§ Mr. SHAWI desire to refer to a topic which we are informed is to be the subject of most grave decisions affecting the future of this country within the next few days. I refer to the question of the publication of tonnage losses, and, more especially, to the question of the ultimate control over mercantile shipbuilding in this country. We have often been referred by right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Government Bench to the parallel between this War and the Napoleonic Wars. That parallel is applicable in some respects. No doubt the tenacity and determination of the people are the same, but there is one great difference. During the Napoleonic Wars our trade increased, and at the end of the Napoleonic Wars our tonnage was greater than at the beginning. Now the volume of our foreign trade is decreasing and our tonnage is rapidly and cumulatively diminishing. That is the difference between the Napoleonic Wars and this War, and if the country and the Government are not very careful in this decision which is to be taken it will be the difference between victory and defeat. It is a comfortable doctrine that this country is destined to victory because it has always been victorious in the past. No doubt, as an historic fact, that is so, and history is good, but we must regard the actual facts of to-day. There is no use telling a man whose jugular vein is severed that he need not worry about it because he has previously recovered from fits of bleeding at 604 the nose. The situation is grave under those circumstances, and the only sensible thing to do is to take instant action to save that man's life.
It is necessary to speak on this subject at this time with brutal frankness, and, though I do not propose, until the Government says the word, to give away any figures of tonnage losses even in the most guarded way, yet it is necessary to speak as frankly as possible about this subject now. If this problem were really insoluble, and if the country were not only bleeding but destined to bleed to death, then, no doubt, the more wise and patriotic course would be silence. But we believe that this problem is not insoluble, and that it requires only the application of the same vision, the same energy, the same tact, and the same methods as were applied by the present Prime Minister to the production of munitions of war. What was done in that case? In that case the production of munitions of war was taken from the War Office and placed in a civilian Department, the result being that the broad view replaced the narrow view, and that co-operation took the place of dictation. Here with regard to this vital matter you have absolutely reversed that process. You have taken what is essentially a civilian service, and you have placed mercantile shipbuilding at the caprice of a fighting Department. What has been the result? So far as I can gather, the output of mercantile tonnage has during the last few months been low, alarmingly low, and thoroughly unsatisfactory, although this matter was taken over from the Ministry of Shipping as a going concern. We were some time ago given to understand that mercantile shipbuilding was to have priority—not, indeed, over necessary naval repairs, but priority in its claims on account of the gravity of the situation—on men and materials for the shipyards, and now to-day rumour has it that this policy has been quietly reversed —reversed by the Admiralty at the Admiralty dictation, and that now—I give these figures with all reserve, but I believe them to be substantially true—in this great crisis, in which mercantile shipbuilding is the most vital necessity to the nation, about 70 per cent. of the men and the material in the shipyards is devoted, under the aegis of the Admiralty, entirely to naval construction, at the time when the American Fleet has joined ours, when to have the command, of the sea will be 605 almost ridiculous if we are not able to do that which is necessary to the continuance of the existence of the nation. Only 30 per cent., or something like that, of that material and labour is available for the most urgent and vital of all our national needs, so that, whatever be the proportions, there is a strong and indignant feeling growing up in the country that naval construction, which has always been the most severe competitor of mercantile construction, now claims and receives—graciously receives—a dangerously unfair proportion of our men and material. Admiralty men, who are necessarily trained to think only along the grooves of naval construction, now really dominate the whole situation, and, as a matter of fact, they have mercantile shipbuilding at their mercy.
