parkhead as well, and there he had a very instructive meeting; and if it was not the Munitions Act that was largely under discussion there, at any rate my right hon.' Friend said they were only concerned with the dilution of labour
    Mr. W. THORNE: What is the "dilution of labour? I cannot understand it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is a cant phrase. It is irrelevant, however, and I will deal with it

    839
    at another time. At Parkhead one of the questions with which the right hon. Gentleman was most urgently faced was precisely this question of Section (7). A chairman was appointed at Parkhead, a man who enjoyed the confidence of his fellow workmen. He was asked by Lord Murray of Elibank to take the chair, and instructions were apparently given him as to how he was to introduce my right hon. Friend. But this is how my right hon. Friend was actually introduced. The chairman said:—
    "This is Mr. Lloyd (George. He has come specially to speak to you. No doubt you will give him a patient hearing. I can assure him that every word he says will be carefully weighed. We regard him with suspicion, because every act with which his name is associated has the taint of slavery."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is absolutely untrue.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend likes to repeat tittle-tattle about a meeting which was perfectly private and confidential, I may just point out the danger of repeating, on the authority of some one man statements made at a confidential meeting. All I can say is that it is absolutely untrue, and, if it had been true, it ought not to have been reported, because it was not a public meeting. But I repeat, it is absolutely untrue.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. At a subsequent stage of the proceedings Mr. Kirkwood put the point about slavery in an even stronger form. At a public meeting, of which an official report was given but not an accurate or full report, my right hon. Friend admitted his obligation to Mr. Kirkwood, and admitted that he had stated very frankly to him his objections to the Munitions Act. I think it is admitted that Mr. Kirkwood at that meeting put in the very strongest way to my right hon. Friend his objections to what he called the "slavery provisions" of the Munitions Act. That is a very strong feeling on the Clyde which is shared by countless men. It is not simply the men who have gone to the munitions tribunals and have had certificates refused who are discontented. There are thousands of men who never take the trouble to go to these tribunals. Everyone of those men feels himself under a personal grievance against the Minister of Munitions. I made an
    840
    appeal to my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading to get rid of these punitive compulsory provisions and to go with that gift in his hand to the men on the Clyde and to make an appeal to their patriotism and self-sacrifice. He went to make an appeal, but he did not take this gift of goodwill for his Christmas greeting. The Act is a failure, and will always be a failure until these provisions are withdrawn.
    It may be said that relaxations are introduced in this Amending Bill, and that those relaxations will meet the great majority of the grievances mentioned in Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Report. I quite agree it will be so, but although with your relaxations you are leaving hardly anything but the skeleton of this Section, you are leaving enough to create grievances, to manufacture annoyance and irritation, and you are doing that without any effective restriction upon the man who wants to change his employment. In other words, by your relaxations you are making it possible for the man who wishes to evade the original Act to evade it, whereas the original Act will press as hardly upon the honest man who wishes to obey the law. That is not a situation which is going to make for the smooth and harmonious cooperation of everybody in the production of munitions. That is not all. I was inclined to leave it there when I moved this Amendment on the Committee stage. But a great deal has happened since then, and one of those things is the announcement of a new policy, which was one of the reasons why I plead for the delay of the Munitions Bill until this period of the Session. The new policy is going to revolutionise the whole position. We are going to have compulsory attestation, in the first place, of unmarried men, which will extend to married men. Under compulsory attestation it will be possible for the Government to put men to any work they please under conditions of military law. What is the use of discussing a Munitions Bill? We want to know where we are. We have had reports in the Press about the intentions of my right hon. Friend, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity this afternoon of denying some of the things which have appeared in the Press. For example, we have been told in one organ of the Press—I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will give me his attention; it is worth his while to consider whether

    841
    he will deny this also—it was stated in the "Daily Mail" that, as a result of his visit to the Clyde, he had come back more strongly convinced in favour of compulsion, and that he had sent an ultimatum to the Prime Minister regarding military service. Was that a malignant and mischievous lie, such as the "Globe" published about another Minister when it was suppressed? There is no answer to that, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is very important, because it goes to the root of the whole policy of the Section for the repeal of which I am now asking. There is another paper which has published something equally strong. This is a paper with which the Director of Recruiting has some association:—
    "As a result of his reading of the Derby figures. and as a result of the is he formed on his munitions tour, he—"
    that is, the Minister of Munitions—
    "made up his mind that the immediate compulsion of unattested single men between nineteen and forty was essential."
    What does all this mean? Are these statements a true statement of the right hon. Gentleman's policy? The House of Commons is entitled to know that before it parts with this punitive provision of the Munitions Bill. We are entitled to an answer because, if the right hon. Gentleman, who, we all know, is the most important member of the Government, the most powerful member of the Government, and the most forceful personality in it, intends to go in for this industrial compulsion he will carry the Government with him. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is not so much concerned about the working man as he used to be. My right hon. Friend will carry the Government, and then all the concessions which are being granted in this Bill will be as worthless as the paper upon which they are printed. That is the situation with which this House is faced and that is the situation with which the working men of this country are faced. My right hon. Friend often reminds his hearers of his origin in a working man's home. There are others in this House who have an equally humble origin, but who do not use it simply for the purpose of embellishing perorations. I come from a working family. My brother is working in one of these yards on the Clyde. He knows the conditions there. I know the conditions there, and I would shed the last drop of my blood before a workman who is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone was sub-
    842
    jected to the military slavery which these papers suggested who are in the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Motion. I hope to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said by an appeal to the Minister of Munitions. If I remember rightly, the Minister of Munitions visited Scotland for the first time at a meeting which I myself organised. That was the very first meeting he ever addressed in Scotland. I think he will agree that some of us who sit here below the Gangway representing Scottish seats have some claim to put forward our views with regard to the feelings of Scottish working men. He knows, and the House knows, that the Clyde is, perhaps, one of the largest and most effective arsenals for the provision of munitions of war, and it is not only to the interest of the Minister of Munitions, but it is to the interest of every Member of this House and also to the nation that, if there are grave differences of opinion on the Clyde that can be adjusted in a way that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned, it is worth our while now to try and find that method of conciliation. I put it on that ground because I think the House will agree that we do not want to have any personal quarrel with the Minister of Munitions. I do not think we have ever had a quarrel with him. I think the Minister of Munitions will agree that both my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) and myself have interviewed him many times over this Munitions Bill and have always met him perfectly fairly and come to an amicable conclusion. To-day we do not want to raise unnecessary heat, but we do want to put the view of these Scottish workmen on the Clyde who are suffering under a very legitimate grievance and who, whether the House believes it or not, are at any rate feeling that grievance so acutely that I venture to make this remark now from my place in the House: that some recent events, if they are not covered very quickly, will become pegs upon which very serious trouble in the Clyde Valley will be hung. I venture, with my knowledge of Scotland, which is not small, to suggest to my right hon. Friend, who, as I say, I had the pleasure of introducing into Scotland for the first time, or at any rate to the City of Edinburgh for the first time, that we are speaking of men about whom we know something, and that those men are not less inclined than any other men in the United Kingdom to get their

    843
    necks down to any work which is necessary, if they can get them down on terms which are agreeable to their sentiments, which in Scotland, after all, is an extraordinarily strong thing.
    I will give the House an example of what I mean. We have these tribunals before which these men are brought for various offences. As the Minister of Munitions knows, there are different chairmen for those tribunals, and it is actually the case that one man on Monday, another man on Tuesday, and another man on Wednesday who have committed exactly the same offence, receive different punishments. Let the House mark what that means. The Minister of Munitions knows Beardmore's Works. He has gone through Parkhead Forge. Both my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) and myself have fought that Division in Glasgow and we must have addressed hundreds of meetings in Park-head Forge, so that we know what we are up against. We have both been there and know these men, therefore these are men about whom we have a right to say something. What happens? These men go down to the big shops and they, in the course of lunch time, and at other times say, "Oh So-and-so got such-and-such a punishment on Monday from Mr. So-and-so, while Jock somebody got a different punishment on Tuesday." I tell the House that that goes round to every man working at every bench, and it gets into their spirit and into their bones, and they think it is immensely unjust. Another thing is that in many oases these men are really overborne by their foremen. I will give the House a case in point. I know a workman on the Clyde who was working, as the Minister of Munitions knows many of them are working, from morning till night turning out munitions. This poor man was brought before a tribunal for losing time. When his story was investigated it turned out that the poor man's wife was in process of being conveyed to a lunatic asylum, and that at night when he returned to his humble home in Glasgow his sleep was taken from him by watching at the bedside of his wife until she was removed to a lunatic asylum, he had three little children and he was trying to arrange with relatives that those three little children should be taken by them so that he might concentrate on the work the Minister of Munitions wants this man to do.
    844
    5.0 P.M.
    He was brought before the tribunal, and only saved by being sent to one of the chairmen of the tribunals, by the intervention of one of the servants of the Minister of Munitions who happens to be a very clearheaded man with a very kind heart. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman afterwards who it was. I suggest incidentally to him that he might save a very great deal of trouble if he multiplied the process of interviews, instead of sending men to tribunals. I want them cleared away, of course, but if he will not do that let him take that bit of advice, that a great deal can be done by the interviewing of these men by men of their own kind who understand their difficulties, and so preventing the men going on to these tribunals. I do want the right hon. Gentleman to feel that we are not getting at him. I think he appreciates the fact that we are, not trying to get at him. This matter is too serious for us to try to get at anybody. We are speaking of things of which we know, and the Minister of Munitions and the House know that round about Glasgow you have more than a quarter of the entire population of Scotland, that you have more than 1,000,000 people in Glasgow itself, and if you take all the smaller places connected by tramway with the Clyde you have one-half the population of Scotland. What we want to do this afternoon is to come to some conclusion that will satisfy public opinion in that one-half of Scotland. Public opinion against this Clause in other parts of Scotland is no less keen, and so I suggest we try to come to some kind of conclusion.
    We have had at Question Time to-day some talk about "Forward." The Minister of Munitions knows that "Forward" published an account of his meeting at Parkhead, and another in St. Andrews Hall—and he tells us—and I believe him—that it was not suppressed because of the publication of those speeches. If that is so, I hope to arrange that these speeches will be issued else where, and that they will not be sup pressed. I take it on the authority of the Minister' of Munitions that if they are published elsewhere he would not dream of suppressing them, so that the public can get some idea of what has been done in Glasgow. That is a firm promise. I may take it that the Minister of Munitions will not seek by any way to censor or to suspend any paper that publishes else where—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to the discussion on this Bill.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid it was irrelevant. I apologise to you, but I hope the Minister of Munitions will remember even a matter of irrelevance. Let me proceed to the other point—the only other one I will make. It is an emphasis of the point made by my hon. Friend. We are to have, on the word of the Prime Minister, some proposals for compulsory service. The men in the munitions works and the men in the Clyde Valley are very suspicious of what may be the result of that Bill, because if they, as munition workers, have to become attested, they obviously, of course, come within the power of the military, to be sent and to do exactly as they choose. If that is so, then you have a very altered state of opinion, and I only want to suggest to the Minister of Munitions this one consideration: Has he really thought, has he really weighed over in his mind, the effect that is going to have on those men We could tell him from the point of view of Scotsmen what our views are with regard to this fight in which we are engaged. There are no men who step more quickly, and in larger numbers, into the ranks in what we consider the fight for freedom, than Scotsmen have done.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear!
    Mr. HOGGE: The Minister of Munitions says "Hoar, hear I" He agrees. I want to tell him, as a Scottish Member, that the workers on the Clyde and elsewhere in Scotland do not want to be regimented for labour purposes. I have a great belief in the Minister of Munitions. I have heard him address meetings and this House, and I know he has faults as he has virtues, as most of us have, and I candidly believe that if the Minister of Munitions cared to go down to the Clyde and treat the men working there on level terms and give them the same privileges against the employers as the employers have against them, and remove those penal conditions in this Clause, he would get such a flood of energy on the Clyde as would astound even him. He would get rid of all this trouble, and I ask him as I sit down to remember who his advisers are in a matter of this kind. A Minister as busy as the Minister of Munitions is very apt to be surrounded by officials who convey only the official point of view to him as to the public feeling of the men. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, he
    846
    has a brother actually slaving in these yards at the present time. I have many personal friends doing work in Scotland in these works, and doing it extremely well. We are speaking from the point of view of the Scottish workmen, and we tell him that the Scottish workers are not only suspicious but tired of these petty penal provisions, which send them from one tribunal to another where they may get a different sort of judgment, and which irritate them to such an extent that they cannot do the work the Minister of Munitions wants. Whether he can agree to this Amendment is perhaps too big a thing to ask, but I do hope he will see his way to say something to-day from that desk that will make these men on the Clyde feel that they are not being chivvied, that they are not being got at, that they are not being used, but that they are being invited as free men to come into I the compact and contract with every other man, to put their necks down, as I say, to; the national work, and they will do that I with the same kind of national vim and I energy as they are always ready to show I if they are dealt with fairly.
    Mr. CURRIE: The two hon. Members I who have just addressed the House, and who represent Scottish constituencies— and I am sure most of us recognise that they do so at all events with much industry and no little ability—seem to me in the course of the powerful appeal which they have addressed to the Minister of Munitions to have made—I think it is not too much to say—excessive claims as to the extent to which they represent Scottish sentiment, that is undivided Scottish sentiment. It is unquestionable, and no one who knows anything about the; Scottish working man would seek to deny it—that he is largely and habitually swayed by sentiment. It seems to me very material, and very necessary, to draw I the attention of the House to this, that the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), in urging his appeal, unfortunately—and I think for his own case very unnecessarily—alloAved himself to be led away into one or two unintentional, I am sure, but very direct misstatements of fact. He withdrew them, and I do not want to enlarge on that; but he did make some misstatements of fact, and I think that takes away a good deal, certainly quite a proportion, from the weight to which his appeal is entitled. Again, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) drew our attention to what he regarded as one

    847
    of the great grievances in the Clyde Valley. To what does this grievance amount? He says that men, all of whom, remember, in the first place have committed an offence of some kind—they are acknowledged offenders to begin with, be their offence serious or not serious—have received sentences inconsistent one with the other. Anyone who knows anything of the administration of the criminal law of the country will be aware that that sort of thing is what occurs every day. Excessive disparities of sentences are to be regretted, but that one man is fined 20s., a second 25s., and a third 27s. 6d. does not amount to every much, and I do not think the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in urging that as a prime grievance, and making it one of the pegs on which he staked his case, really did his case justice. If there is nothing more substantial than that, if that is about the most substantial point that can be urged against what the Ministry of Munitions is doing in Scotland at present, I do not think the House will think it possible that the hon. Member really represents the whole undivided sentiment of the workmen on the Clyde. I think what the workmen on the Clyde have done is the best proof that they would by no means unanimously agree that their attitude has been fully and fairly represented.
    Take another case. The hon. Member drew a picture of an unfortunate fellow, a workman—no one can be but sorry for him —whose wife was ill and whose children were in difficulties. But what was the end of this case? Who saved this poor man? The representative of the Minister of Munitions. It may be that the process was longer than it might have been, and no one wishes to minimise the sufferings of such a poor fellow in such a hard case. I do not think the Minister of Munitions would be the one to do so, but it is only fair to him, and the enormously important work with which he is charged at present, that it should be realised that after all the end of this case, which is singled out by the hon. Gentleman as a sample of how bad the work of the Ministry of Munitions is, was that the man was saved by the representative of the Minister of Munitions in Glasgow. I would ask my hon. Friend and the rest of the House if they remember another case reported in the whole Press. The case was one where some months ago a man was brought before Sheriff Thompson, in the Sheriff's Court in Gasgow. He
    848
    deliberately committed a brutal assault on a fellow workman, for what supposed offence? For the offence of doing too much work. The man was sentenced, I think very properly, and was imprisoned. Afterwards his punishment, so far as it could then be remitted, was remitted. Whether that was wise or not I do not wish to go into to-day, but I would like to remind the House that the larger, and as I think the sounder, part of the sentiment in the Clyde Valley would admit that the sentence passed on that man was wise and fair, and there is a very widespread feeling that if an error has been made it has been in letting that man off at all. I do not wish to go back and rake up the circumstances. I have no doubt that the man has had his sentence remitted from the best of motives; on the part of the authorities, to makes things work smoothly.
    I think if mistakes have been made they have been made as much in one direction as the other. It appears to me that the real trouble with the Clyde workmen is that they find it difficult to accept from the Minister of Munitions a good deal of the advice that is given them just now. The arqumentum ad hominem is, of course,, a very powerful one, and I dare say many of them have listened to very different speeches from the Minister of Munitions five and ten years ago, and I dare say they find it rather difficult to accept some of the advice that he, of all men, gives them now. But these Clydeside workers realise that whatever the Minister of Munitions said five or ten years ago he is doing his best to discharge an enormously heavy burden of work, and they realise that it is not the part of a good citizen to stand on those arguments. What they are afraid of, at least so it seems to me, is that things may be done just now which will remain, as they fear and imagine, to their detriment after the War. I think, if the workmen on Clydeside and elsewhere would only reflect on the way in which this country is governed a little more closely than they often do, they would see very plainly that whatever restrictions are placed on them now, and whatever motives or wishes anyone in this House or out of it may have as to rendering those restrictions permanent, no permanent restrictions can be placed upon the working men of this country, and maintained upon them, except by their own vote, consent and good will. That appears to me to be the crucial point on which a portion—I do not believe more than 15 or 20 per cent. of the;

    849
    Clydeside workmen—are still somewhat astray, and that, it appears to me, is what it is necessary to make them see more clearly than they do at present. I hope the Minister of Munitions will not allow himself to be unduly swayed by the appeal to sentiment which has been addressed to him. I am confident that the larger and sounder portion of the working men of Clydeside, as elsewhere, are with him in this matter.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment counselled persuasion and left it to his seconder to pursue that course. My hon. and learned Friend has invited me to travel very far away from the region of this Amendment. He wished me to discuss some proposals which the Prime Minister has announced he will make to-morrow in the House of Commons. He wants me to discuss the editorial and news columns of the "Daily Mail." These are only two out of a multitude of considerations which he was very anxious I should enter into a Debate upon. But I am not to be drawn aside from the discussion of the subject before the House. My hon. and learned Friend paid a high tribute to my rhetoric by imitating it. After making a reference to my humble origin, he immediately embarked upon an impassioned oration which ail circled round the fact that he himself had an origin of a similar character. I thank him for that high tribute. The fact that he himself imitated it is the greatest proof of the sincerity of his admiration in that respect. With regard to other things that he said, for the moment I do not think I can usefully discuss them, because they have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. The question whether we ought to have Conscription in this country and the effect it would have on this question can be raised when the Prime Minister makes his proposals tomorrow, but for the moment this has nothing whatever to do with Conscription. In countries where there is a complete military system, and every man up to fifty or fifty-five years of age is liable to be called up for service, no Munitions Bill is necessary. Therefore if my hon. Friend wanted to get rid of Clause 7, and every other Clause in the Munitions Act, the best way of doing it would be to have universal Conscription and not merely military Conscription.
    Coming to the discussion of the only Question before the House, the repeal of Clause 7, I take note of the fact that he
    850
    admitted that there was a case for restricting the mobility of labour. That is my case on Clause 7. He did not tell me how he would do it. I have no doubt he would do it differently, and I have no doubt the way he would do it would be very much better, but I am perfectly certain that if he had been Minister of Munitions and if he had attempted this scheme which he has in his mind, and which he has not communicated to me in order to relieve me of this embarrassment, he would have experienced exactly the same difficulty from exactly the same class of men. He admits the case. The case was that you had unrest, which was attributable very largely, undoubtedly, not to employers so much as to managers and foremen, who were trying to kidnap each other's workmen. They offered them all kinds of inducements to leave their work. The result was that you had unrest, and the stability of labour was interfered with. It was quite impossible for any man to organise his business in the way of piling up munitions with any sort of reliance upon the future. It was admitted, when we discussed the matter with the trade unions, that there was a case. It was suggested that this might be the best possible-way of dealing with it, and I cannot for the life of me see any other way, unless you put everyone under some sort of military discipline. There are only two ways. In France and in Italy that is the way; here we deal with it by this method. I should like to know what the alternative is that is so much better than the plan which you have here I have never heard it. My hon. Friend must remember that not merely labour but the employer is concerned in the Munitions Act. The whole of his works are under control. He can only turn out the work which has been allotted to him. His prices are under control, his profits are under control, and he has to submit his books. That is part of the Munitions Act. Would my hon. Friend wish to abolish all that? He talks about a one-sided arrangement, the suggestion being that it is a sort of arrangement by which you restrict labour and do not interfere with the employer—not in the same way, it is perfectly true, because you do not restrict the employer in the same direction. It is a different operation, but you restrict his profits, you restrict what he can do in his works, and you restrict his control. It is not a one sided restriction. It is a restriction which is different in character because it is necessary that it should be.

