§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
§ Mr. ROCHAt Question time to-day I asked the Department which is concerned with this Vote if they could throw a little further light upon the recent grant of a 12½per cent. bonus given by the Ministry of Munitions. I take it that this Vote is cast in such a form that I can more or less roam over the questions which are involved by that bonus. My question to-day directly raised the question of policy which this grant involves, and asked in particular if the Minister in reply would state which Government Departments and what persons were consulted before the 12½ per cent. was given, and whether the employers were consulted and if the War Cabinet were consulted before giving the original advance to skilled workers and before making the extension to semi-skilled and unskilled workers? In reply to that question I was referred to the answer which was given on the 14th January by the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, and which he claimed completely covered the question which was asked by me to-day. I cannot help thinking that he cannot have given real consideration to this question, because it did not cover points included in my question to-day. A good deal of unrest and misunderstanding has 545 arisen amongst those who are interested in the employment of munition workers by the recent grant of the 12½ per cent. It was naturally realised that the policy of the Ministry of Munitions was changed, and that when the leaving certificate under the Munitions Act was abolished that they felt that something was necessary to induce the men who might take advantage of the abolition of that certificate not to seek other employment. What I do not think was quite realised, and I am not sure whether it was quite intended by the Ministry of Munitions, was whether this grant should be as wide and widespread as it was.
I do not wish to go generally into the whole question of policy involved. There has been a good deal of controversy, and I think a good deal of criticism has been directed towards the Ministry of Munitions, largely in consequence of the speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr, Barnes) some time ago with regard to this 12½ per cent. bonus. Certainly the public impression created by that speech, which was most unfortunately; incorrectly reported, was that this was the action of the Minister of Munitions alone, and it was generally felt that a matter involving millions of pounds in the way of wages should have had some consideration as a whole on the part of the War Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars spoke in rather strong terms about the fact that his colleague had "butted in" on a question on which he had not complete understanding. Out of that controversy there arose friends and supporters of the Minister of Munitions, who said that that did not represent fairly what had really happened, and that as a matter of fact all sections of opinion were heard by the War Cabinet itself, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars himself, and by, I think, Lord Curzon. I felt that when unfortunate differences arise between colleagues, as, indeed, they must arise, that they should not be made the subject of public debate by those colleagues themselves, and, when mistakes are made, that they should be frankly accepted by all. In order that we may have confidence in the Minister of Munitions, I hope he will remove that feeling that he did butt in on this occasion without giving a fair statement of the facts to his colleagues 546 and to the War Cabinet, who were the super-authorities entitled to deal with the matter.
I should like to ask the Minister who replies to give us really frankly the full facts about this matter. Was the full extent of this 12½ per cent. bonus fully and carefully considered? I believe that my hon. Friend below me was largely the author to some extent of this policy, and perhaps he will throw a little light upon it. In particular, I should like to ask him whether he can give us now any estimate of what the cost of this 12½per cent. bonus will be? I do so because most extravagant estimates have been made. I have been told by people well qualified to give an opinion that it will cost anything from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000 on the wages bill of the Ministry of Munitions. I should like to ask the Minister who replies whether an estimate was carefully made by the Minister, and whether it was put before the War Cabinet when they had to consider it. I should like to ask one other point, and that is whether full consideration was really given to the effect of this 12½ per cent. bonus in another way? There was a general hope, I think, that as a result of the War and with the change of management of industrial works, that a good deal of the unfortunate misunderstanding arising from the trade unions on the one side and the employers on the other by arbitrarily cutting down piece rates, for which I think both sides were almost equally to blame, would be removed, and it was hoped that the new policy would so affect these industries as to rely on a piece-work rate rather than on a time-work rate. I am told by people of experience, and I have no personal experience in the matter, that this unfortunate widespread grant of 12½ per cent. bonus has acted in such a way, perhaps not foreseen, but it certainly has resulted in the fact that your piece-work system which has been built up has almost been abolished; and I am told also that this had had a most unfortunate result, not only on production in munitions works, but on production in shipbuilding and other allied industries, which I think also come under the Ministry of Munitions.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman who replies will reassure our minds on these subjects. I will just recapitulate shortly the points I put. First of all, I should like the hon. Gentleman to throw light on the real manner and method by which this 12½ per cent. bonus was finally fixed upon 547 by the Ministry. Let us know quite frankly whether the Minister really did butt in or whether all the Ministers butted in. It is only by removing the misconception which has arisen that real confidence can be restored to the Minister in charge of this great Department. I should like him to tell us also what was the estimated charge of this 12½per cent. bonus and what the actual cost to the country is. Thirdly, I should like him to tell us whether he thinks the result of it has been in practice to act upon the working of the piece-rate system, and also to reassure us as to what the effect of this new method and policy has been on actual production.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)I am glad that my hon. Friend has given the Committee an opportunity of discussing this question, about which there has been an extraordinary mass of prejudice and misunderstanding, though I do not wish to suggest that my hon. Friend or those associated with him have in any way contributed towards that. The more light that is shed on this subject the better. I do not want to give away any Departmental secrets. Really, I am no great believer in Departmental secrets. The sort of sacro-sanctity which is supposed to surround Departmental secrets has always left me cold. It is impossible to suppose you can have absolute unanimity of opinion where you have men who hold their opinions strongly. It is preposterous to suppose that you will not have differences of opinion between the Departments. I think it will be a bad thing for this country when it is governed by Departments all of whom think absolutely alike from beginning to end on every subject in which they are interested.