Speaking as a member for a shipbuilding constituency who has just returned from a visit to the Clyde, I take leave to say that the present management of this matter—and I say it with all gravity, and a due sense of responsibility—is having a most disheartening effect both upon masters and upon men. How can the masters settle down to do their best when almost every day brings its fresh crop of new orders and alterations involving endless expenditure and waste of effort, energy and time? And, then, how can the men give their best when, after they have, perhaps—I am speaking from what I actually know, and it is vain to tell me these instances do not occur, for I have seen them with my own eyes—given for weeks and months their best efforts on the construction of a hull, they are suddenly told one morning that they have to commence at once undoing what they have done? What can we say to convince them that their energies and efforts at the bottom of the scale are not being frittered away by the muddling of those at the top? To get the best out of these men, I venture to say, you must do two things. You must convince them that their efforts and energies are being used to the best advantage of the State. You cannot convince them of that so long as such a situation as I have tried to depict continues Then you must tell them the real truth about the tonnage situation. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will remember a certain interview which we had with him a good many months ago. Those of us who have for months past known the actual facts about the cumulative loss of carrying capacity, and who 606 desire to bring home to shipbuilding constituencies and to the nation the reality of the need for a supreme effort, have found ourselves always up against this embargo upon the publication of tonnage-figures. The German people are allowed, to believe the inflated figures published by their own Government, but the British people are denied access to the real facts.
What is the remark which Members for shipbuilding constituencies have so often, heard when they have discussed this-matter with their Constituents? It is. this, "We don't know what to believe." I heard that last week-end. I am sure I have heard it scores of times. Optimism flashes across the stage, and then comes-the dark shade of pessimism. What are we to believe? These men are sensible men, who have done their very best in the dark, but they work best in the shipyards, as elsewhere, in the full light of day. It is no use lecturing these men. They are patriotic men. It is no good delivering tart lectures to thorn from a supreme height. If you could go down to the yards and tell them the situation, tell them how it looks at present, that unless efforts are made of the most gigantic character this nation will bleed to death, that we have no margin left over the wants of Government Departments, and" that all depends upon their efforts—if you tell them these things there is some chance of that effort on which the life of the nation depends.
Those of us who feel most strongly on this matter have hitherto kept silent. We have never at any time either embarrassed or harassed the Government, but we do in all sincerity say to them now, "Let there be an end to this absolutely intolerable situation." The crisis is too grave for half measures or half truths. If the matter is allowed to drift as at present it will mean the loss of the War. It is too big and too vital a matter to be any longer a mere-Admiralty side-show, a mere minor and auxiliary branch of a fighting Department. It demands at its head a man not under the thumb of a competing Department, but vested with real power and authority; and, above all, I would venture to say it demands that the truth be told. To tell the nation the truth about these matters will be to brace it to new efforts. It is ignorance and uncertainty that lead to discontent and sap the energies of the people. I venture to say that from the moment the Government 607 takes these two steps we shall have begun to turn the corner in this matter, and that tonnage, which is now the most dark and menacing factor of the situation, will begin to become what it has always been in past wars, and what it can be made to-day, our surest guarantee—in fact, our only guarantee—of ultimate victory.
§ Mr. FRANCELike my hon. Friend, I make no apology for raising once more this question of merchant shipping. We wish to enter a protest, and to offer arguments why this Department of merchant shipbuilding should be taken from the Admiralty and put, as my hon. Friend said into a Department which thoroughly understands the details of the question and is independent of the control which the Admiralty at present wields. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Admiralty said the other day that he welcomed a discussion on this subject, and would like it to be ventilated in the House. He advanced an argument which some Members thought was a very good one, and to which he attached considerable importance, that to remove at this stage this Department from the Admiralty to another Department would -cause considerable delay and prevent the output of ships. I wish to confine myself to dealing with that point, and to address arguments, which I hope will influence his mind and also the Leader of the House and members of the War Cabinet, to show that this is not a sound view. It seems to me to arise from an entirely false conception of what control is. This Department is not building ships. It is not a business on which the right hon. Gentleman is engaged. If he was starting a new business, if he was transferring a business from one hand to another, then I could understand his argument. It is for the improvement of control we are asking. We have heard it very often said that you must not swop horses when crossing a stream. There is no proposal here to swop horses, but there is a proposal to change the man on the box; to substitute for the irritating use of the whip and the heavy hand upon the reins the light touch of proper, efficient and enlightened control. There is no real need for any delay if these Departments were changed. There was no delay, on the contrary there was an improvement when the Shipping Controller took over the work which hitherto I do not say had been badly 608 conducted but had not been so completely controlled when it was in the hands of the Board of Trade. An improvement of control there improved the output. There was a steady increase in shipbuilding during 1916; it was not a rapid and sufficient increase, but it was going up. At the end of 1916, when the control came into the hands of the Shipping Controller, that increase went on steadily. Nevertheless the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty had to admit failure, and that is the gravamen of our charge. The right hon. Gentleman had to admit that although the merchant shipping output had increased of late it had not steadily increased. Those who have seen the line of shipbuilding know that in the middle of 1917, when the control passed from the Shipping Controller into the hands of the Admiralty the line instead of steadily going up began to wobble. First it went up and then down. In November and December, 1917, it went up rapidly, but in January and February it fell tragically, and the First Lord of the Admiralty came down here a few days ago and admitted to the House and the country the most tragic failure in the output of shipbuilding in January and February last. He looks where to put the blame, and then he puts it upon the masters and men; but they are the same masters and men who turned out a record in 1913, and if the control had been properly managed, if there had been an independent control with regard to the placing of the men in merchant shipbuilding work then, the men and masters who could turn out in 1913 a record could, under proper management and control, have done the same, thing in 1917. and they can do it now.
