§ Postponed Resolutions further considered.
§ Sixteenth Resolution,
§ "That a Supplementary sum, not. exceeding £408,900), 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 Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants in Aid)."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. HOGGEI want to ask for some information with regard to a point which has not yet been finally adjusted and which I was not able to raise on the Committee stage. I hope that the Controller of the Household will be able to deal with it. At present men who are insured under the national health insurance scheme are entitled, on account of their contributions to sanatorium treatment free. One finds, however, when a sailor is discharged from the Navy or a soldier is discharged from the Army afflicted with tuberculosis, and when he is placed in a sanatorium for treatment, that 7s. per week, or 1s. per day, is deducted for maintenance in the sanatorium from the pension at the highest disability rate of 27s. 6d. per week that he 1308 receives. It cannot be right that the soldier who prior to joining the Army and while in the Army, or the sailor who prior to joining the Navy or while in the Navy, paid sufficient contributions to establish his right to free treatment in a sanatorium, when placed there after discharge, should have deducted from his pension Is. per day for his maintenance in the hospital. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman on what grounds he justifies the position of the National Health Insurance Commissioners in depriving a sailor or a soldier who is insured— mark the words; I do not mean every case—of free treatment in a sanatorium simply because he has served in the Army or the Navy? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman can answer the other point. It is really a question for the Pensions Minister. He makes the deduction from the man's pension, but it is the hon. Gentleman who ought to secure free treatment for the man. Under this heading a special Grant is made and an additional sum is required, and if there is not sufficient money I want to know why my hon. Friend cannot see that these men get the free treatment to which they are entitled.
§ Sir E. CORNWALL Comptroller of the Household)I do not know that my hon. Friend is correct in placing the responsibility on the National Health Insurance Commissioners, because all we do under this Vote is to give to the insured soldier sanatorium treatment at once without the period of waiting which the ordinary civilian tuberculous person might have to undergo. That arrangement was made in 1915, and by the Act of 1917 we brought in the uninsured soldier. That needed more money than was available front the contributions which are allotted for the provision of treatment for tuberculous persons. We give the treatment free, and it is not our business to go beyond giving the treatment. We are only by this Vote provided with, facilities for giving the treatment promptly. That is our task, and that is why we ask for this money. More people now come under this special Grant than was estimated, and we therefore ask for more money. We shall have to ask for a great deal more for 1918–19, because there will be a much larger number than last year. With regard to the point why the Pensions Ministry deduct 1s. per day from the allowance of 27s. 6d. per week which they give pending the assessment of the pension payable to the soldier, I think my 1309 hon. Friend will see, and you, Mr. Speaker, would also rule, that I should not be in order in going into that now. It is a matter entirely for the Pensions Ministry. I have no authority whatever over the arrangements which they make with regard to the pension. I do not see how my hon. Friend, who knows so much about these things, can show that it comes within my province or under this Vote.
§ Mr. HOGGEMy hon. Friend has just said that he, as Chairman of the National Health Insurance Commission, provides accommodation free for these men. That accommodation which he has provided free ought to be given free, but a fellow Minister in a neighbouring Department of the Government is charging the patient money for that free treatment. The hon. Gentleman ought to object to it very strongly.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI do not think it is a case for one Department objecting to what another Department is doing.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLThere are a great many matters which the Pensions Ministry no doubt has to take into consideration. I am not acquainted with all the circumstances which govern their decision, and it is not for me either to blame them or to bestow praise with regard to the steps that they are taking. No doubt my hon. Friend will raise the matter at the proper time, but I do not think that it comes under this Vote.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI regret to have to intervene in this Debate, more particularly as my hon. Friend has given an unsatisfactory explanation on this point. It is quite clear that there may be a case for a deduction in the case of the uninsured soldier, because, after all, he has no contract with the National Health Insurance Commission. The insured soldier is in a different position. He was told a great many years ago that he was to get 9d. for 4d., and the 9d. was understood to cover sanatorium benefit. It is quite true, apart from this special Grant, for which there is a Supplementary Estimate here, that this sanatorium treatment would not have been available either for soldiers who are insured or for soldiers who are uninsured, but undoubtedly the contract made was that sanatorium benefit should be available. The National Health Insurance 1310 Commissioners have endeavoured to make it available to a larger extent than otherwise would have been possible, and, having made it available by means of a special Grant voted by Parliament, it is surely monstrous that another Minister should intervene and charge the soldier who is to benefit for that which he ought to get free.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLThat is not my Department.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt is very difficult in a case of this kind to separate the action of the Departments. I do not know whether this matter will be in order on the Pensions Vote. It seems to me that in all these eases it is a mutter of inter-departmental arrangement, and, if that is so, then surely we are entitled to make a protest against a charge being made for a service in respect of which Parliament is making a Grant. I hope, even if my hon. Friend is unable to do anything in the matter, that he will bring it to the attention of those who are in authority. I do not think that lie, in his position, is able to say to the Pensions Minister. "You have no right to make this deduction," but undoubtedly it is his duty, as representing the National Health Insurance Commission, and in a sense as the trustee for the insured persons, to enter a protest to the War Cabinet and to see, that an end is. speedily put to this strange procedure.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Seventeenth Resolution,
§ "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."
§ Motion made, and Question,
§ "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
§ Eighteenth Resolution,
§ "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."