There is no mystery; there is no doubt about the fact that, in regard to this great question, different men approaching it from different points of view, have at different periods of discussion held different opinions with regard to certain aspects of it. So far as the general question is concerned, and the effect which it has had on the industrial conditions in this country, I believe, speaking with a certain amount of impartiality in regard to it, because I was not intimately concerned with the working out of this scheme, I believe that the effect of the 12½ per cent. bonus on industrial conditions in this country has been thoroughly sound. 548 Anyone who will compare what was anticipated would be the condition of things in this country in October and November of last year, when nearly all the prophets told us we were in for a period of industrial unrest which would culminate about that time and amount to something like revolution, anyone who will compare those anticipations with the state of things which really has existed during that period, and which exists to-day, will see that somehow or another we have been able to avoid those serious mischiefs. To-day I am glad to say that the industrial situation, judging by the number of strikes, was never sounder. I suppose I ought to touch wood when I make that statement, but it is a fact that there are fewer strikes in this country to-day than at any period during the War. Now that is very remarkable, having regard to the very large issues deeply affecting the fortunes of millions of men. It is a remarkable state of things that after some three and a-half years of war, when the great body of your people have been working with steady devotion under a strain never known before in this country, that you are able to say before the world that the industrial situation has never been sounder than it is now. I claim that the 12½ per cent. bonus is one of the causes of this most satisfactory state of affairs.
What is the history of it? You had last year about the time of the engineers' strike a very serious state of things in industry. Some hundreds of thousands of men were out on strike for a period of two or three weeks. It was the most serious industrial disturbance we have had during the War. As a result of questions put in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), and others who were interested, it was followed by the Prime Minister setting up a number of Commissions to inquire into the causes of this industrial unrest. With one accord those Commissions reported that a prime cause of industrial unrest was the system of certificated labour which had been in existence in this country for some-considerable time—since the passing of the Munitions Act. At the time the Government of the day decided on certificated labour they were justified in so deciding, and the results showed that they were right; but as time went by, and that system had achieved the results intended, 549 you reached a stage at which the irritation and inconvenience arising out of that system more than counterbalanced the advantages attaching to it. At the time the last Munitions Bill was before the House I was strongly pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North - West Lanark to agree to an Amendment abolishing the leaving certificates. I did not agree, because I was aware of the risk that was being taken. But when the Bill came again before the House later under the present Minister, so much had happened in the interval that he agreed, as the result of, and influenced by, the Report of the Commissions on industrial unrest, to abolish the leaving certificates. That was my right hon. Friend's first act of policy in this House as Minister of Munitions. He agreed to the abolition of the leaving certificate, and that system of certificated labour, applying to some 2,500,000 or more workpeople in this country, which had been in force ever since the passing of the first Munitions Act, was swept away.
That was an industrial revolution of a very far-reaching kind. Its far-reaching character has not, I believe, been sufficiently understood in this controversy. To have restored to these millions of men and women the right to sell their labour in the market where it can demand the highest rate, at a time when there were more employers looking for workpeople than there were workpeople looking for employers, was to put upon them a temptation which would be too much for most men and most women. We were told that the temptation would be too much for the great majority of munition workers, and there would be what was called an ugly rush to all the shops paying the highest rates. Looking back now, we are able to say that that ugly rush did not take place. The movement as the result of the abolition of leaving certificates has been comparatively slight. It has not been sufficiently severe to interfere with the output of essential munitions of war. I claim that one of the reasons of that was the fact that the Government decided on the 12½ per cent. bonus. It was a recognition on the part of the Government of the changed conditions of things. That the action of the Government has been justified is shown by the statement I have already made as to the present industrial situation.