The control that is required appears to me to be that the Government should interfere as little as possible with the actual management, or with the knowledge and experience of the men engaged in this highly technical, highly scientific, and specialised trade. But the Government must supply the two elements necessary for success, namely, men and material. What has happened with regard to the men? My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench (Mr. H. Samuel) in the Debate last Wednesday pointed out that although certain promises were made with regard to men they have not been fulfilled. A most hopeful estimate was presented last year with regard to the output of ships. I firmly believe 609 that that estimate might now have been in course of realisation if the conditions attached to the estimate had been fulfilled. The War Cabinet know perfectly well that that estimate of 2,000,000 tons, Increasing eventually to 3,000,000 tons, was accompanied by conditions that so many thousands of men should be supplied to merchant shipbuilding and so many thousands tons of steel should be supplied for that purpose. Then there comes in Government control and the assistance which is required by the masters and shipbuilders in time of war, and the man-power and materials are not forthcoming in that direction. Those promises have not been carried out. My hon. Friend pointed out the reason. The representation in the War Cabinet of the need of merchant shipping must inevitably come at present through the personnel and through the mouthpiece of the right hon. Gentleman who is First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not making any sort of attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, far from it; but I do say that when the question of man-power and of material has to be presented to the War Cabinet it could be presented better, more independently, and more strongly in the interests of merchant shipbuilding if it were presented by a man whose first and sole interest it was to see that vital necessity of the country wag put before them. So long as the First Lord of the Admiralty is the mouthpiece, he will be influenced in his representations 'by the fact that it is his primary duty to look after the naval fighting forces of the country.
When the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke a few days ago, a very strong appeal was made that this matter should be looked at by the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet as the munitions question was looked at in the year 1915. I cannot find words sufficiently impressive to urge upon the War Cabinet that at this time this question of merchant shipping stands infinitely more important in the life of the country than the question of the control of the War Office over the supply of munitions stood in 1915. What happened then? The late Prime Minister made a speech in the country with regard to the supply of munitions, which has been often referred to. He made that speech, I have not the slightest doubt, supported by information which was given him by the experts upon whom he then relied. It turned out that "there was a necessity for a change. There 610 was no question raised as to the delay that would be caused by making a change from the War Office to a new Ministry of Munitions. The change was made, and the increase came immediately. I would ask the War Cabinet and the Prime Minister to remember that incident. The Prime Minister, having given an estimate of shipping, having relied upon statistics as to the supply of men and of material, and having been faced with an admission of failure by the First Lord of the Admiralty, should see to it, no matter at what cost, no matter at what personal inconvenience, and no matter at what risk of any personal reputation, that a change is effected without loss of time, without loss of power, and without any loss of output, but with an increase of output, for, as my hon. Friend has said, the Admiralty's business is to obtain command of the sea, and the command of the sea is not the slightest use if you cannot use it for the life of the nation.