1311§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. PRINGLEI do not desire on the Report stage of this Vote to raise any considerable question of policy, but to put a number of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions which relate to some recent episodes and changes which have occurred in regard to his Department. On the Committee stage of this Vote we had a fairly extended discussion on the 12½per cent. increase which was granted by the Ministry of Munitions, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire Mr. Roch), owing to a protest made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), is anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman an. opportunity once more of explaining his position on this very thorny subject. I am not going to deal with the grant of 12½ per cent. increase; I merely wish to deal with one of its by-products—that is, an incident which took place at Messrs. Beardmore's Works at Parkhead. There a number of workmen who were employed in various capacities made an application for the 12½per cent. bonus. They describe themselves as the Steam Hydraulic Enginemen's Society. These men intimated on the 1st February that unless the bonus were given to them they would cease working overtime or at weekends. As these are very important workers in connection with steel production the threat was a very serious one to the firm. I wish to call attention to the extraordinary procedure of the firm. On the 2nd February the firm locked all these men out. There were 1,500 who made the claim and these men were locked out on Sunday, 3rd February. Further, during the course of the week which began on that day, another 4,000 men were thrown out of employment owing to lack of material. This action on the part of the firm raises a very interesting question under the Munitions Act. We all remember than under Part I. of the original Munitions Act it was made an offence for workmen to go on strike and it was equally made an offence for employers to lock-out. That, of course, was represented as giving fair treatment to both sides, although it was well recognised that what the Government wished to do was to stop strikes, because under War conditions it was inconceivable that any employers should resort to the method of a 1312 lock-out. As a fact, both strike and lockout were made statutory offences. I desire to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether Messrs. Beardmore in taking this action had the authority of the Ministry of Munitions for so doing, and, if they had not that authority, whether they are not liable to a prosecution under the Munitions Act for delaying the production of munitions of war, and, if they are so liable, why no proceedings have been taken against them? I hope that my hon. Friend will be able quite briefly to give an answer to these questions. So far as matters of fact are concerned, I think I have given an accurate account of what has taken place.
The other question to which I wish to draw the attention of the Department as the organisation of the Priority Department. I do not know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for this Department. [understand it is his colleague the Financial Secretary, but I have no doubt that the question I am now putting and the considerations I shall advance will be reported to him when he comes to the House. I am not going to enter into the history of the Priority Department. I am told that, owing to several causes, very recently it was decided to adopt a scheme of reorganisation in that Department. It had become patent that the Department as it was organised was not discharging successfully the very difficult and onerous duties which were imposed upon it. That was not unnatural. Work which in the early stages of its existence could be discharged by a comparatively small Department had grown under the changed conditions to dealing with many, and possibly the majority, of the most important industries of the country. Not only had the Department to consider the allocation of materials, owing to difficulties in regard to labour, but as the shortage of raw material had become more and more prevalent it became necessary for this Department to give materials to, or to withhold them from, many contractors. It became necessary for them also to decide the order in which competing contractors were to receive their material. It is an open secret that in many purls of the country there was a great deal of dissatisfaction, owing to what was alleged to be the mismanagement of the Department. I do not desire on an occasion like this to deal with concrete instances, although concrete instances have been brought to my notice, 1313 but undoubtedly, certainly in regard to several of the main decisions which were given, priority was granted in some cases and withheld in others in a way which local manufacturers had great difficulty in understanding and which led them to entertain very strong feelings as to the methods which the Department pursued.
I understand that to meet this dissatisfaction and discontent a scheme of reorganisation has been set up. Personally, I am not acquainted with the details of that scheme. The only thing I know for certain in connection with that scheme is that since it was adumbrated several of the most competent men in the Department have left, and whatever may be the merits of the scheme on paper, this, at least, is certain—that the new scheme is going to be carried out by a Department which, in respect of personnel, is certainly not so strong as it was formerly and as it was under the system against which so much dissatisfaction was expressed. When it is found that a change in organisation is going to lead to a depletion of the staff, and a depletion, too, which affects some of the most competent men in it, an explanation should be given. We are entitled to ask whether the Minister himself has made any independent inquiry into what is going on, and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the changes which are actually taking place are going to be adequate to enable the Department to discharge the onerous duties which fall upon it. I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the Ministry comes he will be able to make a general statement upon this question. Should he not be so able, it may be necessary for mg to raise this question once again on a more suitable opportunity—the Vote on Account will offer such an opportunity. In the hope that it may be unnecessary to enter into further controversy I am putting these general questions at this time in order to elicit a statement which may not make it desirable for me to intervene again in the matter on any subsequent occasion.
§ Mr. ROCHWhen this Supplementary Estimate was considered in Committee I did raise the question of the recent grant of the 12½per cent. bonus by the Ministry of Munitions, and I did it then in brief terms more for the purpose of getting a statement from the Ministry of Munitions to clear the air a little, rather than for the purpose of offering any substantial or detailed criticism upon it. Subsequently 1314 to that Debate my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) wrote to me, I think a little reproachfully, expressing a wish that I had given him notice that I was going to raise this question, because he would have wished to intervene in the Debate had he known it was coming on. I would like to express my regret to him that I did not do so. I thought that as my question on the subject had been on the Paper for some time and as the Ministry of Munitions were well aware that the subject was going to be raised, a notification would have come from them. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman would like to intervene in this Debate and put his point of view, which is necessarily, he being a member of the War Cabinet, a broader view than that given on the last occasion by the representative of the Ministry of Munitions. In one way I almost regret that I did not raise the question, because the result of the speech of the representative of the Ministry of Munitions was that I was simply inundated with letters from all parts of the country, challenging in the most explicit way the accuracy of almost every statement that he made. First and foremost my hon. Friend told us that the cost of this was £14,000,000. I am told most explicitly that evidence has been given from his own Department that the cost will amount to £40,000,000. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who is a member of the War Cabinet, will offer a little more independent point of view than can be done by the Ministry of Munitions.