My hon. Friend asked me who was consulted in regard to this question. The 550 first step taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister was to set up a Committee in his Department. That Committee was presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham. It consisted of representatives of the Ministry, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Labour, the Engineering Employers' Federation, the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, the National Employers' Federation, and three groups of trade unions. I think we may fairly say that all the interests concerned were represented on that Committee. I do not think anyone would take objection to the constitution of that Committee on the ground that it was not properly representative. They submitted two Reports—a Majority Report and a Minority Report. The Minority Report was signed by the employers who were members of that Committee. The Majority Report was the one on which my right hon. Friend decided to base his proposals for dealing with the difficulty which had arisen. On the question who was consulted, then, I think, it will be admitted that the Ministry has no reason to stand in a white sheet. We consulted all the parties properly interested. It may be said, "You did not take their advice" It is true. The employers on the Committee made certain proposals not altogether different in principle from the proposals on which the Ministry acted, but different in this respect, that they would have made the granting of any bonus dependent on the workpeople to whom that bonus was granted having had an opportunity of working on a system of payment by results.
7.0 P.M.
That brings me to the second point put by my hon. Friend: Has this 12½per cent. bonus interfered in any way with the adoption of a system of payment by results? First, on the question of policy. Ought the Government at that time to have decided to make the payment of this bonus dependent on a system of payment by results? It is no secret that different views were held on that question amongst different members of the Administration. Speaking for myself, I have never had any doubt that the decision of the Government not to make this payment dependent on the introduction of a system of payment by results was a right decision. Rightly or wrongly, the system of payment by results is intensely disliked by a certain section of the workmen throughout this country. I have had some experi- 551 ence in connection with that. We endeavoured, in connection with aircraft construction, to get the acceptance of a general system of payment by results. I confess in making that effort that I had a strong bias in favour of a system of payment by results. But we found that to insist on a general system of payment by result would have made an upheaval 'throughout the whole industry. We might have succeeded, after weeks of disturbance and strikes, in enforcing it, but we should have lost far more than we should have gained, and have left a rankling sense of injustice which would have remained. We should have made it impossible to secure this system by agreement, or an extension of it in those shops where it had been already introduced. That is the short reply. It is also the larger reply to the criticism of the action of the Government in not making the 12½ per cent. bonus dependent on a system of payment by results. To have done it would have aroused a controversy which has in the past divided a certain section of the trade union movement. As a piece of policy I think it would have been a profound mistake. What we have done in the Ministry has been our policy throughout—wherever possible to encourage the introduction and extension of the system. I am glad to say that by these methods we have secured considerable extensions. I hope the men who are working it will make their influence felt amongst their fellows who are prejudiced against it, so that the prejudice against it will be entirely removed, and so that we shall succeed in getting that system made the general practice in many of our munition industries. My hon. Friend asked me if I could tell him, on the question of cost, what estimates were prepared, and how far these estimates have been exceeded. The figures given to the House by my right hon. Friend, when he was questioned on this point, was that £14,000,000 represented the cost of the 12½per cent. bonus, so far as it was applicable to those classes for which the Ministry of Munitions is responsible. That is the best figure I can give. That figure remains so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned. The estimate we have made of £14,000,000 is one which I have no reason to cast any doubt upon.
§ Mr. ROCHWhat is the meaning of that? When the hon. Gentleman says £14,000,000, is that the total cost in the controlled establishments?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI do not quite mean that. The £14,000,000 represents the estimate of the expense of the bonus to the time-workers.
§ Mr. HOLTDoes that mean time-workers paid by the Ministry of Munitions or those paid also by the Admiralty?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThe whole body of time-workers who are working for the munitions industries. In addition, there are the piece-workers. As my hon. Friend knows, arrangements for dealing with the piece-workers are in the hands of the Ministry of Labour. I have not seen, nor am I able to give, an estimate of what the cost there will be; but I will speak to my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Labour, and can then let the House have the figures. The figures which have been given, and to which my right hon. Friend refers—£120,000,000, £150,000,000, or £2,000,000,000, must have come from "Alice in Wonderland" They have absolutely no relation to anything proposed or anything that has been done. Where they have come from I do not know.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELHas there not been an official statement that the Government have formed an estimate of £40,000,000 by the inclusion of the pieceworkers?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI have not seen that figure. As far ts the Ministry is concerned, it has been dealing only with the time-workers. For those, the estimate is £14,000,000. I have not seen the estimate of £40,000,000 to which my hon. Friend opposite refers, but I cannot believe that the inclusion of the piece-workers now under the Ministry of Labour would account for the difference between £14,000,000 and £40,000,000. If, however, I had known that that point would be raised I should have been prepared to meet it.
