HC Deb 04 January 1916 vol 77 cc835-65

"Section seven of the principal Act is hereby repealed."—[Mr.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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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.

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 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 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 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; 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 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.

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 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. 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 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

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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.