My hon. Friend let fall one answer in that reply which I must confess astounded me and all my correspondents, because he said that the effect of this 12½ per cent. bonus had been apparently not to decrease production as was feared, but, according to his statement, it had actually increased it in the most incredible way. he will remember when he made the statement as to the increase in production, and gave figures which purported to prove it, I asked him whether he was comparing like with like. If he looks at those figures, in one case he will see he said there was an increase of 48 per cent. in production, comparing like with like. That seems to me an incredible statement, and one that must have been made in an unguarded moment without due consideration. In fact, the policy which has been adopted by the Ministry of Munitions subsequent to the 12½ per cent. is in itself a condemnation of the way in which the 1315 bonus was granted, because since the grant of the bonus they have had to give another bonus of 7½ per cent. to the piece workers, thus showing by their own action that the effect of their 12½ per cent. bonus was to cut into their piece-work rate to such an extent that they had to give an additional bonus of 7½per cent. to their piece-work rate. I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) will tell us what consideration was given by the War Cabinet to this point. After all, the War Cabinet exists now as a super-national authority. The subordinate Ministers are now only subordinates, looking at things from a national view, not Departmental officials, and one would like to be assured that when a, question like the 12½ per cent. bonus is put before the Ministry of Munitions it is considered in the broadest possible aspect, because what the Munitions Department did not seem to consider, perhaps did not care to consider, was the effect of the bonus on almost every industry in the country. Whatever the cost may have been of the 12½per cent. bonus to those actually in the controlled establishments, the effect on every other industry was to add enormously to the cost of production. Its effect on the productive capacity of shipbuilding, one of the most vital things to the needs of the country at present, as I am assured by people who have the closest experience of this work, almost destroyed their piecework rates altogether, and, in fact, to produce a most unfortunate decrease in the shipbuilding capacity of this country. These are the general criticisms which I offer. I did not intend to raise the question again, because, unfortunately, it is over and done with. The evil that men do lives after them, unfortunately, and I only rise this afternoon to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of giving what I hope will be the broader, the more super-national, view which is taken by the War Cabinet of these problems, and again I express my regret that I did not on the first occasion take an opportunity of doing so.
§ Mr. BARNES (War Cabinet)It is perfectly true that when I read the report of the proceedings here last week I felt-somewhat annoyed because my name came into the Debate, as, of course, it naturally would, and I wrote to the hon. Member, as he says, rather reproachfully stating my regret that he did not inform me that the question was coming on, and that if 1316 I had known it was coming on I should have made it my business to be here. I am much obliged to him for the opportunity he has given me now, and I am very glad to be able even now, hurriedly called upon as I am, to say a few words. The last time I spoke on the 12½per cent. from this Table I appeared in a white sheet. I said on that occasion that I had made a slip the night before at Glasgow. When I make a slip the best thing to do is to admit the fact straight away, which I did then. I have nothing to add now or to depart from in the statement made that day on the facts as I knew them that day, except that if I had waited a little longer and had fuller reports I should perhaps not have said what I did about the Press, which I regret, and probably I should have said something more about the Minister of Munitions. But on the facts as disclosed to me that day, I stand by what I said at this box, as from a certain date I was just as much concerned with the 12½ per cent. as the Minister of Munitions, and, therefore, I had no right to put the whole responsibility for it on his shoulders as apart from the rest of us. As far as the facts up to that date are concerned, I regret that it was not left there. I think it ought to have been left there, and I did what I could to have it left there. I will not go further into that unless there is occasion for it afterwards, but I want to emphasise it. I am sorry it was not left there. and I did what I could that it should be left there. It came up again last week, and certain statements were made. I feel very strongly on the matter, but I want to speak as far as I possibly can in a restrained manner, and therefore, if I do not say all I should like to say, do not think there is not a good deal more to be said.
I want to make a comment or two on what was said last week under three heads. First of all, I should like to have had an opportunity of refreshing my mind by documents. I cannot do that and, therefore, I have to speak now from memory so far as I can bring the facts back to my mind. I want to say a word upon the coupling up of the 12½ per cent. with the Labour Unrest Commissions, which was done last week. The 12½per cent. had absolutely nothing to do with the Labour Unrest Commissions. I have a right to say that because the Labour Unrest Commissions were started out on their course by myself and reported to me when they came back, and I was in touch with 1317 them right throughout, not only to the time they reported, but even after they reported, taking their advice; and I was also energetically urging the Departments concerned to do certain things which were recommended by those Labour Unrest Commissions, amongst them being food prices, better housing, improvement of the Compensation Act, better provision for sailors who had lost their effects, and so on. I was energetically pushing on the Department to make changes and improvements in these respects, but T. did absolutely nothing about the 12½ per cent. because I could see the red light. When the Labour Unrest Commissions reported, the matter of the 12½ per cent. was discussed. It was pointed out then what might take place and, therefore, I did nothing except that about the end of August, I think, some weeks after the Minister of Munitions made a speech on this floor, I referred in a letter to the Press to many topics, including all those I have mentioned, and amongst the rest I said this matter of the leaving certificates and the consequences thereof was being dealt with by a Committee. That is all I did in regard to the 12½ per cent.—that meagre reference in a letter to the Press—that, and nothing more. I am not responsible for having had to say it here because I tried to avert what was said last week, but it is right to myself that I should say that the 12½per cent. had nothing to do with the Labour Unrest Commissions so far as I am concerned, and the increase of wages for the time-workers was made as a consequence only of the promise made on this floor. I put in a memorandum to the Cabinet about the 9th or 11th October, in which the promise which was made here is mentioned in the first four paragraphs. The Cabinet, so far as I know, never had a word said to it; not a single one of the Committees which examined this question had ever a word said to it, as far as I know, about the Labour Unrest Commissions, and therefore, for anything I know, neither the Committee of the Cabinet nor the Cabinet itself ever heard of the Labour Unrest Commissions dealing with this matter. I hope I have made it clear that the 12½ per cent. arose out of a promise made on this floor, and nothing else so far as I am concerned.
§ Mr. BARNESCertainly!
§ Mr. BARNESI did not say it did.
§ Mr. PRINGLEBut the leaving certificates arose out of the Labour Commissions.
§ Mr. BARNESIt may have done. My point is that a promise was made to give the rise in wages on this floor, and the Labour Commissions never mentioned that. The leaving certificates were a grievance of the skilled men, and the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) in the Debate of last August, after the Minister of Munitions had spoken, mentioned the skilled men's grievance, and that was the only mention made of it Therefore, we had it in our minds, but I did not deal with it for the very good reason that I could see it was going to raise trouble, and afterwards because I ascertained that it was in process of adjustment in quite a natural way. I put that to these people who were dealing with it, and that is the reason I did not deal with it.
The next point I want to touch upon is the statement, also made last week by my genial colleague (Mr. Anderson), supported, I think, by the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle), that I, a Labour Member, had objected to an increase of wages.
