§ Sir KINGSLEY WOODI desire this afternoon to take advantage of the Second Reading of this Bill to raise one or two questions concerning industrial disputes which are unhappily in existence at this time, and to put one or two questions to the Minister of Labour and perhaps to the Minister of Health. Unhappily, at this time, when we shall, so far as Parliament is concerned, be leaving our business during the next day or two, there are two very unfortunate and disastrous disputes which I venture to think are causing a great deal of damage in their respective quarters. The first one, as the Minister of Labour will anticipate, is the building trade dispute, which has now been in existence, I think, for five weeks, which affects directly from some 600,000 to 700,000 men, and which certainly affects very adversely indeed practically the whole of the working population, at any rate of this country. The building trades at the present moment are engaged, and I think wholly engaged, not only in luxury building and commercial building, but also in a large amount of municipal and house building work.
I understand that the present dispute has arisen through a demand of the building operatives for a minimum increase of 1½d. per hour and 1d. per hour in London, the maintenance of the 44 hour week, and what is called 50 per cent, of lost time. It has been somewhat difficult to follow the varying stages of this dispute. I remember, for instance, the arbitration which was held by Sir Hugh Fraser some little time ago. Then there has been quite recently the court of inquiry over which Lord Buckmaster presided, and which issued its award and gave its version of the causes which led to the dispute. Although both these matters have been before an arbitration tribunal, the dispute still continues, and, as I understand 2558 it, the last conference which the Minister of Labour convened broke up in confusion and both parties left the Ministry of Labour after the chief representative of the employers had been called a "slippery eel" by the operatives. I would advise that distinguished gentleman not to take any notice of words of abuse of that kind. If every assembly was to break up when ever anyone called someone else names this House would be the first to disappear. I am hopeful that on Wednesday next, when, I understand, ho is to see the parties again, the Minister of Labour will at any rate bring that serener atmosphere which always surrounds him, and that there will be no further words of that kind.
I think it is advisable this afternoon in this House that a word or two should be said on behalf of the public in connection with this divide, because undoubtedly the public, and especially those people who are homeless and badly housed, are entitled to say a word or two at this juncture. In the first place, I think most Members of the House will agree that the building trade can be regarded as a privileged trade. I should think it is the only trade in the country that can be said to be fully occupied, and, according to the Minister of Health, it has got a guarantee of 15 years' continuous work before it. I venture to think that of all trades it ought to be able to come to an arrangement and is the least entitled to engage in disputes of this character or to refuse to abide by arbitration decisions. When I see the disputes still continuing—and I blame both sides equally in this matter—I cannot help thinking of the words of the present Prime Minister, when soon after he took office, referring to the building trade, he said that ca' canny had become the policy of both sides. It does appear to me that at the present time the building trade are once again forgetting the public interests in this matter. All the time that they are squabbling house building is suffering and working-class house building particularly is being retarded. I put a question to the Minister of Health a few days ago, asking him what exactly was the position so far as house building was concerned owing to the present building trade dispute. He did not give me a very definite reply, but he said that undoubtedly it was being adversely affected, and I want the 2559 Minister of Labour, if he will, to tell the House this afternoon exactly what will be the position so far as working-class house building is concerned of these terms which are now being asked for by the building trade. I have not had a reply, but no doubt the Minister for Labour will be able to give one this afternoon, and will tell us what exactly will ensue, having regard to public interest, if the present demands, about which I express no opinion, are accepted. I notice in the OFFICIAL REPORT on Friday a very illuminating reply to a question with regard to the cost of house-building. I asked the Minister for Health if he could give the average cost, respectively, of non-parlour houses under the State-assisted housing scheme in February, May, June and July. This was his reply, and it embodies, certainly, a very extraordinary set of figures:
The following are the average prices of non-parlour houses (excluding cost of land and development) included in contracts let by local authorities during each of the months from January to June, the latest date for which figures are available:
Month. Average prices of houses. 1924. £ January … … … 384 February … … … 389 March … … … 418 April … … … 416 May … … … 408 June … … … 421 Similar figures are not available as regards houses erected with State assistance by private enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 1st August, 1924; col. 2421, Vol. 176.]I think the House will be very interested to learn from the Under-Secretary to the Minister for Health exactly what accounts for that extraordinary increase in cost, because if this state of affairs continues—I do not know whether it is due to employers or to the men—the extra subsidy which the right hon. Gentleman is about to pay under his scheme will soon be absorbed altogether in the increasing cost. I think it is right to say that at the present moment one-half the amount of the subsidy paid under the new scheme has, in fact, already disappeared. This is a very serious matter, because, as hon. Members know, under this particular new scheme, directly a house exceeds £475 in value, any increase in cost, if the local authorities adopt it, will have to fall on the tenant. I want to 2560 know, therefore, whether, when the Minister of Labour is holding these Conferences, any regard is being paid to the increasing cost which may arise if these demands are met I venture to say, at any rate, that if there is any trade in the country to-day which ought to adopt a reasonable attitude, which ought to submit its disputes to arbitration, and which ought to have regard to public interest and to the interests of the poorer members of the community it is the building trade. I was hopeful that at some of the Conferences being held by the Minister of Labour he would tell the building trust which has now come into existence that instead of working shorter hours they should agree to work longer hours at any rate on house building schemes. I was hopeful that some suggestion might have been made as part of the wage rearrangement of some system of piecework confined to working-class houses, as I believe that is one of the means by which cheaper houses can be more rapidly, erected. I say that the time has arrived, and I have no doubt the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour will agree, when some regard must be had to the cost of house building in connection with demands of this kind. We have heard a great deal from the Attorney-General about the Profiteering Bill, but that Bill will not help us in this connection, because, as the Under-Secretary knows, any increase of cost on account of wages is expressly excluded from the Bill. It is a matter of some surprise to me that the Government have been content to leave this Bill, if it is to do any good at all, until the autumn sitting and allow the building trade to go on for two or three months without any intervention from Parliament at all.There are only two other matters in that connection to which I want to refer. One is, Has the Minister of Labour given any advice to the local authorities up and down the country who are now engaged on housing schemes as to what they are to do in connection with this dispute? They are undoubtedly adopting different attitudes. One council is reported on Saturday to have received a letter from the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives stating that the operatives in the direct employ of the council will not be withdrawn provided the council, if a new rate of pay is fixed, agrees that it 2561 be paid retrospectively as and from when the dispute commenced. Another council reports that they have considered the steps to be taken in the matter. They have received a letter from the London Master Builders' Association, and have agreed to pay the whole demand now being made by the building operatives. I only give these two instances to prove there is a certain amount of difference of opinion on the part of the local authorities as to the attitude they should adopt. I want to know whether the Minister of Health has advised the local authorities to pay these increased demands. When I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on that point he replied in the negative and said he was taking no sides whatever in this dispute. It seems to me that if the local authorities begin to take sides in the matter difficulties will arise, and I hope the Minister of Labour this afternoon will be able to offer some advice to the local authorities up and down the country in this connection.
The last point in connection with the building dispute is as to the decisions of the Office of Works in relation to this demands of the operatives. I notice that on Friday or Saturday last the Emergency Committee of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives met the First Commissioner of Works to discuss the question of employing direct labour on Government work, and in the concluding paragraph of the report of the proceedings it simply says the result of the Conference is not made public. I think we should know this afternoon whether the Office of Works is as strictly impartial in connection with this dispute as we should expect it to be. Another dispute I want to refer to this afternoon is one of great moment to the country, and one which seriously affects the welfare of a large number of people. It is the electricity strike threat. I observe from the statement issued by Mr. Webb, the London district secretary of the electrical trade union, that he says:
The dispute is a national one.Then he directs particular attention to London, and he says:London, with its vast network of electrically-driven railways and trams, and its dependence on electricity for lighting and almost countless industrial purposes, would be much more seriously affected than any other part. … There are 80 generating stations in the Metropolitan area, apart from 2562 those owned by the railway and tramway companies, employing about 6,000 men. In addition, the Underground power house at Lots Road, the London County Council station at Greenwich, and other stations belonging to the Metropolitan, London Midland and Scottish, Southern and Great Western railways would be stopped. The scores of sub-stations all over the place which work from the main generating stations would also cease working. The Brighton line, which draws its supply in bulk from the London Electricity Supply Company, would be included among the privately owned undertakings, all of which would be affected, and you can take it from me that if a strike takes place, it will have more far-reaching effects than any previous strike London has ever had. We have a working agreement with the Engine and Firemen's Union, so that there will be no question of steam trains taking the place of electric trains which the strike would stop.That is a very serious question, especially as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will remember that I recently asked her what was the exact position so far as arbitration was concerned in connection with this particular dispute, and she made this reply:Application was made in February to the Joint Industrial Council of the Electricity Supply Industry for a general advance in wages of 10s. per week. The employers' side offered arbitration. A ballot taken in the trade unions concerned showed 5,000 in favour of arbitration and 7,000 in favour of a strike. The number of men employed in the industry is 29,000. At a subsequent meeting on 18th July, the employers' side again offered arbitration, and a meeting of the executive councils of the trade unions are meeting on 30th July to consider the position. A meeting of the council has been fixed for 15th August.Inasmuch as the House will be rising on Wednesday, I think we are entitled to some assurance from the Minister of Labour that he will not hesitate, if necessity arises, to fully safeguard public interest in this matter. This is one of the strikes which undoubtedly affect matters that apply to the industrial life of the community, and to that extent I hope the Minister will recognise that we are entitled to the assurance I am asking for. The only other dispute I want to trouble the Minister of Labour about is one of some interest to myself upon which, unfortunately, I have not been able to get much information from the right hon. Gentleman. During the last few weeks, I have constantly asked him about a strike brought about apparently by the Miners' Union at Loanend. It appears that the Miners' Union have taken up the attitude that because certain firemen will not join 2563 the Colliery Firemen's Association therefore a strike which involves 500 men must be called.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see how the hon. Gentleman can go into the details of a question affecting a private association. He is entitled, of course, to criticise the Minister in regard to his action on any matter.
§ Sir K. WOODI will certainly come to that immediately, because my criticism in this matter is that the Minister has done nothing to bring this strike to an end. At this particular colliery, there have been 500 men, I think, on strike for many weeks. Nothing has been done. I have ventured to suggest to the Minister from time to time that he might usefully appoint a Court of Inquiry into this dispute, and let the public know what are the causes, but, hitherto, I have failed to get the Minister up to the mark in that respect. I hope this afternoon, without going into the differences of various associations, he may be able to make some statement. Generally I should like to know whether the Minister of Labour has any further announcement to make upon the general policy of the Government in regard to these disputes. I notice, for instance, since the year 1919, no less than 176,000,000 days have been lost owing to strikes, and that, since that period, over 6,000,000 people have been affected. While it is true, I think, that the Minister of Labour made something of this on the last occasion he dealt with this matter, and how beautiful it had been since the Labour Government had been in power, the public have had experience, I will not say on account of his office, but during his period of office, of the railway enginemen's strike, the dock strike, the London traffic strike, the Southampton strike, the Wembley strike and a vast number of small strikes and disputes.
It has always been very difficult to ascertain what exact loss to the nation is brought about by strikes of this kind, but I notice that, in the report of the London County Council Tramways' Committee, the comparative short strike on the London tramway service entailed a direct loss of £60,000 to the London County Council. From observations that have been made by the Lord Chancellor, 2564 in another place, I understand the Government have under consideration some new policy, or, at any rate, some new consideration of policy, in connection with these disputes. I think, at least, this general observation may be made, that a good many of these disputes—and I speak now in condemnation of the employers' side—have undoubtedly been brought about by a reduction of wages without previous negotiations with the men. Undoubtedly, in a very large number of cases, wages have to be reduced, but where a, strike has more frequently occurred, I suppose, than anywhere else, is where the strike has arisen without any previous negotiations with the employers concerned. I was very interested to observe the statement of Mr. W. J. Watson, President of the Industrial and Political Staffs Guild of the National Union of Clerks—
that during the past year there had been demands for wage reductions in many trade union offices. Some organisations so far forgot the principles on which they were founded—
§ Mr. SPEAKERReally, the Minister's salary, and matters for which the Minister is responsible, should be discussed here. Supposing the hon. Member's typewriters went on strike, it would not be a matter to be raised in the House of Commons.