    851
    My hon. Friend referred to what has happened on the Clyde. I should like to say one thing about that. He suggested, in very kindly words, that it would have been better if I had relied upon what he was good enough to suggest I possess—the gift of persuasion. When you go down to discuss matters confidentially with workers face to face, without any reporters present, you do not always have a very easy course; but if every time you do so you are going to get garbled, one-sided reports given to the House of Commons, it makes it utterly impossible to carry on conferences at all. I have met representatives of the trade unions; I have met them in committees, I have met them in executives; I have met them in councils, and I have met them in conferences, and I have never seen any breach of confidence so far as they were concerned. They know the importance of having these free-and-easy talks where every man can speak his mind freely without having a garbled account of what is taking place reported, and if reports of that kind are published, either in the House of Commons or in the newspapers upon information which is given in that way of a private meeting, it will be quite impossible to get conferences, which are most valuable in arriving at an understanding between labour and the Government, and I regret that my hon. friend should have given an account when he has been completely misinformed as to what took place. The mere fact that there should be a contradiction in itself shows the inadvisability of having done so. He ought to know the position on the Clyde. He represents this upheaval as one of trade unionists against the action of the Government. He really ought to know better. The revolt is far more a revolt against the official leaders of trade unionism than against the Government. There was trouble on the Clyde long before the War. It is the trouble of a section of workmen, some Socialists, but mostly Syndicalists, who have been trying to overthrow the official leaders of trade unionism for months before the War ever began. There was trouble over a strike there, which, I believe, was repudiated by the trade union leaders. The trade union leaders had their way and carried the bulk of the men with them. These men have never forgiven them since then, and have done their best to overthrow them. They have formed an association of their own and they are
    852
    running newspapers of their own. They are not the official trade union papers. The whole of our difficulty has come from the fact that whilst we are dealing with the trade union leaders, who are the only people we can negotiate with in the name of labour, there is a powerful section— the hon. Member suggests only 15 or 20 per cent.; I have no information about that. It is a minority, but a powerful minority, and a well-organised minority, and in some respects a very ably led minority. Mr. Kirkwood is a very able man and a very earnest and sincere man, and I will not say a word here or elsewhere which will show any disrespect towards anything which Mr. Kirkwood says or does, but, at any rate, the men who are associated with him are men who are in revolt against the trade unions, and that is why it is so difficult for us to have a bargain carried out. The whole of our difficulty has come not because we cannot make arrangements with responsible trade union leaders, but very largely because there is a powerful organisation working sedulously and with great skill to overthrow not the Ministry of Munitions, not the Government, but the recognised leaders of labour in the Clyde Valley. That is one reason why most of our troubles come from the Clyde. I do not say that there has not been a little friction here and there, but most of this trouble is Clyde trouble. It is Clyde trouble because that is the only place where you have got this sentiment thoroughly organised. The hon. Gentleman says it is a formidable sentiment. It is a formidable sentiment until you deal with it. It does not represent the majority of labour. I have been there, and I think I am as capable of judging that as any man, and I say that it does not represent the majority of labour sentiment in the Clyde Valley as I saw it—not in the least. That is the opinion I have come to, and that is the opinion which the Minister for Education (Mr. Henderson) came to, from what we saw there in front of us. The majority are perfectly prepared to work loyally. Of course there are grievances. We sent down a very able and impartial Commission to inquire into them, and have done our very best to carry out the Report of that Commission. Grievances, of course, there always will be in the administration of any Act, but when you are working under war conditions it is very difficult to have in your mind every case out of the thousands and the tens of thousands that always arise from day to day.

    853
    It is quite impossible. Therefore, you will have friction and trouble, and you will have mistakes; but I believe that the vast majority of the working men of this country are perfectly prepared to take all that into account, and to work loyally and fairly with the Ministry of Munitions in order to increase the output of munitions which is so necessary for the thousands of men who have gone from the Clyde Valley, as well as from elsewhere, to fight the battles of their country at the front.
    What is this slavery that is imposed upon the men? This slavery—if it is slavery—this restriction, this restraint, is infinitely less than the restraint which their own fellow workmen put upon themselves when they volunteered to become members of the Scottish regiments to go to the front.
    Mr. PRINGLE(was understood to say): That is for the deference of their country.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What does it mean? This is a state of war, and you are imposing war conditions of work. The workman who works under organised labour has agreed, under certain conditions which protect him in regard to wages and otherwise, to certain restrictions in regard to the mobility of labour, which my hon. and learned Friend himself admits it is necessary there should be. My hon. and learned Friend, I think, would not agree that there should be a restraint upon the mobility of labour in times of peace, but he admits that there is a case for the restraint of the mobility of labour in time of war. Why should ho call that slavery? Men who undertake to serve their country are simply told, "If you move about from one workshop to another, it will be utterly impossible to organise the resources of this country for the purpose of helping the men in the field, and without that organisation this War will be lost." It will be lost unless we organise. It is an essential part of the organisation of the forces of the nation for victory— victory which is more vital to the working classes of this country than any other class. The well-to-do can always look after themselves under any conditions, whatever happens. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are doing that!"] That bears out my statement. If they are able to do it now, they will be able to do it in times of peace. Is it not, therefore, vital for this country, and for the workmen of this country that they, at any rate, should
    854
    accept the conditions upon which so much of their liberty depends? My hon. and learned Friend is silent on that point. Then he agrees. Is it asking too much that when the success of the Government in turning out munitions of war depends upon our being enabled to organise the workshops which are under our control, and which are practically therefore Government workshops, and organising them so that there shall not be constant shifting from one to another—which would mean the utter impossibility of getting continuity of labour—is it too much to ask these men to submit themselves to this restriction? The vast majority have never come up against it. We have agreed to all the conditions which they have imposed.
    My hon. Friend the seconder of the Amendment suggested that there should be a Committee which should sift these cases. Will he believe it, that I have been urging that very thing? Would he like to know what is the difficulty? He ought to know. The difficulty is not with the Government, the difficulty is not with the employers, but the difficulty is with the trade unions themselves. The moment you do it, you get one union feeling that it has not got sufficient representation. They say, "Why should Union A, which has nothing whatever to do with dilution, have a word to say in settling a question for us who suffer by dilution?" Therefore, the whole difficulty is not a difficulty with the Government, or with the employers, but it is a difficulty amongst the workmen themselves. Nothing would suit me better if a joint committee of employers and workmen could sit together to sift and examine these cases, and take the responsibility of the Courts and of the Ministry of Munitions. We do not want to be taken away from the output of munitions in order to embark on quarrels and squabbles with any workmen, and I should be delighted to have a committee of that kind, if it were possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are workmen who are slaving, I think he said, very hard. I have seen them. I saw them engaged in some of the most laborious tasks that any man could ever undertake, and doing them with a will, and with a whole heart, and with a feeling that they were serving their country in so doing. That is true—I say it now, as I said ten months ago—of the vast majority of workmen, but this Clause is not to deal with them. You have to deal with the minority. You have in

    855
    every class a minority who render it difficult to carry out the work of the State. I trust that the House of Commons will not hinder the task of turning out munitions—a task which is much more serious than I care to say. Everything depends upon it. The length of the War depends upon it. Everything depends upon whether we shall be able to turn out a sufficient quantity of munitions of war to bring this campaign to an end this year. That does not depend upon the soldiers, who have done their part heroically. It does not depend upon the Government. It depends entirely—and I say it solemnly, with a full knowledge of papers that I have examined to-day—upon the workmen of this country doing what the workmen in France have done, according to the report of the Labour Committee which went over there, frankly setting aside conditions, throwing themselves into the work, and sticking to their workshops. Unless they do that I cannot tell what the result will be; but I can tell them that, if they do it, they and they alone will have achieved a victory for this Empire, and for the destinies of the human race which will reflect indelible credit upon the labour movement.
    Mr. HODGE: I venture to say that there has been a great deal of exaggeration with respect to the trouble over this particular Clause. That there have been difficulties is quite true, and some of them I have mentioned in the House before. In respect to some of them I have made direct representations to the Ministry of Munitions. I will give a demonstration' of what I mean. I am the secretary of a society of 36,000 members, having something like 260 or 270 branches, and in only four of those branches has any trouble arisen as far as Clause 7 is concerned. In these four cases three were concerned with large armament firms who have always been very difficult to deal with as far as troubles between labour and capital are concerned. At the same time, we must not forgot the fact, which has been placed before the House time and time again, that the reason why the friction arises is that, while the employer has a lien upon the services of the workman for six weeks, the employer can dismiss the man at a moment's notice. I think the Committee will agree that that is an inequality and an injustice. One typical case that came under my own notice was in regard to 151 members of
    856
    the society I represent. When they received their wages on a Saturday afternoon there was written across the envelope in red ink "Your services are no & longer required." While these men were in a state of suspension they could have got work with another armament firm, but because the particular firm under which they had been employed anticipated a large order from the Admiralty in the near future, they refused to permit these men to enter the employment of the other firm. As a consequence of that the production of armaments was hampered and harassed. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman made his speech before the Debate had gone on a little further, because I think he has entered into a misstatement. He stated that he had not had placed before him a substitute for Clause 7. I think the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that some time ago he addressed a large delegate meeting of trade unionists—the largest representation of labour which has ever been called together in this country. There were over 900 delegates, and they made a proposal which would have put the onus upon the employer instead of upon the workmen. That is to say, it would have been necessary for the employer to show that the services of the workmen are essential to his particular establishment. The right hon. Gentleman also said that this Clause only deals with the minority. That is perfectly true, but there have been a great many cases of hardship so far as the minority is concerned, and the chairmen of the munitions tribunals have not always meted out fair play to the applications that come before them. As an instance, the right hon. Gentleman summoned the steel-makers of the whole of the United Kingdom to a meeting for the purpose of discussing with them the production of a greater and still greater quantity of steel, because such was essential for the manufacture of munitions. Some steel-makers had been induced to put down new plant for the purpose of supplying the requirements of the Department. You cannot start new plant without capable men, and, as a result of the great numbers of men engaged in industry who had enlisted it was very difficult to get skilled men, and you could only find them in some of the older works, where it was perfectly possible to have spared one or two of them and permitted the juniors to move up in their place." But in no instance where a workman desired to

    857
    leave for the purpose of taking charge of new plant was a single application granted by the munitions tribunal. The result was that these men, having been afforded the opportunity of obtaining a position of greater responsibility and trust, with more money, simply left their employment and remained idle for six weeks, after which they then went to the new works for the purpose of starting them. The work of these men was absolutely lost to the nation for the period of six weeks.
    Mr. CURRIE: Was that in Scotland?
    Mr. HODGE: No, it was not in Scotland; it was in England; so that we have here a case of the employer blocking the way, while the charge is made against the workmen in Scotland. May I remind the Deputy-Minister of Munitions that at the great conference to which I have referred, when the Minister of Munitions was so anxious to find out what was the opinion of labour, one of the amendments brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this particular Section 7, and, as I have said, its purport was that if a man desired to leave his employment the employer must go either before the local committee or the munitions tribunal for the purpose of demonstrating that it was absolutely essential to his business that the services of that particular man should be retained. In answer to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, the right hon. Gentleman said that the difficulty of dealing with these problems did not arise with the employers, and did not arise in the Department of the Ministry of Munitions, but arose amongst the workmen themselves. Naturally, because the proposal before that was to set up a hybrid committee consisting of members of various trade unions. On a previous occasion I have stated in this House that that was essentially the proper method of dealing with the problem. In the iron and steel trade our method of dealing with problems of that character is to have two neutral workmen; that is, if a difficulty arose on the Clyde, We would bring two neutral men, probably from the Tyne, the Tees, or the Wear, or two neutral employers from any of those districts, so that they would come to the area in which the dispute arose without any local bias or prejudice; they were men of the same class, who knew the conditions relating to the dispute both practically and technically; so that I venture to say, with very great assurance,
    858
    that if those committees are to be set up, and set up in the right way, that is the method I would suggest.
    The hon. and learned Member who moved this new Clause went on to say that there is not the same inducement to-day as there was at the beginning of the War for employers to sneak one another's men. To my mind the limitation of profits prevents that. But, at any rate, in regard to this Clause, the right hon. Gentleman apparently has forgotten that he received a report containing the resolutions passed at that conference, and later they were placed before him by a committee, who have absolutely filled the Bill so far as that is concerned. Again, we know that in many places a great deal of friction has arisen because of the fact that, when slackness came to a particular department, a man has been suspended from employment. Being suspended, he cannot earn wages, and yet the employer has a lien upon that man's services for six weeks. Surely that is manifestly unjust. The Bill in its amended form does propose to remedy that grievance to some extent, but I do not think that it meets it to the full extent. My contention is that if a firm has the right of a lien upon a man's services for six weeks, then the man should receive six weeks' notice before he can be dismissed. That, surely, is absolutely fair and just.
    Then, again, a great deal of irritation has arisen because of the trumpery cases which have been taken before the tribunal. Let me state one case. In the forge department of a great armament works the men may work night and day shifts alternately. When it comes to two o'clock, the time for leaving off, as a general rule the other shift of men are there ready to take the place of their mates. It may be, because of train facilities, that a man may get in half an hour before the changing time, and he simply says to a man, "You can go oft now, and I will keep it going for you." A case is known where that occurred. A man put on his jacket two minutes before his time —he was working on piece and the other man is doing his work for him—and for doing that he was called before the munitions tribunal, who dismissed the case as being frivolous. But, notwithstanding that, the man lost a day's work by having to attend the tribunal to defend himself. Surely that is manifestly unfair. I am glad to think that the Bill in its amended form will do something to correct that

    859
    state of matters; but surely the Department can do something to prevent these vexatious and frivolous cases from being taken before the munitions tribunal. There are many other matters of this description which I think would be absolutely remedied if the remedies which were proposed at the conference, and which have been placed before the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions, were embodied in the Bill. I would respectfully urge upon the Minister of Munitions to consider whether he cannot make a change now, and that he will really seriously consider the matter so that Amendments, such as I have suggested, can be introduced into the Bill in another place.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I was rather interested in the account which the Minister of Munitions gave of his visit to Glasgow and the conditions which he found there, and in his diagnosis of the causes of unrest. The right hon. Gentleman said it was due to the work of a majority of Syndicalists who had broken loose from the control of their official leaders, and that that was his difficulty. He seemed to think that a difficulty like that could be got over by the retention of penal clauses of this nature by way of compulsion. We have had previous experience of similar conditions arising, and of the different methods adopted in dealing with them. The most disastrous strike which has taken place since the War was that of the South Wales miners. They declared the strike against the advice of their trade union leaders. The district was proclaimed by the Minister of Munitions. When he found what was the temper of the South Wales miners, he went down there and held a conference, at which he conceded all their demands. That was his way of obtaining peace as regards Wales. I think if that was the right way for Wales, it is also the right way for Scotland; I do not see why the workers of Scotland should be coerced any more than the workers of South Wales.
    I am glad to support the elimination of Section 7 of the original Act, which is known, I think, as the Slave Clause, for most certainly it does make the worker a bond man. The man who is not free to leave his work, and is subject to penalties if he does so without the assent of his employer, ceases to be a free man. It seems to me that the origin of this Act is almost to be found in the Chinese
    860
    Labour Ordinance of the Transvaal. Why did we object to the Chinese Labour Ordinance? It was because it limited the right of men to work where they would and for what employer they would. Therefore I hold strongly that, whatever may be said about the difficulties and necessities arising out of the War, undoubtedly this Section is a limitation of personal freedom, and it does to a certain extent impose serfdom upon the worker. It is pointed out that the necessities of the War justify the action which has been taken, and the right hon. Gentleman says-that he has controlled the liberty of the employer. Does he think it a fair method to say to the capitalists that they may make 20 per cent. greater profits than before the War, while at the same time he limits the liberty of a man to dispose of his own flesh and blood? In referring to the necessities of the War and the conditions which arise from it, the Minister of Munitions, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with capital, did not go into the City and say, "Owing to the exigencies of the War, and the necessity of providing money to furnish munitions to the men who are sacrificing their lives, you shall render up your wealth on terms which I will dictate." No, he did not do that; and financier's and capitalists get higher terms than ever they did before. It is only to the worker that those high arguments are used—that he must remember his fellow workers in the trenches. When working men see that arguments based on the exigencies of the War are used effectively and in the same manner in all directions, then I think you will find that they will see and feel that they are getting a fairer deal than when they are asked to surrender their liberty and see that coercion only affects labour and not capital, vested interests and monopolies.. It is when they see that they are differently treated that arises the main cause of resistance in those quarters opposed to compulsion.
    6.0 P.M
    The Minister of Munitions raised this question first, I think, in a speech he made at Manchester at the beginning of June or the end of May, just after he had assumed his new office. He said that our object should be to subordinate labour to the State, and he pointed to the superior position in France where that subordination had been effectively achieved under Conscription. His ideal statesman was M. Briand, the man who broke the strike of railway