§ Mr. PRINGLENo; I did not say that.
§ Mr. BARNESI think my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) said it, but you supported it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy point was quite different. You objected to working on a, time basis in spite of the fact that you yourself had taken a time job.
§ Mr. BARNESThat is another matter altogether. I have nothing to retract in regard to that. Put in that bald way, I should say it is not true that I objected to a rise of wages. What I objected to was the introduction of a new principle in the adjustment of wages. Up to that time we had had bonuses given of the same amount, irrespective of the amount of a man's wages. If a man had £1 a week and the bonus amounted to £l a week, instead of getting £l he got £2. The man who had £2 before the War also got £l, and therefore he got a rise of 50 per cent. as against 100 per cent. in the other case. I believe that is a good principle, and I wanted to maintain it, because the cost of food having gone up, it is just as great a hardship to the man at the bottom as to the man at the top, 1319 and my objection to what was done was not because it was a rise of wages, but because it introduced a new principle. I do not think I need say any more about that.
7.0 P.M
Now about the cost. The hon. Member said he got a reply last week that the cost amounted to £14,000,000. Various estimates were made about the cost. I do not know what the cost was. When you come to consider cost only as measured by the increase of wages given to certain numbers of men, it may be figured in that way that £14,000,000 is the cost to the Munitions Department, but the Munitions Department, unfortunately, is looking only at a small area. The area concerned with the 12½ per cent. extends over the whole industrial horizon. I do not know what is the proportion of the munitions area to shipbuilding and other branches of work connected with the Government. I do not know what proportion munitions bear to the whole industrial activities of the country, but probably I should be right in saying that it is less than one-half. I do not know, but I should think it would be a good deal less than one-half, probably less than one quarter. The 12½per cent. does not only concern munitions, but every workshop from one end of the country to the other. The effect is not only giving £14,000,000 to munition workers, but it is giving money to others outside the munition shops, and affecting psychologically the people in the munition shops and everywhere else. The cost may be £14,000,000 or £40,000,000. My hon. Friend who has just spoken said it was £40,000,000. I do not know, but I think it is very likely it is the larger sum than the former, expressed merely as an increase in the wages of the people immediately concerned. But that is only a fragment of the cost, even if you take the £40,000,000. The cost is in the loss of output throughout the country. What was going on in all the shops during the latter part of last year? I know what was going on, and everybody who knows the workshops knows what was going on. The people were in a ferment. Instead of attending to their work they were talking about 12½ per cent. and 7½per cent. all the time. The cost is in the friction produced throughout the country by this industrial ferment. That is where the real cost comes in. I am glad 1320 to say that there is a very great improvement, consequent upon the principle having been given effect to, and that is the 7½per cent. being given to the pieceworker. I want to encourage the pieceworker. I have said often on platforms and in the Press, and I repeat it here, although I have got into trouble with my own fellow members about it, that if I had been a dictator during this War, I would have put everybody where possible on piece-work.
§ Mr. PRINGLEEven the War Cabinet.
§ Mr. BARNESEven the War Cabinet. But I said everybody where it was possible. If it were possible for the War Cabinet I would put them on piece-work. But there arc lots of people who cannot go on piece-work. The people whom the Minister of Munitions had in his mind last August could not work on piece-work because they are people supervising the work of others, and these are highly skilled men engaged in making jigs and gauges and other things which could not be done on piece-work. There are many others who could not be put on piece-work. Therefore, when I said I would put all the people possible on piece-work I meant those who are on repetition work who could possibly be put on piece-work. We decided about two months ago to give 7½per cent. to the piece-workers, thereby giving the same encouragement to pieceworkers as had already been given to time-workers. What had happened before that? Lots of people left piece-work to go on time-work. I do not blame them. I would have done the same thing myself. Supposing I had been on piece-work, and making 10 per cent. over my time rate of wages, and then somebody came along and said, "We will give the man who is working on time 12½ per cent. increase,'' leaving the other man on piece-work 2½per cent. behind the man on time work. Naturally the piece-worker was discouraged, and went on time-work. But ever since the 7½ per cent. was given to the piece-workers a better condition of things has come along, and we now find the shops to some extent settling down, and we are now going to see, I believe, in the near future something like normal, and, I would express the hope, something above normal, production. These are the three points I wish to speak upon. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) for giving me an opportunity of doing so. I am 1321 afraid I have done so in a fragmentary, ragged sort of way, because I have been speaking without the papers before me, and entirely from memory.
In conclusion, may I just put out an appeal? So far as my words can reach these men in the shops, may I put out an appeal to them to help us to win this War by putting their backs into their work? That is what we want. Last month, instead of a certain number of ships being turned out from the shipbuilding yards in this country, we had less than half that number. I think I am within the mark in saying that less than half of the estimate of last mouth was actually turned out. This month, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the position will be no better. America has failed us so far as shipbuilding is concerned; therefore, this is a very serious matter. It did not come within the ambit of the Debate here last week, because you were only considering munition shops. But even of more importance than munition shops are the shipyards of this country. In fact, the winning of this War very largely depends upon the output of ships, and we shall have to turn out ships in much larger numbers than we have turned them out so far if we are going to get through the trouble during the next few months. Therefore, so far as my words can reach the workmen throughout the length and breadth of this country, I would urge them in justice to themselves, in justice to their mates in the trenches, and in justice to this Old Country, which, with all its faults, has stood in the forefront of freedom up to now and in times gone by—I would appeal to them to put their backs into their work and to turn out ships and ships and ships in ever greater quantities, so that, as I have said, we can do our duty to the men who are fighting so valiantly for us on all the fronts, and who are fighting for us and not getting £6 or £8 or £10 a week. I know what I am laying myself open to from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) and others. It will be said that I have taken a good job and that my position has improved as a result of the War. That is the sort of thing that is being said. [An HON. MEMBER: NO, no!"] It was said last week. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark said so.
§ Mr. PRINGLEindicated dissent.