§ Sir K. WOODI quite agree. I was only venturing to illustrate the suggestion I was making to the Minister of Labour, that the time had come for the reconsideration of the policy of the Government in connection with strikes, that these strikes were continually arising through lack of consideration by the employers, and through certain cuts in wages without consideration. I certainly thought it was a striking illustration that in a good many trade union offices this was taking place, and that there was a very justifiable complaint of that action. I want, if I may, to refer to the observations made by the Lord Chancellor in this respect. He indicated, in another place, that the Government proposed, when they were not so pressed by arrears of business, and matters of that kind, to proceed by an investigation of a systematic kind into this question of industrial disputes, "with a view of determining"—and, evidently, his idea was that there should be some investigation— 2565
with a view of determining whether, with the co-operation of trade unions or otherwise, it is possible to investigate the circumstances which lead to industrial unrest.I was rather disappointed the other day when the Prime Minister, I think, practically turned down a suggestion that was made, which has certainly been backed by very influential opinion, and by the "Times" newspaper in particular, namely, that there should be appointed a permanent Commission to collect facts about particular industries, and to offer its services in industrial disputes. I think a large number of people who have studied the question of these unfortunate strikes will agree, that in far too many cases the court of inquiry, which is, perhaps, the only weapon that can be used, is always appointed much too late. In a good many of these disputes, the court of inquiry has actually been appointed when the dispute is in progress, and, therefore, the suggestion has been made that there should be some sort of permanent Commission, which should collect facts and offer its services. There would be nothing compulsory about it.Finally I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, since our last discussion, he has made any further investigation into the origin of these disputes, because I observe that the Prime Minister stated a few weeks ago that
Some aspects of the present industrial unrest are creating difficulties of a very serious character,and he added:Some recent developments and methods seem in practice and result to be those of mischievous Syndicalist Communism. Far from helping the worker or his trade union, they are likely to involve the one in misery and tile other in disaster. One strike like that which took place at Wembley does the working-class movement more harm, and inflicts upon the wage-earner more injury than can well be described. In the case of Wembley, the blunder was soon rectified, but influences were revealed that have to be watched.I should be glad if the Minister of Labour could tell us this afternoon whether he has taken any steps in that respect. The Prime Minister concluded by saying:All my life I have been opposed to the 'sympathetic' strike. It has no practical value. It is simply beating the air. It has one result—a bitter and blinding reaction. It looks so heroically effective in the heat of battle, and it is so subversive. … I know what I am speaking about when I say that as a result of some recent occurrences, the 2566 code of law which has protected workers' organisations for generations has been in greater jeopardy than I have over known.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Sir K. WOODIn concluding my observations, I hope we may have this afternoon a general statement from the Minister of Labour on his policy in all those connections. We leave a serious responsibility on him during the next two or three months. I must say I am rather surprised that hon. Members opposite who, in other Parliaments, made a great deal of fuss and trouble when Parliament was going to rise for two or three months, do not say much about that to-day. Unfortunately, there are these disputes pending, and we look to the Minister of Labour, I hope with confidence, to protect the public, and I hope he may be successful in bringing many that are now in operation to an end. I trust he may be able to indicate some statement of policy this afternoon as to how, generally, this industrial unrest, which, unfortunately, is so prevalent, may, at any rate, be mitigated by His Majesty's Government.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONI do not propose, if my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) will forgive me, to follow the hon. Member in his roving commission into all the various trade disputes of recent times, charging their sins on the Minister of Labour, but I do wish to ask the Minister of Labour one or two questions on a matter in which he is directly responsible, and on which, I hope, he may be able to give a definite reply. When we were discussing unemployment last week, the question of the work which was to be put in hand by local authorities was referred to, and the Minister, at the end of his speech, used these words in dealing with the appeal made to him for greater financial assistance to these distressed districts:
We have not a closed mind, and we are prepared to negotiate with the municipalities and, where the occasion calls for it, to help them in a special way."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 30th July, 1924; col. 2187, Vol. 176.]Those of us who are particularly interested in the plight of these unfortunate districts, are grateful to the Minister for those crumbs of comfort, but if he could explain to-day in what particular way he is going to assist the authorities during 2567 the coming winter, I am sure those authorities, and the House as a whole, would be grateful to him. This is one of the many problems the Government have inherited, and for which they cannot be held blameworthy; in fact, when they occupied seats opposite, they were most zealous in their efforts and protestations in favour of this question of unemployment being dealt with on national lines, and that local authorities should not be left to bear alone the burden and heat of the day.Therefore, knowing we have the sympathy of the Minister, I hope we may get some practical help this afternoon, and I am the more encouraged to think so because, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on this question last week—and his office is one which, the Minister will forgive me for saying, is almost more important in this matter than that of the Minister, because the Minister may have sympathy, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the purse strings—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when dealing with the question, referred to the fact that unemployment Throughout the country on an average was not so excessively bad, except in three particular instances, and he referred to the industries of shipbuilding, engineering and cotton. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say—and I want to put the two points together—that the burden of rates was crippling the revival of trade even more than the heavy burden of taxation. With these two admissions of the Chancellor I do appeal to the Minister, and to the Government as a whole, that they should do something to relieve the particular districts which are suffering unduly on account of the abnormal unemployment which has been prevalent for so long in certain particular trades. The trades to which reference was made was made in general terms by the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to engineering and shipbuilding. In these I find that, whereas the average rate of unemployment is, according to the terms of the Ministry of Labour's figures of insured persons, 9˙4, according to the latest figures, at the same time on the North East Coast—for which I put in a plea—where marine engineering and boiler making is carried on, the unemployed percentage is 17˙9, while in the 2568 shipbuilding unemployment in that area is 32˙5. You have there double in the one case, and more than three-fold in the other, a burden of unemployment in a particular district which cannot any longer go on bearing the burden by itself.