    861
    workers in France by calling them to the Colours under the powers which Conscription gave there. If the Chancellor fancies that on those lines he will be able to sub ordinate labour here to the State and that that is the way to victory, that is a very dangerous path on which he has placed his feet. War has peculiar results on men of emotional temperament. I for one, and I am sorry to say it, no longer have full faith in the Minister of Munitions, or think that he is a man to whom we can surrender without concern the liberties of the people of this country. He may achieve his object, and, of course, he wishes to achieve it for the highest purposes and without any idea of personal ambition; he may become virtual dictator over labour in this country and over the country generally he may do it by the batons of the police and the bayonets of the soldiers, and by the firing squad and by the prison and the gallows, and speaking of all those things am dealing with the shadow of the possible coming of Conscription; he may achieve his object to a certain extent in that way, but I tell him that the way to I victory is not by way of the enslavement; of the workmen of this country.
    Mr. WILKIE: I desire to say some few words as one with a considerable experience of Scottish workmen generally and of the Clyde workmen. The late Lord Salisbury many years ago in this House, referring to shop assistants, stated that no one could place their case before the House as well as one of themselves. I do not say that I can do so in this case on this subject, but as an old Clyde workman I think it is my duty to intervene. When the Bill was before the House originally we were told that the main object of this Clause to which objection is now taken w as to deal with the situation which arose from employers "pinching" each other's workmen. We were willing that something might be done. The Minister of Munitions all along stated that the vast majority of the workers were doing all right, but that there was a small minority which, for more reasons than one, were not doing all right. Therefore it was that we agreed to the Bill. We were then told that if the workmen had any real grievances there would be equitable Courts to which they could take their cases, and that they would be domestic Courts without legal formalities. The kernel of the difficulty is as to the leaving certificates, and that is the difficulty we were assured would not take place. The difficulty is not that
    862
    the men are not willing to give time and energy, and their work seven days per week, Sunday included, and even yet that is the position in many cases. If the Ministry of Munitons do not want this minority which has been referred to to become a majority then, for goodness, sake, let them listen to our complaints, and try and remedy them.
    We were told at the largest conference of trade unionists that there would be equality, equity and reciprocity. There is a little improvement in the Amending Bill, but it does not deal with some of the grievances which, however sentimental they may seem, are felt by the men. We want those grievances squashed. We want the men to feel that if they cannot leave that then no employer should have the right to pay them off. That is fundamental, and I appeal to them, to meet that point fairly and squarely. Unless that is done I am afraid some of the rumbles in Lanarkshire and Edinburgh may take effect. We are told of a revolt against trade union leaders on the Clyde. I have met my own organisation every time the Minister of Munitions brought these matters forward, and with a hundred branches and three officers from each, we never yet had any amendment that was unanimously agreed founder stress of the fact that the country was at war. On the Clyde, as well as on the Tyne and other districts, the men are willing to do their share, because they recognise that we have got to win this War as workers if we are to maintain the liberty we are now fighting for. Therefore, we contend that that liberty should not be taken away now. What has been the result? Instead of getting those domestic Courts which were promised we have got these other Courts with most ridiculous decisions. The Act has made new offences, and I might almost say new crimes. We hold that a fine is quite sufficient, and it was never expected that there would be any question of imprisonment. The Minister of Munitions tells us of what has been going on on the Clyde. I make bold to say I know a little about the position there. If the Minister of Munitions does not want those things to go on and desires to get rid of those difficulties, then let him support us trade union leaders who are asking him to do what we think is fair and square by the men. He says now there is no other method. Why was not there an effort at partnership? As I pointed out last week, so far as our

    863
    trade is concerned we have formed committees in all the large firms in the North of England through whom we deal with managers and foremen. If those committees had received more encouragement from the Minister of Munitions and his officials they would have been of much more power for good, and less cases would have gone to the tribunals. Even as it is they have worked fairly well.
    We have then had this new phrase about the dilution of skilled labour. A skilled man cannot dilute his work. Where he is doing one job he may take half a dozen others and learn them, but that is quite a different thing from what the workmen understand by dilution of labour. We want that slipshod phrase defined and made clear in order to do away with some of the ideas which have got into the minds of those who have heard it. We had the Treasury agreement, of which the Munitions Act was the outcome, and we are working with the management and doing everything we possibly can. Our organisation has spent hundreds of pounds in sending representatives to different firms asking them to release so many men in order to let them go to other firms. We found the greatest difficulty in getting some of the firms to release men to meet Government pressure of work. The difficulty is not at all insurmountable. Why not take over all the shipbuilding firms engaged on Government work and run them as you run the Royal dockyards, where we have little or no difficulty? I know that the workmen do not think that the conditions are ideal in His Majesty's dockyards, but still they are better than this friction which is continually arising and this ill-feeling which is kept up. We have heard of this dilution of labour and we have had a construction put on some of the Clauses of the Act which those Clauses do not bear. For instance, there was the point about men engaged on private work for some firms. If the Ministry of Munitions contemplated such departures from the Treasury agreement then they should have consulted all the trades concerned, who would have met the men and reasoned the thing out, as they have endeavoured to do all along. We are told that they control establishments and that they are going to control employers' profits. We know, however, that secondhand ships are now being sold at 300 per cent. more profit than before the War. Where is that money coming from, and where is it going
    864
    to? Even new ships cost 50 per cent. more than before the War. Where is that money going? The workers have had only 10 per cent. advance. Taking into account the increased cost of living, that leaves a big reduction. Yet we are told that the Minister of Munitions is going to control profits. How can we get skilled workmen to believe and understand that in face of these facts? Unless you are going to do it by partnership you will not be successful in doing it at all.
    Take one case out of many to show the friction which arises. I have had reported to me the case of a workman, a riveter, back from the trenches. He is taken away and sent to one of the dockyards, where he is put on at 28s. a week. His old firm on the Clyde are willing to take him back, where he would be worth £3 or £4 a week. It is, therefore, a loss to the country to keep him where he is, yet his old firm cannot get him away. It is pinpricks like these that cause so much friction and ill will. I have tried in my rough and rugged way to put before the House the strong feeling of the workmen on these points. I hope the Government will endeavour to meet them. The Clyde workmen are just as loyal as any workmen in the country, and just as willing and able to fight the battles of their country. I have been more than any other man in this House engaged in fighting industrial battles in that district for over forty years. Therefore I know something about the struggles we have had for the freedom we enjoy, and I say that when we were willing, for the sake of our country and for the sake of our future liberty, to give up some of the positions we had won. we ought to have been met with more equity and justice. To prove that our men are willing, I may say that from our own organisation only there are no less than 1,500 men in the trenches. We have had to bring some of those men back to the shipyards because we cannot get the same skilled men elsewhere. I think I have proved my contention, and I appeal to the Minister of Munitions for fair play, justice and equity.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERT: I am loth to intervene in this Debate, not being a Scottish Member, but I have had a deputation of workmen from my own Constituency in Swindon to see me, and think it should be made plain that the complaints on this matter are by no means confined to Scotland. We are all of us anxious that the War should be brought

    865
    to a successful issue, and we want the Minister of Munitions to succeed in getting the work done as smoothly and as expeditiously as possible. But what we are afraid of is that if nothing is done to satisfy the men in this matter, friction will be caused, the work, instead of being furthered, will be set back, and difficulties which could be avoided will arise. The objection put before me on the part of these men is that, so far from there being equality of treatment, the workmen and the employers are not getting equal terms. There is a great deal of difference between restricting a man's profits and taking away his liberty. Working men say that if there are to be restrictions they should be equal and fair to both sides. What the men object to in Section 7 of the original Act is the fact that, while they are liable to be kept out of work for six weeks, there is no equality of treatment in the sense that the employer is forced to give them six weeks' notice before dismissing them. I have been given a concrete case of a working man in Swindon who was out of work for six weeks because he considered that he was not being paid a proper rate of wages, and was dismissed from his position. If there are to be restrictions put upon labour, let us have equal restrictions, and not merely restriction of profit, as regards the employers. I would most earnestly urge the Minister of Munitions to consider whether it is not possible either to get rid of this obnoxious Section 7 altogether, which I think would be the better way, or to meet the very reasonable objections put forward on behalf of labour—objections which come not only from Scotland, but from other parts of the country as well. If this were done and a reasonable attitude adopted— which I am sure is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman—I think there would be a great improvement in the relations between the Government and the employés, and we should probably be able to bring the War to a speedier and more successful conclusion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Before the Question is put, I wish to offer a few observations on the speech of the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken. There is no right of reply on the Report stage.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Refusal to Work on Sunday.)
    No person shall be subjected to any penalty under the principal Act or this Act for refusing to work on Sunday.—[Mr. Pringle.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This question of Sunday labour has for a considerable time occupied the attention not only of all who are employed on munition work, but also of the Ministry of Munitions themselves. A Committee was appointed to investigate this question along with the general question of fatigue in connection with overtime, and I understand that that Committee came unanimously to the conclusion that Sunday labour should be restricted within the smallest possible limits. This Clause does not propose the abolition of Sunday labour. All it proposes is that the refusal to work on Sunday shall not be an offence under either the original Act or the Bill we are now considering; in other words, that none of the new penalties of this special penal code should apply to a man who, for any reason, whether on conscientious grounds or because he thinks he is too fatigued to undertake the work, refuses to work on Sunday. It will still be possible to obtain Sunday work, when Sunday work is a necessity. Both the Admiralty and the Munitions Department will be able to obtain it -when necessary. The only difference will be that instead of being under this new penal code, a working man will be under the ordinary law. If his contract entitles his employer to call upon him to work on Sunday, he will be liable under the ordinary law for any breach of that agreement. I believe the Secretary to the Munitions Department has already recommended that Sunday labour should be dispensed with as much as possible. That advice has been largely followed, and it has done something to meet the case I am endeavouring to put forward. At the same time I think the Department might quite well dispense with its powers in regard to Sunday labour under the Munitions Acts. There are plenty of men who, when the necessity arises, will be willing to work on Sunday, and I do not think there would be any case in which where necessity arose the Department would find themselves hampered or trammelled by the absence of these powers.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to second the Motion.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that the Ministry of Munitions have not lost sight of the important questions he referred to. I think myself we have approached them in the proper way. We inquired, in the first place, how far Sunday work was necessary in the interests of the output of munitions—that is to say, whether by working people in general seven days a week you got more munitions in the long run than if you gave them a regular rest. It was recommended unanimously by the Committee that workers needed the regular rest—that is, in the interests of the output of munitions as well as from the point of view of the health of the workers themselves. When we had the matter clearly before us we issued these recommendations to the controlled establishments. The hon. Member recognises that there are some operations which it would be quite unreasonable to say should not be carried on Sunday. For instance, you have to keep going continually engines, repairing work and a large number of other operations. It is therefore obvious that you cannot contemplate the abandonment of all work on Sunday.
    My hon. Friend proposes that no persons should be prosecuted for refusing to work on Sunday. The cases must be exceedingly few—I believe there have been two or three—where workpeople have been prosecuted under the Act for refusing to work on Sunday. I am sure those must be very extreme cases, but if we put this matter through with the qualifications that prosecution shall not take place for this, that, or the other, we shall burden the provision with so many exceptions that it will make it very difficult to work. Surely we may trust the tribunals in view of the fact" that the Ministry of Munitions has gone out of its way to reduce work on Sunday. It is the desire to administer the Act in the letter and in the spirit. The Ministry of Munitions has considered the question solely in the interest of the output of munitions. In view, therefore, of our action, and in view of the strong recommendation which we have made to controlled establishments, I think no munitions tribunal is likely to penalise a workman unless there is something very extreme in his refusal to work on Sunday, or unless the case is one where his refusal is of so entirely unreasonable and
    868
    factious character that it would be detrimental to the output of munitions. Considering the circumstances of the case, I am quite sure we can leave the matter to the munitions tribunals. I sincerely hope that this and other specific Amendments dealing with minor points will not be pressed. We ought to leave the matter to the munitions tribunals in view of the fact that we have specially reinforced the Act with an appeals tribunal so as to get uniformity.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I feel I cannot let this Amendment go without saying one word in its favour. I do not want to say anything that is hostile to the Munitions Bill or hostile to the work of the Munitions Department. On general principles I agree far more with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken than with the Mover of the Amendment, but, after all, one cannot help feeling deep in his heart that it is a very great shame that the House of Commons of Great Britain should attempt to penalise any man for refusing to work on Sunday. I quite agree that it is very unlikely that what has been suggested should happen. I quite agree with nearly all the hon. Gentleman has said in regard to the unlikelihood of a munitions tribunal fining a man for refusing to work on Sunday. I do not know that I should have moved this new Clause, but as it has been moved, and put before the House, I feel that I cannot sit still, but must say a word. So far as I am concerned, I should vote for this Clause in order that the House of Commons may lay it down that under no circumstances should any workman be fined or penalised for refusing, for whatever reason, to work on the Sabbath Day. It may be that those views may be unpopular with those wile run the Munitions Department. I know how important it is to get as much work as possible out of the men; but, after all, we are fighting this War on rather high principles. We claim to have higher principles than the Germans. Only a couple of days ago the whole country joined in Intercession for a blessing on our arms. I feel rather strongly in this matter. We are appealing on the one hand for victory to our arms on the highest grounds, and we ought, therefore, to make our position perfectly clear that no man shall be penalised for doing what I believe every man is justified in doing— refusing to work on Sunday. There are many men to whom my views will not appeal in the slightest degree. There are many men who do not mind working on

    869
    Sundays; let them work if they wish to do so. But if there is only a minute fraction of men who do not want to work on Sundays, I say that the House of Commons ought to make it perfectly clear that these men ought not to be penalised.
    Mr. MORTON: I do not want unnecessarily to take up the time of the House; I am anxious to assist the Government in getting the War ended as soon as possible. But I cannot help saying a few words in favour of this Amendment. I cannot for a moment conceive how any Government should propose to punish a person for being anxious to keep the Sabbath Day. At any rate I do not think the Government ought to do so. What do public authorities do when they open their museums, libraries, and picture galleries on Sunday? In the City of London we simply say to the attendants, "Stop if you like; if you wish to keep Sabbath Day at home and in your own way you will not be penalised or interfered with in any way whatever; those that like to stay can stay." I do not think it is too late for the Government to put on a little righteousness in this cause, and at this time to do what is right. It would show the country that they are still in favour of keeping the Sabbath Day holy, as we have been taught to do. Being all my life strongly in favour of keeping one day of the week for rest, and that being the Sabbath Day, for public worship also, I trust the Government will accept the Amendment in some form or other and so show that they have a strong feeling in favour, as far as possible, of keeping the Sabbath Day holy.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am very sorry indeed that the Government has not seen fit to accept the Amendment. I think it is an entirely reasonable Amendment, and I am quite sure that it would not in any way interfere with the work of the Ministry of Munitions. There are men here and there who from the standpoint of conscience do not desire to work on Sunday' and will not do so. That may be a view which is not shared by many others, but in the case of these people it is a matter of deep religious conviction. Under this Act they can be fined and punished for refusing to work on Sunday; and that is all the point that is raised in this matter. We are not asking that men shall not work on Sunday. We are asking that as far as possible—and I am quite sure the Ministry of Munitions
    870
    is with us in this—Sunday labour shall be reduced to the very lowest possible dimensions. From the standpoint, not of religion or of conscience, but of the consequent fatigue and exhaustion, it does not pay to work people in the way suggested, for you do not get the best out of them. What we are asking is in regard to a minority of people who have got deep convictions in this matter. We are asking that they shall not be penalised for refusing to work on Sunday. If the Ministry of Munitions will accept this Amendment I think that it will make no difference so far as the work is concerned, for the work, I believe, will go on quite as well as before. Unless this point is conceded I am afraid we shall be compelled to divide the House.
    Mr. KING: I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a Division. Certainly I shall only be too glad in this matter to go into the Lobby against the Government. May I call the attention of the House to the very half-hearted way the deference of a refusal to accept this Amendment was put forward from the Treasury Bench. The work of the Ministry of Munitions will only be assisted, not hindered, by our passing this Amendment against the Government. In no spirit of antagonism, therefore, to the work of the Ministry of Munitions I shall most gladly go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment.
    Mr. JARDINE: I hope the Ministry of Munitions will maintain this Clause. It appears to me that so many people in this House quite forget that we are at war. There seems to be very great conscientious objection to men being made to work on Sunday, but not the slightest objection to men being made to kill Germans on Sunday. If a warship comes in on Sunday the nation needs that warship out as quickly as possible, and men, women, and children, it may be, must be at the service of the State to do the State's work. Whilst people can swallow with a certain degree of comfort, and without any compunction, the fact of soldiers being compelled to kill on Sunday, the workman must not be compelled to work on Sunday. I fail to see the cogency of this argument. I hope that these minor objections to work which is needed by the Ministry of Munitions will not be pursued. The Ministry have already said that all possible has been done by the Department to discourage work being done on Sunday. It is a well-known fact that Sunday work