§ Mr. BARNESI have been reminded of this elsewhere. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, nothing would please me better personally 1322 than if I could get back into a back seat to-morrow. I never sought the position I am in, but while I am in it I am going to do the best I can, not to shout with the biggest crowd, but to appeal to the best instincts of the British working people throughout the length and breadth of the country. I believe now that if the working people of this country only knew what was due from them, if they only knew the difficulties of our men in the trenches, if they only knew the need there is for ships, and the output of all sorts of things at this moment, then, instead of being concerned, as they are very much concerned just now, in talking of all sorts of things, of philosophical affairs, Bolshevism, syndicalism, and various other things, all very interesting in their way—I wish to goodness the time had come when we could discuss them in calmer surroundings—I say the first duty of every man who loves his country and his kind is to work as hard as he can to turn out as much as he can, and to see to it that this fight for freedom by his country and by his mates is fought to a successful finish.
§ Mr. G. TERRELLI think every hon. Member is delighted with the speech of my right hon. Friend, and we can only hope that the effect throughout the country will be a much greater effort in the matter of work. I am perfectly sure that in almost every industry it is possible to get a greater output than we are obtaining at the present time, and that the step which was taken in granting the 12½ per cent. increase has not been in the direction of giving a greater output. It has simply meant more money to spend-This action was taken in disregard of the advice which was given by one of the great organisations which advised the Minister of Munitions in connection with the matter. This organisation, the Engineering Employers' Federation, advised that in any increase that was granted to the men it should be made a condition of the granting of the advance that greater output was to be obtained. If that had been done, instead of our losing as we are by the advance—for I think we are getting very little, if any, more output from any of the factories—we should have got greater output, and might have saved a large sum of money. It was stated that the advance was only going to cost £14,000,000, but that is only looking at it from the munitions point of view. Other estimates were made, and one of these estimates which I had occasion to repeat, 1323 and I do not think it was ever denied, was in the neighbourhood of £140,000,000. This advance has spread over every class of manufacture in the country. Every trade, one after the other, is demanding more and more money, and, instead of getting greater output, the result will be that the cost of every commodity must advance, because obviously as you increase the cost of labour the cost of the article that labour produces must increase with it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in his estimate that the cost of this increase to the country is far more than £14,000,000 or even £40,000,000. I believe it is some colossal figure, in the neighbourhood of £140,000,000, or possibly even more than that.
It was obvious that as you increased time rates so you would have to increase piece-work rates, and now the advance has been made on piece-work rate. That was a necessary consequence, but it does not follow that if the piece-work rates are increased that under the present system of work you would get anything in the nature of increased output. My right hon. Friend referred to men quitting piecework jobs in order to work on daytime jobs. It frequently happens that a man is on a piece job where he can hardly make his daytime rate, and the result is he asks to be transferred to day-work, particularly when day-work is being paid at the present rates. I am sorry I had not the opportunity of being present in the earlier part of the Debate, but I wish to take the opportunity of stating that a great deal which has been done by the Minister of Munitions in connection with this increase has been done most recklessly and without due regard to the interests of the nation as a whole. It has absolutely unsettled the manufacturing trade from one end of the country to the other. It is perfectly true that the Government has promised to refund to manufacturers the excess cost of labour, but you cannot ascertain it—it is so mixed, so involved. This increased cost will ultimately find its way on to the goods. A great deal of it will be lost to the State in the form of reduced Excess Profits Tax, and a great deal more will be lost in the form of reduced dividends. It has been a heavy blow to the manufacturing industries of the country.
The Ministry of Munitions are very much to blame for the way in which they 1324 have acted without consulting both parties to the transaction. I agree that it is necessary to consult labour, but it is equally necessary to consult employers, and it is a very bad thing for the country to find a Department of State butting in between employers and their workpeople and taking a line of their one. There has never been a time when employers as a whole were on better terms with their workpeople, but constant irritation is caused by this interference by the Ministry of Munitions. They seem to wish to run the whole trade of the country in their own way. Unless a change is made in this practice we shall find advance after advance being granted to labour, irrespective of the merits of the demand. I think that in many cases an increase was merited in the case of the highly skilled time-workers who, say, were engaged on making jigs and tools— work which could not be done by piece-work—-and who were getting less than the semi-skilled pieceworkers. But that ought to have been dealt with. A great mistake has been made, endless confusion has been caused, and I am certain that we shall find, when the accounts are sorted out, if ever they can be sorted out, that this advance is costing not only the State, from the point of view of the Ministry of Munitions, but the country as a whole, this huge sum of money.
§ Colonel Sir C. SEELYI desire to call the attention of the Minister of Munitions to the question which was raised earlier this afternoon of the closing of a certain number of works and the dispersal of a certain number of persons on account of the conclusion of contracts. He stated this afternoon that most of these persons were only on a week's notice. I f that is the case it is very important fur him to see that care is taken that no hardship is caused to these persons in those circumstances. I can quite understand that it may be more convenient both to the Minister of Munitions and to the workpeople themselves that the normal notice should be only a week, because in the cases of individual people leaving a week's notice may be quite sufficient, and at the present time any one, or two, or even a moderate number of persons leaving their work, can find no difficulty in getting other sources of employment. But when anything like the number mentioned to-day of 8,000 persons is suddenly thrown out of work it must cause dislocation in the 1325 immediate neighbourhood, which, unless care is taken, will produce a considerable amount of hardship.
I would suggest that in cases of that kind the persons who are going to leave should have at last a month or six weeks' full notice, and not only general notice that so many thousand persons in a particular shop are going to be dismissed, but that, the actual individual people who will have to leave should be given a full month's or six weeks' notice in order to enable them to find work in another place. If it is thought not desirable for financial reasons to give that notice, then some special consideration should be given to them, and they should have a month or a fortnight, or there should be some sort of bonus, or an arrangement for railway fares, so as to enable them to live for a time until they find other work, and, if necessary, to go to some other place. Of course, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly acquainted with the matter, and I am sure that he will consider it. I dare say that he is well aware of the difficulty that will arise. By far the best way of dealing with the matter is to allow the persons themselves full and ample time in which, knowing what will happen, they may find some other work, and, if necessary, may go to other districts. This is all the more important, because a considerable number of the persons, I understand, are girls, and one does not want girls to be thrown suddenly on their beam-ends, it may be, some distance from their own homes. I. trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a distinct assurance that he will not only consider the matter himself, but that all those concerned in different parts of the country will take steps to secure that none of these people, many of whom have come forward with considerable patriotism to assist their country in difficult circumstances, shall be allowed to be changed in circumstances which will subject them to inconvenience, or loss, or even discomfort.