§ Mr. ACLAND ALLENI do not often trouble the House, but, as the representative of a Clydeside constituency, I should-like to say a word or two on this subject. Yesterday I received from my Constituency, which, I suppose, is one of the most important from the point of view of munitions, an urgent letter and a telegram saying that Labour trouble was threatening owing to the shortage, of food. A letter and a telegram of that kind are sufficient to impress upon everybody the great urgency that there is in this great question of shipbuilding. I cordially agree with what the two last speakers have said with regard to the absolutes necessity for handing over the management of the construction of shipping to an independent Department if for no other reason than that only if it is in the hands of an independent Department will there be sufficient strength at the head to cope with the demands for man-power which are made in every other direction. I am told, and I believe it is the fact, that at the present moment combing-out is-still going on in the shipyards. If that is so, it is really trifling with the future of the country. At this time there should be no combing-out going on in the shipyards. I am told that there is, and I should like to hear from any representative of the Ministry of National Service whether or not that is so. I should also like to hear whether, in fact, at the present moment a sufficient number of men are being returned from the front to take the 611 places of those who are being combed; out and what is the quality of the men who are being returned. We all know that commanding officers are not very anxious to part with their best men. I had an example of that last year when I tried to get men to help in agriculture. It was not the beat men who were sent to me to help in agriculture, and so it will be in this case unless there is a very strong line taken to see that the proper men are sent home for the purpose.
The question of combing-out is really a very serious one, because it affects the work of the men who are left in the yards. If the men see their brothers combed out and taken for service abroad they will say to themselves, "After all, it cannot be of so very much importance that the construction of shipping should be kept up if they are still taking men out of the yards for service abroad." This question of the supply of men for the yards is the most important question at the present time. I firmly believe that it will not be properly dealt with until you get at the head of ship construction a man of independence and force, who is independent of every other Department, and who is able to hold his own with every other Department in the struggle for man-power. We all know what a good effect on the use of shipping was obtained by the appointment of Sir Joseph Maclay at the head of that work. An equally good effect would be produced if we had an equally efficient man at the head of ship construction. I am perfectly certain that the country now depends, first and last, upon the production of merchant shipping. You will get these complaints from all over the country in increasing number as to the shortage of food, and those complaints will be aggravated unless the country is assured that the utmost is being done to see that merchant shipping is produced.
§ Mr. WATTLike my hon. Friends who have preceded me, 1 represent a shipbuilding constituency, and I am therefore desirous of making a few observations on the same lines that they followed. I make no apology for repeating figures which have been put already before the House, because they are so appallingly serious that they cannot too often be brought to the attention of the Government. The House is aware that the shipbuilding figures have fallen off in a very ominous fashion during the last two or three months. In the month of December 612 the output of mercantile tonnage was 140,000 tons. That output fell in January to 55,000 tons. That figure multiplied by twelve brings the total for the year up to something like 700,000 tons, so that the annual output, reckoned on the January output, is something like 750,000 tons. That falling-off in the output of mercantile tonnage unfortunately follows a change of policy on the part of the Government, a change in the control of the mercantile marine. The control was in the hands of the Shipping Controller.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamare)Not at all. It has been in our hands since May last.