    871
    does not pay. One may be perfectly certain, therefore, that no man will be compelled to work unless it is really necessary, and, if it is necessary, then men should be compelled to work.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I hope the Ministry of Munitions will not be swayed by the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is quite true to say that soldiers are called upon to kill the Germans on Sunday, but it must not be forgotten that sometimes the men in the trenches do get relief on Sunday. So far as the factories and workshops are concerned, it is well known that in many cases workmen have worked themselves almost to a standstill. A great many men have worked for six weeks on end, including the Sundays—this being six weeks of seven days each. It is physically impossible for men to work under such a strain. My own son, who is only seventeen, and an apprentice, has worked on four or five consecutive Sundays as well as during the week. In this case the result would have been, if he had refused to work on the Sunday that, under this Act, he would have been penalised. It is too much to expect men on day shift to continually work seven days a week, and for men on night shift to continually work seven nights. I am, if need be, going to a Division against the Government upon this particular proposal.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: The question before us in one worthy of consideration by the Minister of Munitions. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, because I feel he would have received this Amendment with an open mind. It is not a question of whether labour should or should not be done on Sunday; you can get the Sunday labour done. The Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions said that certain things must be done on the Sunday, such as repairs, and so on, so that things must be kept going. That was done years and years ago in all these places, and before the Munitions Act. Anyone who knows anything about these large works throughout the country knows that certain Sunday work had to be done on purpose that the men might go in on Monday. The work was done on Sunday but no penalising Clause was needed to get the work done. I have had the experience of ray Constituency, where there has been an enormous amount of munitions work done. I have had case after cage brought to me where men have worn themselves to
    872
    exhaustion doing seven days a week after week. All we ask is that men, after doing many weeks work of long hours, and Sundays, should not be penalised if they think they need a rest. I am not putting it from a conscience point of view, but that if a man is so exhausted that he feels he must rest that he shall have the right to stay away without a penalty overhanging him. I trust the Government will give way; they will lose nothing, but win the respect of a number of people by accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I do not know whether or not it is at all possible for the Ministry of Munitions to meet this matter by in some way prohibiting proceedings being taken for refusal to work on Sunday except with the consent of the Ministry of Munitions. So far as I see the difficulty is this: The whole House is desirous of venting more work on Sunday than is really necessary. But I suppose it is conceivable that an occasion may arise where it is really vital that certain work should be done. You may in such a case have a, contumacious crowd who, not for religious reasons at all, but for some other reason, and who for the moment want to make themselves awkward, say, "We will put you in a difficulty," or, at any rate, "We will not Work." By doing that, such people may cause very great delay and difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has already told the House that the policy of the Department is to discourage work on Sunday. If that is so, might not the difficulty be met by a provision in the Bill that, at any rate, proceedings shall not be taken against a workman for refusal to work on Sunday except with the consent of the Minister of Munitions?
    Dr. ADDISON: I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member it I promise to give effect by Regulations to make prosecutions for this offence not possible. We will make Regulations prohibiting it, but I do ask him not to put an isolated case of this kind into the Bill. I promise we will make Regulations under which these prosecutions shall not take place.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Record of Departure from prevailing Conditions.)
    (1) The record of departure from the conditions prevailing when the establish-

    873
    ment became a controlled establishment (required by paragraph six of the Second Schedule to the principal Act) shall be kept by the employer of the establishment, and any failure to keep such record, or to enter in such record any such departure, shall be an offence under the principal Act as amended by this Act.
    (2) It shall be the duty of the employer to include among such departures from practice all changes in working conditions referred to in paragraph seven of the Second Schedule to the principal Act as amended by this Act, and also to insert in such record particulars of—

    (a) any introduction of a new type of machine or a new method of working or a now arrangement of workmen or the execution of the work by workpeople of a different sex or class, which is accompanied by any alteration in the rates of pay or conditions of employment paid for the same kind of work prior to the declaration of war;

    (b) the introduction into any part of the establishment of workpeople of a different sex or a different class from those employed in that department of the establishment prior to the declaration of war;

    (c) any alteration in the division of work, methods of remuneration, systems of piecework bonus, piecework rates, time allowance, of hours of labour in any part of the establishment made since the declaration of war;

    (d) any rules and any alterations of rules applicable to employment made since the declaration of war;

    (e) any other departures from previous practice that the Minister of Munitions may from time to time require.—[Mr. Pringle.]

    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause refers to the controversy which has occupied such a large place with regard to the relaxation of trade union rules and practices, and the safeguards which the Government have offered for the restoration of these rules and practices after the War. We have been told by the Minister of Munitions himself that workmen both on the Clyde
    874
    and on the Tyne are keenly interested on these points, and that their position after the War is probably the question which has exercised them as much as anything else. He himself has over and over again told the workmen that they have absolute safeguards; that whatever sacrifices they make mow will be remembered by the Government, and that their position will be restored with the utmost strictness. Unfortunately, there is still doubt and suspicion in many parts of the country among the workmen as to how these things will fare when the War is over. This Clause is by way of giving an additional safeguard. If conditions which are relaxed now are to be restored in the future with fidelity, it is obvious that there should be a clear record of the relaxations which are now made. The Clause which I am moving provides that a record of departure from conditions prevailing when the establishment became a controlled establishment shall be kept by the employer of the establishment, and that failure to keep such a record will be made an offence under the Act. In the second Sub-section provision is made as to the details in regard to these departures. The first paragraph deals with the introduction of a new type of machine; the second deals with the introduction of women, or of a different class of unskilled labour; the third with the alteration in the division of work, methods of remuneration, systems of piecework bonus, etc.; the fourth with any rules or alterations of rules applicable to employment made since the declaration of War; and the last with any other departures from previous practice that the Minister of Munitions may from time to time impose.
    I think it eminently reasonable that a record to the effect which I have indicated should be kept. It is only by having such a record that there is any standard or any evidence by which to determine whether a bargain is kept. We know it is quite likely at the conclusion of War that disputes may arise as to what practices had prevailed—as to what were the rules in vogue in any particular establishment. Now, in the absence of any record as is proposed in this Clause, the work of an arbitrator who has to decide in such a dispute will be an extremely difficult task indeed; in fact, he would have no clear record. He will be reduced entirely to the oral testimony of the employer and his representative on the one hand, and, on the other

    875
    hand, to the oral testimony of the employé. You are certain to have a conflict of evidence, and in such a conflict of evidence it will be a matter of the greatest difficulty to ascertain what the real position was. In these circumstances it would be well to have such a record as I propose. It will avoid disputes, and make a very important advance towards restoring confidence among the workmen, who at the present time are feeling distrust and suspicion. If you can remove the difficulties you will do far more than by all your penalties to secure the smooth working of the Act and to secure a plentiful supply of munitions which is so necessary to success in the war.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I bog leave to second the Motion. The Minister of Munitions has a pretty shrewd idea of what has caused so much suspicion and distrust among the workpeople. The workpeople, like the engineers, are afraid that the sacrifices, the concessions, that they are making are not going to be wholly in the interests of the nation, but are going to be taken advantage of by employers for their own private ends That has been the real source of trouble so far as these matters are concerned. What we are asking in this is that that danger shall be guarded against as much as possible by a record being kept of all departures from established custom, so that the workmen shall feel that if these conditions are going to be restored, as promised, after the War, there shall be a record to show what departures have been made, and how the old conditions shall be built up once more. That is all we are asking for in this new Clause, and I am quite sure if that is done there v. ill be a great deal of friction and a great deal of trouble avoided. It asks, for example, as the Mover stated, that, in regard to questions like new machinery, the introduction of women, the introduction of unskilled labour, new rates of payment, new piece Work and so on, it shall be obligatory upon the employer to write down that he has made these changes, and it shall also be important that the inspector from the Munitions Department shall see those are made. That, I think, is the very least that can be done in the direction of safeguarding the workpeople, and of removing a great deal of suspicion and distrust that undoubtedly does exist at the present time. The reason for the suspicion is that the workpeople are afraid employers are
    876
    going to take advantage of these changes, and are going to continue these changes after the War to the detriment of labour. To the extent that that suspicion can be removed by a Clause of this kind, and in other ways, it will be entirely to the benefit of the workpeople and the State.
    7.0 P.M.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry that we cannot accept my bon. Friend's new Clause. I am sure we can satisfy the House that, as it stands, it is quite impossible to administer the Clause, apart from the fact that I cannot see myself that it meets any case that is not now covered by the arrangements made in accordance with the provisions of the second Schedule of the principal Act, which says:—
    "Any departure during the War from the practice ruling in the workshops, shipyards, and other industries prior to the War, shall only be for the period of the War." Then the sixth paragraph of the Schedule says:—
    "A record of the nature of the departure from the conditions prevailing when the establishment became a controlled establishment shall be kept, and shall be open for inspection by the authorised representative of the Government."
    Those records are made, and I may just explain to the House what is done with them. The records of the changes in workshop customs are made by the employers, and three copies are made. One is kept by the employer, and the other two are sent to the Ministry of Munitions. One of these two is handed to the Secretary of the National Labour Advisory Committee. In that way a copy of the records of the alteration is filed with the employer, is filed with the 'Minister of Munitions, and is filed with the trade unions. I cannot see any better way of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. It was enacted to secure that where dilution was undertaken, the skilled workman whose place was taken by an unskilled workman should be protected—that was the main point of it—and to secure that this record should be in existence at the end of the War, so that it might show what were the rules in a particular establishment. That we do both in the letter and in the spirit now, according to the machinery I have explained.
    7.0 P.M.
    What does my hon. Friend want? He wants where an employer proposes to introduce an automatic lathe, where he has

    877
    not got one, that that is to be regarded as one of these changes, and, as a part of the provision of the principal Act, I would point out that there must be consultation before these changes are introduced. One of the most enduring benefits, I believe, of the work of the Ministry of Munitions will be that some of the biggest engineering establishments in this country will find themselves equipped at the end of the War with new and up-to-date and efficient machinery. There are being provided in the workshops of this country vast masses of new automatic machinery of the best kind, and it would mean that before any machine at all of this kind could be introduced at our request in order to increase the output of shells in an establishment, with respect to every requirement my hon. Friend sets out in the Clause there would have to be consultation and various other procedure. Now that is not what the trade unionists asked for, and it is really not a business proposition. What they asked for was that records should be kept which should bonæ fide protect the interests of the trade unions, and those records are kept to the full and in accordance with the procedure of the Statute. The proposal of the hon. Member would only make matters more difficult in every workshop, and would not accomplish anything in the interests of trade unions.
    Question put, and negatived

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 15 of the Principal Act.)
    Sub-section (4) of Section fifteen of the principal Act shall be read as if the words "of the second class" were struck out.— [Mr. Pringle.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The effect of this proposal will be to abolish imprisonment as a penalty for an offence under the Act. There has been the very strongest feeling regarding cases of imprisonment, and these have been very largely responsible for unrest, and they have also been instrumental in bringing the law into contempt. When this Clause was under discussion during the Committee stage we did not make the men who were imprisoned under the Act criminals either in their own eyes or in the eyes of their countrymen, but you made
    878
    them heroes and martyrs, and it is from that point of view that the Act is objectionable. No House of Commons which has any regard for keeping the statute law in conformity with the common opinion of the whole community would insist on a provision which has that effect upon public opinion regarding the law. I understand that the Minister of Munitions is willing to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. WALTER ROCH: I desire to second this Motion, and in doing so I wish to put one point before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand the new regulations which have been made under an Order in Council, even if this Amendment is accepted the right hon. Gentleman has still an even more drastic power of imprisonment than that which he is now parting with under this Act. The Order in Council appeared in the "London Gazette" of 1st December, 1915, and Regulation 42, as amended, runs:—
    "If any person attempts to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection"
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That has absolutely nothing to do with the Munitions Act. It comes under the Defence of the Realm Act as an Order in Council, and it would be irrelevant to discuss that Order in Council now.
    Mr. ROCH: I am quite aware that this is a regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act, but is it not a fact that that regulation gives the right hon. Gentleman power to deal with the very offences contemplated by the Munitions Act, and it gives him a far more drastic power of imprisonment for a like offence. I will read the whole of Regulation 42 as it is amended by the Order in Council:—
    "If any person attempts to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection among any of His Majesty's Forces or among the civilian population"—
    and now I come to the crucial words—
    "or to impede, delay, or restrict the production, repair, or transport of war material or any other work necessary for the successful prosecution of the War, he shall be guilty of an offence against these Regulations."
    Those Regulations enable the penalty of penal servitude for life to be inflicted, and if the case comes before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction imprisonment with or without hard labour may be inflicted for a term not exceeding six months. That is

    879
    far more drastic than if the powers of the Munitions, Act were retained. It is an offence under the Regulation I have quoted for any person to "impede, delay or restrict the production, repair or transport of war material or any other work necessary for the successful prosecution of the War." As I read and understand those words, anyone who worked short time, for example, would be "impeding or delaying the production, repair or transport of war material." That is the precise point I would like the right hon. Gentleman to clear up. So far as I am able to understand this matter, the right hon. Gentleman has taken a far more drastic power than that which was given him under the Munitions Act. I would like to know if it is the view of the Law Officers of the Crown that no person guilty of an offence under the Munitions Act can possibly be dealt with under the Regulation which I have referred to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already promised to accept this new Clause, and I stand by the undertaking I have given. The point just raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Roch) has really nothing to do with this Act, and I can only reply to this question by permission of Mr. Speaker. If a man works short time he could not be prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Act, but if he went about organising short time amongst the workers and persuading workmen not to work full time, or if he deliberately took part in an organisation to impede the output of munitions he could be prosecuted under the Defence of the Realm Act.
    Mr. ROCH: That is also an offence under the Munitions Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Those are offences which are not covered by the Munitions Act. What is dealt with by the Order in Council is practically incitement to mutiny. Any incitement to mutiny against an Act of Parliament designed to decrease the output of munitions would be an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act, but that has nothing to do with this particular Clause, and it would not cover the offences which come before the munitions tribunal.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am glad that this new Clause has been accepted. I want to raise once more the point that has already been dealt with, because I should like a definite assurance upon it. The words used in the Order in Council are very wide
    880
    and very vague, and they are words which I think could include quite easily some of the offences under the Munitions of War Act. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us a definite assurance on this point I shall be satisfied. The words of the Regulation are "impede, delay, or restrict the production, repair, or transport of war materials." Take the case of a workman who, in defiance of the Munitions Act as an individual, leaves his work. Could it not be argued that that man is "impeding, delaying, or restricting the production, repair, or transport of war material." I do not see where the Minister of Munitions draws the line, but I am afraid that he is only giving us his personal view.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman is asking for an undertaking that a case of that kind would not be prosecuted under the Order in Council I have no hesitation in giving that undertaking. In my view the Order in Council deals with a totally different kind of case. The workman who turns up late, or breaks regulations, or commits a breach of discipline is dealt with under the Munitions Act, but the cases referred to under the Order in Council are those in which there is incitement to mutiny to prevent workmen from doing their best to assist in the output of munitions.
    Mr. ANDERSON: That explanation makes the matter a good deal more clear, although I am not sure that the legal interpretation would be quite so clear. I gave a case the other day where a woman was indecently assaulted by a night watchman and left her employment. I am not so sure that these women could not be charged with impeding and restricting the output of war material. This is a very important matter. Take the question of a strike where a number of men might be driven into a temporary withholding of their labour. Are they going to be tried by court-martial under the Defence of the Realm Act for which the penalty may be imprisonment for life? We are living in very strange times, and we do not know where we are being taken. It is from that standpoint that I want an assurance. I believe the Minister of Munitions, in his own mind, does not in the least anticipate this result, but is he equally sure that the Law Courts and the judges will take the same view?
    Mr. HOGGE: Of course, we absolutely accept what the Minister of Munitions has said, that it is not the intention of the

    881
    Government to use this power in this particular way. But the right hon. Gentleman also knows, as an ordinary member of the public, that when these matters are taken into the Law Courts and interpreted in various ways by counsel and judges that is something against which the Minister of Munitions cannot protect himself. If the right hon. Gentleman will make this more clear we shall be quite satisfied. We are absolutely satisfied with his word, but the difficulty we have in our minds is that, in spite of what he has said, the interpretation of the judges may commit him to an entirely different position.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I might be allowed to say that I will take counsel's opinion upon these words. What has been stated is certainly not our intention. My hon. Friend says the words might bear a different interpretation, but I will promise to confer with the Legal Department as to whether the words quoted are too wide or not. It is not intended to deal with the individual workman for an ordinary offence under those regulations, which are intended to deal with the man who deliberately goes about with the intention and in order to interfere with the output of munitions, and that man comes in a different category altogether. That is the kind of man, amongst others, at whom the Privy Council Order was certainly aimed. I will confer with those who drafted the Order and see whether it is necessary to restrict the words in order to make it impossible for us after the acceptance of the Amendment by other means, and by what I would not hesitate to call an underhanded way, not only retaining the power but increasing and aggravating it That certainly is not oar intention.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Schedule II., Paragraph 7, of the Principal Act.)
    The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph seen of Schedule II. of the principal Act:—
    A change of conditions of labour involving the employment of non-union labour where union labour was formerly employed shall be deemed for all purposes to be a change of working conditions within the meaning of this Schedule.—[Mr. Hodge.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time "
    When this question was brought up on the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion it was unnecessary, as the point was provided for in the Act as it stood. If he has no objection to the Amendment, and it is going to carry conviction to those who have their doubts, I hope that he will see his way to accept it. Thousands of men in every organised trade in the country have joined the Colours, and in the great "majority of instances the employers have guaranteed them their old places when they come back. As a consequence of that, a great many trade unions have refused to enrol within their ranks the temporary labour which is taking the place of the men who have gone to the front. We desire to protect these workmen now at the front against any employer who does not at the conclusion of the War redeem the promise he has made to them. If this Clause is accepted, it will be an easy thing for the trade unions to enforce that condition and premise upon the employers.
    Mr. GALBRAITH: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The difficulty which arises is that which arose in the case which is very well known to hon. Members as the Thornycroft case. I am afraid that it might arise in a good many cases under war conditions. We have got a considerable number of men who have been released from the Colours for the purpose of assisting us in munition work, and some of them are non-union men. We sent some of them down to Thornycroft's I yards, and the men there immediately laid I down their tools and refused to work with these men who had been brought back from the front for the purpose of assisting in the construction of torpedo-boat destroyers. We have now got about 20,000 I of these men, and it would be almost impossible for us to pick and choose and to I insist in every case that there should be: negotiations with the local trade union leaders as to whether men who are soldiers and who remain soldiers should or should not be allowed to work in these yards.
    Mr. HODGE: That is not the point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the only point which has ever arisen.
    Mr. HODGE: That is not the point that I made. I thought I made it clear that we do not want to enrol the temporary man as a member of the union to the prejudice of the soldier when he is discharged at the conclusion of the War.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see any objection to the Amendment if it is con fined to that, and so long as it does not involve our giving notice every time we send men released from the Colours down to the yards. If men are going to refuse to work when we get men back from the Army to work for Army purposes because they are not trade unionists, the position will be impossible. But if my hon. Friend wishes to confine it to a statutory assurance that at the end of the War—
    Mr. HODGE: That is the point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat at the end of the War, although the bringing in of these men released from the Colours involves a change in trade union practices, those practices shall be restored—I am just having a consultation now to see whether it is possible to confine it merely to that operation—I will tell my hon. Friend what I will do. I am afraid of doing something which may hamper and embarrass our work in getting these men fixed, but I will see whether it is possible between now and the end of the Report stage to devise a form of words which will confine it exclusively to that point. With your permission, I should then ask to recommit the Bill in order to insert those words.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite open for the right hon. Gentleman to move to recommit at the conclusion of the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I will see between this and the end of the Report stage whether I can find a form of words to carry out my hon. Friend's object.
    Mr. HODGE: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Clause and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 4 of the Principal Art.)
    Sub-section (2) of Section four of the principal Act shall be read as if the words "or to any agreement between the owner of the establishment and an employé with regard to any periodical
    884
    increase of remuneration" were inserted after the words "nineteen hundred and fifteen."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This very simple Clause is one to effect a measure of justice to a number of employés of firms, particularly on the clerical side. It will surprise the House to know that clerks to whom increments are due have actually been refused them because the consent of the Minister of Munitions is required. We desire to make it certain that a clerk shall not be put to the trouble of making any appeal, either to the Minister of Munitions or anyone else, to secure an increment of salary to which he is entitled under a pre-war agreement, and that he shall not be prejudiced as he is by the principal Act being quoted against him.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Pre-war agreements?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Yes, pre-war agreements.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Might I suggest that my hon. Friend confines it to pre-war agreements? It will be very dangerous if it is applied to after-war agreements.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to second the Motion, and I would like to suggest as another alternative to the words "pre-war agreements" the insertion of the words "existing before the establishment became a controlled establishment."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not mind that.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: There may have been agreements made quite innocently sometime after the War.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that view nothing more need be said.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Subject to that Amendment, I do not in the least object to this Clause. I can quite see that my hon. Friend wants to safeguard the man who gets a periodical rise in his salary. He does not want the Minister of Munitions to interfere. As a matter of fact, we do not interfere. We make it a rule that those agreements shall not be interfered with We are afraid, however,