§ Mr. ROCHI am sorry to interrupt. The point the right hon. Gentleman has enumerated, the time-workers, to whom this was intended to apply. Is not the essence of the criticism, however, that the result of this was that it would, and did, in practice, apply to a great many others? Surely it is not now only a matter of esti- 553 mate! He must have had the actual practical working, and there ought not, therefore, to be any difficulty in giving us the actual cost rather than estimates.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI do not think it would be reasonable to expect an exact figure until the scheme has been in operation for some considerable time. After all, these are not payments made directly by the Ministry; these payments have to be made by a large number of firms throughout the country. It is not, therefore, practicable to give a more exact figure than I have given.
§ Mr. ROCHI rather want the hon. Gentleman to set at rest the suggestion that it has been done without consultation with the War Cabinet—I refer to the important statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). I should like to have that settled.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI was not in the House when my right hon. Friend opened his case, and I did not know the subject would come on so early. It is true that I only gave the interests represented on the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend asked me whether the War Cabinet was consulted. I believe that question has already been answered in the statement made by the Minister in answer to a question. The War Cabinet was, in fact, consulted, and the case was entrusted to Lord Milner and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYCertainly. The two Reports of the Committee were before them. I think I have dealt with all the points raised except one general point. My hon. Friend asked what effect this 12½per cent. bonus had had on the production in which the Ministry is particularly interested? It is always difficult to attribute a particular effect to a particular cause. Still, I can make this statement, that the last half-year's output, when the 12½per cent. bonus was operative over a portion of that period, showed an increase. In the production of guns the increase was 48 per cent. as compared with the previous six months' output, when the 12½per cent. was not operative at any time. The increase in the production of machine guns was 20 per cent. The increase in the production of aeroplanes was 42 per cent.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYOh, yes. The increased production of aeroplane engines was 68 per cent., and the increase in the production of shipbuilding material was 25 per cent. If you take these increases over that period in conjunction with what I have said as to the present position, which must be shown in the increased production, I think it is clear that whatever the effect the 12½ per cent. bonus has had, you cannot say it has interfered with production. I claim that when the criticisms which have been largely personal and almost entirely concentrated on detail and method have been swept away and when you get down to the thing that really matters in connection with this much-controverted subject, that the 12½per cent. will show that we have got through a condition of industrial change, almost amounting to an industrial revolution, without serious difficulty and in a way thoroughly creditable to the common-sense of the great masses of munition workers, and not, as I think, discreditable to the Ministry of Munitions.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy hon. Friend has made a statement which has cleared up a large number of points in regard to the much-debated 12½ per cent. increase originally suggested by the Ministry of Munitions, but subsequently adopted by the War Cabinet. I think he has made out a very good case for his Department. I think, further, that a great deal of the criticism which has been made against that Department would not have been made had it not been for the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars in Glasgow. We know exactly what occurred on the day following that speech. We know that the right hon. Gentleman came down here in a white sheet and admitted that instead of attacking the Minister of Munitions he ought to have included himself as one of the objects of criticism. While the right hon. Gentleman was contrite in that sense, he did not withdraw any of the criticisms he had made. "I ought not to have said that the Minister of Munitions' butted in,'" he said, "but that 'we butted in" While he admitted that on the thirteen occasions to which he referred to the Minister of Munitions he ought to have said the War Cabinet, nevertheless he did not withdraw any of the criticisms which 555 in substance he had made to the proposal. For example, he said, "I have always been against encouraging time-work. I believe that if I had been dictator at the beginning of the War I would have put everybody on piece-work." In saying this he ignored the fact that he himself has taken an extremely remunerative time-job. I think he would have had some difficulty in persuading the other members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, having his example before them, with one accord to have gone upon piece rates. There is only one point in the question which my hon. Friend put to-day that has not been answered. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Munitions Department said that the whole question had been completely answered on the 14th January, but his speech this afternoon has shown that that official reply was, to put it mildly, very inaccurate. There was one point, however, which was omitted. The question put was, "Whom did the War Cabinet consult before giving the original advance to skilled workers, and before making an extension to semi-skilled and unskilled workers?' My hon. Friend has answered the first part of the question. He has told us whom they consulted before making the original advance to skilled workers, but he has not told us whom they consulted before making the extension. I had hoped that in the course of the very full statement which my hon. Friend has just made that he would have been able to deal with that point also.
