MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.

HC Deb 27 April 1917 vol 92 cc2745-803

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."

This Bill consists of three Clauses, of which the first raises larger issues than do the second and third Clauses, and I think I should therefore deal with the last two Clauses before describing Clause 1. The second Clause makes the same provi- sion for priority of employment for war munition volunteers as is secured by paragraph (3) of the Second Schedule to the original Act 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 at the time the establishment became a controlled establishment. If the House agrees to the second Clause the same consideration will be secured to war munition volunteers. These are men who have undertaken to work at any establishment to which they may have been assigned by the Minister. This is obviously a useful extension of the original Act, and it will not be necessary for me to enlarge upon it. The third Clause is more considerable in its effect, and I think is likely to be of real value in securing comprehensive arrangements for the settlement of wages questions. Under Part I. of the Munitions of War Act it is provided that strikes and lockouts are prohibited, except when the difference has been reported to the Minister of Labour and twenty-one days have elapsed since that report and the difference has not, during that time, been referred for settlement in accordance with the Act. It is provided that the award shall be binding on the employers and employed, and may be retrospective, but the award only binds the actual parties to the dispute The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Minister to make such an award binding on the whole industry, and not merely on the parties to the arbitration. At present the only power the Minister has is to make general orders under the Fair-Wages-Clause. The operation of that Clause is slow and partial, and I hope we shall have powers given by the House to secure to the Minister of Munitions that these awards shall affect not only part of a trade, but the whole of a trade. This will avoid a great deal of delay. I believe that it would have the wholesome effect of raising the standard of wages paid, and would be satisfactory in the interests of the industry as a whole. The proposal is quicker, neater, and, I think, more effective, and I believe it will form a very important part of the industrial machinery of the country in regard towages. The Minister has already power for dealing with the wages of women workers, and my right hon. Friend has made one or two Orders which I think have been of immense value in raising the wages of women workers, who in the past have, been among the worst paid class of workers in the country.

I now come to two or three new Clauses which the Government propose to put down, very largely as the result of questions addressed to me in the last two or three weeks and of representations made to the Ministry from the country. The first deals with the expediting of the hearing and decision of differences which arise. I am myself satisfied that there is more irritation caused amongst the workers of the country by what is regarded as the dilatory dealing with a dispute than is caused by the merits of the dispute itself. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has already prepared machinery which will enable him rapidly to deal with cases of dispute, and I hope the House will be prepared to give us the powers which will enable that to be secured. Another new Clause which is to be put down is to deal with questions raised by the hon. Member for Attercliffe on more than one occasion, and with regard to which we have received sub-stantial complaints from Sheffield—that is to say, complaints from men who have been refused leaving certificates after they have been out of employment six weeks. It was clearly the intention of the original Act that men who have been unemployed for the statutory period should be given leaving certificates. Our attention has been called to cases in which these leaving certificates, after the expiration of six weeks of unemployment, have been refused by the employers and by the tribunals. I think that the fact of certificates having been refused arises out of a misapprehension as to the intention of the Act. There is no real obligation on the employer or on the tribunal to grant certificates. As a matter of fact, no employer is required to ask the workmen for such a certificate in order to give him new employment. That misapprehension exists, and, as my hon. Friend says, the workmen do not know it. I think it well that it should be removed, as it it a misapprehension which is widespread. I hope the House will agree to allow this addition to be made to the Bill.

The third and last new point is one which provides for tightening up machinery to prevent rate-cutting. As to the recently experienced trouble at Barrow, I believe the real and substantial ground was the suspicion in the minds of the workmen that rates once fixed have been unfairly cut. I express no opinion now as to whether that suspicion was well founded or not, but anyhow it exists widely. It is important, I think, that Parliament should do everything it can to prevent a breach of the intention of Parliament, and, where the Munitions Act is defective, to provide a remedy. It can be done in Committee when the Clause comes up. Owing to the peculiar circumstances arising out of this class of case, I am quite certain it has created a good deal of uneasiness amongst munition workers, and I hope we shall be allowed to take that means of remedying it.

I come now to the first Clause of the Bill, which gives power to the Minister of Munitions to apply any or all of the provisions of the Munitions of War Act to any class of work to which, in his opinion, it is of national importance that such provisions should apply. The principal object with which this Clause is put down —I state it at once—is to enable the Government to secure the practice of the dilution of skilled labour on private work, such, for instance, as the manufacture of textile machinery or agricultural implements. It will probably surprise many Members to know that the Government does not already possess this power. There is a widespread impression that we have already secured what is, in my view, an essential part of industrial organisation for war. By that I mean the utilisation of skilled men's skill to its highest possible economic purpose. Under the conditions which this War has brought about, the wasteful use of skilled men's skill is an unforgiveable sin. The State has taken the power, in agreement with the trade unions, to secure the dilution of skilled labour on war work, but they have no power to prevent its wasteful use on private work. On merits I do not think that can be justified—I am speaking of practical considerations—I do not think, on merits, it can be justified that the State should not have the power to secure the same economical use of skilled labour on private work as it now possesses with similar labour on war work. I notice that Motions have been put down for the rejection of this Bill from quarters of which I, at any rate, am not likely to underrate the Parliamentary importance. I hope my hon. Friends who put down those Motions will, as a result of the discussion, recognise that a case has been made for Second Reading, and that they will not find it necessary to go to a Division. In view of that threatened opposition from quarters which exercise great Parliamentary skill, I hope I shall be allowed, as shortly as I can, to state the case for the dilution of labour, and particularly for its dilution in regard to private work.

The term "dilution of labour" is descriptively inexact, and the associations of the word are not exactly happy, but no better phrase has been evolved, and it has become part of our industrial phraseology. What is implied by the term is this, that skilled men are kept exclusively at work which skilled men alone can do, that women are utilised for all processes which they are capable of performing, or can be trained to perform, that semi-skilled and unskilled men are either upgraded, and gradually given more skilled work, or are utilised for a class of work at, which skilled men would be wasted, and which women, in the nature of things, are not capable of performing. In this system, properly carried out, the whole labour strength of a country, whether of men or of women, is put to the highest possible use. But dilution of labour does not, as the House will see, mean exclusively the introduction of women into industries where they have not been occupied before. It is the extent to which dilution has made the use of woman power possible which has most struck the imagination of the country, and which has had the most marked effect in improving our industrial strength for war. Previous to the War the proportion of women to men in firms which have since become controlled firms, was 7.1 per cent., and in December last it had increased to 21.2 per cent. Dividing up the industries the percentage in engineering for the same period was 2.8 before the War, and 21.5 in December last, and the same process to a varying extent has gone on in electrical engineering, small arms, scientific instruments, wood-work, and explosives. Those figures are remarkable enough, but it does not enable the House to realise the wonderful range, or the delicacy, or the volume and value of the contribution of women munition workers of this country brought into our factories under the system of dilution of labour. Those Members of the House who visited one of the exhibitions of women's war work which have been held in various parts of the country, and particularly the fine exhibition held recently at the Royal Colonial Institute, will admit that I do not exaggerate when I say that the women who have been brought into our munition works under this policy of dilution of labour have vastly increased our industrial strength for war. Their activities in carrying out important processes range from fuse filling to battleship building. They have influenced the whole range of war production and have greatly increased the industrial efficiency of the country for war. Although one of my hon. Friends opposite has just said that they are underpaid, I am glad to think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, by the Orders he has issued dealing with women's wages, has been able to secure an immense uplift in the wages paid to this important class of labour.

What were the circumstances under which the Government was driven to the conclusion that the dilution of labour became necessary? It was not done pour set beaux yeux. No Government would have risked the odium attached to a proposal of this kind, the inevitable odium, unless they were driven to it by a stern sense of national necessity. As we can all see now, and even the severest critic will admit, this policy has immensely increased our labour strength for war. I believe that the Government either had to carry out that policy of dilution at that time, or lose the War. Recall the situartion as it was then. For months our Armies had been opposed to a murderous superiority of artillery fire on the side of the enemy, a superiority against which the valour of our soldiers was spilled in vain. German industry organised for war was overwhelming British industry organised for peace. Our Armies were being forced back and held up, not by the superior fighting power of the German soldier, but by the German engineer and the German chemist, and the millions of German munition workers. Those were the days, the sad and tragic days, when we read in letters from the front, and when we heard from the lips of our wounded soldiers, the story of how they were shelled and shelled and shelled day after day without their having the wherewithal adequately to reply. You had single guns against batteries, short-range guns against long-range guns, guns of small calibre against guns of great calibre, single machine guns against positions which bristled with machine guns. How that wonderful Expeditionary Force ever managed to hold its ground against the material superiority of the enemy will always remain one of the wonders of the world. We had no right, no country had any right, to ask of its soldiers such a sacrifice or such a trial as this country asked of our soldiers. But it was asked, and it was not asked in vain. In that position, only heroic measures were possible or would be useful. Our war industries were then incapable of meeting the situation, and they had to be revolutionised. The most serious factor was that the engineering and chemical industries, on which alone the country could rely rapidly to increase the output of war material, had been depleted of 25 per cent. of its labour strength by the system of recruiting which at that time prevailed. At that time there were few guides of public opinion, either in this House or in the Press, who realised that the skilled artisan was of far more use to his country at his bench than in the trench -very few guides. [An HON. MEMBER: "Plenty."] I know there were some, but they were not listened to either in this House or in other quarters. It is strictly true to say that few guides of public opinion realised at that time that this War was going to be won by the side which commanded the greatest mass of the best kind of war material.

That was the problem, with a labour strength depleted to the extent of 25 per cent. of its best elements, to increase the production of war material, not once or twice, but several hundred times over. There was only one way by which the problem could be solved, and that was to restrict the utilisation of such skilled men as remained in the country to work which they alone could do, to bring to their assistance a great army of women and unskilled men, to make the skilled men the officers of industrial companies, to train them, and gradually to make them efficient for the production of this great mass of war material. The present Prime Minister has in this War put his countrymen under many and great obligations, but in my view history will say that one of the greatest was that he had the courage, in conjunction with the then President of the Board of Trade, to put the position to the trade unions of the country and to get their agreement. With great patriotism, and I think with great wisdom, the trade unions at that time agreed to the appeal which was made to them by my right hon. Friend, and in a memorable agreement signed on 19th March, 1915, they agreed to the suspension of all trade union practices and customs which would act in restraint of output. That was a memorable agreement, and on the whole it has been loyally carried out. I am aware that there are some exceptions, but such exceptions as exist only make brighter the conspicuous loyalty with which the mass of the trade unionists of the country have carried out that undertaking. It was not a small thing to ask. These men were asked to admit into their trade a great number of new comers whom they were bound to recognise as possible competitors after the War, and not only to admit these unskilled men and women, but to train them and teach them and qualify them for the position that the unions had fought for and secured. I cannot put the position better than it was put to me by the chairman of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers this week, when I received a deputation from that important body. This is what he said: In response to the call of the nation we have-relaxed our hard-won and traditionally cherished trade rights and allowed people to come into our trade who have no legitimate right to be in our trade, and to assist the nation in its hour of need. If there are any in this House who are inclined to criticise the attitude of the trade unions, let them imagine the position if we had to make a similar appeal to the doctors or lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or to the farmers!"] Yes, or to any class of men who have built up an organisation to protect their interests. If that appeal were made to the doctors, let us say, to allow Mr. Barker to come in and practise surgery, I have no doubt that with a sense of national necessity the doctors would agree to the same principle. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not."] But no one would deny that it would be a very great thing to ask. The Government asked that of the trade unions, and the trade unions met the request of the Government, because they recognised the national need. I think it is well that the House of Commons, whenever this practice is being discussed, should bear that fact in mind.