§ Mr. WATTThe change was made at an earlier period, but the result was visible in the January and December comparison. We are entitled to infer that it was due to the change of control from the Shipping Controller to the Admiralty, and if that is so we are justified in assuming that in this great crisis of the country, for the country's welfare beyond a doubt depends entirely on the output of mercantile marine, that the previous system should be revived. It almost follows from the fact that the Admiralty have to look after naval shipbuilding that it gets more consideration, and that the yards are gradually but surely diverted on to naval shipbuilding to the neglect of the mercantile marine, and that is so, as I understand that between 60 per cent, and 70 per cent. of the work in the yards is at present engaged on naval construction and that, therefore, there is comparative neglect of the mercantile marine. That is my first suggestion, that the control should be put into the hands of that Department which is responsible to-the country—to the world, indeed—for the management of our shipping, namely, the Shipping Controller. The second suggestion 1 would make is that the workmen in the yards should be told the exact facts of the situation. Week after week, this morning, in the newspapers we are told the number of vessels which have been sunk, but that conveys to no man in the country any idea of the tonnage that has. been lost. We are told there are fifteen vessels in the last week over 1,600 tons which have been sunk. We are not told whether they are near to the 1,600 or near to 30,000 or 40,000 tons, and, therefore, the tonnage that is sunk is not in the mind of any of the men in the street, and not in 613 the minds of the men who are working in the yards. I believe if they were told the destruction of tonnage and the seriousness of the situation they would buckle to in a thorough fashion and do their utmost to save the country. Another suggestion I would make to the Leader of the House is this: He has found that the idea of competition between one city and another has been most successful in getting in money. Why should he not institute a system of comparison of yard and yard in this struggle? I feel certain from what I know of the working men on the Clyde, who have a sporting instinct, that the idea of competition, with perhaps something in the shape of a prize offered for the yard that did the best, on the lines of the tank competition, would lead to great results. I feel certain that the Government will seriously consider this great question of the output of shipbuilding and will take some steps to have the rather disappointing figures of this year remedied as early as possible.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWMy right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) has spoken so often in the last week on this subject that he suggests that I should say a few words, especially as I am sure the House will not expect a full reply at this hour to-night in view of the fact that we are to have a discussion on this subject alone next Wednesday. But I wish for another reason to say a few words to the House now that the subject has been raised again. I wish the House to realise that it is not and has not at any time for I do not know how many months been regarded as a matter for the Admiralty alone. It is a great mistake, if anyone does entertain that idea, to suppose that not only the Admiralty, but the whole Government have not realised for a very long time that this very problem which we are discussing to-night is perhaps the most vital of all these problems which we have got to consider, and that it is something for which the Government as a whole, and not any particular Department must be held responsible. Although I am quite ready to admit that in view of the seriousness of the situation no one could find any fault with speeches such as we have heard to-night, or could regret that the subject is constantly ventilated in the House of Commons, yet while that is true I do think there has been some misapprehension as to what the situation is. I wish to say this, for what it is worth, that as a rule when difficulties of this kind arise they are brought to light by 614 questions addressed to the Government, or in some way of that kind. The House will remember that that was not the case in this instance. Our attention in the Government had been called over and over again to the seriousness of the situation, and we ourselves gave the House and the country the first information and gave the House the first opportunity of itself directing attention to the serious crisis that had arisen. In addition to that, I wish to say that if any hon. Member imagines that the Government or the Admiralty are under the impression that the way to get ships is to quarrel with and not to get the best out of the shipbuilding fraternity in the country they are entirely mistaken. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the statement which he made on this subject, referred to the fact that the output had fallen, and he expressed, I think in very mild terms, the idea that the cause of that, to a considerable extent, was due to the fact that labour had not been as active as it might have been. He referred, also, incidentally to what I should have thought would be recognised as true by everyone, that the strain of the War is, perhaps, telling even on shipbuilders, and that they, like the rest of the population, must bestir themselves to the utmost if we were to get the best results
I wish the House to understand precisely why it was that the change was made as to the building of ships. It was not at all because the Government were in the least dissatisfied with the work which was done by the Shipping Controller. On the contrary, I am expressing only what is felt by every member of the Government when I say that whatever may be said about the experiment of bringing business men into high positions in the Government, anyone who has come in contact with the work that Sir Joseph Maclay does knows that anything he undertakes will be done efficiently, and that has been the case. That was not the reason. Rightly or wrongly, the reason for making the change was this—the labour and the steel for building warships and ordinary merchant ships is the same. The yards where merchant ships are turned out are to a large extent the same yards in which not battleships but ships used for war purposes are being turned out now. Anyone with any knowledge of Government Departments, or of the conduct of 615 government at all, knows that with the demand for steel and labour there is a difficulty in dividing it up correctly. That was the idea—that inasmuch as it was the same class of labour, the same material employed, and the same yards, you would greatly lessen all that friction and get better results by putting the whole of shipbuilding, merchant ships and warships, under one control.
