STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.

HC Deb 22 July 1918 vol 108 cc1445-8

Colonel W. THORNE

(by Private, Notice) asked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been drawn to a leaderette in to-day's "Chronicle" in connection with the threatened strike of munition workers, which alleges that a certain firm at Coventry posted a notice worded in such a way as to create an impression that the district rate of wages was to be destroyed; if he is aware that Mr. John Hill, the General Secretary of the Boilermakers'. Society, has stated that the action taken by the Ministry of Munitions in restricting the powers of certain firms to freely engage workmen is a considerable extension of the proposals made by the Ministry in June last which the Trade Union Advisory Committee could not accept; and if he will make a statement on the whole position?

The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Churchill)

My attention has been drawn to the terms of the notice referred to by my hon. Friend. The notice is not official, and the Ministry of Munitions is not responsible for its wording. It appears to be an inaccurate summary of instructions issued by the Ministry of Munitions, and only to have been posted, according to my present information, in the works of a single firm in Coventry. There is, of course, no question of any reduction in the district rates of wages. Steps have been taken to make this clear.

I may mention that there is at the present time an unsatisfied demand for skilled men to the extent of between 50,000 and 60,000 for whom war work could immediately be found. Skilled men, therefore, have an enormous choice of employment open to them, and this is not appreciably affected by the fact that, in the present scarcity of skilled labour, we cannot allow firms who already have more than their proper share to add to their staffs.

With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have seen the statement referred to by Mr. John Hill, the general secretary of the Boilermakers' Society. The action taken by the Ministry of Munitions is no extension of the proposals made in June last. On the contrary, it was clearly foreshadowed by me as one of the safeguards contingent upon the abolition of the leaving certificate as far back as 15th August last year. Perhaps I may read to the House the actual words I used: What is called poaching, or potential poaching, by employers of any fluid labour can be prevented by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I shall hold myself free to utilise that. I do not wish to say that what has taken place in the firms upon which we placed the embargo constitutes poaching. Poaching should properly be defined as bribing men away from other firms. I do not make that accusation at all, but over-staffing and the readiness to exaggerate over-staffing belongs rather to the realm of potential poaching, and is, therefore, entirely covered by the statement I made nearly a year ago.

All these proposals, both for engaging additional war munitions volunteers, and for restricting over-staffing by certain firms, were fully explained to the Trade Union Advisory Committee at several meetings in April last. The Trade Union Advisory Committee were not asked to take responsibility which properly belongs to the Government, and I have never sought to throw an unfair burden upon them. At the same time, it is right to say that the result of those conferences led all who were present to the conviction that trade unionists and the workmen generally throughout the country were resolute to repair the damage which the military disasters of March last had caused, and to support the national cause by every means in their power, and especially by liberating men and making munitions. To that conviction we still adhere with the utmost confidence.

Colonel THORNE

What efforts are being made to avoid this awful calamity? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, so far as the executive of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers are concerned, they have deprecated the action taken?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I know that every effort has been made by responsible trade union leaders to remove the misunderstanding, and I am in close touch and consultation with them.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps for the immediate removal of all persons of German origin from any Department of the Ministry?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I really do not think that has anything to do with the question.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I am sorry you do not.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I hope that matter will not be mixed up with this entirely different, complicated, and delicate question.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Is it true that there are persons of German origin in important positions in the Labour Department of the Ministry?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I must adhere to what I said, that it has nothing to do with this. I understand that a Committee is about to be set up for the purpose of examining this very question, and I will not in any circumstances prejudice the status of individuals whose cases can be reviewed by a properly constituted and competent tribunal.

Mr. PRINGLE

Cannot the Ministry deal with individual cases of alleged over-staffing with skilled men without issuing a general declaration likely to cause unrest all over the country?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I do not think we have issued a general declaration. A letter has been sent to certain firms telling them that they have got enough, and must not engage more skilled men.

Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT

Why is it that these Labour questions are not dealt with by the Labour Ministry, especially constituted for the purpose?

Mr. CHURCHILL

That is a very large question, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise that there is no more anxious or thankless task than this work of the Ministry of Munitions. It would be much easier and a less thankless task if we could transfer all these difficulties en bloc to another Department and simply criticise any difficulties they get—and which are largely inherited—in the present situation. But at the present time I am responsible for the welfare of the great mass of munition workers, on whom we depend for our output, and I do not think, looking back over the year, that we have any reason to be dissatisfied.

Colonel THORNE

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that men wanting to leave any particular firm are free to choose any employment they like, with the exception of a certain number of firms who have more skilled men than they require, while there is a shortage in other parts of the country?

Mr. CHURCHILL

That is the exact position. It is hardly possible to sum it up more cogently than my hon. Friend has done. Only he might have added that the number of firms which are subject to the embargo are an infinitesimal part of the number of firms open for free engagement.