§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions, with reference to the unrest in the munition areas, whether, having regard to the fact that the vast majority of skilled workers recognise the necessity of some scheme of rationing skilled labour, he will not set up joint councils or committees, as recommended by the Whitley Report, so that employers and workmen may devise means of increasing the mobility of skilled labour?
§ The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Churchill)I have already stated, in reply to a resolution passed at Coventry, that it is open to a trade union advisory committee, or any branch of it, to discuss the administration of any scheme affecting labour. It is very difficult to express an opinion as to machinery without the necessary discussion with the responsible representatives of labour and also with 1815 the representatives of the employers. But if from these bodies we receive suggestions of a practical character, the machinery exists for their discussion, and it would be quite easy to carry any decision come to into effect.
Sir F. HALLMay I ask whether, when the 12½ per cent. bonus was granted, that was done entirely in accordance with the representatives of Labour, whether they were consulted, and whether their advice was entirely followed?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLReally, the difficulty of the 12½ per cent. bonus, I think, is past. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We have enough difficulties to consider at the present time.
Mr. TYSON WILSONMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department, before issuing orders affecting the policy of the Government, and also the conditions of the workpeople, consult the people directly affected, and, if not, will he, before issuing these orders; consult the people, and therefore avoid this strike and the threatened strike?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWe do our utmost, as far as possible, to consult with the responsible representatives of the working classes as represented by the principal trade unions in the country. On the other hand, we do not try to make these men responsible for action which properly falls to the Government to decide. It would not be fair that we should do so. We hear their opinions. We take their advice. But we do not claim in all circumstances their support. In this case we have taken fully and thoroughly over a long period of weeks, even of months, the advice and the opinion of the responsible leaders of the trade unions. What is occurring now is action which is not supported—which has not been initiated—by those responsible leaders nor by the local leaders, but by other forces unorganised, or at any rate unofficially organised, which are below them, who have pressed forward their point of view. While one endeavours on all occasions to consult and keep in touch with those concerned, it really is not possible while administering the government of such an immense body of workers to deal with any particular section who happen, however unofficially and informally their constitution may be, to have put forward a strong view. If you 1816 were to do that you would really fatally weaken the authority of the recognised and responsible leaders.
§ Mr. PRINGLEArising out of that, I wish to ask the Minister whether it is not the case that, in connection with a former dispute at Coventry, a promise was made to act in conjunction with the representatives of the shop stewards as well as the responsible trade union leaders; whether that policy has been pursued; and, further, whether it is not the case that the great majority of the troubles in the munitions areas in the country have been due to the Government policy of confining their consultations to those described as the responsible heads of the trade unions, and of ignoring others who really are entitled to represent the men?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, Sir; I think that would be a most unjust charge. In the first place, so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned, we are always ready to meet the responsible leaders or any persons of a representative character that they may wish to bring with them. If, for instance, any trade union or skilled union affected said, "We should like to bring delegations of shop stewards here or there," we would readily meet them—that is in London. In addition to that, discussions have been proceeding between our representatives and the men in the local centres, and have proceeded with these very shop stewards and with organisations still more unofficial than they are. There has been absolutely no lack of touch or of discussion. I must say that I believe there is very little misunderstanding on either side, as to the issues involved.
Sir F. HALLArising out of the reply to my former question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not attribute the present trouble to the attitude which was adopted in November last, when he first gave this 12½ per cent.; whether he does not think that the system of granting these increases from one Department without consultation or co-operation with the other Departments concerned is a suicidal policy to adopt in this or any other country?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLCertainly not!
§ Mr. D. MASONIs the right hon. Gentleman willing to-day to call a conference of all those concerned?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLTo call a conference of all those concerned would mean many scores of thousands of persons. I cannot do that.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is not practical machinery.
§ Mr. MASONDoes not the right hon. Gentleman know that all those concerned have certain delegates who represent them, and will he not, therefore, call a conference of these representatives?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe difficulty in this matter is that one does not know who represents these persons. I should like to point out to the House that the local associations representing these trades—not the general trade union, but the local body—have themselves called upon the men to remain at their work, and they have been thrown over by the purely unorganised forces.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThere is no need to do so.