It is certainly a great mistake to suppose, as has been hinted at in many of the speeches to which we have listened, that the Admiralty, because they are a fighting force, look upon the building of merchant ships as something of secondary importance in comparison with the building of ships for war purposes. I can tell the House, what anyone of common sense would realise must be the case, that when this subject has been discussed at the War Cabinet, as it has been dozens of times, not only we felt, but the First Lord of the Admiralty himself over and over again made us feel, that there was no good in getting ships of war if the life-blood of the nation was to be stopped for want of the material for carrying the goods. My hon. Friend, in the interesting speech with which this Debate was initiated, spoke of the Admiralty as if it were all gold braid, as if it were thinking only of warships. The First Lord of the Admiralty has not been brought up in that way, and, more than that, this Department of Shipping Construction was the Department which was placed under his control first of all, and it is not an unreasonable assumption to come to the conclusion that the man who had himself directed it would, on his afterwards becoming First Lord of the Admiralty, realise that that Department was as important as any other over which he had control. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words, just to let hon Members know that all of us have been following this matter most closely for a very long time, and that I am not merely speaking of it because it is raised in the House.
In reference to the speech of my hon. Friend who spoke last, the House knows that this new arrangement was made in June last, and it must not be forgotten by the House that in the last quarter of 1917 the results were very good, but these results were under the same management which is condemned now. Is it not reasonable to suppose that there is some other 616 explanation than bad management for the falling-off in January and February as compared with the great improvement in the previous year, when the management was precisely the same. The real truth is that whatever you do about management, if you make it as perfect as it can be made, you come down to this root fact, that unless the men who are engaged in producing ships are made to realise that it is something on which the fate of the War depends in which they are engaged you will not get the results which the country has a right to expect. My hon. Friends who have spoken dwelt very largely on the necessity of publishing returns. My hon. Friend who spoke first alluded to an interview which he and a number of other Members had with me. I told them then in a way in which I could not tell the House of Commons why we could not publish these figures. This Government has never been desirous of concealing them. But we are fighting the War with Allies, and the House must realise that we are not free agents altogether in a matter of this kind. It was mentioned to the House by myself a week or so ago that we had the hope that it would be possible to publish accurate figures. We have been discussing it with our Allies since, and I have the hope—I think it is stronger than that—that on Wednesday my right hon. Friend the First Lord will be able to give the actual figures. I am convinced that nothing but good now can come of that. In the first place, if the enemy attached any importance to them at all, the figures are so much less than the estimates which he was putting upon them that they will not damage our cause. But the real reason why I wish to see them published is because I am certain they will have an importance which was experienced when the Munitions Department was created, when the men were made to realise that what they were doing was as vital in the War as what was done by their brothers in the field. It is much hoped, by giving these details to the men in the shipyards, not merely by figures, though that will be done, but by going throughout the yards and putting the case frankly to them that we will succeed in making them realise that what they have to do is vital, and I am certain that we will find results which will astonish everyone who is now in any way responsible for what is going on.
617 11.0 P.M.
My hon. Friend who spoke last (Mr. Watt) made a suggestion as to local competition in merchant shipbuilding. Nothing could be better than that, but that has already been determined upon by the Admiralty. We do realise the necessity of it, and the stimulus of local effort is one of the best suggestions we can have in regard to the building of merchant ships. I am convinced that the results are going to be very much better in the months ahead. Do not let the House imagine that it is only since this subject has been raised that we have tried to make improvements. We do realise that the first thing to be done is not in connection with the national yards, though I hope they will turn out to give good results later on; but the first thing to be done is to get ahead, with the co-operation of the men, with the building of merchant ships, and, one way or other, that is what the Government intend to do. One of my hon. Friends said it was the duty of the Government to take the matter up. Of course, it is, and I do not think there is any harm in saying that even to-day the Prime Minister, whose time is very, very much occupied, has, accompanied by the First Lord of the Admiralty, seen a number of representative shipbuilders, and he is trying to do what he personally can in regard to this matter.