There is only one other point which I wish to raise in connection with this Vote, and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply. I raised the question of Secret Service earlier this afternoon. I have ground for believing that the Ministry of Munitions employs the Secret Service. I want to know to what extent they do so employ that Secret Service? I want to know also whether the secret agents whom they employ do not in effect provoke strife, increase disaffection, and add to the discontent which undoubtedly prevails. I have grounds for believing that in the case of the celebrated strike in Glasgow, which led to certain deportations, that the greater part of the trouble was made by two men who subsequently disappeared, and of whom all trace has been lost. That, I think, is an established fact. I know that at that time the Ministry of Munitions were very dis- 556 inclined to take even Members of Parliament into their confidence owing to the tainted sources of information. It is very important that we should have a clear understanding at the present time, because, although as my hon. Friend says, there are not many actual strikes going on, there is a good deal of what may be called ferment which might at any time lead to trouble. It is of the utmost importance that while there is such ferment that the Ministry of Munitions itself should not be employing persons who may precipitate trouble. I have information at my disposal which enables me to make, this statement; that at a recent meeting in connection with the engineers one of the speakers was a Secret Service agent of the Ministry of Munitions. I quite agree that it may be important to get information of as reliable a kind as possible, and that it may be necessary to employ Secret Service agents. But I think that in no case ought any secret agent of the Ministry of Munitions to be a man who is himself addressing the workers and fomenting discontent. We ought to have an undertaking from the Ministry to this effect, that from whomsoever they obtain reports they ought in no case to have in their service a man who is acting as an agitator, or who is apparently, to his fellows, playing the part of an agitator. I am certain that the trouble which has taken place would not have arisen in many cases but for the fact that these secret agents have played the part of stimulating action as against wiser counsels by those who are not paid servants of the Government. I ask that we should have an assurance that no man from whom the Ministry obtain information should be a, speaker or agitator addressing public meetings and trade unions.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI think the Parliamentary Secretary has certainly made out a very good case indeed in regard to the 12½ per cent. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about that matter, not so much on the actual merits, but for political purposes in certain quarters intended to damage certain persons. I think the abolition of leaving certificates, which was the first act of the present Minister of Munitions, averted a tremendous amount of industrial disturbance and tumult in this country, and that in itself was undoubtedly a safety valve in regard to the industrial situation. The great bulk of what has been said about the 12½ per cent. never would have been said but for the 557 speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) in Glasgow, because that was about the first time in history that a Labour representative; has raised a serious objection to an increase in the wages of working people.
The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the question of payment by results, and he said that the Ministry found a difficulty in setting up the principle of payment by results because there is a deep-rooted suspicion in regard to it in the minds of many of the workpeople. Some hon. Members may think that astonishing, but it is not in the least astonishing when you know the history of the matter. I do not know how far we might set up this principle of payment by results all round, because if it were applied all round there might be very astonishing consequences. If we were to pay all the members of the present Administration by results, the pay might be very scanty and slight in a good many cases. The real reason why the workers have a deep-rooted objection to payment by results is that time and again employers have fixed piece rates, and then there has been a speeding up in regard to those wages, after which the piece rates have been revised and cut down, and the workers have had to work harder than ever for the old wage. Until you get that suspicion out of their minds you will not be able to apply this new principle without serious consequences.
The only other point is that which is mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle). There is no doubt that in the minds of many workpeople there is the suspicion—indeed, it is a conviction—that secret agents are being very widely employed at the present time by the Ministry of Munitions or some other Department, and that conviction is very widely prevalent. It is believed that some of those agents are playing a part of provocative agents. They make the wildest kind of speeches, and disappear when the trouble comes. We have had some evidence of that, and we have seen in other directions the provocative agent used. I hope that, so far as possible, an end will be put to that. No doubt we shall have difficulties in regard to overstrain, food shortage, and the emotion and strain of the War itself; and, in view of all this, the Minister of Munitions ought not to add to its troubles, but should try to reduce any friction of that kind to the lowest possible limit.
§ Sir WILLIAM COLLINSIn regard to this 12½ per cent., I wish to ask a question relating to clerical employment. I want to know whether it is the case or not that, directly or indirectly, any clerical employés, either in controlled firms or directly employed by the Government, have had the advantage of the 12½per cent. conceded to the workmen? I want to know what has been the attitude of the Ministry on this point in controlled establishments.