Sir F. BAN BURYIt was brought to my notice yesterday that at a certain Petty Sessional Court a man was summoned for damages, who stated that he was a turner employed at munition works in Coventry. He was asked what he earned, and he admitted that he was earning £5 15s. a week. I do not know how much more he earned, but that was his admission. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that £5 15s. 1326 a week is a very extravagant sum to pay a turner in munition works? If these enormous sums are paid, it is not surprising that the expenditure of the country is rising in the way which it is. There can be no question about the accuracy of this, because the man admitted it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, and see whether or not the money of the country is not being wasted in an unnecessary way.
§ Mr. WATTThe right hon. Member for Blackfriars this afternoon made a most interesting statement dealing with the question of the 12½ per cent. bonus I would like to ask him four questions in reference to that bonus. When the. 12½ per cent. bonus was first mooted, did he support it in the War Cabinet? Was a Committee of two, consisting of himself and Lord Milner, appointed to consider and decide the matter? Did that Committee report to the War Cabinet in favour of the 12½ per cent.? And thereupon did the War Cabinet adopt it? In order to have a fair discussion of the controversy in this House it is necessary to have enlightenment on these points, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend will explain openly, as he always does in these matters, what was the line of action which he took on the question of the 12½ per cent.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)Before I deal with what many Members will regard as the most interesting part of the discussion, there are one or two points to which I must refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark asked some questions about a strike or lock-out affecting a certain firm. In these matters there is very often a conflict of opinion as to whether a strike or a lock-out exists. That was the position here. The firm stated that it was a strike, and the men said that it was in fact a lock-out. The material fact at this moment is that the dispute has been settled to the satisfaction of all parties. In the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the matter further. Then the organisation of the Priority Department under the Ministry was referred to by my hon. Friend. That Department has only come under my care within the last few days. Some reorganisation has taken place which will bring it more immediately under my purview. I will take particular note of the criticism made by 1327 my hon. Friend, and will see how far it is possible to meet it, so far as that criticism is reasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke criticised the statement which I made in the House last week as to the cost of the 12½ per cent. bonus, and suggested that I conveyed the impression that the cost of the whole ramifications of this 12½ per cent. was £14,000,000.
§ Mr. ROCHI never suggested that at all. I said that it ought to have been taken into consideration in adopting that policy. What I suggested was that the £14,000,000 does not cover the pieceworkers.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI made it quite clear that the £14,000,000 referred in fact to the time-workers paid by the Ministry of Munitions and also those paid by the Admiralty, but does not include the 7½per cent. which has been paid to pieceworkers under the direction of the Ministry of Labour. My speech was strictly accurate in terms. I did not intend to leave, and I do not think that I left on the House the impression that the £14,000,000 covered the whole cost of the ramifications of the scheme.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI said at the time that I stood by the figure which I gave, and I still stand by it. There was one other point raised by my hon. Friend as to the increase of production. He conveyed that in the speech which I made last week I had told the House that there was an enormous increase since the granting of the 12½ per cent. Here is what I said:
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 12½ per cent. bonus was operative over a portion of that period, showed an increase.I then went on to give the percentage of increases to which my hon. Friend referred, and I wound up by saying,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." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 18th February, 1918; cols. 553 and 5541328 That is a statement which, I think, accurately describes the situation, and I do not see that it can be more accurately described. So far as criticism of its accuracy is concerned. I think it has broken down. I stand by what I said. My right hon. Friend opposite called my attention to the case of a turner who was earning £5 15s. a week in Coventry.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHe admitted it.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI do not think that there is necessarily anything vicious in a man working hard at piece-work, as this man probably was, and earning large wages. On the contrary, I welcome it. If this £5 15s. was the result of increased production by the man's putting his back into his work, I am very glad that the employer, as often has happened in. the past, did not cut down the man's rates. I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's criticism in, this particular case until I know more of the facts, but if this is a case of a man on piece-work— and in all probability it is—the fact of his earning a large sum may be a proper recognition of his increased production, and the increased energy he has put into his work. If my right hon. Friend will give me further particulars of the case I will examine into it. My hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Chippenham, stated that, in connection with the 12½ per cent., the Ministry consulted one side only. He will allow me respectfully to differ from him. The same consultation took place with the employers as took place with the trade unions. The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not accept the view of the employers; but, where you have a composite Committee representative of various interests the Ministry cannot, of necessity, accept the view of every interest in that Committee. The thing is obviously impossible. All that can be asked is that a Minister in the position of my right hon. Friend shall see that every interest properly concerned is consulted. He cannot give an undertaking that the views of every interest necessarily shall be taken.
I want to refer to what was said by the hon. Baronet below the Gangway. I have had to answer a question in this House this afternoon with regard to the discharges of women munition workers, 1329 and my hon. friend has pressed me again particularly about the possibility of giving increased notice to these women. I would like to point out that this is really among the most serious work which the labour side of the Ministry has to do. It is real and serious work to endeavour to meet all these great human problems which must necessarily arise out of the decisions that have to be taken by the Minister—curtailment of programme or increase of programme. I would like to say that the problem is one which, in my view, cannot be dealt with entirely on economic lines. I am afraid that statement will not meet with the approval of financial authorities like my right hon. Friend opposite. He would take the view that in any limitation of our programme we should see that the limited production is continued in those factories where production can be most cheaply turned out. That is a view one would wish to take, a policy one would wish to adopt. But I do not believe it is the policy that any man, in these grave times, and having the responsibility which my. right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, would care to enforce rigidly throughout the whole of this country. There are other considerations, besides the consideration of cheap production. In time of war the country cannot afford to have large numbers of unemployed and discontented people, if there are any means by which that can be avoided. It might prove to be far more expensive than if you decided to distribute your production over the whole country in such a. way as best to meet the social difficulties which may arise as the result of your decisions. Here are some of the considerations you have to bear in mind. In the limitation of your programme, is it not of importance that you should say that if a certain number of men or women have to be discharged, they shall be discharged in those areas where there is the best opportunity of alternative employment? That is a relevant consideration I submit. It is also a relevant consideration that if you have to limit your programme with the result of a large number of discharges, those discharges should take place in your most congested areas, so as to relieve the pressure on your housing problem. You cannot, in fact, deal with this practical problem merely from the economic point of view.