    885
    that there might be collusive agreements between, say, the manager and the firm by which the profits could be given away in the shape of increased salaries. That is why I accept the Clause in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), confining it to agreements existing before the establishment became a controlled establishment. If it were not confined to that, the whole of the profits might by collusion be handed over to the managers and so forth.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I would like to accept the suggestion of the right hon Gentleman.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment proposed: After the word "agreement" to insert the words "before the establishment became a controlled establishment."
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I should like to point out that there is an interval in which the excess profits may be swallowed up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have something to say on that point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This does not affect that matter in the least; it stands on an entirely different basis.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I assume the Minister of Munitions will not oppose any new agreement, providing it is a reasonable one, whereby some employeé receives additional remuneration by reason of additional duties performed.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We do not interfere in any case under £250. That practically excludes all the class which my hon. Friend has in mind. If you go beyond that, we are very much afraid that collusive agreements may whittle away the whole of the excess profits.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(preservation of Trade Union Customs.)
    After the termination of the War it shall be an implied term of any contract of service between the owner of any controlled establishment and any person employed in such establishment that the provisions contained in Schedule II. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, shall apply to such contract, and be enforceable by
    886
    any civil action. And this Section shall continue to be in operation notwithstanding that the Munitions of War Act, 1915, or this Act shall have then ceased to operate.— [Mr. Roch.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. ROCH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause has been framed with the object of preserving the trade union restrictions and customs with which the workmen have parted. The workmen, both on the Clyde and elsewhere, as the right hon. Gentleman very truly said earlier in the day, fear lest after the termination of the War trade union restrictions and customs with which they have parted may not be restored to them. The object of this Clause is to give statutory effect to that which I think is the wish of the Government and of every Member of this House. The right hon. Gentleman is himself, I think, under the impression that under the Munitions Act as it stands full statutory provision has been made for the safeguard of these restrictions and customs. I want, as clearly as I can, to put before him what I think is the extraordinary difficulty and tangle in which the statutory preservation of these restrictions now stands. As the Munitions Act is framed the safeguard which is given to trade unionists is contained in Section (4), paragraph (4), of the principal Act, and that is to the effect that in every controlled establishment the employer shall be deemed to have given an undertaking to observe the conditions which are laid down in Schedule II. Schedule II., of course, contained the trade union restrictions in accordance with the Treasury agreement. It was discovered rather late in the day that the Munitions Act, as it then stood, came to an end when the Ministry of Munitions ceased to exist, so that really that undertaking ceased to have any statutory effect when the Ministry of Munitions came to an end, which might be within a period of six months after the War. Later on an attempt was made to deal with the difficulty, and a proviso was put in Sub-section (2) of Section 20 which sought to keep alive this undertaking. I will read the proviso:—
    "Provided that Part I. of this Act shall continue to apply for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War to any difference arising in relation to the performance

    887
    by the owner of any establishment of his undertaking to carry out the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, notwithstanding that the office of Minister of Munitions and the Ministry of Munitions have ceased to exist."
    That was a well-intentioned proposal to deal with the difficulty which had arisen. But what I wish to point out is that while that attempt has been made to give statutory effect to the safeguards for those restrictions, it does not really have that effect at all. The effect of this proviso is that if, after the War, there should be any dispute as to these restrictions, and if they came within the ambit of Part I. of the Act, then they should be arbitrated on, and supposing they are arbitrated on and an award is given, then any breach by either party is to be subject to a penalty. Therefore the safeguard of the trade unionist is that if he gets an award, and if there is any breach of it by the employer, then the employer is to pay a penalty. But observe this curious effect: The Munitions Court, which alone can enforce the penalty, and the rest of the Act which creates the offence, have gone and ceased to exist, so, while you have the award, the workman cannot enforce it by a penalty. It is very difficult to make my point clear, because this is a highly technical subject. But my point is that Part I. of the principal Act alone is kept alive. The procedure, as I understand it, will be, if there is any dispute as to whether these restrictions are kept in force after the War, the Board of Trade is to arbitrate, and when it has arbitrated, and if there is any breach of the award, there is a penalty incurred by the employer. But that penalty can only be enforced by the munitions tribunal. It is only a subsequent part of the Act which creates the offence, so that the workman is really in the curious position that while he gets an award he has no power of enforcing it.
    Suppose Part I. really has the effect of precluding him from striking. That compulsory power is kept alive, and his power to strike will have ceased to exist even when the War has come to an end. I have taken the precaution of consulting several learned friends who are experts in this particular branch of the law. They admit that the matter is one of extreme difficulty, and they think with me there
    888
    is practically no statutory safeguard in the peculiar state in which the law stands. The object of my Amendment is to make it perfectly clear and to put it in statutory form that it is an implied term of every contract of service between every individual workman and every individual employer in a controlled establishment that these restrictions shall be restored, and that it shall be a contract which he can enforce by civil action. That puts the matter on a more stable basis than it is at present, and it is with the object of getting a real statutory protection, such as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to give and is under the impression he has given, that I move the new Clause.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to second the Motion.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the position in regard to this matter. My hon. Friend has read the proviso of the original Act—^Section 20—which refer to the Second Schedule, and in this Second Schedule I find these provisions:—

    "(1) Any departure during the War from the practice ruling in the workshops, shipyards, and other industries prior to the War, shall only be for the period of the War.

    (2) No change in practice made during the War shall be allowed to prejudice the position of the workmen in the owner's employment, or of their trade unions, in regard to the resumption and maintenance after the War of any rules or customs existing prior to the War.

    (3) In any readjustment of staffs which may have to be effected after the War, priority of employment will be given to workmen in the owner's employment at the beginning of the War, who have been serving with the Colours, or who were in the owner's employment when the establishment became a controlled establishment."

    I should say, certainly, that these provisions carry out the object aimed at by the hon. Member, especially when considered in connection with paragraph (7) of the Schedule, which provides for notice to be given to the working concern of any proposal to change working conditions.
    Mr. ROCH: I am afraid I have not made my point clear. I do not dispute a single word that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. My doubt is whether there is any power to enforce these provisions. The power of enforcing the undertaking is provided in Part I., but the penalties can only be enforced through the munitions tribunal, and when this Act ceases to exist the munitions tribunal will also have come to an end. This Act will cease to operate when the Ministry of Munitions ceases to exist, and therefore any breach of the undertaking cannot be dealt with in any possible way.
    Sir G. CAVE: I only heard the latter part of the hon. Member's speech in which he referred to Section (20) of the original Act. He will see there is an express proviso that Part I. of the Act shall continue to apply for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the War, and surely that meets his point.
    Mr. ROCH: I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear me elaborate my point, which was that only Part I. of the Act is kept alive and the remainder ceases to exist, and consequently there will no longer be a munitions tribunal. The Section which makes any breach of the undertaking an offence under the Act will have gone, and while there will still be machinery for making an award and imposing penalties for any breach, there will be no power of enforcing the undertaking. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say, on his authority as a Law Officer of the Crown, that the whole Act is kept alive by this proviso, and that the munitions tribunal will still exist for the purpose, my point vanishes. The issue was put to me by two or three trade union secretaries, and I took the precaution to seek the advice of hon. Friends learned in the law on this matter. They agree with the view I put forward. But I repeat, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman assures me the whole Act is kept alive, I will accept his view of the law.
    Sir G. CAVE: I did not say the whole Act was kept alive. The hon. Gentleman has Section (20) before him, and if that does not meet his point, then I am afraid I really do not understand it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Like the Solicitor-General, I have not heard the whole discussion, but I am fairly well seized of the point made by my hon. Friend. I think
    890
    it is one of the utmost importance— whether there is a real safeguard for the restoration of these conditions, and whether it is to have any value at all. As I understand it, there is a doubt with regard to Section (20), which provides that Part I. of this Act shall continue to apply for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War to any difference arising in relation to the performance by the owner of any establishment of his undertaking to carry out the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, notwithstanding that the office of the Minister of Munitions and the Ministry of Munitions has ceased to exist. I had something to do with the insertion of this proviso. It will be within the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions that when the original Act was going through the House of Commons he had a conference with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and myself at which we made a special point about the safeguard for twelve months. At that time the form of words included in the original Act was put before us. As it happened, the Committee stage was rushed through the House. Personally, I was unable to be present, and other hon. Members who were interested had really no time to consider the full effect of this proviso. undoubtedly it keeps in existence Part I. of the Act, but Part I. only is retained. The machinery for the purpose of giving sanction to it is set up in Part 11., or, at any rate, in some later part of the Act, and consequently, as that part is not kept alive, there will be no sanction whatever for it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very anxious to understand exactly the point of my hon. Friend. He suggests that, although there is a penalty which can be inflicted upon any employer who refuses to restore trade union conditions, the tribunal which should enforce it will not be in existence.
    Mr. ROCH: Nor the offence.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take it the offence would be, and obviously it is the intention of the Act that the machinery should be. It is suggested that there is some oversight which requires to be cured. Perhaps I do not quite realise the point, but I am certain of this, that the proper way to deal with it is not to convert it, as my hon. Friend proposes, into a civil action. I will undertake to consider between now and the passing of the Bill

    891
    through another place, if there is anything in the point, and if there is I will give a guarantee that it shall be put right.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am confident the proviso was inserted in good faith, and I myself did not foresee the possibility that the machinery for enforcing this right might cease to exist. It is important, of course, that the Minister of Munitions should give this undertaking. We realise now that he has much greater power with the House of Lords than in former days, and in view of the authority which ho wields over that House I think my hon. Friend may be well content to accept the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking.
    Mr. CLYNES: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has given this assurance. I would have supported this New Clause earlier but for the doubt I had as to the particular method of attaining what my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Roch) aims at. We dislike having to fall back upon civil actions to secure trade union rules and privileges as they existed prior to the War. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have often been met with almost mocking laughter and cries of derision at labour and trade union meetings when we have assured working men that all those conditions would be restored after the War. It is most important that some method should be devised on such lines as the Minister of Munitions has just mentioned and that it should be put into an Act of Parliament, so that we can point to some definite statutory plan which will give working men the assurance we have already tried to give them verbally. Members on the Labour Benches will be very glad if some such form of words can be found.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Before we pass from the proposed Clause, I desire to raise one point. I understood that my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Roch) was anxious that some machinery of a permanent character should be established for the maintenance of trade union rules.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: For a year after the War.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That is the very reason why I rise. I do not think the matter is perfectly clear. Subsequently to my hon. Friend's speech the discussion centred upon the point whether there was machinery in operation for twelve months after the War. That is only a part of the
    892
    problem in which we are interested. We want the same protection for the restoration of trade union rules subsequently to the period of twelve months after the War. I believe the general opinion is that the most acute stage of industrial depression will not be the twelve months immediately after the War, but some time afterwards, and in that period we shall require the safeguards most. I hope that the Minister of Munitions will insert in the proposed Amendment some words which will give a permanent assurance and safeguard to the trade unions for the restoration of their rules.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I am very glad the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snow-den) has raised this point, because I do not think my right hon. Friend has quite appreciated the real meaning of the proposed Clause. It may be perfectly true that the proposal to deal with the matter by way of civil action may not be the best method by which to attain the object. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not afford a safeguard to those who share this grave misgiving by accepting the Clause as it stands and in another place altering it by substituting some other process, possibly of criminal action, for the civil action, if he so desires. It would give great reassurance to those who know how vital it is to the masses of the workers of the country who feel that the critical period will be the years after the twelve months subsequent to the conclusion of the War. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might accept for the time being the Clause as moved and amend it with regard to the methods of enforcement before the Bill leaves another place.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 1.—(power to Declare Government Factories, etc., Controlled Establishments.)
    The Minister of Munitions may by order declare any establishment belonging to or under the control of His Majesty or any Government Department in which munitions work is carried on to be a controlled establishment, and thereupon the provisions of the Munitions of War Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), and this Act relating to controlled establishments shall apply to such establishments subject to such modifications and exceptions necessary to adapt those provisions to such establishments as may be specified in such order.
    Mr. KING: I beg to word "establishment" ["the Minister of Munitions may by order declare any establishment"], to insert the words "or establishments."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is governed by the Interpretation Act, which says that the singular includes the plural.
    Mr. KING: May I point to you. Sir, and the House, that though in the Interpretation Act the singular does include the plural, this Amendment and the next three Amendments on the Paper are really directed to making the Clause read in good grammar. I contend that this Clause is not good grammar. I know it is very difficult to get any Amendment accepted by the Treasury Bench, especially one which seems in any way to affect them.—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will save time if I say that although these Amendments are covered by the Interpretation Act, as Mr. Speaker has pointed out, we do not mind accepting them.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "establishment" ["in which munitions work is carried on to be a controlled establishment "], insert the words "or controlled establishments as the case may be." After the word "such" ["shall apply to such establishments"], insert the words "an establishment or." After the word "such" ["adapt those provisions to such establishments"], insert the words "an establishment or."—[Mr. King.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of Section 6 of principal Act.)
    (1) Where a workman has entered into an undertaking with the Minister of Munitions under Section six of the principal Act, and was at the time of entering into that undertaking in the employment of any employer, then if that employer within the period of six weeks from the date of the undertaking dismisses that workman from his employment, he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, unless he proves that there was reasonable cause for dismissing the workman.
    (2) It is hereby declared that where the fulfilment by any workman of any contract is interfered with by the necessity on his part of complying with an undertaking entered into by him under Section six of the principal Act, that necessity is a good
    894
    defence to any action or proceedings taken against that workman in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to the interference and he shall be entitled to enter into such an undertaking notwithstanding the existence of such a contract.
    (3) Section six of the principal Act shall apply to a workman who had before the passing of the principal Act entered into an undertaking of a nature similar to that mentioned in that Section in like manner as if the undertaking had been entered into in pursuance of that Section.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "a nature similar to that" and insert instead thereof the words "the nature."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 7 of principal Act.)
    (1) The certificate required to be held by a workman under Section seven of the principal Act shall be a certificate that the workman is free to accept other employment, instead of a certificate that he has left work with the consent of his employer, and a munitions tribunal may, in lieu of granting such a certificate as it is empowered to grant under that Section itself, grant a certificate that the workman is free to accept other employment, and accordingly that Section shall have effect as if for the words "that he left work with the consent of his employer or a certificate from the munitions tribunal that the consent has been unreasonably withheld" there were substituted the words "or from a munitions tribunal that he is free to accept other employment," and for the words "that the consent of an employer has been unreasonably withheld" there were substituted the words "that such a certificate as aforesaid has been unreasonably refused by an employer," and for the words "grant a certificate which shall for the purposes of this Section have the same effect as a certificate from the employer" there were submitted the words "itself issue such a certificate or order the issue of such a certificate by the employer."
    (2) Where a workman employed on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of Section seven of the principal Act are for the time being applied by an order made thereunder is dismissed or discharged by his employer, the employer shall forthwith give him such a certificate

    895
    as aforesaid, and if he fails to do so, a munitions tribunal may, in addition to issuing or ordering the issue to him of such a certificate, order the payment to him by the employer of such sum, not exceeding five pounds, as the tribunal may think fit, unless the tribunal is of opinion that the workman was guilty of misconduct for the purpose of obtaining dismissal or discharge.
    This Sub-section shall apply to a workman who has been suspended without wages for a period of more than two days in like manner as if he had been dismissed or discharged by his employer. Any sum ordered to be paid by an employer to a workman under the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall be a civil debt recoverable summarily.
    (3) Where a contract of service with a workman employed on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of Section seven of the principal Act are for the time being applied by an order of the Minister of Munitions is terminated by dismissal and less than one week's notice or wages in lieu of notice has or have been given, the employer shall, subject to the provisions of this Sub-section, within twenty-four hours of giving notice of dismissal to the workman report-the matter in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the Minister of Munitions, and such rules shall provide for the determination by a munition tribunal (in case of difference)' of the amount, if any, and not in any case exceeding five pounds, which is to be paid by the employer to the workman in lieu of notice, and for the payment of the sum so determined to the workman, unless the tribunal is of opinion that owing to the circumstances of the employment or misconduct of the work man the employer had reasonable cause for dismissing the workman without a week's notice:
    Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to workmen engaged in ship repairing, or to any class of workmen exempted in the prescribed manner on the ground that the circumstances of their employment were such that the provisions of this Sub-section ought not to apply to them.
    (4) The provisions of Section seven of the principal Act which prohibit the giving of employment to workmen in the circumstances mentioned in that Section shall not apply so as to prevent the giving
    896
    of employment to a workman in a controlled establishment to which he has been assigned by the Minister of Munitions in pursuance of Section six of the principal Act.
    (5) In determining whether the grant of a certificate has been unreasonably refused for the purposes of Section seven of the principal Act as amended by this Section, a munitions tribunal shall take into consideration the question whether the workman has left or desires to leave his work for the purpose of undertaking any class of work in which his skill or other personal qualifications could be employed with greater advantage to the national interests, and whether the employer has failed to observe the conditions laid down in any fair wages resolution now in operation passed by Parliament, and whether the workman has left or desires to leave his work because he has recently completed a term of apprenticeship or period of learning his trade or occupation and desires to obtain the full standard rate of wages applicable to fully qualified workmen in his trade or occupation.
    (6) The Minister of Munitions may make rules for carrying Section seven of the principal Act as amended by this Section into effect, and in particular may by such rules provide—

    (a) for the issue, form, custody, duration, delivery up, and replacement in case of loss or destruction, of certificates;

    (b) for the issue of certificates to the effect that a person is not engaged on or in connection with munitions work;

    (c) for prohibiting the insertion in a certificate issued by an employer of any matter other than the prescribed particulars;

    and may provide for any breach of such rules being punishable as an offence under the principal Act with a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    (7) This Section shall not come into operation until such date as may be fixed by the rules made there under.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1) and to insert instead thereof,
    "For Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the principal Act the following Sub-sections shall be substituted:—

    (1) A person shall not give employment to a workman who has within

    897
    the last previous six weeks, or such other period as may be provided by order of the Minister of Munitions as respects any class of establishment, been employed on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of this Section-are applied by order of the Minister of Munitions, unless he holds a certificate from the employer by whom he was last so employed or from a munitions tribunal that he is free to accept other employment;

    (2) If any workman or his trade union representative complains to a munitions tribunal, in accordance with rules made with respect to those tribunals, that such a certificate as aforesaid has been un-reasonably refused by an employer, that tribunal may, after examining into the case, if it thinks fit, itself issue such a certificate or order the issue of such a certificate by the employer."