Not merely is it that the question of solving the burden of unemployment is a heavier burden in one district than another. There is the consequent extra burden on the local rates. The point I want to put to the Minister is this: If, in nearly all the loans he has sanctioned, 65 per cent. or half the borrowed loans for work which is not of a revenue-bearing character is a fair basis in the districts where unemployment is on the average 9˙4, it can hardly be a fair basis where unemployment is double or threefold, and the more so where, in regard to local rating, you have the burden of a poor rate which has increased tremendously in amount in the abnormal stress which has followed the War. May I support my case and show this differentiation by giving one or two figures taken from the Ministry of Health's recent Report? We find that the poor rate of Merthyr Tydfil is 10s., while in Bournemouth it is 1s. 3d. In the town which I have the honour to represent, Middlesbrough, it is 7s. 4d., while in Blackpool the poor rate is 5d. In Sheffield it is 7s. 6d. in Southend 1s. So I might go on: differentiation up to 10s. on the one hand and less than 6d. on the other. The point again I want to make is this: If this percentage of 65 for half the borrowed money, the basis for the grant to the local authority, is sound and just when the poor rate is 1s. in the £, then it is manifestly inadequate when the poor rate, due to unemployment, is 10s. in the £. Therefore, I do submit that there is a very strong case made out for differentiation and for greater assistance to be given to those districts where the burden of unemployment is much above the average, and where, accordingly, the burden of the poor rate for the relief of the unemployed is also high. May I just illustrate the point further by one or two facts from my own town of Middlesbrough, which is only typical of what is happening right throughout. I think it will convince the Minister and the Government, I hope, of the absolute necessity of doing something practical—and at once—if we are to survive during the coming winter.
2569 I find the out-relief expenditure in the years 1914 to 1919 on an average for Middlesbrough to be £18,000 per annum, and the average poor rate 1s. 3d. To-day out-relief has increased from £18,000 to £274,000—a most appalling increase—and the rate has gone up from 1s. 3d. to 7s. 4d. That is out-relief only due almost entirely to abnormal unemployment. Consequently, we have had to borrow money instead of paying our way. We have had to incur a debt of over a quarter of a million, and this money has got to be paid back, this money which has been spent in the relief of distress out of the rates during the next few years, thus adding a further burden to industry. Let me give a few more figures showing the distressful nature of things in the town. On 31st March, 1921, the arrears of rates were only £3,725, or a ½ per cent. of the total collected. On 31st March, 1924, the arrears of rates were £101,000, or 16 per cent. of the rates collected. What is more striking still is that out of 10,200 individual ratepayers and tenants, nearly half of them, that is 4,989, had not paid their rates on 31st March. Consider that! Nearly 50 per cent. of the whole town had not paid their rates on 31st March.
That is a state of things that manifestly cannot go on. It is crippling the individual, whether housekeeper or shopkeeper. It is crippling trade and industry. The chairman of one of the large works in that area, speaking at the annual meeting the other day, pointed out that whereas in normal times the burden of local rates was equivalent to 1s. per ton on the steel produced in that district, to-day that rate has gone up to 3s. or 4s. Other figures I know have been given relating to other districts; but I want to put the case as moderately as possible. I do appeal to the Minister and to the Government to announce that, during the forthcoming winter, they are prepared to help those districts which are so unduly burdened that they are prepared to help them to a much larger extent than they have done in the past. We have talked about this 65 per cent., half the borrowed loan, and it sounds as if it were a financial contribution, but it must be realised it is only for half the period of the loan; and think when the figures are actually worked out of the money that has been spent during the last three-and-a-half years? During 2570 that period we have spent in Middlesbrough over a million of money, and out of that the total percentage grant made by the Government is only 26˙5 per cent., while the other 74 per cent. has had to be found by the ratepayers.