1330 You cannot deal with it exclusively from the point of view of financial considerations. In answer to a question put to me this afternoon, I said that sympathetic consideration would be given to the proposal to give free railway passage to those women who wanted to return to their homes. If I used the term, "sympathetic consideration," instead of giving a distinct undertaking, it is because the Ministry of Munitions is not a free agent—that is to say, there are other interests in the State, and other Departments to consult. But when I use the phrase "sympathetic consideration," I mean it to convey that the Government do view this as a problem which cannot be looked at exclusively from the financial point of view, and that these women have a good claim for particular consideration. I did not want to commit the Government further than I am entitled to do when I said ' sympathetic consideration "; on the other hand, I did not mean it to be an empty phrase. We have got to deal with all these very difficult problems by a number of ameliorative measures. I hope we shall be able, in some cases, to extend the time of contract. For instance, where the contract provides for the production of a million shells over six months, it could be arranged for the production of a million shells over twelve months, and so reduce to some extent, where practicable, the; amount of unemployment that otherwise would be caused. You can also abolish overtime and Sunday labour, and abolish night shifts in some cases. I do not think it would be desirable in every case to do any or all of these things. But in certain circumstances any or all of them may be with advantage used in order to reduce distress that otherwise might be caused by a too rigid reduction in your programme. It is especially necessary so to carry out this policy, so to carry out the reduction of your programme, as to give the earliest opportunity to those discharged to get other forms of National Service. The whole of the machinery of the Government is being used in order to see that is done. The House must remember that any decisions which are taken now in this connection may have very far reaching effects. If I do not go so far as many Members of the House wish me to go, it is because I have in mind that decisions taken now, in connection with this, 1331 which I may describe as limited and experimental demobilisation, might carry us very far when the time of real demobilisation comes.
In regard to the question of longer notice being given, so far as that is a practical proposal, we are doing all we can in the Ministry to have it made effective. But you cannot, I think, lay down a hard and fast rule. If it is required that employers shall give four weeks' or six weeks' notice to their workpeople, then that must be a mutual obligation, and the employer may require that any of his people desiring to leave him must give him a month or six weeks' notice. I am not at all sure that the Labour organisations in this country would welcome a proposal of that kind. So far as it is practicable we will do everything possible to give the longest notice that can be given, and further than that I do not think it is desirable that I should go. The discharges so far have particularly affected women. I do not think any man in the country has done more to express the public sense of gratitude for the work of the women than I have done. Nobody appreciates it more than I do; nobody has had greater opportunities than I have had of seeing to what extent the magnificent women munition workers of this land have enabled us to resist the overwhelming onslaught by Germany upon this country. They have in a very real sense saved this country. They have armed our men; they have helped to make our Armies the best equipped Armies fighting in this great struggle. I should be the last man, by a soulless application of our policy, to do anything to put hardships upon these women. I recognise that it is because of the splendid work they have done our reserves of ammunition are so enormous we can face this necessary reduction forced upon us by the limitation of material without fear as to its military effect. So far as I am able to influence the policy of the Ministry it will not be guided exclusively by financial considerations in dealing with this problem. We certainly shall not forget the debt of gratitude we owe to the women munition workers of this country.
My last observation will be in regard to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). I stand in a difficult position.
1332 I think it was Hamlet who asked pity for the man who stood between the incensed points of mighty opposites. It is due from me to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, who is not in this country at the moment, but is serving the Army in France in connection with the production of one of the most important essentials of war—it is due from me to him to say that in the various steps in regard to the 12½per cent. bonus there was consultation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars has admitted, he and Lord Milner were appointed by the War Cabinet to inquire as to the application of this 12½per cent. bonus. My right hon. Friend said so in his remarks here to-night, and that was one of the most material facts in his speech. I stated last week that I had no admiration for the secrecy with which it was attempted to surround Departmental decisions. You cannot expect to have absolute unity of view on any great questions of policy. There was never any doubt about the fact that various members of the Government did not take the same view in regard to the 12½ per cent. bonus. But what about it? For my part, I do not suppose you are ever going to get a Coalition worth its salt of which the members do not on many questions disagree with one another. So long as the disagreement is expressed in tolerant terms, and with due regard to the loyalty which one member of the Government owes to another, there is no harm done. But there may be a great deal of good in letting the public know that this hugger-mugger idea that no two members of the same Government must differ, but that they must all entertain the same view in regard to policy, does not apply to this Government. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that, as far as he is concerned, he does not intend to be bound down by any such rigid uniformity of view. I think the attitude to be adopted by members of the Government on these questions was well summed up by the apostle St. Paul, who said—I am not quite certain that I am quoting the exact words—
§ Mr. PRINGLEThey should be, "All things to all men."