    This is an Amendment which I promised to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge). It is purely a drafting Amendment, which makes the matter a little clearer, and we have put it down in deference to the hon. Member's wishes.
    Mr. KING(who had given notice to more as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the word "from" ["or from a Munitions tribunal"]): This is required because the insertion of the word "from" here breaks the connection of the sentence and makes the words which follow, "that he is free to accept other employment," join only to the words "Munitions tribunal." This is a grammatical point. If the right hon. Gentleman had given as much attention in his earlier days to grammar as he now gives to questions of State, I am sure he would see that this Amendment is quite essential from the point of view of accurate and correct interpretation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Surely the hon. Member is wrong. The Amendment says, "unless he holds a certificate." What is the certificate? It is a certificate that he is free to accept other employment. That certificate he can obtain either from the employer by whom he was last employed or from a munitions tribunal. I think the words are proper grammar.
    Mr. KING: I will not press this Amendment. I beg to move another Amendment to the proposed Amendment—to leave out the words "such a certificate as aforesaid has been unreasonably refused by an employer," and to insert instead thereof the words "an employer had unreasonably refused or neglected to issue such a certificate as aforesaid."
    It is quite possible that an employer might not have unreasonably refused to issue a certificate, but suppose he had gone away on a holiday without issuing, as he ought to have done, a certificate or, out of mere negligence, through putting off on somebody else the preparation and issuing of a certificate or any many other circumstances that might arise the certificate was not issued, it might not be found possible to say that the employer had unreasonably refused it. He might very well all the time have simply neglected to issue it, but the effect upon the workman would be just the same. These cases are very likely to arise and they will be covered by my Amendment. I see no reason why it should not be accepted.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    G. CAVE: We are anxious to meet the hon. Member in view of the fact that he does not intend to persist in Amendments which are regarded as unnecessary. On that understanding, as the Amendment does not alter the sense of my right hon. Friend's proposal, I hope the Committee will accept it.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, as a further Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add at the end the words "if any employer fails to issue a certificate so ordered to be issued, he shall be liable to be punished as though he had failed to comply with an award."
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: This is by no means consequential upon the last Amendment. The effect of the last Amendment is that if an employer refuses or neglects to issue a certificate, then the tribunal may itself issue a certificate or order its issue by the employer. If that order is made and the

    899
    employer fails to comply with it, he commits an offence, and Clause 12, Sub-section (4), applies, and the penalty attaches. There is no need whatever for this Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. ANDERSON(who had given notice to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "who" ["this Sub-section shall apply to a workman who"], to insert the words "for reasons held to be justifiable by a tribunal, has left his employment, and to a workman who"): This is a point I raised on the Committee stage—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have an Amendment down later to meet this point.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I did not understand that. If that is so, I am quite satisfied.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "has been suspended without wages for a period of more than two days," and insert instead thereof the words "applies for a certificate on the ground that he has for a period of more than two days been given no opportunity of earning." After the word "days" ["for a period of more than two days in like manner"], insert the words "or who leaves his employment on account of conduct on the part of the employer or any agent of the employer which would justify the immediate termination by the workman of his contract of service."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the word "munition" ["determination by a munition tribunal"], and to insert instead thereof the word "munitions."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept that Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "circumstances" ["circumstances of the employment"], and to insert instead thereof the words "discontinuous or temporary nature." This is in accordance with the promise I gave.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "any Fair-Wages Resolution now in operation passed by Parliament," and to' insert instead thereof the words "the Fair-Wages Clauses required by Resolution of the House of Commons to be inserted in Government contracts.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Bates of Wages of Women Employed on Munitions Work.)
    Where female workers are employed on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of Section seven of the principal Act as amended by this Act are for the time being applied by an Order made thereunder, the Minister of Munitions shall have power to require the owner of the establishment to comply with any directions given to him by the Minister of Munitions as to the rate of wages, hours of labour, or conditions of employment of the female workers so employed, and if the owner of the establishment, or any contractor or sub-contractor employing labour therein, fails to comply with any-such directions, he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a fine not exceeding one pound in respect of each female worker for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction therefor.
    After the word Amendments made "power" ["shall have power"] insert the words "by order."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Leave out the words "require the owner of the establishment to comply with any directions given to him by the Minister of Munitions," and to insert instead thereof the words "give directions."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the words "owner of the establishment," to insert the words "or any contractor or sub-contractor employing labour therein."
    I raised this in the Committee Stage,, but we got through the business so very quickly, and did so much in a very short time, that the Treasury Bench could not quite see the point. Really this is the point: You take power to proceed against a man for non-compliance, but you do not take power to give him directions. I think, therefore, that in order to make the

    901
    Clause quite watertight, and to have all the powers you want, you ought to be able to proceed against a sub-contractor.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no necessity for moving this Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Amendment at the bottom of the page he will see that far from our not having considered it, I have considered it very carefully, and we are covering it much more elaborately.
    Mr. KING: Then I do not move.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, after the word "wages" ["rate of wages"], to insert the words "or subject so far as the matter is one which is dealt with by the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 and 1911, to the concurrence of the Secretary of State as to."
    Mr. HOGGE: What is this Amendment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will explain to my hon. Friend. All these are drafting Amendments, rendered necessary by the new Clause which I moved, and if he will look at the notice I circulated this morning he will see that I said there would be a number of Amendments. Here we must get into conformity with the Home Office.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that they are drafting Amendments?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, they are.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Are they the same as those standing in the name of Sir John Simon? If they are I wish to say I give them very hearty support, because I do not think there should be conflict between the Home Office and the Ministry of Munitions, but that any changes ought to be inside the factory laws, and not outside.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and if the owner of the establishment, or any contractor or sub-contractor employing labour therein, fails to comply with any such directions, he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a fine not exceeding one pound in respect of each female worker for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction therefor," and to insert instead thereof "
    (2) Any directions given by the Minister of Munitions under this Section
    902
    shall be binding on the owner of the establishment and any contractor or subcontractor employing labour therein and the female workers to whom the directions relate, and any contravention thereof or non-compliance therewith shall be punishable in like manner as if the directions had been contained in an award made in settlement of a difference under Part I. of the principal Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "No direction given under this Section shall be deemed to relieve the occupier of any factory or workshop from the obligation which comply with the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, or of any Orders or Regulations made thereunder."
    Mr. KlNG: I hope I shall have an opportunity of moving my two Amendments.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman will move the second, I will accept it.
    Mr. KING: I will move the second, which will really bring in the Employment of Children Act. I am very glad this was not overlooked, because in the eyes of many people it is a very important matter.
    I beg to move, at the end of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, to add the words "or to affect the liability of any person to be proceeded against for an offence under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, so, however, that no person be twice punished for the same offence.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Establishment of Special Arbitration Tribunal for Women.)
    (1) The Minister of Munitions may constitute a special arbitration tribunal (comprising one or more women) to deal with differences reported under Part I. of the principal Act which relate to matters on which the Minister of Munitions has given or is empowered to give directions under the last preceding Section, and the Board of Trade may refer any such difference for settlement to such tribunal in lieu of referring it for settlement in accordance with Section one of the principal Act.
    (2)The Minister of Munitions may also refer to the special arbitration tribunal so constituted, for advice, any question as to what directions are to be given by' him under the said Section.
    (3) Any directions given by the Minister of Munitions under the said Section shall be binding, and any contravention thereof or non-compliance therewith shall be punishable in like manner as in the case of an award under Part I. of the principal Act.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause. I do so really for the purpose of obtaining, if possible, a somewhat fuller statement from the Minister of Munitions than we have yet had as to the constitution of this arbitration tribunal. It was agreed when we were discussing the matter last in this House that there should be machinery, but we do not want the matter rushed through without having some chance of examining the character of the machinery, and I hope now that the Minister of Munitions will be in a position to tell us what sort of a tribunal he proposes to establish. For my own part, I hope it is not going to be a purely official tribunal. I know that the permanent officials have great qualities, but they have also in some respects in these matters very grave defects, and they do not always know just exactly what labour conditions are, and what the point of view is in regard to the workpeople. There has been a Labour Supply Committee set up by the Ministry of Munitions, which I understand has been doing good work, and upon which the trade union representatives have a place. This Committee, which is responsible for issuing various recommendations, which I believe are now going to become mandatory, such as L 2 and L 3, has done very good work, and I should like to ask whether the Labour Supply Committee is to a large extent to be the labour arbitration tribunal, because I want to be sure that there will be trade union representatives dealing with this matter, which is so vital from the standpoint of the workpeople. I hope there will be one or two women, representing the women of the country, dealing with the questions that are going to affect the employment and payment of women, and so on. It is really from the standpoint, not of saying that we should not have machinery, but that it should be good machinery, and something more than being put into official hands, that I raise
    904
    this matter. I hope it will be possible for the Minister of Munitions to make some statement with regard to it.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fully realise that the hon. Gentleman is moving this Amendment, not in order to eliminate the Clause, but to obtain an explanation, because he above all desires that a tribunal of this kind should be set up as, if I may say so, he is related by marriage to it. It is part of the achievement of his plan. I agree absolutely with him about the character of the tribunal. It ought to be a tribunal which is in thorough acquaintance with the conditions in this class of labour. Whether it ought to be the Labour Supply Committee I am doubtful. The Labour Supply Committee will, of course, be consulted about it, because it is a Committee representative of labour and the employer as well, and we shall consult that Committee, and consult it with profit, as to the best kind of tribunal that ought to be set up. I cannot say that I have definitely made up my mind as to the kind of tribunal and its size, or from what class it shall be drawn. That you ought to have one or two women on is statutory. It is part of the Section, and it would, of course, be impossible to set up a tribunal like this, dealing with the wages of women and the conditions of their work, without women on it. I have not come to any definite conclusion in my own mind as to the composition of the tribunal. My hon. Friend knows very well that it is exceedingly difficult to get the type of mind that works well on a tribunal of this character. It is the most difficult thing in the world to choose the right man and the right woman for an arbitration tribunal. We certainly have not made up our mind with regard to it. Beyond that, at this stage, I could not possibly give my hon. Friend a definite answer. All I can say is that I am in general agreement with the observations he has made as to the kind of tribunal which ought to be set up.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think my hon. Friend has derived very much satisfaction from the Minister of Munitions. He is in no way committed to any form of constitution. The point my hon. Friend wants information upon is this: Whether this is to be a tribunal in which the official element is to be largely represented?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by the official element.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Say Civil servants-Board of Trade officials, for example. What we should like to see would be a tribunal of practical men—lawyers, for instance, excluded—and if the Civil Service is represented at all it ought to be represented in a very small degree. I should like to see the tribunal constituted of men and women who have practical knowledge of the various trades. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the essence of the settlement of labour difficulties is to get a settlement as soon as possible, and it might be well worth his while to take into consideration the constitution of local tribunals as well. Our main point is just now the constitution of these committees, and we hope he will bear in mind our suggestion and constitute them very largely of men and Women who have practical knowledge of the trades concerned.
    Mr. HODGE: Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might adopt the method of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act? Let there be a panel of working women and a panel of employers, with probably neutral ladies as chairmen, or a mixture, at any rate. I find in my experience that that is the speediest method of getting rid of troubles, because as soon as ever the two sides have come to an agreement that there should be arbitration, generally within eight or ten days they can be called together and the thing disposed of, and I think if the working women had one of their own representatives on these Courts it would give very great satisfaction and I think it is the best solution which could be adopted.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Establishment of Special Arbitration Tribunal for Women.)
    (1) The Minister of Munitions may constitute a special arbitration tribunal (comprising one or more women) to deal with differences reported under Part I. of the principal Act which relate to matters on which the Minister of Munitions has given or is empowered to give directions under the last preceding Section, and the Board of Trade may refer any such difference for settlement to such tribunal in lieu of referring it for settlement in accordance with Section one of the principal Act.
    (2) The Minister of Munitions may also refer to the special arbitration tribunal so constituted, for advice, any question as to what directions are to be given by him under the said Section.
    (3) Any directions given by the Minister of Munitions under the said Section shall be binding, and any contravention thereof or non-compliance therewith shall be punishable in like manner as in the case of an award under Part I. of the principal Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "a" ["a special arbitration tribunal"].
    This is the first of a series of consequential Amendments in order to give effect to the new Clause which I moved earlier in the evening.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "tribunal" ["comprising one or more women"], and insert instead thereof the word "tribunals."
    After the word "last" ["under the last preceding Section"] insert the word "two."
    Leave out the word "Section" ["under the last preceding Section"], and insert instead thereof the word Sections."
    Leave out the words "Section one" ["in accordance with Section one"], and insert instead thereof the words "the First Schedule."
    In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "the" ["the special arbitration tribunal"].
    Leave out the word "Section" ["under the said Section"].—[Mr. Lloyd George.1
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section, to insert the words "(3) The tribunal to which the matters in question referring to female workers are to be referred under this Section shall comprise one or more women."
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "comprise," and to insert instead, thereof the word "include."
    I wish to raise the meaning of the word "comprise." I am a little afraid it will mean that the tribunal shall consist exclusively of women, and I understand the meaning to be that the tribunal shall include one or more women.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there added.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out, "(3) Any directions given by the Minister of Munitions under the said Section shall be binding, and any contravention thereof or non-compliance therewith shall be punishable in like manner as in the case of an award under Part J. of the principal Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Extension of Definition of Munitions Work.)
    (1) The expression "munition work" for the purposes of the principal Act and this ' Act means—

    (a) the manufacture and repair of arms, ammunition, ships, vessels, vehicles, and aircraft, and any other articles or parts of articles required for use in war, and of any other ships or vessels, or classes of ships or vessels, which may be certified by the Board of Trade to be necessary for the successful prosecution of the War, and of any metals, machines, or tools required for any such manufacture or repair, and of the materials, of any class specified in an order made for the purpose by the Minister of Munitions, required for, or for use in, any such manufacture or repair as aforesaid; and

    (b) the construction, alteration or repair of works of construction and buildings for naval or military purposes, and of buildings in which munitions work is or is intended to be carried on, and the erection of machinery and plant therein, and the erection of houses for the accommodation of persons engaged or about to be engaged on munitions work; and

    (c) the supply of light, water, or power in cases where the Minister of Munitions certifies that such supply is of importance for the purpose of carrying on munitions work, and the erection of buildings, machinery, and plant required for such supply.