That, I submit, is an altogether inadequate contribution when what you are dealing with is a national problem. I hope the Minister will tell us that he will at least give this percentage for the full period of the loan, otherwise industry and trade will be crippled, and there is going to be no opportunity of trade reviving. One other point I want to make, and that is that the terms and conditions for the granting of this money should be extended. At the present time the grant is only made by the Central Grants Committee for work which is being expedited, and put in hand in advance of requirements. There is a good deal to be said for that in principle. In actual practice it is found that the local authorities, because they can get more help to expedite work, neglect work which should be done now from a health and sanitary point of view in order to get the extra grant of the work which is to be expedited.
There was the other day the case of the Birmingham corporation which applied for a loan of half a million of money in order to get a storage reservoir, a work which would have found employment for a very large number of men, not only in the main work, but in the incidental work of it. That was turned down by the Unemployment Grants Committee "because," they said, "next year or very shortly you will in any case have to tarry out this work." I submit that at a time like the present it is most important that work should be put in hand of a useful character, anywhere and everywhere, and that the Government should not turn a deaf ear to any scheme of a useful character. I appeal to them to leave nothing undone to help in this problem. They have been criticised, perhaps rightly, because they have not had in hand, or been able to put in hand, anything in the nature of large works of a national character. I submit it may be possible to carry out big national works. Surely there is no reason why local authorities, who have schemes already prepared, and everything ready to go on with, and are anxious to do the work, should be pevented from doing it because 2571 the Government are not prepared to give the necessary financial aid? There are large schemes throughout the country in the hands of local authorities which they could put in hand during the coming winter if only the Government were prepared to give the necessary assistance. I submit that so far the contribution of the Government has not been an adequate one, and I hope they will see their way to do more. I am the more encouraged in making this appeal when I note that the President of the Board of Trade is now sitting on the Front Bench. Just a year ago, that is in August, 1923, speaking from the Front Bench opposite, the right hon. Gentleman gave the Government of that day some excellent advice on this very particular question. He was referring to the necessity of assistance, and he went on to say:
The assistance offered by the Government is not adequate to make them willing to undertake, in the present trading conditions, large municipal enterprises.Those conditions were the same that the Government are offering us to-day, and if they were inadequate, according to the President of the Board of Trade, in 1923, how much more are they inadequate to-day when trading conditions are worse? The right hon. Gentleman added:Are we going to stop there? The Government is full of good intentions. I hope the municipalities will take advantage of the offer and engage in these large works, but if the municipalities are not willing to do that, are we going to reconsider it?I commend these words of the President of the Board of Trade to the Minister of Labour. Are they going to stop there? Are they going to remain satisfied with that which they condemned in their predecessors? I am satisfied from what the Minister said last week that he is prepared to help those municipalities. I only hope that help will he on broad generous lines; that having borne the burden and heat of the day the municipalities, which have deserved well of the nation and this House, and the help of the Minister, will get that assistance in the coming winter—will get State assistance worthy of their need.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw)I find little to complain about in the matter of the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. 2572 T. Thomson), and nothing to complain of in the manner of his speech. He has submitted one or two points that I think carry further than he gives them credit for. If the Government once accept the principle of paying for ordinary municipal work out of the taxpayers' money, I am afraid that, though we may have an almost bottomless purse, the bottom of that purse will be found. It is impossible for any Government to look with equanimity at a proposal for paying for the ordinary work of the corporations out of the taxes.
5.0 P.M.
The position that confronts the Government is rather a difficult and delicate one. After three or four years of acceleration of work the time has come when it is getting more and more difficult to find work to accelerate. The special schemes which might have been postponed for five or ten years have nearly all been carried out, but in spite of that the work at present going on is work that normally would not have been done had there been no Government grant at all. Then there is the difficulty when one tries to discriminate between one authority or another. Discrimination, in the view of the Government, after careful consideration, would in practice be most difficult, and we have come to the conclusion that whatever terms probably are offered, those terms must apply to approved schemes from all the municipalities. It is said that the terms are unduly low; that this guaranteed interest for a certain number of years will leave the localities with a tremendous burden that they ought not to carry. But all these schemes, accelerated and otherwise, would be done by the municipalities, if things were normal, within a short number of years. I know of no scheme which has been carried out which in all likelihood would not have been carried out inside a few years if times had been normal. There may be in the country here and there a scheme which is extraordinary of its kind and has been undertaken regardless of whether it was needed or not and which would not have been undertaken at any time if the Government grant had not been made. I think if there are schemes of that kind they form the exception and not the rule, so that one has to consider whether the idea of a grant for a limited number of years is unfair if one believes 2573 that normal conditions will be arrived at inside also a limited number of years. It is the fact that certain districts have been much worse hit than others, but the Government has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to make discrimination and that they must give the same kind of treatment for every authority. The, hon. Member was wrong when he said this matter directly affected my Department. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Labour, as a Ministry, cannot employ a single man on any scheme whatever with the exception of its own insurance scheme, but I know what the policy of the Government is quite well, and I will state it.