Two years have passed since that memorable agreement was made, and now, in asking the House to extend it, we are in a position to judge what has been accomplished as the result of it. I think the best estimate of what dilution of labour under the Munitions of War Act has accomplished can be found in the German official communiqués dealing with the Battle of Vimy, and particularly in the comments of the German military experts. No more illuminating tribute van be paid to the British munition workers than is to be found in the apologies that the German authorities have been making for the voluntary elasticity of their front. They state as an explanation of their withdrawal that for days the British artillery of the heavy and heaviest guns hurled masses of shell of every description against the German position. The British soldier at last is in something of the same position as the German soldier was at the beginning of the War. It is no longer ten German shells to one British shell. Dilution of labour in British workshops has changed all that, and this is the reward, the exceeding great reward, of the leaders of the trade unions and of the rank and file of the trade unions for the great sacrifices they have made. I would like to give the House one or two figures in regard to the expenditure of ammunition in the recent offensive, and let the House compare from their own knowledge these facts with what is public knowledge now of the state of things early in the War. Our expenditure of shells of 6 inch and upwards in the first week of the recent offensive was nearly twice that of the first week of the Somme battle, while the expenditure during the second week of the recent offensive was six and a half times that of the second week of the Somme. The expenditure of the gun ammunition by the British Armies in France in the second week of the new offensive has never before been exceeded. It was, taking all natures together, 28 per cent. heavier than during the first week of the offensive—that is to say, that in spite of the terrific artillery fire which was kept up day after day for the first week the Army was in a position to increase its effort by 28 per cent. during the second week. That is in marked contrast to the experience of the Army on the Somme, when the intense bombardment of the first week was never again reached. Quite obviously that change in the position of the Armies has meant a great saving of British flesh and blood.

I hope I have shown that the partial dilution of labour has been justified by results. What is the case for extending it? The case is, that the demand for certain skilled types of artisans goes on steadily increasing. For the technical corps in France, where the workshops are called on to deal with an ever-increasing amount of gun repairs, for the shops in this country turning out tanks, aeroplanes, and big guns, the need for skilled men is beyond the demand. Particularly it is in those classes connected with the production of kinds of munitions where the proportion of skilled labour is higher than in connection with the general run. Germany, whose industrial war effort has been one of the most wonderfully effective and well-organised that any nation ever accomplished, has enormously increased her labour strength by diluting her skilled labour with the enslaved populations of Poland and Belgium. This country cannot afford to be outstripped in this struggle of workshops. Whatever else has to go short, the Army and the Navy must be kept supplied, as has been done in recent months, with an ample supply of the best equipment of war. I think we should be all blind to the lessons of the last two and a half years of war if anything we did at the present time diminished the industrial efficiency of our productive power for war.

1.0 P.M.

There are two other industries in particular which, though not war industries in the sense in which I have so far used the term, also require, and it is essential in the national existence that they should have, all the labour which is necessary for them. I refer to the shipbuilding industry and to the agricultural implements industry. It is not necessary for me to say any more in regard to introducing more men into the shipbuilding industry than to refer thoughtful men to the last published figures of the sinking of British ships by German submarines. I am confident that this country will succeed in overcoming the most serious danger ever faced in this War. I have confidence in it because I have faith in the resource and discipline of this free people. It may mean great privation before it is overcome, but I have confidence it will be overcome. It is essential to do it that we should be able to put into our shipbuilding industry every skilled man necessary for that industry whom it is possible to obtain. The same thing applies to the agricultural implement industry. A great number of agricultural firms were engaged on the production of war material, but my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Munitions has recently made a great change in the contracts whereby those firms are put back to their original, and, under present circumstances, more important work of producing agricultural implements. Evidence is accumulating at the Ministry that there are in the country, in private firms, a large number of machines standing idle because there are no workpeople available to work them. Those machines could be worked if we had the power the Government now has in regard to war work to bring into those private industries men and women new to the industry. The Bill will enable us to do that. I would put it to those hon. Members, friends of mine, who have put down a Motion for rejection that it will be a serious responsibility if any difficulty is put in the way of the Government carrying out a measure of this kind. The importance of keeping our private industries in being is always present to the minds of those of the Ministry who have to deal with the labour problem. One important side of that is that we want, when the men come back from the front. that their jobs shall be there for them, and that they shall come back to an industry in being. If they came back to an industry which has been killed because the Government has not been allowed to dilute the skilled labour in these industries it will be a calamity, almost a crime. For that reason I am sure the House will hesitate before it refuses to give us that Clause of the Bill. The need for increased production after the War is evident, unless our children are to be saddled with a burden of debt which will make life intolerable. How is that to be met, that need for increased production—when every pair of hands and every machine ought to be working to their highest possible capacity —unless we are allowed by a proposal such as this to do something to keep these industries in being? Production, more production, and yet more production will have to be the aim of this country! It will be for the House of Commons to find the way by which that great aim can be realised consistently with safeguarding the rights and the dignity of labour. Exception may be taken to this Clause, as I feel confident it will be taken, on the ground that the present Prime Minister made a statement in 1915 that women should not be introduced on private work. The reply to that criticism is that at that time no one anticipated the duration of the War, or its effect on the private industries of the country.

Mr. ANDERSON

Another pledge!

Mr. KELLAWAY

My hon. Friend says "another pledge." This War has a way of changing conditions and of revolutionising the circumstances under which Parliamentary measures pass. I think he would be a blind and even a shallow man who questions either that fact or is not prepared to recognise the change. I am glad to say that the great body of trade unionists of the country have met the Government fairly in this regard. I have here the terms of the agreement entered into between the Government and some twenty-four or twenty-five of the principal trade unions concerned. Perhaps I might read the first clause, which says that they have agreed— That the practice of dilution shall be extended to firms engaged wholly or partly on private and commercial work, and they accept the principle that dilution shall be extended to private and commercial work, and agree to co-operate in securing its application.

Mr. ANDERSON

Does that include the Amalgamated Society of Engineers?

Mr. KELLAWAY

It covers the great mass of those unions. It does not cover the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. They were not parties to this agreement. However, I have reason to believe that in this matter, as in the original agreement for dilution, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers will show themselves as patriotic as have other great trade unions.

Mr. PRINGLE

Will that agreement be published?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I think it has already been published. The Clause does little more than give statutory sanction to the agreement entered into with the unions to which I have referred. The Bill will give us the power of securing the same conditions for labour and the same limitations of the employer's profit as we have already in the Munitions of War Acts. That is the case for this Bill. I hope the House will feel that, at any rate, it is a case which deserves respectful consideration from hon. Members. I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading.

Mr. PRINGLE

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and add instead thereof the words this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill until the restrictions upon the freedom of employment of munition workers are removed. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to congratulate him upon the extremely able and luminous statement which he has made on the proposals contained in the Bill. I am gratified to know that the limited scope of the Bill is to be somewhat extended, and that in three respects certain improvements of the original and amended Munitions Code are to be introduced in addition to Clauses 2 and 3 of the present Bill. As my hon. Friend realised, the main question at issue to-day arises out of Clause 1. Under Clause 1 power is given to the Ministry of Munitions to extend the munitions code, either in whole or in part, to any industry, or to any part of any industry, to which the Ministry of Munitions decides that it ought in the national interest to be extended. My hon. Friend has made a very able defence of the policy of what is now known as the dilution of labour. That policy in substance has never been in dispute. I think everybody realised that when the period of munitions shortage arose, a system of dilution had become an urgent necessity, and the only controversy which arose then, and which, unfortunately, has never been removed, has been concerned with the conditions under which that dilution was introduced, and the safeguards which were to be given to those skilled workmen who had made the sacrifice in assenting to the dilution, and the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is an Amendment which is mainly concerned with the conditions under which it has been carried out.

I think it only right to remind the House in a general way what the munitions code is. There was a great deal more in the munitions code than the provision for the dilution of labour. There was a provision for the restriction of the profits which might be earned in munitions establishments. There was also a provision which was at the time the most contentious provision, and which experience has proved to be the most unfortunate provision—the provision relating to the restriction of freedom of employment of men engaged in munition work. I wish to make two observations on these points, as well as on the question of dilution. First of all, if Clause 1 is carried out, you may extend it to any industry—indeed, it is possible to extend it to the whole industries of the country—although my hon. Friend has told us that the Ministry has at present only in contemplation the shipbuilding and agricultural industries.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I did not intend to limit it in that way. Those are the most important industries I have in mind, and I have mentioned them as illustrating the most important industries.

Mr. PRINGLE

I thank my hon. Friend. I mentioned the point in case there might be any misunderstanding. The point, however, is very clear, that this first Clause gives a general power which is not restricted to any industry, and under this power the Ministry of Munitions may declare any particular establishment, or any set of establishments, or any industries controlled for the purposes of the Munitions of War Act. That involves, of course, at once the provisions in relation to profits—provisions, I think, contained in Section 3 of the original Munitions of War Act. It means that a different system of taking what may be called excess profits may be applied to these establishments from that which applies to other establishments under the Finance Acts of last year and the year before. I think it is necessary, in relation to this matter, to remember that conditions in the interval have very considerably altered, that at the time this legislation for restriction of profits was first introduced there was no general taxation of excess profits. Therefore it was a considerable concession to the workmen. It was regarded as part of the bargain that a special disability should be imposed upon munition establishments as distinct from all other industries in the country. What we want to ascertain now is, in the light of the new taxation on excess profits, whether munition establishments are more or less favourably treated under what may be called the munitions code for dealing with profits than under the general law of the country in regard to excess profits taxation.

We know that, not only in regard to excess profits taxation, but in respect of the control of certain industries, far more stringent provision has now been made by the Government. A Department for the control of shipping has been set up, and arrangements have been made in various particulars for dealing with the earnings of shipowners. Now, although the policy and the proposal have never yet been stated in the House, it is an open secret that the provisions affecting shipowners now are far more stringent than your munitions code. In fact, it may be said that the great bulk of the shipping of the country is now being worked under Blue Book rates—rates which, so far from yielding an excess profit, give no margin of profit at all. I am told that in many cases where there are no free ships at all, it means an absolute loss. If that is the case with other industries, obviously if this control of profits is represented as part of a bargain given by the employer in return for concessions by workmen, it is valueless. Consequently, I think in the light of all this it is necessary for the Government, if it is going to extend the munitions code to private work, to review the whole situation in regard to control of profits. We have had experience of the working of this matter in regard to the control of profits. The original Munitions Act came into operation, I think, on the 1st July, 1915. We have now had nearly two years' experience. Last night I sent a note to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, with a view to eliciting information on this point. I asked in that note whether it would be possible in the course of the Debate to-day for a statement to be made as to the amount paid into the Treasury by controlled establishments in respect of the munitions levy, or in respect of excess profits, or of both. My hon. Friend has not dealt with that matter in the course of his speech.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I have not seen the note.

Mr. PRINGLE

I am very sorry it has not reached my hon. Friend. I sent it to the Minister in the hope that he would have notice, and consequently be in a position to make a statement. We know that £139,000,000 has been paid into the Exchequer in excess profits. We know that there is a difference between the position of the controlled establishments and other industries and commercial undertakings. It is fair that we should be told to what extent controlled establishments have contributed to this im- mense revenue, how much of it is due to the sections of the original Munitions Act, and how much of it is due to the taxes on excess profits which were introduced by my right hon. Friend opposite. Without this information I think we are not justified in applying the code to this new private work.

I come again to the question of dilution. I do not think any of the trade unions have ever really objected to dilution. As my hon. Friend admitted at the time of the original agreement between the trade unions and the Ministry of Munitions, one part of the bargain was the undertaking that existing conditions and restrictions should not be applicable to private work. The trade unions regard that as a very substantial consideration. No paper records can reproduce the old conditions. We were understood to be giving a statutory safeguard for the restoration of the old conditions, and it was an important consideration in the minds of the trade union leaders that while these conditions and restrictions were being abandoned in munitions establishments, they still retained the working model in existence in the private establishments in the country. Under this Act all this is to go, and therefore you are driven to examine the character of the safeguards. I think you are entitled to better safeguards than now exist. It is very doubtful how far the restoration of those conditions can be imposed at all. On the occasion of the last Amending Bill going through this House grave doubt was expressed upon this point. When the original Act was passed provision was inserted in the first Act to meet representations which I then made and which have proved quite inadequate, and owing to the conditions under which the Committee stage was taken it was impossible to examine thoroughly the effect.