§ Major HILLSI am very glad to have this opportunity of removing a misunderstanding. The 12½ per cent. bonus has been attacked on two grounds. In the first place, it was argued that it need not have been granted at all, and, secondly, that it was granted without due consideration. There may be other grounds for attacking this proposal, but certainly those are not substantial grounds, for there never was a grant of increase of wages that rested upon a better basis, and there never was a grant made after fuller consideration. Since the War the skilled man in industry has fallen behind his lesser skilled colleague, although the latter was a man whom he had taught. This, of course, was an injury to the skilled man in many ways, and when the Commission on Industrial Unrest considered the matter seven members out of the eight members reported that the skilled man's grievance was the cause of industrial unrest and ought to be remedied. By that time you had established the fact that the skilled man had a grievance. The same Commission unanimously reported in favour of the withdrawal of the leaving certificate and of regranting to labour the power to bargain. When my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Munitions came into office he had those two concrete facts to deal with. All the employers and those who ought to know were very insistent on the point that the withdrawal of leaving certificates would have a bad effect, but we must take our minds back on this point to last July and August, when the withdrawal was in contemplation and consider things as they were then. All the employers and many others who were concerned in this matter believed that production would suffer when leaving certificates were withdrawn, and my right hon. Friend had to deal with that grievance, and, being in charge of a large Government employing Department, it was recognised that that Department 559 ought to be a good employer. On the second head the right hon. Gentleman had to prevent the loss of production which might be expected by the migration of labour.
The first point I wish to make is that the ease for 12½per cent was a strong one. It is said that the actual solution which the Government adopted, based on the Report of the Committee of which I was the chairman, was a wrong solution, and we were told that instead of giving an advance of a certain percentage it should have been made conditional on the man receiving it Consenting to go on piece-work. I could not appreciate the force of that argument. On the Committee we were very much pressed to make the advance conditional in that way, and at first sight there seemed to be a good deal to be said for that argument. There is no doubt that by piecework you get better results and increased production, but when I came to examine the question more closely I found it was impossible to do that. First of all, you cannot carry through a system of piecework in this way, because it cannot be done centrally and it must be done locally. To try and impose a system of piece-work from the top would, I am convinced, have done more harm than good, and nothing that has happened since has changed my opinion.
You have also to consider the historical and sentimental objections to piece-work. My Committee sat for a long time, and, after careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that that condition was impracticable. It is said that nobody was consulted, and that this thing was rushed through and done by the action of a single Minister. I think the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary has disposed of that. I cannot imagine more consultation taking place on any question. I believe that I was present at most of the consultations, and certainly they were extremely numerous, protracted, and argumentative. I do not in the least pretend that opinion was unanimous, but the subject was thrashed out to the bottom, and when the matter came before the War Cabinet they had before them all the materials for making up their minds, and I am satisfied that they came to a right decision. After all, you must look at what the advance has done. First of all, through the abolition of the leaving certificates, you have got a largely increased production. Production now, admittedly, is far greater than 560 it was six months before the advance was made. In the second place, we have got through the autumn and winter without grave industrial disturbance. It was prophesied last summer that there would be widespread disturbance in the autumn of last year. Fortunately, that did not occur. The high price of food, profiteering, and so on, were accumulative causes, and it was anticipated that they would lead to widespread disturbance in the autumn of last year. That did not occur, and now we have a state of labour which any fair-minded man must admit is far better than it was this time last year. I would ask any Member of this House to look round the country and to carry his mind back to May of last year. He must admit that the present position of labour is far more satisfatory than it was this time last year. I have dealt with the two main items of attacks on the 12½per cent. bonus.
