§ 5.0 P.M.
§ What are the complaints of Labour? I might almost say, with regard to some of them, what were the complaints of Labour? The first is that the hours were too long for the human frame to endure, or that they were inadequate to provide the needful leisure to enjoy the amenities or to acquire the refinements of life. In the second place, the complaint was that the wages were insufficient in a multitude of cases to sustain the strength and vigour of the worker, to maintain the comfort of his home, and to bring up a family worthy, physically and mentally, to become citizens of a great Empire. Let us confess—whatever we have done in the last two or three years to redress these wrongs—that for a generation we did not pay the heed to them we ought to have done. There were too many sweated trades. There were hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men on the 4th August, 1914, who were labouring hard for wages that were a disgrace to the Flag for which they went to fight. There has been a notable advance during the last two or three years, I am pleased to say, both in the hours of labour and in wages. The trouble is that suspicions were aroused and temper was exasperated by delay. The air of the 1995 workshop was thick with it, the machinery was clogged with it, no lubricant could assist it. There is no doubt that the delays which had occurred detracted from the value of the concessions when they came. A good sound piece of advice to men of business and statesmen is: "Beware of arrears." Still, Labour within the last two or three years has made enormous gains. On an average the wages have more than doubled; and the hours of labour have been diminished to forty-four or forty-eight a week. I would only warn labour, if I may do so quite respectfully—
§ Mr. ADAMSONThe right hon. Gentleman says that wages have been more than doubled, but the cost of living also has been more than doubled.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI quite agree; but perhaps my right hon. Friend will take the two statements together. That is why I put them together. The wages, it is true, have more than doubled, but the hours of labour have been very considerably diminished. If there had been purely the increase in the wages, without the diminution in the hours, I agree that Labour would practically be exactly where it was at the beginning of the War. But my right hon. Friend must take the two statements together. When he takes what is earned by the hour now, it is considerably higher, as he knows. What Labour is doing at this moment is converting these extra hours into overtime, so that the actual wage they are earning is considerably more than double what it was at the beginning of the War. I may just tell my right hon. Friend that these reductions in hours and these increases in wages will be impossible to maintain if production remain at its present level. My right hon. Friends agree. That is obvious. The War taught military men that it was easier to capture a position than to retain it. That is a lesson for Labour. They have captured much more advanced positions than they have ever held before.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWhich is that?
§ Mr. LUNNMy point is that the complaint of Labour is against producing to-day for the prodigality of private individuals.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI should not have thought that applies to the railways, where they have been working at a loss. There is not much prodigality there.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am told that when they are working for the public there will be a great change in the attitude of Labour. I do not suggest that the last word has been said about hours or about wages.