An attempt was made to remedy that during the course of the discussions on the Amending Bill which was passed in January last year. A new Clause was proposed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Koch) which I think would have given an absolute safeguard, and which made the restoration of those conditions an implied term of the contract, and which would have made their restoration actionable in a Civil Court. The Government, however, declined to grant that safeguard for their restoration although an Amendment was introduced, the value of which is still somewhat in doubt. We must remember in this relation that all the workmen affected by this relaxation are making considerable sacrifices, for they are allowing a great influx of people into their industry to become competitors in the days of peace when labour will in all probability be far more restricted than it is at the present time. It will not only mean the men who are still left in the industry, but you will also have the skilled men who have gone into the Army, those who were taken by mistake in the early days of voluntary recruiting, of which we are so often reminded, and you will also have the skilled men who are being taken day by day still.

My hon. Friend spoke about the skilled men being required for skilled work in the Army to-day, but skilled men are being taken out of the munition works to-day and shipbuilding yards not for skilled work in the Army, but to go into the Infantry. I know a man in a very important ship-repairing yard who was taken and who was informed that there was no vacancy for him in the Engineers or the Army Service Corps. My hon. Friend should remember that in all these cases you have to consider the interests of all the men who have been taken during the War who may be prejudiced at the time of demobilisation, when they hope to return to industry under conditions not less favourable than those they left at the beginning of the War or at any period during its duration. I think my hon. Friend might have seen his way to give some better protection to these men, some better security and guarantee. As it stands it is only a guarantee for twelve months. We have been discussing other guarantees which extend somewhat beyond the period of twelve months, and it is a guarantee of profit. In these circumstances I hope in the course of the discussion, before we come to the Committee stage, that the Government will be able to give safeguards stronger in character and more enduring in time than those which at present exist.

I now come to my main point, namely, the extension of this Act to private establishments. This relates to what is known as Section 7 of the original Act. A number of us have consistently opposed that. We believe that it has not been in the interests of production or in the interests of smooth and harmonious relations between employers and workmen. We also believe that it has given rise to all sorts of discontent and squabbles, and in some cases the discontent has broken out into open strifes and direct revolt. May I remind the House what this Section really did. It provided that no man was entitled to leave his employment without a certificate from his employer, and he could only leave with his employer's assent, and that, failing to obtain such a certificate, he was entitled to apply to a munitions tribunal, and they could decide if they so held that this assent had been unreasonably withheld If the workman neither obtained a certificate from his employer nor from the munitions tribunal, then no other employer could employ him for the period of six weeks. That practically meant a tie upon the workman. I do not like to exaggerate the situation, and I will quote on this point what was said by the right hon. Gentleman who is now a member of the present Government, the Minister of Labour: Under the principal Act the employer has a lien upon a man for a period of six weeks. A man cannot leave his employment during that six weeks, and he is absolutely tied to his employer. That is a moderate statement from a man who can come under no suspicion, because, after making that statement, he has become a member of the present Government. A situation of that kind has naturally been resented by the trade unions of workmen of this country. Cases have occurred time and again where men have desired for perfectly patriotic and justifiable reasons to change their employment, but under this provision, because they could not satisfy the munitions tribunal that it was in the national interest, they have been kept tied under the most disagreeable conditions to the employer under whom they were at the time serving, or if they were not so kept tied they had to go idle for six weeks, losing their wages and the country losing the benefit of their production, which is very important, for the whole of that period. There have been many such cases. It has been said, and was said in the course of the discussion on the last Amending Bill, that no alternative had been produced. That is quite inaccurate. I again refer to the right hon. Gentleman whom I have already quoted and who cannot be under suspicion. I must express my surprise that the name of this right hon. Gentleman should appear on the back of the Billa Bill, mark you, which makes no relaxation of the stringency of this provision, because he was one of its keenest critics on the occasion of our last discussion. Referring to the Prime Minister, he said: 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 delegates' meeting of trade unionists, the largest representation of labour that 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 workman were essential to this particular establishment. That makes a very considerable difference. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour now puts his name on the back of this Bill to extend this restrictive provision, which, as he said, gives the employer a lien over a man for six weeks, without seeing that the onus of proof regarding the national interest is shifted from the workman to the employer. It is practically impossible for a workman going before a munitions tribunal to prove it is more in the national interest that he should change his employment than that he should remain at his present work. We had certain provisions introduced in the Amending Act, by which it was understood that if an ordinary workman were to receive a post as a foreman, that in itself should be considered conclusive that the change was in the national interest; but there have been cases time and again before munitions tribunals up and down the country in which a man in these circumstances has applied to the tribunal, and in which his claim has been rejected. It was held by the chairman of the tribunal that he had not proved that the change from the work of an ordinary journeyman to that of a foreman was in the national interest. A provision under which anomalies of that kind can be constantly perpetrated is one which cannot be defended, and it is for the Government, when seeking an amendment and extension of the Act, cither to abolish the provision altogether, or to so relax it as absolutely to put an end to these anomalies.

We were also told that an improvement would be made under the system of appeals. An appeal was given to a Munitions Appeal Tribunal. I am glad to say that in my own country the Munitions Appeal Tribunal has worked very well, because it has not confined itself strictly to legal considerations; but I regret to say, on the other hand, that the Munitions Appeal Tribunal in England has not been so satisfactory, because the chairman of the tribunal has always taken the view that he is restricted to an appeal at law. On questions of employment and the relations between workmen and their employers, obviously to deal with purely legal matters is an unfortunate method of seeking a solution of their difficulties. What is required is common sense and a treatment of the cases on the basis of a common human nature. That has been done by many tribunals, I am glad to say, and where it has been done the discontent and hardship arising from the provision have been very considerably lessened, though it has been difficult to get rid of them altogether. In other cases, where a severe legal view has been taken of the questions at issue, it has been an open sore. The amount of trouble is not determined by the number of cases which have come before the tribunals, or the number of eases in which men have been refused their certificates. The very fact that men need to go all through this machinery and all this legal process for the simple purpose of obtaining a change of employment is felt by them in itself to be a grievance and a hardship, and matters of grievance with their existing employers, who ordinarily would be regarded by them as negligible, very often swell in importance, largely owing to the fact that they know they cannot change their employment. Nothing has been more unfortunate, from the point of view of these Acts and from the point of view of the production of munitions, than the continuance of these provisions which restrict the freedom of employment of workmen engaged in munitions. Therefore, when the Ministry of Munitions considers it of national importance to extend the Munitions Act to any industry in the country it chooses, it is right for us to ask that these provisions which have been found so unfortunate in relation to munitions should be either withdrawn or modified, and the House is entitled to ask that that relaxation or withdrawal should be made the condition of any further extension of this restrictive Clause.

Mr. ANDERSON

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a Bill both to extend and amend the Munitions Act, and we ought to examine the provisions carefully and see what is being done to avoid friction. Like the Mover of this Amendment, I desire to say that I think the representative of the Ministry of Munitions moved the Second Reading of the Bill in an exceedingly well reasoned and conciliatory speech, and I am very glad that he intends to bring forward concessions to meet a number of points that cause a good deal of friction at the present time. I am very glad indeed, for example, that he intends to hasten the whole machinery of arbitration. That has been a matter of grave disappointment and has caused a great deal of feeling, because whilst on the one hand workpeople were not allowed to strike or leave their employers, on the other hand they very often had to wait for six months before they could get their grievances heard before a tribunal. I am therefore very glad indeed if there is going to be a change in that practice. I am also glad that he is going to remove a matter which has caused trouble, and which I believe the House of Commons never intended at all should occur. That is as regards what happens at the end of the six weeks' unemployment. Again and again in Sheffield workpeople who have been out of employment for six weeks have gone to the chairman of the tribunal and asked for their leaving certificates, and he has refused them, and has apparently not made it very clear to the workpeople that they did not even require a leaving certificate, having been out of employment for six weeks. In any case the whole matter was subject to misunderstanding, because I know one man in Sheffield, who, having been out for six weeks, called on twenty-three different employers who refused him, although they wanted a man, because, apparently, they believed they would get into trouble if they took a man without any clearance. Then the hon. Gentleman's third concession is that he is going to introduce provision against rate-cutting. I am very glad to know that, but I still wish to say that in my opinion these concessions are inadequate if he really desires to remove the friction that exists, and some of us will introduce further Amendments during the Committee stage of the Bill, and will hope that the Ministry of Munitions, or those who represent it on the Front Bench, will be able to give those Amendments very sympathetic consideration. For my part, I believe that six weeks' punishment is a very foolish punishment. If you want to penalise a man you ought to find some other way than robbing the country of his work for six weeks. Some of these men are highly-skilled engineers. They have reached the point where they are determined that they are not going to remain where they are. They are going to leave in any case, and therefore to rob the country of the work of a man of that kind for six weeks is, in my opinion, the most foolish penalty you could devise. If there is to be a penalty imposed on a man, something different should be done.

I do not challenge for a minute a great deal of what was said by the hon. Gentleman to-day. My point is that numbers of the restrictions in the Munitions of War Act are excessive, that they do not increase industrial efficiency, that they cause a great deal of ill-feeling and irritation, as I shall show in a minute, and that from that point of view they are doing more harm than good. It is on that ground, and on that ground alone, that I base my case. This Bill is a proposal to extend the Munitions Act to private work, and brings about practically complete dilution, so far as the Minister of Munition care3 to carry it. It is a point I think that the Ministry ought to meet that when trade unions, including the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, agreed to the restriction, and to the abolition of their old customs in regard to urgent war work in controlled shops, they were definitely assured that this would not apply to private work, and I believe they consented to do it on that definite assurance. I understand that they have not agreed now to what is being done, so that you are really imposing this on the engineers against their desire. It is no secret, and the hon. Gentleman knows it as well as anybody else, that it is the engineers more than any other class of workpeople who will be affected by this Bill. It is all very well to quote other trade unions, but some of them will not be affected at all, whereas the, Amalgamated Society of Engineers will be very vitally affected. They did believe that their position after the War would be a great deal stronger if they could point to the customs prevailing in private establishments. If these are all swept away during the War, not only in controlled establishments, to which they were willing to agree, but in an increasing number of private works, practically all the old landmarks will have disappeared, and when it comes to restoring the old trade union rules there will be very little to go by, because conditions will have changed so much. One practical point I might make is this—that in Clause 1 it says that the Minister of Munitions may, if he is satisfied in regard to the question of national importance, extend all or any of the provisions of the Munitions Act. That seems to me to be a rather dangerous way of putting it, because, as I see it at any rate, it might mean that you apply the penal side of the Munitions Act without any of its protective Clauses at all, and certainly without any Orders with regard to hours of work, and so on. I shall, therefore, in Committee, move an Amendment, because I hope—and, indeed, I am pretty sure—that the Minister of Munitions does not mean that. As the Bill is drafted, however, it will allow him to apply only the most objectionable parts of the Munitions Act, and not what might be some of its more redeeming features.