§ Mr. KELLAWAYNo. In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things—charity. I listened with a cer- 1333 tain amount of regret to one or two things which fell from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), but I also listened with great admiration to the spirit which animated him and which to some extent rather obscured in his own mind the effect on outside opinion of what he was saying. The substantial fact remains that this 12½ per cent. bonus in its application was entrusted by the War Cabinet to my right hon, Friend and to Lord Milner to deal with. My right hon. Friend and I do not agree. Perhaps that is not so important as the consideration of my right hon. Friend's disagreement with the Minister of Munitions. But when the industrial history of this country during the War comes to be written I am not afraid of being held as one of those responsible for the 12½per cent. bonus and its application. I stand by what I said at this box last week in regard to it. You have to take a long view in these matters. You have to forget the irritation and ferment, as it were, which bubbled up at one time and appeared to obscure the horizon. Bearing that in mind, I think the ultimate verdict will be that it was a wise act of policy. I, for one, though I was not intimately concerned in the application of the 12½per cent. bonus, do not regret the decision of the Government to apply it. I am sorry my right hon. Friend felt it necessary to make the observations he did. I am not criticising him for it. Anyone who listened to him must have seen he was moved by a very deep feeling on this question. But in the future, looking back on all that has taken place, and comparing the industrial situation to-day with what it was during the engineers' strike, I am certain that this 12½ per cent. bonus will be regarded in the future as a wise act of policy.
§ Mr. BARNESWith the permission of the House, I would like to reply to three definite questions which have been addressed to me by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). The first question was, "Did I support the 12½ per cent. bonus when it was first mooted by the War Cabinet? "The short answer to that question would be, "No, I did not." But I do not want my hon. Friend to go away with an incomplete answer which would not be fair either to him or myself, and the question does not admit of being answered in a short way. As a matter of fact, the 12½per cent. was scarcely thought of when the 1334 question was first mooted in the war Cabinet. It was dealt with in the report of a committee that had gone exhaustively into the question and had brought up, I think, three separate plans. One of these, I remember quite well, was marked "C," and it involved giving an advance of wages to a very small number of men. I forget the number, but I know the proposal embraced only those men whom my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions had in his mind a couple of months earlier when he spoke on this matter. He wanted to give a rise of wages to those people who did not work piece-work and who were supervising other people who were making more money than themselves. This particular report "C" included only those people. It was difficult to grade them, because one class merged into another and it was found necessary to include some others. I supported that particular scheme when it was first mooted at the Cabinet, and under that scheme the 12½ per cent. did not apply at all. I hope I have given an answer to that question. It is "No," with the qualifications I have mentioned. The second question was whether I was appointed along with Lord Milner to consider and decide the question. The answer to that is, "Yes, I was," and on the very day that the War Cabinet appointed us we had a meeting, at which were present all those who we thought were best qualified to guide the Government in this matter, because they were dealing with the question from day to day, and their words ought to be taken as a guidance by us. We held the meeting the same afternoon, and as a result Lord Milner and I, having heard all the evidence, were persuaded that on the whole the 12½per cent. should be given to a very much larger number of men than was included in the smaller proposal. In view of the advice tendered us and in the hope of saving future trouble we decided on the 12½ per cent. being given to a larger number of workmen than was proposed under the smaller scheme. The other question was, "Did your Committee of two report in favour of paying it? "That question I have already answered. I should like to say this in conclusion. I want to support what has fallen from my hon. Friend who spoke last. We did take into consultation all those who we felt ought to be consulted, all the parties concerned. We got the advice of those best qualified to give advice. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend at all, but I 1335 repeat we got the best advice we could and acted on it, and from the time it became a matter of collective responsibility I was just as much responsible as my hon. Friend was.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Twentieth Resolution,
§ "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 Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Shipping."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ 8.0 P.M
§ Mr. PRINGLEThis is a very important Vote, and there are one or two questions upon which I should like to get some explanation, especially in view of the growing gravity of the shipping position —a gravity emphasised in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) this evening, and also by the statement of the War Cabinet appearing in the Press on Monday morning, to the effect that ships in the Trans-Atlantic trade were to be devoted exclusively to the. carrying of troops. In view of that statement, I wish to know whether it is the case that in recent months there has been a diversion of certain ships going from our shipping ports to American ports to Newfoundland ports, and whether it was for the purpose of taking the pulp of the Anglo-Newfoundland Trust to America for the benefit of American publishers; also whether, in view of the situation created by the recent decision of the Shipping Controller, the Government intend to adhere to this method of dealing with the ships? I put this question because the whole matter has been ventilated in the Canadian Press, and there have been references to certain business arrangements whereby this pulp, which used to come to the United Kingdom, is made available for the United States. Some suggestions have been made regarding the motives underlying this policy. I make no suggestion. On the other hand, I think it important, seeing that this matter has been discussed in the Press of one of our most important 1336 Dominions, that we should receive a statement upon it from the representative of the Shipping Controller here as to whether the facts are as I have put them to my hon. Friend, and whether, in view of the changed conditions, it is the intention of the Shipping Controller to continue to divert ships for this purpose. I understand the delay involved in this diversion amounts to something like seven days, and if it is as long as that it is obviously a matter of importance.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money)I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend has not given me notice on this particular point, because it obviously relates to particular shipments as to which I could have very readily made inquiry if he had given me notice. I can only say that I have no knowledge what ever of such diversions. As I understand it, the allegation to which my hon. Friend referred is that ships were specially diverted to go to Newfoundland to obtain paper material, or paper —
§ Mr. PRINGLEPulp
Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY —pulp for this company. I can only assure my hon. Friend that, to the best of my knowledge and belief at this moment, that allegation is absolutely untrue; but, as he has raised the point, I will take care very specially to investigate it, and I will communicate the result of the inquiry to him personally, or, if he will put a question on the Paper, I shall be very pleased to answer him in the frankest possible manner. I can say at once that the statement with which he began his remarks, that the Government is giving priority to food, is well known, and I think that will enable him by itself to attach proper importance to the other matter to which he referred.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but this arrangement was made before the arrangement for priority of food—at least, so it was alleged by the Canadian Press. The arrangement was made some time ago, and, so far as I could gather, the statement was made on behalf of the company mentioned that the arrangement was actually in operation, and the secretary of the company admitted that the delay amounted to seven days.
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI will repeat the promise I have made to investigate very carefully indeed that subject, and I 1337 can also promise very faithfully that if it is found to have any truth whatever in it the practice will be stopped.
§ Question pat, and agreed to.