    (2) In Section three of the principal Act the words "manufacture or repair of arms, ammunition, ships, vehicles, aircraft, or any other articles required for use in war, or of the metals, machines, or tools required for that manufacture or repair in this Act referred to as" shall be repealed.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "required" ["articles required for use in war"], and to insert instead thereof the words "(whether of a similar nature to the aforesaid or not) intended or adapted."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert
    "(c) the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of docks and harbours in cases where such work is certified by' the Admiralty to be necessary for the successful prosecution of the War; and."
    Mr. HOLT: I did not move the Amendment standing in my name because I understood that the Government was going to move this Amendment. I am very much obliged to the Government for moving the Amendment, which is really in pursuance of the discussion we had in Committee, but I want to ask them to make a slight amendment, and to insert after the word "harbours" the words "and work in estuaries." It is a purely technical point, but the "harbours" very often does not extend to the full limit of the channels on which dredging has to be carried out.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We accept it.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there added.
    The following Amendment stood in the name of Sir George Scott Robertson (deceased): In paragraph (c), after the word "power" ["water, or power"], to insert the words "or the supply of tramways facilities."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is my very painful duty to move the Amendment which stands in the name of a very highly respected Member of this House, who, has suddenly passed away. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will have heard "with very great regret of the removal from our midst of an hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has won great distinction in the public service, and who was highly respected in every quarter of the House. It is, indeed, a melancholy duty to move this Amendment.
    Mr. HARRIS: May I ask the Minister of Munitions whether he can extend this Amendment to include omnibus facilities? A great many munition workers are conveyed by omnibus in London. There are two services of omnibuses, I think, going to Woolwich Arsenal, and it would be a very' serious inconvenience if these facilities failed. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can accept my proposal, but I hope he can. Perhaps I may be allowed to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose decease we all regret.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I shall have to consider the hon. Member's proposal very carefully, because it means a very serious infringement on the reservoir of labour which is available for munition work. Tramways are essential for the purpose of conveying workmen to munition factories. Occasionally, I understand, omnibuses are requisitioned for the same purpose. I will, therefore, consider the point raised by the hon. Member between now and the time when the Bill comes up in another place.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, after words now inserted, "or the supply of tramways facilities," to insert the words" and the maintenance of sewerage systems of local authorities."
    When I was first asked to move this Amendment, I confess that I thought that the sewerage systems were rather remote from munition work, but I find on investigation that a very serious question is involved, and one which I think will have to be dealt with by the Government, either in this Bill or in some other way. I have been asked by the London County Council to bring this matter before the notice of the Government. Clearly the main drainage system of London—I suppose the argument applies in other towns, but I am only acquainted with the London 'Case—has got to be kept going. The Minister of Munitions is very directly concerned, because Woolwich Arsenal is situated on low-lying ground, which is subject to flooding if the pumping is not kept continually going. In fact, the greater part of London requires constant pumping in order to be kept sufficiently drained, and that cannot be done unless a sufficient number of engineers and skilled men are available. The present
    910
    situation is that the London County Council is faced or threatened with an absolute shortage of labour. The reason is that the Munitions Department is drawing away from sewerage works and from other works of public necessity skilled men who are necessary for carrying them on. How is the difficulty to be met? I have been asked to suggest the method laid down in this Amendment, in order to meet the difficulty. If that cannot be accepted I do urge that the Government must take the matter into consideration and meet the difficulty in some way. They cannot wash their hands of the whole question and say, '"We are not concerned if London is not drained." They cannot take up that position. Of course, I realise that this is part of the problem of how to distribute skilled labour so that it shall go round and provide for services of public necessity, but I can see no other machinery available which will secure that skilled men will be available for this work I move my Amendment in the hope that the Government will accept it. If they are unable to accept it I hope they will, at any rate, indicate some way by which the difficulty will be met, and will give an assurance that they will really take the matter into consideration.
    Mr. TICKLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is quite outside the scope of the Bill. There is no doubt at all that there is a real difficulty which ought to be met, in so far as it can possibly be met under the very stringent conditions under which we are working the whole of our national life. I am afraid, however, that this Amendment cannot be brought within the four comers of this Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING:I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) after the word "Act" ["the principal Act"], to insert the words,
    "there shall be added after the words 'affecting employment on,' in both places where those words occur, the words ' or in connection with, and in the same Section."
    I understand that this Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made Insert as a new Sub-section,
    "(3) This Section shall not come into operation until the time fixed by rules made under Section four of this Act as the date for the commencement of that Section."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Extension of Section 11 of Principal Act.)
    In Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the principal Act, which specifies the matters in respect of which owners of establishments in which persons are employed are, if required by the Minister of Munitions, to give information, the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (c):—
    (cc) the cost of production of the articles produced or dealt with in the establishment, and the cost of the materials used for such production, and the names and addresses of the persons by whom such materials were supplied or who are under contract to supply them."
    Wr. HOLT: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (cc), to insert the words,
    "Provided always that information given under Section 11 of the principal Act as amended by this Act or any subsequent Act, shall be used only for the purpose of such Act, and any person communicating or attempting to communicate such information to any person to whom the same ought not for the purpose aforesaid to be communicated, shall be guilty of a breach of official trust, and, within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act, 1889, will on conviction be liable to the punishment provided by that Act."
    This Amendment is in a different form from that which appears on the Paper. Clause 10 is of an extraordinary character, and under it the Minister of Munitions may demand from any single trader in the country, and not merely a controlled trader, the most minute and confidential details of that trader's business. I am advised that the proper construction of the Clause will enable such information to be demanded of any trader, whether his business is under control or not, and the Minister of Munitions may demand the most minute particulars of his business, as to the cost of production of the articles, the cost of materials for such production, the names of and addresses of the persons by whom such materials are supplied, or who are under contract to supply them; in other words, there is
    912
    no information which a trader cannot be required to tell to the Ministry of Munitions; there is no limitation, and I am advised that this is so by a competent lawyer. I cannot help thinking that these powers are a great deal more stringent than was originally intended by the framers of the Bill; they go a great deal further than anything that was explained in the Committee stage. Certainly I would suggest that it may be proper, when the Bill gets to another place, to put in an Amendment limiting the operation of the provision to controlled establishments. If this information is given, I think there ought to be much greater security than is contained on the face of the Bill that this information will be treated strictly confidentially. The Ministry of Munitions is largely staffed by temporary workers who are in many cases giving their services at great sacrifice to their country, but who may be actually trade competitors of the person from whom the information is going to be sought. I think, under those circumstances, if the information is to be obtained, we ought to have an absolute guarantee that it will be treated in the most confidential manner possible.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Amendment. I think that the Minister of Munitions may accept the proposal which is now made, in respect of a Clause which is of an inquisitorial character. There have been other measures of an inquisitorial character brought forward by the present Government, and in one case such a proposal as this was accepted by the President of the Local Government Board. I cannot see any reason why information of such a confidential character as set forth in the Clause should not receive the protection of the Official Secrets Act, in view of the danger to which my hon. Friend has called attention, of trade secrets passing to competitors through the Ministry of Munitions. I think that my right hon. Friend might at present accept the Amendment now moved, and if it should contain any defect it could be-rectified in the House of Lords.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think the main part of my hon. Friend's Amendment is already completely covered, because the Official Secrets Act provides that where anybody obtains information owing to his position under a Government Department, and communicates it to any person without proper authority, he is liable to certain

    913
    penalties. I think that covers the whole of the ground of the Amendment as it originally stood on the Paper, and the greater part, if not the whole, of the Amendment as now moved, but if my hon. Friend desires to have express words inserted in this Act, we will not oppose a final negative to his proposal, but will give it consideration before the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I am not sure that the suggestion which the Solicitor-General has made gives satisfaction to hon. Members on this side. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the persons who will be involved and from whom danger will come in connection with the divulgence of information will probably be persons who will not be cognisant of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, and unless there be a safeguard in this Bill itself, by means of which attention may be directly called to the penalty for divulging secret information, it is possible that the offence might be committed on many occasions in complete ignorance of the provision of the Official Secrets Act. I think we must have some more definite undertaking than the suggestion given to us by the Solicitor-General. I think the Minister of Munitions may be in a position here and now to give us an assurance that some words will be inserted providing a safeguard such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has proposed.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am not sure that the Minister of Munitions knows exactly that this danger which is apprehended has already arisen, and repeatedly arisen. I do not know whether they are Civil servants or not, but workers in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department have got information of this kind and have used it for their own private purposes. It must be remembered that individuals, perhaps unknown to the right hon. Gentleman, will have power to demand information in an arbitrary way. It is not a case where either the Minister or his second in command knows the circumstances personally, but it is the case of comparatively obscure individuals who have a purpose to serve, some of them giving their services voluntarily, to get repaid tenfold. These men are getting information from trade rivals, and I know of men who are getting orders with such information week by week and diverting business. I feel sure that when his attention is drawn to this fact it is the last thing my right hon.
    914
    Friend would want I would not have taken part in this Debate but for the circumstance that I know the facts.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has been called to the apprehension that those who were in the Ministry would be able to obtain information which might later on assist them to the detriment of their competitors. One of the things I had in my mind was that my hon. Friend did not quite cover the whole of the case. I hope he will be satisfied with the assurance that we will consider a form of words which will be more applicable.
    Mr. HOLT: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to apply it to commercial establishments ail over the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This Clause was designed in order to enable us to get information as to plant, machinery, or material, which might be utilised in the making of munitions of war. That necessarily must apply to establishments which are not controlled, because we ascertained that there were firms which had the means of turning out munitions, but which, were not controlled at the time, although, they have been controlled since.
    Mr. HOLT: Under those circumstances I wish to accept the assurance of the Solicitor-General and ask leave to withdraw. I do want to emphasise what has been said' by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), that it is very important that the fact that these are official secrets should appear on the face of the Bill, and be known to the people in the employment of the Ministry.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 12.—Provisions as to Offences.)
    (1) All offences which are by or under this Act made offences under the principal Act, other than those for which the maximum fine exceeds five pounds, shall be deemed to be offences with which munitions tribunals of the second class have jurisdiction to deal.
    (2) Rules under Section fifteen of the principal Act shall provide—

    (a) that in proceedings before a munitions tribunal the chairman shall, before giving his decision, consult with the assessors, and in all cases-where the assessors are agreed he shall, so far as he lawfully may, give effect to their opinion in his decision;

    915

    (b) that where the complainant or defendant in any proceedings before a munitions tribunal is a female worker, or two or more female workers, the assessor or one of the assessors chosen from the panel of persons representing workmen shall be a woman;

    (c) there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to any person being a member of any Appeal Court constituted by this Act and to any other officers required in connection with such Court, such remuneration and travelling or other expenses (including compensation for loss of time) as the Minister of Munitions with the sanction of the Treasury may determine.

    (3) In the case of a company being guilty of an offence under the principal Act, every director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company who is knowingly a party to the contravention or non-compliance constituting the offence shall also be guilty of the offence and liable to the like fine as the company.
    (4) In Sub-section (3) of Section fifteen of the principal Act after the words "so far as relates to offences" there shall be inserted "and the enforcement of orders."
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) (a), leave out the words "so far as he lawfully may," and insert instead thereof the words "except as respects questions which appear to the chairman to be questions of law." In paragraph (b), leave out the words "complainant or defendant," and insert instead thereof the words "person or persons by or on behalf of whom or against whom the complaint is made." After the word "is" ["is a female worker"], insert the words "or are." Leave out paragraph (c). After paragraph (b) insert
    "(3) Decisions of munitions tribunals shall be subject to appeal to a judge of the High Court appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose on any ground which involves a question of law or a question of mixed law and fact in such cases, and subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be specified in rules made by the Lord Chancellor, and whether by means of the statement of a special case for the opinion of the judge or otherwise; and those rules may provide for such appeals in any classes of cases specified therein being heard and determined in a sum-
    916
    mary manner and for the remission or reduction of any fees, and as to the manner in which effect is to be given to the decision of the judge, and the decision of the judge on any such appeal shall be final and binding on all munitions tribunals.
    In the application of this provision to Scotland ' High Court' shall mean Court of Session, 'Lord Chancellor' shall mean Lord President of the Court of Session, rules made by the Lord Chancellor' shall mean Act of Sederunt.
    In the application of this provision to Ireland ' Lord Chancellor' shall mean the Lord Chancellor of Ireland."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

    CLAUSE 13.—(Arrangements with Other Departments.)
    The Minister of Munitions may make arrangements with any other Government Department for the exercise and performance by that Department of any of his powers and duties under the principal Act or this Act which appear to him to be such as could be more conveniently so exercised and performed, and in such case the Department and the officers of the Department shall have the same powers and duties for the purpose as are by the principal Act and this Act conferred on the Minister of Munitions and his officers.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided that notice of the delegation of any powers and duties to any other Government Department, with the name of such Department and the powers and duties so delegated, shall be first published in the 'Gazette,' or in the Board of Trade Journal.'"
    I think that public notice should be given, so that the people interested in these matters should know that the powers have been delegated. That would be very convenient for a large number of people.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This proposal would be reasonable applied to substantial delegations, or some substantial duties, but we may often have to hand over to other Departments some trivial matters, and other Departments, such as the War Office and the Admiralty, may have to do the same with regard to us, and it would be very inconvenient if every time an

    917
    arrangement of that kind were entered into we should have to publish a notification. It would be almost impossible to do so, and would interfere with the carrying out of matters.
    Mr. HOLT: I should be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would give me a Parliamentary assurance that in the case of important matters notice would be given.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I will undertake to do. I am afraid the Amendment as proposed would hamper business.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Costs in Vexatious proceedings.)
    Where a munitions tribunal dismisses any case under the principal Act or this Act, and it appears to the tribunal that the proceedings were vexatious or frivolous, the tribunal shall, unless it sees good cause for the contrary, award costs to the defendant, and the costs so awarded shall, unless cause to the contrary appears, include such sum as compensation for the expenses, trouble, and loss of time incurred in or incidental to the attendance of the defendant before the tribunal as to the tribunal may seem just and reasonable.
    Amendments made: Leave out the word "for" ["for the contrary"], and insert instead thereof the word "to."—[Mr. King.]
    Leave out the word "defendant" ["to the defendant"], and insert instead thereof the words "person against whom, the complaint is made."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    After the word "unless" ["unless cause to the contrary"] insert the word "good."—[Mr. King.]
    Leave out the word "defendant" "attendance of the defendant"], and insert instead thereof the words "person against whom the complaint is made."— [Mr. Lloyd George.]

    CLAUSE 17.—(Effect of Revocation of Orders.)
    Where the Minister of Munitions makes an order revoking any order previously made by him under Section four of the principal Act, the order so revoked shall, if the revoking order so directs, be treated for all or any of the purposes thereof as if it had never had effect.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out the Clause. I do so in order to draw attention to the very sweeping character of the powers conferred by the Clause. Under it the Minister of Munitions might, it seems to me, make an order declaring an establishment a controlled establishment, and in eighteen months' time make an order rescinding the first order, and then the whole of the proceedings under that first order would be rendered null and void, and the people concerned would not have the protection of that order. I say that is what he might do, not that I anticipate that he will do so. It is quite plain that even in a much less extreme case than that people who have been acting on a revoked order would be put in a very difficult legal position. They might have committed a breach of contract in consequence of the original order made by the Minister of Munitions. If the order is revoked what answer has that person got to an action for breach of contract brought against him by a man with whom he had business relations? The Clause in its present form gives power which I am sure is far in excess of anything my right hon. Friend himself wants, and which, if used to anything approaching its possible extent, will reduce people to absolute bankruptcy without their having any sort of remedy whatever. I submit that in its present form the Clause ought not to pass, and that for the present it would be much better to reject it, so that the, Minister could bring up in another place a more reasonable Clause, and one more in accordance with what I am sure will be the practice the Department wishes to carry out.
    Mr. BOOTH:I beg to second the Amendment
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that as it appears on the Paper it might be a very sweeping Clause, and I think there is something in the suggestion of my hon. Friend that it might be limited by words making it applicable only to the class of case to which we really want it to apply. It is a Departmental Clause, intended to deal with a difficulty which has actually arisen.
    Mr. HOLT: It goes further than is necessary.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On paper possibly it does. It is intended to meet a case of this kind. Supposing by mistake an establishment is declared a controlled

    919
    establishment. In two or three weeks you discover either that the wrong establishment has been selected or that on the whole it is not desirable that that establishment should be a controlled establishment, and by consent it is agreed to take it out of that category. Unless you have a Clause of this kind that establishment for that period will be treated for all purposes as a controlled establishment. It will have to give an account of its profits, render all sorts of returns, and be subject to complications which might involve that particular firm in almost insuperable difficulties. The Clause is inserted, not in the least in the interests of the Ministry of Munitions, but in order to protect such firms. I will consider whether a form of words could be introduced in order to make the Clause applicable only to cases of that kind, where, by an oversight, an establishment has been declared a controlled establishment, or where the order has been revoked within a month or two, so that it should be applicable simply to cases where by common consent the establishment was not intended to be a controlled establishment and where it is discovered that it ought not to be so declared.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOLT: The Clause seemed to me so very sweeping in its character and to give such extraordinary opportunities to a tyrannical and unjust Minister—I am not suggesting that any such words could be applied to the present Minister of Munitions or to any person likely to succeed him—that I felt bound to take exception to it. It is most objectionable to put in an Act of Parliament words authorising conduct which I believe everybody in the House would entirely reprobate. I think it would have been more satisfactory if the Government had accepted my proposal to omit the Clause, and bring in a new one in another place. If they will not do that, I will accept my right hon. Friend's assurance, and I hope that when the Bill comes back from another place we shall find suitable words inserted in the Clause.
    Mr. KING: I think before this Amendment is withdrawn a warning ought to be given to the Minister of Munitions against taking great and wide powers and putting people off by saying, "Oh, trust me; I am a just man," and all that sort of thing.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never said that.
    Mr. KING: Of course, the Minister of Munitions does not do anything wrong at all, but he has under him people to whom he entrusts duties who have not his judgment, tact, and ability, nor his wide and generous heart. Every Member who is ready to lend a patient ear to complainants will have had brought before him many cases of serious injustice done by emergency legislation of one kind or another. I have two or three cases in mind where I have been asked to intercede at the War Office or some other Department in regard to emergency measures which were not intended or expected to operate so unjustly and harshly as they have done. Where there is a mere possibility of injustice it ought, if possible, to be guarded against. All Government Departments ought to attempt so to frame the powers that no injustice or hardship could follow.
    Question, "That Clause 17 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted 'to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of a proposed new Clause dealing with restrictions re change from union to non-union labour."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction re Change from Union to Non-Union Labour.)
    Where in a controlled establishment in which it was the practice prior to the War-to employ union labour exclusively nonunion labour is introduced during the War, the owner of the establishment shall be deemed to have undertaken that such introduction shall only be for the period of the War, and if he breaks or attempts to break such an undertaking he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds [but subject as aforesaid such introduction shall not be deemed to be a change of working conditions].—[Mr, Lloyd. George.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the Minister of Munitions think that in the absence of the entire Labour party with the exception of one Privy Councillor (Mr. Crooks) we should go on with the Bill? Will it not be better to report Progress, and not discuss so important a matter in the absence of the Labour party?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is redeeming the promise I gave earlier in the afternoon.
    Mr. KING: I am very glad that I took a part in preventing this Bill going through its Report stage a fortnight ago. I hope the Minister of Munitions has some gratitude left for me, because, unless I and other Members had done what we did, the right hon. Gentleman would not have been able to redeem his promise to the Labour party. What a difficulty he would have been in then! I congratulate the Minister of Munitions upon this Clause, and I am very glad I had a little part in enabling him to put it forward.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment.
    Bill, as amended on recommittal, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset in congratulating the Minister of Munitions upon having had the opportunity of doing all the good things he has been able to do this afternoon. We have been able to establish a record, for I think we have had three Committee stages and three Report stages. It is due to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and myself that we have been enabled to see these interesting things. Before, however, the Bill passes from this House I wish, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, to? correct some misrepresentations he made to the House earlier in the afternoon regarding the condition of feeling on the Clyde, and which I think it very unfortunate should come out with his authority. He said that it was only a minority of Syndicalists there, and their attitude which I represented in this House.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I did not say that.
    Mr.PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman said that the opposition to the Munitions Act was confined to such a minority. I know pretty well the feeling of various sections on the Clyde. I know the Syndicalists and the Socialists. There is no man in this House who has fought both sections more than I have done, and sometimes when the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to say kind words of them. But my right hon. Friend is making a great mistake if he believes that at the present time the opposition to the Munitions Act is concentrated in the Syndicalists. They probably formed an unruly section at his meeting in the St. Andrews Hall. But the misfortune of the Munitions Act is that it has driven the majority of workers on the Clyde to support the Syndicalists. It is because of that unfortunate state of things that now, and on other occasions, I have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of the penal Clauses of the Munitions Act. I believe it could have been done with perfect safety. I believe in this fight for freedom my right hon. Friend would have done best to have appealed to the honest hard-working free man. He would have got their support on the Clyde as nowhere else. I am concerned at the further remarks in which he spoke of dealing with the situation. I wonder if he quite realises what dealing with the situation means? If he intends to deal with it under the further legislation which is contemplated by the Government, I can assure him he will have a rude awakening. It is not simply munitions tribunals he will require; it is Divisions and Army Corps. When I supported the Government in going into this War on 5th August I supported it because I believed that a British Army was going to the Rhine, and not to the Clyde.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I wish to intervene for only one moment to enable me to say that the truth to which my hon. Friend has just given expression is one which is capable of exact application to other of the industrial areas of this country beside the Clyde. I really have been forced to the conclusion that the Government are most imperfectly informed of the precise state of feeling among large masses of workers in this country who have, rightly or wrongly, conceived the deep-rooted conviction that the Government is prepared to ride roughshod over their feelings, over the traditions associated with their work, the conditions of their em-