I think you would get over a great deal of trouble if there were some consultation, and it is possible to have some consultation, with the workpeople themselves inside the various works; if they were to be consulted as to the changes that are going to take place, and if they themselves were actually going to tell you how they would be affected. That does not say that you will be compelled in any way to abide by what they did say, but I am quite sure that if it were possible to have committees in some factories, who would tell you from their own inside knowledge what the effect of these changes would be, that would often prevent the making of mistakes and the institution of changes which would otherwise cause the irritation and friction which you must wish to avoid. I shall probably move something in that direction. I wish to ask whether it is quite clear that the Regulations and Orders as to rates of wages or the hours of work in regard to workers, and especially in regard to women workers, will apply in all cases where you desire to extend this Act. If you are going to apply that Section of the Act, for example, which debars a woman from leaving her employment under a penalty of six weeks, are you at the same time going to apply the guarantees against a sweating employer? I have often urged in this House that if you prevent a man or woman from leaving his or her employment under penalty of six weeks, there is a moral obligation on the Minister of Munitions to see that the employer does not take unfair advantage of that to prevent the man or woman getting the fair wage which they would get elsewhere.

There is a reference in the Act to the restoration of the rules which are now going to be abandoned. Do I really gather that the Ministry of Munitions believes that if the War continues for two years more and the customs and restrictions are swept away from private works you can bring about the restoration of the trade union rules at that time? You are apparently giving some promise that you are going to restore these rules, but if in the meantime automatic or semi-automatic machines are being brought in, and the shops are being turned upside down, do you pledge yourselves that you are going to restore these rules, and if so. how is it going to be done? There is a pledge about priority of employment, but I do not see how that can be done, except that you may ask for a moral obligation on the employer. There cannot be anything more than a moral obligation on the employer. You cannot bind the employer as to whom he is going to employ after the War. Therefore the promises both in regard to the restoration of trade union rules and conditions and also priority of employment are somewhat nebulous. Rut I would like to ask definitely, because the Ministry of Munitions has now had experience of what has happened in the workshops since the passing of the Munitions Act, 1915. and of the changes that have been effected in working conditions, if you do extend the matter to private works, if the War continued for twelve months more and you revolutionise the conditions of private works, do you really believe now that you can restore these conditions, as you suggest you can restore them? I think that you are extending the Act at a very difficult time and at an unfortunate moment. That is, in my opinion a reason, at any rate, for not acting rashly and trying to bring about a change which must be brought about with the least possible friction, because there is a great deal of friction, as you know, already on one or two matters. There has been some misunderstanding with regard to the trade card system, and there have been differences between various groups of workers in regard to that, and the engineers come into it, and there have been increasing difficulties in some places in regard to obtaining adequate food supplies and also in regard to the distribution of food, and you are now bringing about this change at a time when there have been two and a half years of systematic overwork on the part of many of these munition workers.

Many of them are in a nervous condition and some of them are in an irritable condition, and, as anyone with human sympathy will understand, when people are run down bodily by systematic overwork they get into that condition. Therefore, any change made now should be made in the closest possible touch with the workpeople, so as to carry them as far as possible along with you. The main point I want to make is that you would do a great deal better, in extending the Act, if you do decide to amend it, to amend it substantially at the same time. Again and again when concrete cases have been brought before the Ministry of Munitions I found that the representatives of that Department, the hon. Gentleman who spoke to-day and the Minister of Munitions himself, have shown a desire to be fair and reasonable and to meet grievances, and to try to remove them. There are a great number of grievances still in regard to the administration of this Act. My own view is that you are trying too much the policy of coercing the working people under this Act. It is not a good policy. You do not make a bad workman into a good workman by coercing him. You never get the heart of a workman by coercing him. The representative of the Exchange Division of Liverpool, speaking this week on the subject of farmers, said: The farmers are the people upon whom we have to rely, and the Members of this House who talk glibly about compulsion and the compulsory Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act do not realise the position. You cannot compel the farmers of this country en masse to do this, but you can lead them, although you may compel one here and there, as an example, with the good will of the others. That is essentially the case, and if you are going to get the farmers to do what is necessary, namely, to triumph bravely over the astounding labour difficulties and the difficulties of all kinds they have had to face during the War, you can only do it by having their complete good will, and unless they do it willingly they will not do it successfully."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1917, col. 2393] What applies to farmers also applies to munition workers. You have got to get their good will, and unless they do it willingly they also will not do it successfully. If I were to read the kind of cases that constantly come to my notice that have been tried at munition Courts, I think that hon. Members would get to understand why it is that in Glasgow, on the Clyde and on the Tyne, and in Bar- row, Sheffield, and Coventry you have an undercurrent of bad feeling among very considerable sections of munition workers. They feel that they have not been fairly treated. They feel that the Munitions Act is constantly being held over them, and that very often they do not get a fair deal when they go before the Courts.

Here is a newspaper published in Coventry, giving a history of the Coventry Munitions Court on the 20th of last mouth. There is a very long list dealing with women workers. I will read one or two cases, because all those Members who have any imagination at all will realise that any of these women who go back to the works again feeling that a wrong has been done them become a centre of discontent among the other workers. The first case is that of a woman living at 3, Ransome Road, who was summoned for losing 65 hours out of the whole period under review. She said that she was ill on six days and had notified her absence, and also that she had been away because there was no work. The chairman said, "You would have been paid if you had gone into the factory"—not to work, but simply to sit there. Therefore she was fined 10s. Another woman was summoned for losing 55 hours in the period under review. She said she was suffering from rheumatics and rheumatic fever, and was fined 10s. Another woman, Miss E. Lewis, was said to have lost 82 hours. On three days she stated she was ill. She was fined 15s. Miss B. Morgan was alleged to have lost 86 hours. Illness and no work was the excuse given. She was fined 15s. Miss Greenwood, who was summoned for losing time, was stated to be in hospital. The case was adjourned. I dare say that when she comes out of hospital she will be fined. Mrs. Phillips was summoned for losing 123 hours. She stated that she left work on receiving a telegram that her baby in Devonshire was ill. The case was adjourned for inquiries from the doctor attending the baby. Another woman was summoned for losing 184 hour3. The defendant said that she was ill a fortnight, and went home to Oxford. In the department in which she was engaged it was said that wages went up to £3. The defendant said, "I have never received £3."She was fined 40s. The defendant said, "Thank you!" Miss Stocker was alleged to have lost 52½ hours. She told the Court, "You cannot always be well." "Hear, hear!" came from the public part of the Court. She was fined 25s. A woman who stayed away because her sweetheart came home was fined. Miss A. Ward was said to have lost 69 hours. She said there was no work, and it was not encouraging for girls to sit in a cold room doing nothing. The firm's representative said, "Things were a bit slow in that department, I know, about that time." The chairman pointed out that she would have received her day's money if she simply went to the factory, and fined her 10s. She was actually fined not for losing work, for she would not have been working. She was fined for not sitting in a cold room a certain number of hours; and so the list goes on. I ask, in face of all that, if there is not a case for an investigation into the working and administration of the Munitions Act? That kind of case can be repeated in any part of the country— indeed, I am going to give a much worse case in a minute. It is the kind of thing that is causing friction. While I am very glad for the concessions that have been promised, I think more ought to be done.

I come back to the question of leaving certificates. I could give case after case where the chairmen of the Courts act very harshly in this matter. I have always admitted that there is a case in regard to the supply and demand in respect to labour at the present time—I mean that the demand for labour is much greater than the supply in certain kinds of skilled labour owing to the War and the organisation of a big Army. For my own part, I would not have been unwilling to see-restrictions imposed, but I should like to have seen them imposed all round in regard to food prices and on other people at the same time, because the same conditions are operating. You allow some people to take full advantage of the present abnormal state of things. Time and again the Government—I am not speaking merely of this Government, but I include its predecessors—have been far more partial to capital than they have been to labour. Time and again a case comes up of a semi-skilled worker, practically an unskilled worker, who is put to great personal inconvenience and has to travel miles to her work when she might be working much nearer her own home. She brings a perfectly overwhelming case. Very often the same kind of labour might be got in the neighbourhood, if only the employer cared to go for it. In many munition Courts the chairman has ap- peared to think it his duty to back up the employer if he possibly can. The great majority of the chairmen are not people who understand industrial conditions and are not people who have a sympathetic outlook, insight, and imagination in regard to labour questions. When the chairman, plus the employers' assessor, get together, they form two against the labour assessor, who is outvoted time and again. Another grievance that arises—in, Sheffield, for example—is that the chairman sometimes exceeds his duty altogether under the Act by not only punishing the workman who has lost time, but by reporting that workman to the military authority. What power has the chairman of a munitions tribunal to report men to the military authorities? That has been done repeatedly in Sheffield. Is that lawful under the Munitions Act? If not, I should like to know whether steps ought not to be taken to put a stop to it. If men have to be reported to the military authority, let it be done in a proper way. It is not the business of the munitions Court to report them.

2.0 P.M.

I would also ask is nothing to be done in regard to the great number of frivolous cases brought into Court by employers, causing loss of time, ill-feeling, and a sense of grievance? Let me give the hon. Gentleman the figures for Sheffield for one month. For the month of March there were 965 cases brought before the munitions Court in Sheffield. Men and women were dragged before the munitions tribunal, thereby losing time. At the very least it would be 1,000 days' work lost, in order that they might attend the Court, probably more if they brought witnesses with them. Out of that number 254 cases were dismissed. Apparently they were trivial or frivolous or the case was not proved, while 256 cases were apparently so unimportant that they were adjourned on probation, the worker being given a word of caution. That accounts for well over half the cases. It is very doubtful whether a man feels most irritated if his case is dismissed or if he is found guilty. If the case is dismissed, it means that he has been brought there for nothing. Although you promised in certain cases to pay for loss of time, I should like to know how much money you have paid over to workmen or to witnesses in respect of cases that were dismissed by the chairman as being quite untrue or entirely frivolous? Is it not worth while looking into that more fully? You ought to have far more power to punish employers who bring frivolous cases into Court.

Another thing that constantly happens is that the workpeople do not know the workings of this Act. They do not know the various prongs of the harrow, and consequently get caught—indeed, pitiful cases are sometimes brought before the Courts. I should like to read to the House one case that came up recently in a Midland town. I will not give the name of the town unless you wish me to do so. This is written by a woman assessor, who is the wife of the local vicar. If anyone can imagine an employer foolish enough to drag this kind of case into Court, then he will begin to understand what the feeling among munition workers really is. This lady tells about the long string of workers who, one after another, were fined, and then says: Then came the last of all—a thin, haggard woman in black. She had missed two half-days and one whole day, and had nearly always been late in the morning. She was asked if she admitted her absence and unpunctuality, and in a dull and listless tone she answered 'Yes,' and said no more. 'Same fine?' questioned the chairman, with a glance at me; but I felt there was something more behind that woman's look, and begged him to ask her if she could explain her absences, or offer any excuse. He did so, and the woman said, 'My baby was ill, and wept. Did you stay at home to take care of it? 'I asked. 'I had to,' she said; 'the granny was afraid to be left with it. 'She wept again, and no one spoke. It was a grief so real that for a moment we all felt we could not speak. Then: 'Have you lost your baby? I asked. The woman nodded and said, 'Yes, it died.' She had left her work only one and a half days to nurse her baby, and it was dead. She had missed one more afternoon, and I seemed to see the poor little funeral wading its way. And I thought of her going back to work again next morning almost glad to leave the home where the cot was empty, that had been such a short time filled. This woman is brought to a munitions Court and has to stand her trial as a sort of criminal under these conditions. That happened in a Midland town. I need not say that the chairman dismissed the case. Any chairman would have dismissed the case, but the point is, why did she go there at all?

Mr. CURRIE

I do not see why we should not know the name of the town where that kind of thing happens.

Mr. ANDERSON

This happened in the Birmingham Court. There is one matter I should like to suggest to the representative of the Ministry of Munitions. Girls are constantly being brought up before the Court for loss of time, for staying off half a day or a day. Girls at Woolwich, for instance, are brought to London and they have to pay their own fares to London and their fares back again to Woolwich besides losing a day's work. I do not know whether the Ministry of Munitions would ever think of consulting a doctor to ascertain sometimes anything about the ailments to which women are particularly liable.