There is, of course, the question of the cost. I quite admit that the advance cost more than I intended and anticipated. I thought that it could be controlled in a narrower circle, and that if it were given to a few men it need not be extended more widely. I frankly admit that I was wrong. In practice, it was found that the advance could not be confined to the class for whom it was originally intended. Still, those people who cry out about profiteering and blame labour for pressing demands for increased wages seem to me to forget that the War has made everything more valuable. All employers who started the War with a large stock of goods suddenly found that the War had made their stocks more valuable. A landlord with timber on his property, which before the War would have hardly paid for cutting, suddenly found that he had a very valuable asset in his possession. The War has made labour much more valuable. All figures of wage movements are large when you see them, but the wage bill of the country is a large bill, and a figure which looks big individually is not big when compared with the whole of the labour bill of the country. I am convinced now, after all the criticism that has been levied, and after all that has been said about the advance and that can be said, that my right hon. Friend was perfectly right in advising the advance and that the War Cabinet were perfectly right in granting it.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLARI should like, as representing a large industrial con- 561 stituency, to express the satisfaction with which I heard the Parliamentary Secretary and the last speaker refer to the splendid spirit which is being displayed by our industrial workers and also the tribute which has been paid to the value of labour and to the desirability of securing better remuneration for labour in these strenuous times. Reference has been made to the fact that there is undoubtedly a certain ferment in certain districts. I have had some evidence of that from certain quarters, and I am bound to say that the ferment seems to be to be due to some extent to a failure on the part of the Government to recognise, when they did take this step to make the advance, the necessity of seeing how far that step was going to lead them. I have had many representations made to me that, having committed themselves to that policy, they delayed unduly dealing with the difficult questions which were bound to arise and which might have been anticipated. That has created, not unnaturally, a certain amount of irritation in certain districts. I am glad to think that it has been now, to a large extent, allayed by the action that has been taken.
There were, in addition, other conditions creating unrest which were referred to by the Industrial Commissioners in their Report. I represent a district in which the housing conditions are absolutely deplorable. We have again and again in the middle ward of Lanarkshire asked for the provision of better housing accommodation during the War in order to remove a constant source of grievance and of acute irritation to the workers themselves. I regret that there has not been that disposition shown that I would have liked to have seen on the part of the Minister of Munitions to meet that particular case. I have had to make very repeated representations on the subject, and it is only practically within the last month that even an additional modified scheme of 250 houses has been allowed for the whole of that large populous district, the middle ward of Lanarkshire. I want to warn my right hon. Friend, who I know is anxious to be sympathetic if he can, that the conditions of housing in certain industrial districts in Scotland are really such that it cannot be surprised if the workers themselves display their irritation and their annoyance unless something is done. I tell him that I receive resolutions from my Constituents in that district again and again indicating that unless something is done imme- 562 diately there will be serious trouble. It is undoubtedly a condition of affairs that can be relieved, and the Minister of Munitions ought to carefully consider it. I admit that in one or two districts they have provided very limited schemes of housing. In Scotland we felt that they might have gone a great deal further with their Barrow-in-Furness scheme than they were willing to go at the time, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman now will recognise that this is a matter of the most serious importance, and that he will go as far as he possibly can during the War to remove this grievance of the workers. I believe that our Scottish workers are sound at heart. If they are taken in the right way, they will give the best possible labour. They are loyal, and they are hard workers, but they are often placed in conditions of life which are almost intolerable, and amongst those conditions I place particularly the housing question. I should like, therefore, to receive some assurance from my right hon. Friend that not only will there be a very limited effort made to deal with this particular evil in Scotland at the present time, but that every sympathy will be shown when claims are put forward for additional housing accommodation in the large industrial centre to which I have referred.
§ The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr.Churchill)I gladly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which ho asks. Everything that is within the scope of the limited and narrowing resources of wartime conditions will be done to remove the excessive congestion and overcrowding which has developed in munition areas, and which to a very large extent in some areas is heritage of pre-war days. My hon. Friend will realise that we have reached a phase in the struggle in which material, even more than labour, becomes the limiting factor, and, in regard to housing, the particular kind of labour is also very severely drawn upon. We have the greatest difficulty in meeting the urgent claims which are made upon us for the improvement of the housing conditions, having regard to the even more imperious demands for works and construction connected with the development of the Air Service, steel works, and every service directly associated with the War. Still, as far as action is possible, it shall be taken, both in the direction of semi-permanent and of permanent dwellings. We shall lose 563 no opportunity of extending the policy of relieving the excessive pressure which has been created. That the pressure will continue to be severe is unhappily certain when we consider that the population of this country has been increasing, that emigration has been stopped, and that housing has been completely arrested during the whole period of the War. It is inevitable that we are confronted with an ever lengthening vista of difficulties in regard to the day-to-day problems of the housing of the working classes. That will undoubtedly furnish one of the great and immediate post-war works to which the labour and energy of the demobilised industries and of those who are with the military forces can be directed. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), a little earlier in the Debate, asked about the maintenance of a Secret Service Department at the Ministry of Munitions. It is no more. It came, I think I may say, to a timely end many months ago. A portion of its duties was transferred to the police, and a portion to the military authorities. The Ministry of Munitions has no Secret Service Department of any sort or kind anywhere.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does it mean that the War Office is now using in the old way the same agents for the same purpose, and is working in conjunction with the Ministry of Munitions?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, I do not think that is so. I am sure it is not so, but obviously questions on that point should be addressed to the Department which is responsible.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it not the case that at the present time the Ministry of Munitions receives secret reports from agents formerly employed by them, and who are now in the employment of another Department?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am not aware of that. We receive a great volume of reports from the whole field of the munitions industry. Some, no doubt are confidential, but I am not aware whether any of the reports are from the particular source to which the hon. Member refers. I am informed that the clerical employés —and I wish to say this in answer to the hon. Member for Derby—in controlled establishments do receive a benefit according to their scale of pay, and it 564 bears a certain relation to the 12½per cent. on their wages, but it finally disappears as higher scales of pay are reached.