    923
    ployment, and over the most elementary privileges enjoyed by many of the citizens of this country under the impression that the workers of this country are negligible at the time of war. I will not attempt to anticipate the debates which will occupy the most serious attention of this House during the next two or three weeks, but I must give expression to my own deep concern that the Government seem to be attaching so little weight or significance the vast volume of indignation, of a deeply-rooted moral type, which is seizing the hearts and minds of tens and scores of thousands of our workers up and down the country. I know Scotland very well. I am constantly there. I can endorse much that my hon. Friend has said. I venture to remind the Minister of Munitions that in the industrial areas of the West Riding, particularly in my own Constituency and in the Colne Valley, there are conditions prevalent which, if much further incitement is given to them, will present to the Executive of this country problems of which they have now little conception. I do most sincerely appeal to my right hon. Friend to do what he can in the further stages of this Bill, and in any further speeches which he may address to his fellow-countrymen, to reassure the workmen that notwithstanding the anxieties involved in the conduct of a great War like this the country is still alive to the duty which it owes to its workers.
    Mr. KING: I only intervene to say with regard to the Debate we have had upon the Motion of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire to repeal Clause 7 of the original Act that I listened most intently to it, and I expected, in view of the speeches of the hon. Members for Gorton and Dundee, to have had a very different reply to that which the Minister of Munitions gave about his visit to the Clyde. I must confess, in view of the way in which the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) has practically supported the Minister of Munitions through thick and thin, I was extremely impressed by what he said. I was even more impressed by the speech, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not listen, of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie). I think it is a very unfortunate thing. Possibly he has had private opportunities of learning the opinion of the hon. Member for Dundee, but, if he has not, I do hope for his own good, as well as for the smooth working
    924
    of the Munitions Act, that the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee will be read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested by the Minister of Munitions. We cannot hide from ourselves that in the greatest industrial centre of munition making at the present time things are not going smoothly.
    I have great hope that this Bill, in which many of us have taken interest— and, with all our suspicion and dislike of a good deal that has been going on, we have done our best to make it a workable and useful measure—will greatly assist the national cause, the output of munitions, and the smooth and harmonious working of labour with the fighting forces, and—may we say also?—the ruling forces in this land. If that can be done, we have done a good day's work. We have done this work at some leisure, not hustling through the Bill as we were implored to do again and again from the Treasury Bench; but I believe we have stood for fair and full discussion, and even delay, in regard to this Bill, and have done service to this country, and the workers of this country, of which we need not be ashamed. Although we have withstood appeals to let the thing through, I, for one, am not sorry that this matter has been brought up before the House again and again, and that we have had full and fair discussion, not only in Committee but on the Report stage. I am perfectly sure that if the Minister of Munitions wants to get his work done well by as many and as heartily and as devotedly as possible, it will not only be by going to the Clyde holding private meetings and then only allowing a very partial and an imperfect account to be given of those meetings, but it will be by taking this House and the workers of the country into the fullest possible measure of confidence and giving the fullest information he can. It is only by fully and fairly telling the country what the difficulties are, where the danger lies, letting us see what friction there is, and appealing to all men fairly and sympathetically, I am convinced, will this great work, he has in hand be carried through with the greatest success.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the House will permit me to thank my hon. Friends for the way in which they have met the Government in this, the final stage of the Munitions Bill. I have certainly, nothing to complain of either in the substance of the criticism or in the tone of the criticism. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark took a very strong view as to the

    925
    general principles on which we ought to proceed on this and other matters, and I take a different view. He is entitled to express himself strongly on one side, as I am on the other, and I know perfectly well that in all he said he is inspired by the best of good feeling to myself personally, and to the work of the Ministry of Munitions in so far as it relates to output. There was one word which fell from an hon. Friend sitting behind me, which I really must take this opportunity at once of correcting and repudiating. I do not know whether he meant to suggest that either I or any other member of the Government thought that the opinion of the workers of the country was negligible. It was a most extraordinary phrase to use in anything, and it ought least of all to be applied to the work which I have done during the last twelve months. I have done more consultation with the leaders of trade unionism than any man in this House. I have not taken a single step without taking the most elaborate precautions to ascertain their opinion. I have met them times out of number. I have conferred with them before I introduced any Bill. I conferred with them before I took any step. I did not always take their view upon everything. It is not involved in a controversy of this sort that you are always bound to take the view of one party; but I can venture to say that, so far as the vast majority of their suggestion are concerned, I accepted them; and I should like the hon. Member who talks like that to look at the Amendments they suggested and the Amendments I have embodied in this Bill. I think he ought to have done so before saying I treated the workers of this country as negligible. Even the fact of my going to the Clyde shows I was not treating them as negligible. I went there to see them; I went there to talk with them. I am a fairly busy man, and I used such little holiday as I had to take the opinions of the workers. I was there for three days, and there was nothing more pleasant than to meet the shop-stewards in Parkhead by way of spending a Christmas. Undoubtedly a very merry Christmas it gave me. I do not complain. I did not always understand the interruptions. I would have done so if I had been a Scotsman instead of a Welshman, and I missed a good deal of the fun for that very reason. At any rate, I went there merely to ascertain the opinions of "workmen whom I am suggested as regarding as negligible. My
    926
    hon. Friend taunted me that some of the workmen did not think fit to come to express their opinions. That was not my fault.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was the fault of the Munitions Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was not my fault. It was not that I considered their opinions were negligible. Although I knew perfectly well their opinions were hostile, and hostile opinions were expressed in a very forcible manner, I did not shirk it, but I did my best to ascertain their views, because I thought their opinions were very important and not negligible, and I will not have it said that at any stage of these proceedings I regarded the opinion of the workers of this country as negligible. I have done my very best to secure their co-operation. I have entered into several agreements with them. It is no fault of mine if those agreements have not been carried out. Although the Munitions Act only passed in July, agreement was entered into in March. I feel it incumbent upon me to make that perfectly clear. I have always consulted the trade union officials, and one of the difficulties has been not that there has been a lack of consultation between me and trade union officials, but that there has been a lack of acceptance of decisions of trade union leaders by those who are in the shipyards and in the various localities. That has been the trouble. If I had known exactly what the demands of the workers were and by what demands they would" abide—that is the point—then I should have been in a better position to make a clean bargain at the outset. One of the complaints made against me was that I did not go behind the backs of the trade union leaders to the men. They said to me, "Why do you not go straight to the men?" Supposing I had done that they would have turned round and said that I was endeavouring to get behind the trade union organisations.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You went down last week to do it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is referring to the shop stewards, who were elected by the men themselves. In that case I went to the works with the full assent of the trade union leaders and on the advice of the advisory committee which represents the trade union leaders. If the leaders said, "You had better go off to the men themselves," that is quite another matter, but to go behind the backs of the trade union leaders is a thing that

    927
    I would not do. It is just as much the trade union policy as it is the Government policy, and there is no man in the trade union movement who does not know it. This is not a mutiny against the Government, but against the whole organisation of trade unionism. I saw it at the beginning, when I was President of the Board of Trade. We found that agreements entered into by the trade union leaders were not carried out, and there is no doubt the trade union leaders have been fighting for their life. This is a fact, and every man who has to deal with organised labour knows it, and it is far better to say it. The trade union meeting in Glasgow was organised by the trade unions.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Some of them.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Their representatives were present, and they agreed to organise the meeting. I agreed to extend my visit in order to get an opportunity of talking to the stewards. It is true that some of the representatives from the unions did not turn up. I had absolutely nothing to do with the issuing of the tickets and the meeting was arranged by them, and I have taken every precaution to deal with organised labour through its reputed leaders and representatives, and no Government can do anything else without absolutely breaking up the whole organisation of the skilled labour of the country, and that is a very serious thing to do, and a matter in which I shall take neither lot nor part. It is much better to deal with responsible leaders who, from experience, know what the purport and effect of a decision is than to deal with sporadic bodes of men who put forward demands without having that experience or knowledge which enables them to decide what particular relation their action has with something that has gone before or some thing that will arise in the future.
    Mr. WILKIE: With regard to the meeting on Thursday night on the Clyde, the difficulty was caused through the postponement of the meeting.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was not aware of that, and I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to the trades unions. I thought it would be far better to stay two or three days in order to make myself thoroughly acquainted with the conditions of labour. It seems that what I did was inconvenient to individuals and I regret it, but that is not a point of substance. I
    928
    again want to emphasise that I take every trouble on every conceivable occasion to ascertain the views of the men. The trouble is that when I have ascertained those views at the proper quarter there is always some repudiation behind, and often there is an attempt made to overthrow the official organisation. There is opposition in trades union circles as there is in political circles, and just as there are critics of the Government there are critics of trade unions, and consequently it is very difficult to carry them with you. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable that you should ascertain their view and that we should take a full measure of their confidence in working through a difficult situation like this. When I asked those gentlemen who were interrupting at one of my meetings, "Whom do you trust?" they called out, "We trust nobody." Even when I got to the minority I wanted to know to whom; I was to appeal and there was no man present who could make a bargain for the minority, and my hon. Friend knows that as well as I do. It is true that there were two or three men there representing certain people, but there was no man there who had the authority to say, "I will agree to such-and-such a policy or such-and-such terms." I doubt very much whether there was any two or three men who could have carried the whole body of the minority with them. It is a distrust and suspicion of trade union leaders and official trade unions, and when you get lower down they are very suspicious of each other. I found they were divided into Syndicalists and Socialists, each having a great contempt for the other. It is almost impossible under those conditions to make bargains, and consequently you are driven back to the law. I infinitely prefer to make arrangements with the men, and for that reason the Prime Minister and I, on Friday, although there were very serious objections to the new Clause inserted to-day, came to the conclusion that if we could make an arrangement which could really be carried out it would be better. We very properly concluded, although there were serious objections to the Clause being inserted, that it was worth while paying the price in order to secure the co-operation of labour. There has been an understanding and an agreement from the first, and we shall have to see whether it is possible to carry out that arrangement or whether a fresh arrangement can be made. I

    929
    think I have now dealt with most of the points that have been raised, but I would like once more to point out that in this Amending Bill, from beginning to end, the many concessions we have made to labour show that at any rate we are not deaf to the representations made by labour, that we do not consider them negligible; on the contrary, we have listened to their appeals and suggestions, and although the hon. Member for Leeds may smile, that is a fact. The mere fact that we have taken the trouble to pilot this Bill through the House when the pressure of other work is enormous is a proof that we are doing our best to meet every grievance labour complains of in the munition factories. Whatever my hon. Friends may say to the contrary, I believe there is a time coming when the Munitions Act and the Defence of the Realm Act will be regarded as tremendous leaps forward in the social and industrial world. The power which I took to take control of the workshops and to regulate what work should be done, the power to organise our industrial system, the power to limit profits, and the two Clauses in this particular Bill to declare a minimum wage in over 2,200 controlled establishments, with 1,250,000 and very soon 1,500,000 workers, and to see that there shall be no sweating—I repeat to my hon. Friend that all these things will be regarded one day, in spite of two or three things which may be considered as blemishes in the Act, as landmarks in a great industrial revolution. Things have been done under the Munitions Act which it would have taken a generation for either labour or Parliament to have achieved under peace conditions, and the man who will then stand up and say, "I opposed the Munitions Act; I was against it," will, I think, be scarcer than he is to-day. I ask my hon. Friends to look at this Act as a whole, and not to concentrate upon and talk about certificates and Clause 7. That is an unfortunate necessity in a time of war, which my hon. Friend himself recognised when he said that you must impose some restraint in a time of war. That is only one part. It is one of the conditions which has enabled us to get concessions for the working classes of this country which appear in an Act of Parliament, and contain principles which they themselves can develop, and which, if they are wise, they will insist upon being adhered to by the State.
    Mr. HOGGE: Surely the Minister of Munitions is making a mistake when he says that any of us will take up the position that we opposed the Munitions Act. I do not think that either my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Pringle) or myself have opposed the Munitions Act. What we have done has been to assist the right hon. Gentleman in drafting such an Act as will meet the exigencies of the situation. It is not fair of the right hon. Gentleman to draw that contrast as if he and the Government were setting up landmarks which will be looked to in the future and as if some of us, who have assisted him in making the Acts better and improving them, will be branded as men who opposed the Munitions Act. We have only objected to the penal Clauses. May I put this point finally to the right hon. Gentleman? I got a letter from the Clyde after I had made my speech this afternoon. I will read a sentence from this letter which puts the whole of the Clyde situation in a nutshell. This man, who knows what he is talking about, says:
    "These workmen are working for the same directors, the same managers, and the same firms in the same atmosphere, and undoubtedly these men have helped to make the Act unpopular by the way they have invoked its powers for all sorts of petty offences.…"
    Then, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will just listen to this one sentence:—
    "Those men in ordinary circumstances, if they had not been making munitions, would have been in the trenches, but in the trenches those men would have been fighting for an ideal."
    That is the whole difference in a nutshell The man who is out at the front, the Scottish soldier, and for that matter the British soldier, is fighting for an ideal which he lives up to. In the factories, very dark, dismal, dreary places, men are being subjected to an insidious kind of tyranny which is wiping the ideal out of their lives. All we have done to-day—and I think the Minister of Munitions ought to be perfectly fair to us—is to try and induce him, from our personal intimate acquaintance with our fellow Scotsmen on the Clyde, to obviate that difficulty and to give them that ideal by removing, or as far as possible getting rid of, the penal Clauses in the Munitions Act. If he could do that I think there would be no objection.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does my hon. Friend want to get rid of the penal Clauses for the employers?
    Mr. HOGGE: No; as my right hon. Friend knows, we have never taken up any other position than this one. If you make the conditions equal for both, we are perfectly satisfied, but we are not satisfied if there is an inequality. Do not let us get on to that question at the end of the Third Reading. We have had a very pleasant day and a pleasant fight, and I do not think the Minister of Munitions ever objects to a fight. I wish to express to him the honest, sincere conviction that it is the absence of that ideal in the big workshops on the Clyde that is making all the difference. I think he himself will now admit it was rather unfair when he put it that his work and the work of the Government would be regarded as landmarks, and that ours would be regarded as opposition. Our work is equally as effective and constructive as that of the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. C.DUNCAN: I am confident that the greater part of the difficulty has arisen in this way. The whole of the working men of this country have been brought up under the old Manchester school of the ideal of individual liberty. I suppose in war that has got to be sacrificed to some extent. One can understand a certain amount of resentment among men when they see that take place, but by far the larger part of the resentment has been created by senseless people in office who, in a blundering, stupid, wooden-headed fashion, have made the Act stink in the nostrils of the workpeople by using the authority given them under this Act, an authority which they could never have hoped to have achieved under ordinary circumstances. They have got the workman by the throat. He cannot strike. They have fixed and anchored him in the establishment, and some of these people have set to work off some of their old back scores. There is no doubt about it. Therefore one need not be surprised that some feeling has been created. One case has come within my own experience. An employer employed a number of Belgians. There was difference between these men and their employer. The Belgians found out that the ordinary engineer got time and a half for his overtime and double time for his Sunday work. These men are strangers in this country. They did not want to do anything against the traditions of trade unionism here, and therefore they asked for the same rates. What was the answer of the employer to the man who made a request on
    932
    their behalf? It was that, in order to punish him for daring to raise the question, he would report him to the Belgian authorities in order that he might be shifted to the trenches in Flanders! These are the kind of things that happen and they raise a very difficult situation indeed. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the work of an officer of a trade union is by no means a feather-bed job when this kind of thing occurs. As far as the overwhelming number of trade unionists in this country are concerned, they are just as anxious as any man in this House to do their duty and see that, as far as lies in their power, munitions are produced in such quantities as will enable this country to win success over its enemies. I am sorry this feeling has existed. I hope that the Amendments embodied in this Act of Parliament will allay those doubts and suspicions which, to some extent, many of the papers have gone a long way to increase and embitter and in some cases even to create. I believe, too, that the Amendments we have succeeded in putting into this measure will at any rate allay some of the evil spirit which is afloat and bring us to the position in which we shall get what the Minister of Munitions wants as much as any man in this country, namely, an active co-operation between the men in the workshop and those who are responsible for the production of munitions, so that the work may go on smoothly, without the need for martial law or for force, but on the principle of good will. If we can get the men to work with good will there will be no question of objecting either to the productions of France or any other country, and the people of this country will triumph over all.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes before Ten o'clock.