Mr. KELLAWAY

"We already do that.

Mr. ANDERSON

I know that, women are being fined under circumstances which I need not elaborate here. Their illnesses are not of a character which require the calling in of a doctor or the giving of a doctor's certificate, but they are not of a character which the girls want to elaborate or discuss before these tribunals and I know that under these circumstances girls are again and again being fined for losing a day's work. That is entirely wrong and it is a matter that the Ministry of Munitions ought to look into. The next point is the difficulty of getting witnesses to back up workmen or workwomen against whom some charge is made, because these witnesses come from the same work and they have to give evidence against the employer or the foreman, and then they have to continue working in the same place. Not only is that true, but all question of expense arises because we find again and again that if, for example, workpeople were to be brought up from Woolwich as witnesses such witnesses have in most cases to pay their own expenses and lose their own time in order to testify in favour of a workman or a workwoman against the employer. Under these circumstances an employé against whom some charge is brought has not got a dog's chance. It is also true that employers who are not controlled, but who are doing various kinds of war work are misrepresenting the position to their workpeople and persuading them that they have power to bind them and they have no power at all. There is no penalty that I can find against an employer who misuses the Munitions Act for his own purposes. If a workman abuses the Act in any way or makes false representations he can be punished, but I cannot find that an employer can be punished for making false representations. That is one of many matters in regard to which we ought to make some change.

With regard to the munitions Courts, if you take any town you like you find that there are some firms who are constantly bringing their men into Court, while there are other firms who do not require to use the Munitions Act at all. I know that is true of Sheffield, where the munitions Court seems to exist very largely for one or two firms, whereas other firms never require the Court. It is the good firms that do not require the munitions Court, -and it is the bad firms that are constantly calling in the aid of the munitions Court to back up their own bad management. The best firms, as in Sheffield, practically never require to resort to the munitions Court, and the reason for that is the good understanding that exists between them and their workpeople. I think it is a wrong thing to have Courts to back up the bad employers, while, on the other hand, the good employers never require to use them. These are the points which I desire to raise. Other points will keep until the Committee stage of the Bill is reached. I hope that in any change that is now made the Ministry of Munitions will try to carry the workmen with them. By that I do not mean a few trade union leaders who may be having large salaries and sitting upon the Front Government Bench, because in many cases they are not really in touch with the real feeling of the men inside the factory. It would be far better that the Government should try to get in touch with the more responsible leaders and with the men and women inside the factories and ascertain their feelings.

Mr. HOGGE

Shop stewards!

Mr. ANDERSON

I am sure that on the basis of justice and fair dealing and by letting the workpeople feel that you are really striking a good bargain, you will get more out of the workpeople than by any compulsion and all the Munitions Acts in the world.

Mr. CURRIE

I am supporting this Bill, but at the same time I confess that I listened with a great deal of sympathy to much that fell from my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson). He spoke with full knowledge of a good deal of what is going on, and if I do not agree with his conclusions it is not because I quarrel with his premises, but rather with some of his reasons. I sympathise with practically all he said regarding the system of trade card exemptions. At the same time I do not think one can say that there is in the country amongst the class of the population most closely affected by this Bill what one can call a wholesale outcry against the Bill. I know there is a good deal of discontent for various reasons, but I do not think that it can be regarded as wholesale discontent with this Bill. If that had been the case we should have heard a great deal more about it. We have heard a great deal, but we should have heard a great deal more if that had been the general attitude. With regard to the cases arising in Coventry and Sheffield which have been mentioned, the conclusion that we form from them is that a certain number of bad employers exist, and what has happened is very much what one would have expected. I do not think they result necessarily from the conditions caused by war legislation, but they represent the underlying conditions, and the investigation which my hon. Friend quite rightly wishes, after the War, should be into the underlying conditions that have been permanent and not into such conditions as are brought about by war legislation. I do not think my hon. Friend should have made some of the suggestions he did as to bias on the part of the chairmen. Some chairmen are very much better than others.

Mr. ANDERSON

I did not mean all chairmen.

Mr. CURRIE

As to the frivolous cases brought to the notice of these tribunals, it is no doubt true that a large number of such cases were brought, but my information is that these frivolous cases are not now being brought in such numbers. I think they were brought originally through difficulty on the part of the employers and the foremen to know really how matters stood, and in order to clear the air. I do not think that large numbers of frivolous cases are being brought now. The hon. Member says it is wrong to have Courts practically for the use of bad firms when good firms have no use for them. Admitted that there are bad employers, it is quite right that the Courts should deal with the cases that arise in badly managed works, but it is a different thing to say that the Courts ought not to be set up for the convenience of bad firms. If you have this Act at all, you must have the munitions Courts, and if cases arise in badly managed firms it is one of the things we cannot help. In any event, we must have the Courts. My hon. Friend's main contention was that the recommendations of this Bill, as explained in the Memorandum, were vague and nebulous. If it is the case, as he said, that many conditions of employment in these engineering establishments are revolutionised, the best that any Bill or any legislation can do now is to make the best terms that it can with those who are affected. The hon. Member would be the last to wish that many of the old conditions should ever be restored. If those conditions were swept away it follows that the safeguards which were applicable five or ten years ago will not be applicable in future. To revolutionise the conditions of employment in some respects arid then to seek to restore the whole position exactly to those old days of five or ten years ago is to make a request which I really think is a little unreasonable. My own fear would be that while there might not be much difficulty hereafter in days of peace in getting on to a satisfactory system of safeguards for the workmen in the large engineering shops and factories there might be really a very great deal of difficulty in getting back on to any basis of the kind in small workshops. There, I think, is where the difficulty will really arise. On the whole, I think the Bill is as satisfactory an undertaking as the Ministry of Munitions can possibly give, and for that reason I support it.

Mr. TYSON WILSON

I understood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kellaway) to say that some twenty or twenty-five trade unions were, practically speaking, agreed on the provisions of the Bill. My information is that, at any rate, as to two or three large unions, whilst the executive councils may have been consulted they have not given any pledge beyond recommending their members to accept the provisions of the Bill, but at the same time they want Amendments introduced. They want to have it made clearer than it is at present that trade union rights will be restored. There is a great deal of doubt in the minds of the leaders of the trade unions regarding the restoration of those rights. In the Act which is now in operation it is left in a very indefinite position, and what we want is to be able to build up the rules that we are suspending now. My hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) fully recognises that some of the rules which are given up now will never be restored. We do not want them restored, but we want them modified. We do not want to begin our fifty years' fight over again.

I should like to say a word or two regarding the position of the uncontrolled establishments, a great many of which will be brought under this Act. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why, in uncontrolled establishments which may not be engaged in work of national importance, workmen or women should not be allowed to leave their employment with the usual notice which obtains now. I understand why the six weeks suspension from employment was inserted in the original Act. It was to prevent men leaving works where they were engaged on work of national importance. But I cannot for the life of me imagine why people who may be brought under this Bill should not be allowed to leave their employment in the same way as they leave it now. The six weeks' suspension for leaving employment is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent among the working people of the country. The reason why men have forfeited six weeks' employment is that which was given when the original Bill was going through. The provision in the original Act would give an unscrupulous foreman or manager an opportunity of tyrannising over certain workmen against whom he had a grudge. Men have left their employment rather than remain under the tyranny of the foreman. I brought to the attention of the Department some time ago a case where a skilled workman had been put on labouring work in a munitions works in a northern town because there was not sufficient skilled work for him to do. He did it willingly for seven weeks, and then asked to be put back to his own employment. The foreman refused, and he went on for a further four weeks, and again asked to be put back, but the foreman again refused. The man applied to the munitions Court, which was against him, and when he went back to his work the foreman said he would make his life a hell in that place. He left his employment, and lost six weeks' wages before he could start again.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present,

Mr. WILSON

We know that men who have been working in Scotland have had an opportunity of returning to towns in the Midlands in the neighbourhood of their home and doing exactly the same kind of work, and the munitions Courts have refused to allow them to do so. In many cases if the munitions Courts had dealt reasonably with them they would have done the man a good turn and at the same time saved the country money, because some of the men were receiving 17s. 6d. subsistence allowance. I am fully aware that the position of the Minister of Munitions is a difficult one, because he has substitution officers and dilution officers, and what not, who are dealing with cases which cannot always come under the supervision of the Department. I have given some cases, and I could give more, where men have been taken from their employment and sent as substitutes to towns fifty and sixty miles away, doing exactly the same work that they were doing in their own town. It is a source of irritation to a workman, taking him away from his home. I hope there will be some better organisation if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to the people affected that the trade union rules will be restored, if it is necessary that they should be restored by Act of Parliament, and it cannot be done in any other way. Further, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow workers to leave their present employment for similar employment elsewhere, if they want to do so.

I do not see why a worker should not be allowed to leave his present employment and accept employment elsewhere. As the hon. Member for Sheffield pointed out, a large percentage of tribunals have refused to accept plain evidence that one would have thought would be accepted, and have refused to allow a man to leave a certain firm to work for another firm doing similar work, and where the scale of pay was better than under the old firm. Perhaps he would get 10s. or 15s. a week more than in the place where he previously worked. I cannot see why the provisions of the Act should have been administered in such an irritating manner as has been experienced by the workmen. It should be remembered that men and women engaged in munitions work are under high pressure, and it may be that, when a question arises, they do not present it with that "sweet reasonableness" that may be looked for by those who receive their representations. But it should be remembered, also, that the Department itself does not always exhibit that sweet reasonableness. I believe that while the case which came from Sheffield was, perhaps, not expressed in quite the manner that one would desire, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, on the other hand, declared that he was not going to deal with it because it was a threat, and that he was not going to be moved by threats. I want the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions to recollect that while the workmen may not choose their language in quite an acceptable way, his own Department, perhaps also under pressure, may regard a somewhat strongly-expressed protest as something in the nature of a threat by the Department when no threat was intended.

Mr. ANDERSON

On the occasion to which the hon. Member refers the workmen never threatened to strike at all.

Mr. WILSON

If the workmen become irritable and discontented, let the Department itself set an example, and not deal with those who apply to them in an irritable manner. Of course, I know it is a failing of human nature to become irritable under pressure of work, and that a protest, or application, or request under stress of irritation may not be worded just as the Department might like to have it worded, but that is not to say that it is a threat. By speaking of threats you are doing a great deal more harm than good. I trust that in connection with this Bill there will be some modification of the Act now in operation, and that, in addition, we shall hare some definite assurance from the Government that if it be necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to secure the restoration of trade union rights, then it will be done under this Bill.

Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Nobody is more pleased than I am at the work which has been done by the Ministry of Munitions under circumstances of great difficulty, and nobody admires more than I do the public spirit and sympathy with which they have discharged their duties; but I must say that I have considerable sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and also with the observations addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr, Anderson). They both appeal to the Ministry to add to the Bill some machinery which will smooth away all the hardships which are incidental to this, after all, rather new bureaucratic system introduced into our industrial life. I have also considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Attercliffe in the point which he raised as to Clause 1. I think that Clause should be dealt with in its entirety or not at all; for, as the hon. Member pointed out, it would be possible for the Minister to apply it with strict accuracy and at the same time not give the advantage of a living wage. I have, however, no desire to deal with Clause 1, because it is a question for persons who have expert knowledge of industrial matters to a greater degree than I have. I should like to congratulate the Ministry on the remaining portions of the Bill, as being a somewhat tardy admission that all is not well with the working of the Munitions Act, while it is as an act of justice to the workers themselves. There is always in this country a considerable amount of prejudice against a body of workmen who go out on strike, and more particularly is that the case in time of war, when many individous comparisons are made between the soldiers in the trenches and the workmen -at home, drawing high wages. But surely there are two sides to this question. It is often forgotten that a body of workmen who come out on strike may have received very strong provocation before becoming discontented. I am quite certain that where there is industrial discontent the trouble has probably arisen from some act of high-handed injustice on the part of the management. Take the case, for instance, on the Mersey. In November last they asked for a war bonus of 10s. a week, and it was not until February that the case was taken in hand and then referred to a tribunal. There was also unrest at the same time on the Tyne, where an advance of wages was asked for, and the men heard nothing more of their demand until March, a strike taking place, but the men eventually returning to work. In both instance there was a delay of something like four or five months before the men's demand was taken into account and adjudicated upon. That is simply asking for trouble, and I am glad to think that this Bill will improve and speed up the machinery for dealing with the demands on the part of workers for increased wages. Then again I noticed the other day at Barrow when there was a strike, feeling in this House was running rather strongly against the men for having struck, but I do not think that the House or the country at the time realised what strong provocation the men in Barrow had. I quote from a letter, a remarkable letter, in the "New Statesman, "and I am told that the facts are perfectly accurate. One of the first cases to be complained of was an operation on a 9.2 howitzer cradle body, tor which the basis time is alleged to have been arbitrarily reduced by the management contrary to the directions of the Ministry of Munitions. As it has been forcibly urged that the men ought not to have struck, but ought to have complaned to the proper authority, it should be noted that the men did complain over four months ago to the Government Committee on Production, from whom they have obtained no decision, but only a dilatory reply. The third case, which finally caused the revolt, was the filling and scraping of a submarine engine bed-plate, for which 171 hours were allowed. A second bed-plate requiring to be done, the men were informed that only seventy-five hours would be allowed for it. Complaint to the firm's rate fixer resulted only in the usual autocratic refusal even to discues the basis. That seems to me the- point, "the autocratic refusal even to discuss the basis." I have great sympathy with what fell from the hon. Member for Attercliffe, when he said he hoped that in future these sort of matters would be taken in hand by workmen's committees. I think that workmen's committees should be given a much greater chance of exercising useful, and I think helpful, influence in the working of the arrangements of these times. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not enlarge more fully upon the machinery as to this question in which I take a deep interest, and on which I am sure we would all have received a little more information with great pleasure. I am sure that this system of rate cutting has been the bane of our industrial life. It has discouraged workers and has limited output. We are going to have great trouble in the future when peace is declared, and a great demand is made on our powers of production. Many schemes have already been put forward. We are going to have a rearrangement of tariffs, and there are proposals for the monopoly of all raw materials in the British Empire, and many other schemes. But I am quite certain of this, that if we are going to increase the output of this country and improve our production, the best way to do so, and in fact the only way, is to recognise the humanity of the workers and to defend them from acts of injustice and tyranny, which they have at present no means of remedying except by discontent.

Mr. HOGGE

I moved a count a few minutes ago in order to draw attention to what I think is the extraordinary and significant fact that when you have a Bill introduced into Parliament to extend the provisions of the original Munitions Act, not only as they were previously to specific industries but to any industries at all, that the Minister of Munitions agrees to call work of national importance, there were only seven Members present in the House to listen to that discussion and to protect the interests of the people concerned. What struck me very much was to know how many Labour Members were about the House who were taking an interest in this matter, and to know whether the Labour Members of the Ministry, who are supposed to be in the Coalition Cabinet to conserve the interests of the workers were even in the House of Commons, when a Bill of this interest and of this magnitude was being discussed by the House. I think the workers in the country ought to take note of the fact that not one of the so-called leaders of the Labour cause who are in this Coalition Government were even present in the House of Commons when a matter which affects all the workmen in this Kingdom was being discussed. I think that was an extraordinarily significant thing. I congratulate my Labour Friends, both on this side and opposite, on the fact that out of the seven they were in the majority when I moved my count. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions will understand that I did not move the count in order that he might lose his Bill, but in order to draw attention to what I consider requires drawing attention to—that if this Coalition Government asks the House of Commons to come here for Friday sittings they are entitled to keep a House to give the people the impression that the business is worth considering. Seeing that there are eighty-four of themselves, they ought to be here and give the people the idea that this is a do-it-now Government, not a do-it-outside Government.

I did not hear the whole of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am told it was a very excellent speech in many respects and held out certain concessions which those of us who are interested in these vital matters consider necessary and essential. There are some points which I think should be brought out, and as to which we want to understand exactly where we are if this Bill is going to be extended. I think myself that a wrong day has been chosen for the introduction, or rather the Second Reading, of this measure.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

I think the hon. Member should come to the point and not criticise the day, as Friday is a Parliamentary day.

Mr. HOGGE

I will explain why I do so. It is not because it is Friday, but because it is before the introduction of the Budget, and the reasons are these: The whole question of the policy as to excess profits is bound up with this particular Bill which we are now discussing. The conditions under which excess profits are paid are different in controlled establishments from ordinary establishments, and those of us who have inside knowledge and intimate acquaintance with men who are concerned in those industries know as a matter of fact that the industries which are already controlled are not contributing so much to the finances of the country as is being contributed by industries which are not controlled. Therefore, why I complain of the day is this: I think that the House ought to be put in possession of the facts with regard to the contribution which is being made by controlled establishments to the conduct of the War before we agree to extend the Munition Acts to other industries. I think that is a fair point to make. It is not that I grudge the Friday, because I am prepared to come here on a Saturday or a Sunday to consider any Bill, so long as it is calculated to promote public welfare. I think this is an appropriate time to put the point that we ought to be in possession of that information. I do not suppose that the Minister of Munitions— and I do not expect or blame him if he cannot—is in a position to tell us what is the difference between contribution to the income of the nation for carrying on this War from undertakings which are controlled by the Munitions Act as compared with those undertakings which are not so controlled, and whether, as a matter of fact, as some of us suspect, the contribution is decidedly less; and therefore we are concerned, in view of the state of the public finances, that this Bill should be extended to other industries.

The second point is the question of whether you should or should not test a measure by the success which it has achieved before you extend it to other industries. If you test the operations of the Munitions Act by its results, I think there are some results which are not creditable, and that, as a matter of fact, the operation of the Munitions Act is rending the labour world in twain. Previously trade unions and trade union leaders represented the workers in our great industries, and it was a workable and convenient arrangement, and one which for many years obtained, but what do we find now? We find, from the Clyde to Barrow, to Newcastle, to Manchester, to Sheffield, that the workers who are controlled under the Munitions Act are throwing over entirely their so-called trade union leaders and organising them selves under a scheme of what is known popularly as shop stewards. Take the recent strike at Barrow, the reasons of which I need not go into, but the results of which were a loss to this country of at least a quarter of a million working hours of the men concerned. That is a very serious industrial fact, but everybody who knows anything about that strike knows that the men there had no confidence in their trade union leaders, and worked their agitation through a system of shop stewards, and that those shop stewards attempted, as they might reasonably think they were entitled to attempt, to extend the area of the question involved in that particular strike. So I say that before you extend a thing like this to other industries you want to test it by results, and if one of the first results is that the old trade union system of relations between labour and capital is broken up, and a new system created as a result of the operation of the Munitions Act, one ought to hesitate before one agrees to the extension of that Act to the other industries concerned. I think that that is a point that we ought to concern ourselves with, because involved in the Bill there is the question of the restoration of the rights that obtained before those Acts were created, and if you find during the operation of the Act that the men who were in control of the rights that were affected are practically dispossessed by the workers concerned, and these are put in the hands of the shop stewards, an entirely new system—and you will find, as a matter of fact, shop stewards working with trade unions as they might work with capitalists—if you find that, you ought to say-to yourselves, "Is this the kind of thing that ought to be extended to other industries."

A great deal of trouble would be got rid of if you could get rid of the difficulty which operates in the fact that a man cannot leave his employment except under the rules that obtain. That point has been made over and over again in Debate, but I would like to put one case briefly before the House, because I know of it personally. Like every other Member of this House, I suppose, one is responsible for the employment of some men. Every man for whom I am responsible is now either in the Army or in some munition works; The very last man taken from me was a discharged soldier whose ribs had been badly fractured and who was therefore unable to return to the Army. He was an electrician, and he was taken under the Munitions Act and put in a certain concern as a fitter, a job which he did not know, but which he can learn, and which I dare say he is learning quite quickly. The concern was at the end of one street of a town in which at the other end of the same street there was a similar controlled factory, and in the second controlled factory, at the end of six weeks after the man had joined the first controlled factory, there fell vacant a situation, the qualifications for which were those of an electrician. This man, who had been in my employ as an electrician, went to his foreman in order to see if he could go to the other end of the street and take this second job, for which the wage was 10s. more per week, and his foreman refused. That man, if ho wants to go, has got to go through all the formalities of the tribunal, and go six weeks idle if be does not get the decision of the tribunal, before he can walk a hundred yards in the town in which he has been brought up in order to take a situation for which he is better qualified at an increased wage of 10s. a week. A man looks round and sees that sort of thing, and says, "To blazes with all your Munitions Acts and Regulations! Is it not absurd that here am I, qualified for an electrician's job, but not qualified for the other job, and the electrician's job having 10s. more a week attached to it, and some foreman, or some Act of Parliament, or some tribunal, says that I, a free British workman, may not walk a hundred yards and get that new job?" That is really at the bottom of a great deal of the unrest that obtains under the Munitions Act.

There is one other point which I think we are entitled to raise here upon which no information has been given yet at all, and that is the interesting question of welfare in connection with these new industries if they are brought under the Munitions Act. I am very much concerned about this question of welfare under the Munitions Act, because I happen to know personally many of the men who have been associated with my right hon. Friend in the operation of the Welfare Department of the Munitions Ministry. When that Department was originally created, it was put under a gentleman who is associated with the pacifist directors of the "Nation" newspaper, and he gave his services to the Prime Minister prior to being continued by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, and he, being a pacifist connected with the pacifist directors of the "Nation" newspaper, gave all his time, without fee or reward, at his own charges, to the nation, and all the wealth of his experience and abilities in dealing with welfare problems. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Mr. Seebohm Rowntree is perhaps the best qualified expert in welfare that there is in this country. The factories with which he has been connected are model factories, from the point of view of the care that is taken over the employés there. That gentleman, from the beginning of the War, has devoted his time and his abilities to the promotion of welfare among the various munition workers who are already under the Munitions Acts.

3.0 P.M.

We have to look forward in this matter. If we agree to the extension of this particular Act to other industries which may be declared to be works of national importance it is likely, and I should think, in view of the experience of the past, desirable, that the Welfare Department of the Ministry of Munitions should be carried into these new industries. But Mr. Seebohm Rowntree has resigned. He no longer holds this post as Director of the Welfare Department. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions does not quite see eye to eye with the policy of the Director of the Welfare Department, which has been conducted with so much success for so very many months during this War, and that as a consequence of this difference of opinion and difference of ideal, and difference perhaps of the way of carrying out these things, my right hon. Friend has reluctantly been compelled to accept the resignation of Mr. Rowntree, and appoint another gentleman to the post, about whose qualifications I have heard diverse views expressed. I think the House is entitled to know, before we agree to this Bill, what is going to be the application of the Welfare Department to these new industries. For instance, in the prefatory note on the front page of the Bill it says, among other things, that already the manufacture of agricultural implements is now being undertaken by a Department of the Ministry of Munitions. Supposing the Ministry of Munitions goes on to absorb other departments of labour. Supposing, for instance—if there is time this afternoon—we get through the Billeting of Civilians Bill. All these civilians who will be billeted under the operation of the Munitions Department in these various towns and so forth will, I hope, be subjected to experiments of welfare and will be looked after by the Ministry of Munitions. I think, therefore, it is important to have a statement from my right hon. Friend as to what is the reason for the cleavage between Mr. Rowntree and himself. Why is it that a gentleman who is an expert in the operation of welfare and who has served, as I dare say my right hon. Friend will quite freely admit, the Department with conspicuous ability and devoted public spirit, has gone? There must be some reason why they are not now working together and why my right hon. Friend finds it expedient and convenient that Mr. Rowntree should be transferred to the Reconstruction Committee—whatever that may mean. It has no relevance to this Debate, so I will not pursue that point. But Mr. Rowntree has been transferred to that Committee, and somebody else has been put in his place. Does that mean that the Ministry of Munitions has abandoned the ideals of welfare that were set up for it by the original Director of Welfare? Does it mean that the claims made by Mr. Rowntree, who understands, if anybody in this country does understand, the relations of employer and employed, have been objected to by employers to whom the scheme has been applied? Does it mean that there are employers in this country engaged in munitions manufacture who object to the application of welfare to their own particular industries? I hope my right hon. Friend will not for a moment think I am complaining or criticising. All I am asking from him is what it seems to me to be a convenient opportunity—that is, the Second Reading of this Bill—to ask.