§ Mr. FRANCEIs the Prime Minister doing anything to increase the number of men in the shipyards in accordance with the promise he has made?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWOf course, a number of men are being got. The combing-out is going on, and all I can say is that the number of men has been steadily increasing in the shipyards. Do not let the House forget that in January and February there was no scarcity of material, and the amount of labour was far greater than in the previous three months. As regards the Army, more men are being brought back from the front, but I need not tell the House that it is not very easy to get that done. It is not, as the House will understand, a very simple question. The men themselves often do not like to be taken away from their comrades in the trenches. But the fact remains that it will not be for want of men if shipbuilding does not improve. I do not say that further organisation may not be necessary, but I can assure the House that if there is a failure in 618 this matter it will not be because the Government have not realised their responsibility, or because they are not doing, to the best of their ability, everything they can to meet the grave crisis in which this country is involved.
Mr. T. WILSONMay I suggest to the Leader of the House that there are a large number of skilled men in Home camps, many of whom have returned from the front, who are now employed on work not skilled at all. I had a letter this morning from one of the new shipyards in which the writer informs me that while there is a lot of woodwork and machinery lying idle, thirty or forty skilled carpenters are employed in mixing concrete. That is not utilising the skill of these men. I am also informed in another letter from a man, forty-seven years of age—an extremely skilled workman—a shipyard carpenter, that he cannot get his release to go on skilled work, and that during the last two years he has only used his tools for three hours. I urge that instead of leaving the selection of these men to the military, it should be done by civilians who are practical men, and that this should be particularly the case to the men in Home camps. Until something of that kind is done we shall get nothing like the number of men released who are available—and the right sort of men, too. I have had some figures given me with regard to the number of men released, and they are very discouraging. The returns with regard to merchant shipping, too, are not encouraging. It is not altogether due to slackness on the part of either employers or employed. There may be some slackers among the men and among the employers also. I do not think it would be impossible to find some among the Government. But it is not the cause of the reduced output; the cause is to be found in irritating Regulations and decisions—decisions which intend to allay unrest in one quarter simply to create it in another. I am told, too, by workmen—by foremen—that there is undue interference by officials sent by the Government to the yards. Men who know nothing about shipbuilding have been attempting to teach the foremen their business, and anyone can understand that such interference is resented. These people may be competent to give military orders—to call people to attention—but they do not understand shipbuilding, and the more trust you put in the foremen, who do 619 understand the men who have made a study of it, the better will be the results you will get. To accuse the men of slacking without being able to prove it can only cause bad feeling and a bad spirit in the yards, and it would be far better to remain silent than to make these charges. I am going to suggest that in the combing-out process men are being asked to send in their protection cards and certificates. These men are told that their cards are not being called in because they are going to be called up; but they believe they are going to be called up, and I suggest that when a calling in notice is sent to the men they ought to be informed that some other form of protection is going to be given. It is because they do not know from day to day whether they are going to be called to the Army or not that there is some slacking, or that the men do not give of their best. I hope that all the men on national work will put their hearts and souls into the work, and that they will do their utmost to increase the output as far as they possibly can.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer, and that is this: The walls are placarded with bills asking for men to work in the shipyards and aeroplane works, and these bills say that men applying must have some experience, must be accustomed to aircraft work and shipbuilding. But there is nobody in this country out of employment now who is accustomed to this work. It is the men who are not accustomed to this work, men from the cabinet makers' shops, pattern makers' shops, and carpenters' shops, who have not been on this work at all, you want, because the men who have experience of this work are on it already, It is extremely foolish to ask men to offer their services for aircraft and shipbuilding work, and to tell them that they will not be engaged if they are not accustomed to the work, because there are none of those who can be obtained. I say that any man who offers his services should be given employment, and particularly so if you want to comb-out the Grade 1 men. It is only by getting substitutes, men very often over military age, that you can afford to release any men from the shipbuilding yards or aeroplane works at all. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is wise to comb men out of shipbuilding yards at the present time at all. We know men are urgently required, but it is 620 equally true that ships are required, and that being so we ought to go very carefully indeed in the combing out of these men. I conclude by saying that I hope the Government will do all they possibly can to inspire confidence in the minds of the men working in shipyards, aeroplane works, and all national works, because I believe that if they can only gain the confidence of the men they will put their backs into the work and do all they possibly can to help the country in its hour of need.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.