§ Sir W. COLLINSAnd as to those directly in the employment of the Ministry of Munitions.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is very difficult to say offhand, but those under Civil Service rules are on a different basis altogether. I will inquire into that point. I did make inquiry into my hon. Friend's question, and the answer I have given does not, perhaps, completely cover it.
Before I sit down I should like to impress one point upon the Committee and upon those outdoors. We read in the newspapers repeatedly about strikes, and officials and Members of Parliament and others who are concerned with our production are always getting news of strikes and disturbances and fermentation in the great world of munition labour. But we forget the vast area which continues to work day after day, week after week, and month after month with absolutely unbroken regularity, and with ever increasing efficiency and skill. It is a great pity that the nation and other countries should not realise the widespread and unswerving loyalty and resolution with which the production of munitions is being maintained by the 2,500,000 or 3,000,000 men and women continually engaged upon it, or that there should be any fear in the mind of the public, or of those who are their guides in public criticism, that the whole mass of labour is swaying uneasily in that field of industry, and that there is a general air of discontent and laxity of purpose throughout this great area. Nothing could be more erroneous.
I have had the figures very carefully analysed for the last six months. I have had the number of days that could have been worked multiplied by the number of workers, and I have compared it with the figure of the number of days lost by strikes, multiplied by the number of strikers. The results are astonishing. I very much doubt whether there is anyone who would not be surprised at them. I have asked Members repeatedly what percentage of time they think has been lost by strikes in munition work during the last six months, and the reply has been five, ten, and fifteen per cent., or even more. What are the facts? The loss has 565 been less than one-fourth of one per. cent. of the time worked during the last six months over the whole munition areas covering all parts of the United Kingdom and every branch of war production. Considerably more than the whole year is worked by munition workers for one day lost by strikers. Is not that an amazing figure? Such a percentage in any business in the world would be considered almost negligible, and hardly to come within the range of business calculation. It is perfectly true that a day lost by strikes does much more harm than can be recovered in two or three days' work, because of the dislocation caused by the delay in other stages of production. I admit, too, that my figures do not include a certain element of slackness, which, at certain points, very limited and very local, has made itself apparent. But surveying the figures in their entirety, does it not give a feeling of great encouragement and a sense of great security and solidity in regard to these branches of our war production?
If it were not that the percentage of time lost by strikes and disturbances due to strikes were kept within these extremely narrow limits, how could we be getting the immense output we are now drawing from every conceivable quarter? Our imports are continuously reduced by the need of feeding our Allies and ourselves. Our skilled men are continuously being sent away to the Army. We are continually asked to release men for the service of the armed forces, and have been doing so by thousands and scores of thousands. Nevertheless, although dependent more and more upon dilution, and on the efficient and better organisation of production, our output is steadily increasing, whether it be in guns, or shells, or aeroplanes, or shipbuilding material. Those great lines of production are expanding and growing by the energy of a contented and highly skilled labouring population, employed continually under conditions which enable them to release the greatest volume of output, and I look forward with confidence to the next six-monthly period, when, in spite of shrinkage in many of the materials on which we are dependent, and consequently greater difficulty, in spite of the continued release of men for the Army, I say I look forward confidently to supplying the forces in the field and in the shipyards with a still greater increase than that which has marked the past six months.
566 Let it be realised, although we have great difficulties, although undoubtedly the aspect of labour and its interests require most unceasing vigilance and attention from all concerned to-day, the measured determination of the country is to continue and increase the war output, and you cannot possibly study the detailed conditions of munition labour without deriving the greatest possible encouragement and confidence from that study.
§ Question put, and agreed to.