The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison)

I agree.

Mr. HOGGE

I am glad my right hon. Friend agrees. I hope he will appreciate the fact that I am not doing this to damage the Bill or to create any impression against the Bill. I think this is a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to the House in view of the fact that the Welfare Department has been rearranged, and his reasons for this rearrangement. I think he also ought to be able to assure the House that the high standard originally set by the Welfare Department and the growing feeling between employer and employé should be continued. I think I have been very brief in putting these few points. If anyone had wanted to delay the progress of this Bill for obstructive reasons a good many more points might have been made. I refrain, however, from putting other points which I intended to put. I am really concerned more about my last point—that is, the continuation of the Department of Welfare under the auspices of my right hon. Friend.

Sir TUDOR WALTERS

I do not mean to delay the House many minutes in coming to a decision upon the Bill. There are just, however, one or two points to which I should like to call the attention of the Ministry of Munitions. The reasons given by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill—and, if I may be permitted to say it, in a most admirable speech— established an almost irresistible case for giving the Bill a Second Reading. But I should respectfully like to remind the Ministry of Munitions that the course of procedure they are now adopting is entirely contrary to the pledges that were given when the original Act dealing with this question was passed by this House. It will, therefore, need a special measure of care, tact, and discretion to deal with the situation that has been created. It is pre-eminently desirable in the national interests that these skilled men, who were employed on national work, and were thought could properly be transferred to other departments of activity in which their skill could be more efficiently utilised, should be so transferred. In dealing with employers, the works, effected, and the men who are transferred, and considering the fact that this pledge was originally given about private work, I think it very important that the Ministry of Munitions should be extremely tactful in the procedure they adopt. I am sorry that it was not possible for my hon. Friend to announce that he had made an arrangement respecting this measure with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. I hope that it is still not impossible to do this, because without the co-operation and good will of that large society it will be exceedingly difficult to carry this measure into full operation. It would only be disastrous if, for the sake of "combing out"—to use an expression of which I am not very fond—the skilled men engaged in private work and transferring them to more important work of national necessity, a trade dispute should arise and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers should feel called upon to intervene. It will be so disastrous that it will more than neutralise any benefits that may be conferred by the adoption of this measure. I therefore hope and trust that the Ministry will spare no effort to make a satisfactory arrangement, and with great care and tact, with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers to carry out the provisions of this Bill.

The real point to which I rose to call the attention of the Minister of Munitions is this, that there is considerable discontent and dissatisfaction in many of the large engineering works by reason of the trifling and vexatious grounds upon which men are hailed before the tribunals. This does not apply to the large firms. If you will take the trouble to study the cases that are brought before the various tribunals, it will be found that they are not from the large, well-organised firms, where I am glad to say that really harmonious conditions exist between the masters and men, but it is from many smaller firms who have not the same experience in the management of men, and do not exhibit the same care and solicitude for the welfare of their men. Men, for quite trifling offences, are hailed before these tribunals, and are treated by the chairman to an oration as though criminals at the bar charged with some heinous, national offence. In nine cases out of ten the employer ought to be treated to an oration of a dictatorial kind. If you take the trouble to study these cases, and observe what trifling penalties are attached, it seems absurd to bring the cases at all. I would like the Minister to bear in mind the fact that in many of these works men for upwards of two years have been working at full speed, doing a great deal of overtime, many of them seven days a week, and the condition of their nerves, due to continuous operations of that kind, make it extremely difficult for men to carry out the small and often unreasonable restrictions imposed upon them.

I want the Minister, during the passage of this Bill through Committee, to take into consideration some Amendments for the purpose of reducing these vexatious prosecutions. Then I am sure something ought to be done about that absurd six weeks' arrangement. A great deal of dissatisfaction, inconvenience, and actual loss are caused, and I hope when this measure is in Committee the Minister will review some of these matters, to which attention has already been called by the hon. Member for Attercliife (Mr. Anderson), and, while they get the extra powers for which they are now asking, they will take the opportunity, with the experience they already possess, and the working of the Act that has been in force for some time, to remove the causes of vexation, hardship, and unnecessary, restrictive covenants, and will recognise more fully than they have done in the past the great sacrifices men have made by the continuous working of overtime through all these weary months and years, so that the men should feel that the sacrifices they are making are recognised and appreciated. I am quite certain that if Ministers consult large employers of labour they will find they endorse every word I am now saying. I also hope, if necessary, they will do something to check the enthusiasm of some of the chairmen of tribuals, and try to introduce a friendly, harmonious cooperation between the tribunals and masters and men, so that, instead of regarding it as a sort of Old Bailey proceeding, will try to introduce a little persuasion and admonition instead of the kind of exhortation which, up to the present, has been used. I am sure that if the Department will do what they can at this critical time to allay these sources of irritation, they will find that step will help them considerably with the introduction into the workshop of the larger powers proposed in this Bill. If Ministers will be receptive of the ideas we shall try to instil into them in Committee, and will give an ear to the proposals we make, I am sure the House will be willing to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Sir WALTER ESSEX

The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) raised a question in connection with the operations under this Bill, as well as of the parent Bill, connected with the difficulty which appears to arise in bringing to bear upon the great mass of labour now engaged in the making of munitions—labour to be increased in volume under the provisions of this Amending Bill—by the fact that large portions of that labour, which hitherto had been in touch with the Government through its labour chiefs, heads of various trade organisations, had relinquished to a great extent their loyalty to those leaders in normal times, and had chosen for themselves shop stewards. Here, I think, the hon. Member put his finger on a point which I would ask the Government to bear very closely in mind, as in it there may very easily be found a solution to some of the problems that are vexing them very considerably at times in the carrying out of the extensive powers granted to them under the parent Act, and proposed to be extended to them under the Bill we have before us at the moment. The absorption of so many representatives of trade unions by the Government in Government Departments has led the workers to regard these one-time leaders as now representative more of the Government than of their interests, and therefore they have felt, while casting about for those who should present their cases to the Government, that they should choose those whom they feel are more intimately connected and more fully in touch with what they judge to be their interests. Therefore I would commend, in passing, the idea to the Ministry of Munitions, and the Government generally, as to whether, if there be some self-denial exercised in this matter by a refusal to include any more of these one-time independent gentlemen amongst their number, even to a reduction or supersession of those already there.

I hail with unaffected pleasure the proposals of this Bill as so skilfully laid before the House by the Under-Secretary, and I regret extremely that his chief was not in attendance throughout the whole of his admirable speech to hear his masterly exposition of the details of the Bill. If he had been here, I am perfectly sure that the high opinion he has of his lieutenant's ability would have been considerably enhanced, if possible, and that the general encomiums which the House gave to that excellent utterance would have received his further commendation. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it was proposed to extend the Munitions Act with certain limitations to other industries, and amongst those industries he laid particular stress on the industry of mechanics as applied to the production of agricultural machinery. Well, that is a very desirable thing to do, but it has been a very desirable thing to do for the last twelve or eighteen months, and that we should be now setting about the widening of powers seems to be not an altogether excellent testimonial to the fore-handedness in the. Government in matters which are now recognised to be of importance inferior to nothing the country has before it. Another item in my hurried comments upon this Bill is this: The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Bill proposed to take powers to dilute labour in connection with these new industries affected by the employment of large numbers of women. I have watched the dilution of labour throughout the whole period of the War with very close interest, and with some little anxiety. My interest has been excited, because whenever I have examined the various manifestations of women's activity in these unwonted enterprises, I have found those examinations reveal to me an unexpected reserve of skill, ability, and power in the nation of which I, for one, possibly with others, had not in the least degree anticipated we were possessed. Behind all that there are one or two considerations, and they stand out with ever-increasing clearness as one looks at the problem more closely. Women coming into the field of mechanics, other than ordinary Lancashire and Yorkshire mill operatives, is largely a new factor in British industries, and it is going to make changes in an incredible number of directions. With so much automatic machinery in shops, woman is proving that she can do work as skilfully and as successfully and in larger quantities than has hitherto been done by her male competitors, and she will bring into these new industries some very important lessons, and to the workers some considerable revelations. How is that going to affect the problems the Government are dealing with in regard to organised labour? In a visit I made on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions to a factory, I saw an ordinary-looking woman working at a tool from which she was getting a product equal to eight units which had been previously worked by a man who, with an increase of over 50 per cent. of her wages, had an output only of five units. She was not working at any breakdown speed but well within her strength and capacity, and the employer at these large works told me that the previous output was a normal one well within trade union rules, that this was the new era of things instituted by woman labour, and that it was his common experience. After that I felt that there were indications that we were up against a gigantic problem.

With regard to the supersession of agreements made with trade unions after the War, I think those things are bound to be scraps of paper, and the Government will find themselves faced with the disturbing factor that in regard to woman labour they will have to reconsider the whole of their position, not only from their own interest, but from the larger interest of national efficiency. They will have to tear up many agreements, heighten the standard of production, and increase that high capacity for output upon which in past years our national predominance has been built. On the whole, I hail the coming of this Bill as a move in the right direction as a working of new ground, and doubtless calculated to lead to the raising of a crop of good produce greater than that which the trainers of the Act have immediately in view. I feel, however, that we shall have by-products out of this movement, as we had out of the parent Act, which will make the country richer to combat whatever competition it may meet in the future, and out of this new force of labour, feminine or otherwise, we shall have revealed to us sources of skill and industry and output the like of which we have never dreamed of hitherto.

Mr. WARDLE

There are two points in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down which I should like to say a word about. First of all, I wish to refer to what he said about shop stewards. A situation has arisen which is exceedingly difficult in the regulation of trade union activity with regard to the absorption of a large number of trade union officials, as well as other business men, in regard to Government activity. If what the hon. Member has said is carried to a logical conclusion, I think it raises certain very great difficulties with regard to matters of trade union organisation and activity which I should be very sorry to see carried out in the way in which he has suggested. After all it must be admitted that there are many difficulties in the present situation, and while I quite agree that local activities and local members of trade unions must be consulted in a higher degree in the future than in the past, if shop stewards are to supersede the central organisation of trade unions there will be very great difficulties indeed in carrying out the arrangement, either under this Bill or any other, with regard to the production of munitions or agricultural machinery.

I hope that the Ministry of Munitions will take all local circumstances into account and seek to allay any local agitation as far as possible, and they should rather tend in the direction of encouraging the local shop stewards and local agitation to consult with their leaders in the central organisation, where there are large numbers who are not engaged in local activities, and who are still working at full pressure, and under these circumstances anything which tends to disintegrate would be a mistake. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of Munitions, while dealing with this or the parent Bill, will try to realise that under the circumstances in which we are living it is of the highest importance that there should be no interference with the central organisation and the central powers of the trade unions, but rather that there should be a discouragement, and a very serious discouragement, so far as it can be done, of the suspicion—perhaps a natural suspicion—while the trade unions are trying to help the Government all they can in this way, they are unfaithful to the classes whom they represent. With regard to what the hon. Member opposite has said about the employment of women, it may be true that with more automatic machinery—and that plays a very important part in this matter, because such machinery has been introduced during the War to an enormous extent—production has increased, but it is not fair to say that the production of the men under the old conditions was less.

Sir W. ESSEX

I did not say that.

Mr. WARDLE

I know the hon. Member did not say it, but that is partially implied in what he said.

Sir W. ESSEX

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the machinery to which I referred in my illustration had actually been operated for some considerable time by men, and it was then being operated by a woman, and the machine was identical in each case.

Mr. WARDLE

I know there has been a large introduction of automatic machinery which has never been in operation before, and if the hon. Gentleman's statement was allowed to stand it might be inferred, without any reflection upon the hon. Member, that what he gave was an instance where automatic machinery had been introduced, and that women were turning out a larger product than the men. I will take the case which the hon. Member has put. I beg to remind the Government that this is a very difficult problem, and that their pledges with regard to the restoration of trade union customs stands. They are definite, and the suggestion which the hon. Member has made that they can be torn up as a scrap of paper is very serious, and I should not like it to go forward that the Government accept any such proposition, because if they do they are going to be up against another much more difficult problem than has arisen by the substitution of women for men and the dilution of labour. When we come to the end of the War, whatever steps are taken and whatever propositions are put forward it will be essential that the trade unions who are concerned shall be brought into the fullest consultation, and that their advice and assistance shall be sought in seeking a way out of that dilemma in which we are placed in consequence of the parent Act and of this Bill which it is now proposed to pass. So far as the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill is concerned, we have had no representations from any of the trade unions concerned that we should oppose it, and therefore I do not propose to offer any such opposition. I want to say, however, that we have certain Amendments arising out of the parent Act which we propose to put forward when the occasion arises, solely with the object of securing smoother working in future, and, if we can, that the pledges of the Government which have been made in unmistakable manner with regard to the restoration of these customs shall be, as far as it is possible and workable, put into operation after the War.

Dr. ADDISON

I desire to recognise the very fair and friendly reception which has been accorded this Bill, and, although I was not able to be present myself, I am glad to hear from so many quarters that the opening speech of my hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. Kellaway) contributed in no small measure to that result. With regard to the very important point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), and also by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) as to the revenue derived from excess profits, of course my hon. Friend will recognise at once that those figures are in the possession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I know-when he comes to deal with the subject of finance that ho will deal with this aspect of it. Generally, as things stand, the amounts to be paid would be greater under the Munitions Levy than under the Excess Profits Duty.

Mr. PRINGLE

Can my right hon. Friend state in how many cases it has been actually found that the Munitions Levy was greater than the Excess Profits Duty?

Dr. ADDISON

I could not answer that, but my hon. Friend is aware that under the excess profits provision it is a continuing portion of the excess profits, whereas under the Munition's Levy you fix a standard, allow so much over that standard, and take all above that. I have here a sample of cases, but I refrain from quoting them, because I know very well that my hon. Friend, especially in some cases where the margin of profit is small, could produce a number of cases of an opposite kind. We have under the Munitions Levy certain rights with respect to depreciation allowances and rewards, which, of course, do not belong to the Excess Profits Duty, and in my view one of the most valuable additions to the Munitions Levy was the power to give a reward for increased output. There are cases now in which we are endeavouring to obtain enormously increased quantities of iron ore, but there are cases in which firms have made all the profits allowable under the Munitions Acts. In such cases it is clearly necessary that the Ministry should have power to make allowances on this increased output, otherwise you may be in the position of taking hundreds of thousands of tons of iron ore from a man's ore field out of which he would derive no profit what- ever. Such a system, human nature being what it is, is scarcely calculated to induce enthusiastic co-operation. A good many speakers have referred to the use of committees of workmen. The House will be aware that we have endeavoured, I am sorry to say sometimes not with very great success, to obtain local committees to work. It is easy to get up a committee; there is nothing easier. Somebody has told me that there are 7,558 committees. That is an apocryphal figure. I have always found that the difficulty is to get any committee to do any work. That is the real difficulty. In these matters you must as far as possible encourage men to act themselves. We give every encouragement, and the more they settle difficulties on the spot the more we are pleased. At the same time the general principles of our actions could not be better stated than they were stated by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle). Whilst you rely upon the shop committees, or whatever they call themselves, to do all that they can you cannot deal with the great problems with which we are faced by shop committees. It is not a big enough organisation. We must be able to deal with some body which generally represents the whole interest, because we have to make bargains affecting tens of thousands of men all over the country. I believe that this week my hon. Friend is receiving a deputation which relates to the getting of iron ore over large fields in this country. It will be a comprehensive bargain which we have to get before we can introduce into those fields large bodies of new workers. You cannot settle these things with local committees; you must have some central organisation, and in these matters we deal with the central trade union executive, which, as a matter of fact, is the only machinery which exists in the country that can be used for this purpose.

I am afraid that certain hon. Members are not quite informed as to what happens in the shops. I am well aware of the most important and interesting movement going on, for instance, on the Clyde, and if it is properly directed, I believe there should be great elements of good in it. We have to leave these things to local developments. I would point out that the shop system is not a development of the Munitions Act, although some speakers seem to have been under that impression. It is a very convenient way of dealing with men when they are represented by their fellows in the shops. An hon. Member referred to some of the grievances which have arisen with regard to the six weeks' leaving certificate. I entirely agree with a good deal that has been said about that, and wish we could devise a system whereby these troubles could be averted, and at the same time certain advantages retained. We propose to get rid of one difficulty that has arisen sometimes by securing that, at the end of the six weeks, a man should be entitled to a certificate. I know that in some cases people will have grounds of complaint against the tribunal, but I would point out that the tribunals under the Munitions Acts have had a very difficult task. The fact that there are scores of tribunals of which we never hear testifies to the fact that they have done their work with such smoothness and general satisfaction that there have been no complaints I should not like it to be understood that, while there have been complaints in some cases that the tribunals have not done their work with absolute loyalty and, in my opinion, with conspicuous ability and fairness. If there have been cases where the chairman of a tribunal has used his position as chairman to report cases to the military authorities, in my view that is no part of the functions of the chairman of a tribunal, and I sincerely hope that that kind of thing will not be done, because this is a tribunal for quite another purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) wished to insert a provision making that clear. We can make it clear, if necessary, by an Amendment in Committee. He and other Members were solicitous that we should not extend the penal provisions or the benefits of the wages Orders. We certainly should not contemplate doing anything of the kind, and if it is necessary to make that clear we will do it in Committee. There have been complaints of frivolous cases. The hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Sir Tudor Walters) mentioned some that have been brought before the tribunals, and said that in general he thought it applied to the smaller firms. As to that, I express no opinion. I can only say that I wish we could avoid the bringing of frivolous cases before the tribunals, because it only makes trouble for us, and does no good in the locality. I am afraid that whatever system of administration you devise you cannot get a perfect system.

Sir T. WALTERS

Is it not possible to impose some penalty for bringing frivolous cases? If, in the opinion of the tribunal, the case is frivolous, ought not the employer who brings it to be penalised and the workman compensated?

Dr. ADDISON

I have every sympathy with the general suggestion of my hon. Friend, but do not know how we can put it into the Bill.

Mr. PR INGLE

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the appeal tribunals and the munition tribunals readily give costs against the workmen, they are seldom given against the employer?

Mr. CURRIE

Would it not be possible to empower the tribunal to debit an employer who brings an unreasonable case with, say, £2 2s.?

Dr. ADDISON

I believe we have some such power in the Act as it is.

Mr. ANDERSON

You never use it.

Dr. ADDISON

I will look into the question, although I can give no pledge on the point. I deplore the bringing of frivolous cases, and I am sure the whole House does, on every ground. The power to which I referred is contained in Section 2 of the Amending Act. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson), who generally welcomed the Bill, said that the trade unions would require certain Amendments, of which we have already been notified. I should think that the reason why objections have not been lodged by the trade union leaders is that for the most part we have negotiated with the trade unions many weeks before the Bill was introduced, and with regard to most of the important unions that will be affected by the Bill we made a general agreement with them some time during the autumn of last year. The hon. Member for North West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) referred to certain cases in which he said that skilled men had been taken out of munition work for the Army. We have taken power to prevent that. The new Schedule of protected occupations which is now being arranged will, I hope, make that doubly secure, because we are-proposing that there should be set up in each locality a tribunal which will deal with these cases. It will be a tribunal upon which the Ministry of Munitions, as well as the man's trade union, will be represented, and in a case where a man is wrongly enlisted he will be properly exempted by the tribunal. The Government would deplore any man being withdrawn from shipbuilding. If my hon. Friend can give me any cases I shall be only too glad to go into them, because every skilled man in shipbuilding is wanted there almost more than anywhere else at the present time, because our losses of merchant ships have been very great. My hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton anticipated what would be the effect of the extension of the Bill to other industries, and seemed to be under a little misapprehension with regard to the provisions applying to leaving certificates. A man requires to be employed on war work in a controlled establishment for these provisions to apply, and if a person is employed in a non-controlled establishment they do not apply.

Mr. WILSON

They have been applied in the past.

Dr. ADDISON

They do not properly apply. The hon. Member for Nottingham was anxious to know whether the wages provisions would lead to the more expeditious dealing with cases of complaint. I hope sincerely that they will. I agree entirely with what he said. We deplore deeply the delays which have occurred in dealing with these cases. In the case of the Clyde I know that there was a long delay before it was dealt with. There were special reasons in that case, but there is nothing more irritable to parties than to have to wait weeks and weeks before their cases are dealt with. That was one of the chief reasons why we put this provision in the Bill. We believe that it will lead to a much more expeditious decision of these cases, and it is our intention to bring that about. He drew our attention to certain cases of rate cutting by various alterations in methods of work, and I entirely agree that in our experience no one circumstance causes more trouble in the industrial world than that same cause at the present time. I think that nothing could be more shortsighted than any manipulation of the arrangement that would enable rates to be cut. The number of cases where that course has been resorted to has been most trivial, but there have been some cases. But our intention is to maintain entirely the spirit of the agreement to prevent the cutting of rates, and wherever any cases are in dispute we propose that they shall be dealt with in that spirit. I think that the test applied by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh in reference to the extension of the Bill to new industries is a fair one. There have been defects in the Munitions Act. Nobody is more cognisant of them than I. I have had them with me practically every day for about two years, so that I do know something about them. At the same time I am not bilnd to its virtues. I think, on the whole, that the balance is very strongly in favour of the Act. I quite recognise that there are things which ought to be readjusted, and I am ready to meet the Committee on these, but on the whole I think that the balance is strongly in favour of the Munitions Act. The fact that this Bill has been brought before the House and that my hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party is able to get up and say that he has not been asked by any trade union to object to it is a fair test.

Mr. ANDERSON

Most of them do not know anything about it.

Dr. ADDISON

My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the Act, but he cannot expect us to accept that statement, seeing that 2,000,000 trade unionists have been working under it.

Mr. ANDERSON

I mean the new Bill.

Dr. ADDISON

The hon. Member for East Edinburgh referred to the Welfare Department. We are not here to discuss the general administration of the Ministry of Munitions, but we accept full responsibility. The institution of the Welfare Department originated with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, and any changes which we may make are not in the direction of limiting the ambit of its operations but rather of extending it. And I think that we should extend its operations so far as we can to all the trades that come under munitions work. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in his tribute to the most valuable work which Mr. Rowntree did for a very long time with so much self sacrifice and patriotic effort. I am perfectly ready to answer all his criticisms on this question so far as administration goes when the Vote comes on, and perhaps I may be allowed to defer the whole question to-day. Associated with the Welfare Department is the medical department. In my opinion it is most important and essential to have an extension of its function. In connection with our T.N.T. and other factories we were gradually driven to the establishment of medical sections. My hon. Friend