There have been roughly three kinds of grants in operation. There was a grant made to municipalities for accelerating work of a non-revenue producing character which amounted to 65 per cent. of the interest and sinking fund charges for half the period of the loan or for a maximum of 15 years. The Government intend to raise that 65 per cent. to three-quarters of the interest and sinking fund, with a maximum of 15 years. There was, and is yet, a grant of 50 per cent. for revenue-producing work for 15 years or the full period of the loan, whichever is the lesser period. The Government intends to keep that grant going on its present level. The information at our disposal does not incline us to make a heavier grant in the ease of revenue-producing works than now being made. Then there were works of another kind, works which were undertaken by localities, not out of loans, but out of revenue. There was then a grant of 60 per cent. of the wages paid for work of that kind, with a binding condition on the authority that only a certain proportion of the standard wages for the job should be paid to the people employed on the work. We have removed that limitation and given the authority power to pay wages which are either the standard rate or the rate paid by the municipality itself, whichever is the lower, and now we propose to raise by 25 per cent. the grant for these types of work and to give three-quarters of the wages to the men who are working on the jobs when the job is paid for out of revenue. That is the position of the Government so far as these specially difficult cases are concerned.
Mr. T. THOMSONThe right hon. Gentleman said 25 per cent. increase, and then he said 75 per cent. The present rate is 60 per cent.
§ Mr. SHAWThe present rate is 60 per cent. 25 per cent increase on that makes it 75 per cent. I am sorry my Lancashire way of using percentages is misunderstood. I have been so accustomed to using percentages that these things come instinctively, and I use a method of presenting them which is, perhaps, that of a specialist in percentages.
May I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) which, I think, was a general demand for all the information in the possession of the Government as to the strikes of the present, the strikes of the future, the results of both and the policy of the Government. I will try to state the exact position, beginning with the powers of the Ministry. The powers of the Ministry derive from the Act of 1896, the Conciliation Act, and the Industrial Courts Act. The position under the first is that the President of the Board of Trade has the power to appoint a, conciliator when agreement is reached for a conciliator, and generally to arrange meetings of the two sides in order that discussion may take place and conciliation may be used to its fullest extent. That Act, however, is now almost obsolete, and the new conditions, similar in type, are the conditions that apply. The Minister may now, if a dispute exists or a strike or lock-out is apprehended, consider the matter and take any necessary steps for promoting a settlement. What is generally done is to help the two sides in every possible way in their negotiations and, if negotiations have broken down, to take steps to get the two sides together again. The Minister may, if the parties consent—the whole thing is based on the consent of the two parties—appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or submit the matter either to the Industrial Court or to a single arbitrator or Board of Arbitration. He has no powers to o compel in any way these two sides to come to an agreement, he has no powers even to insist on a meeting if the two sides refuse, but he has the power, if he thinks fit, to refer any matters connected with the dispute to a Court of Inquiry. I shall have to say something presently about how that power has been used since the Government came into office.
2575 We have been asked whether there is any difference in the policy of the Government with regard to disputes. There seems to be a general opinion in the country, which is shared in the House, that where attempts have been made to introduce compulsory arbitration or methods of that kind the result has been good. That is extremely doubtful as I shall try to show by figures I shall give showing the result of the application of the Lemieux Act in Canada. The Government has no intention whatever of attempting to pass, or asking the House to pass, any Measure which will apply compulsion to either employers or employed. That is a plain and definite statement that I make on behalf of the Government in order that there may be no two opinions about where we stand. Neither compulsion nor any other kind of extraordinary method is in our opinion fit and ready to put before the House, at any rate at the present moment, and it is extremely doubtful whether compulsion in itself is likely either to be possible or effective in the near future. There was a Committee presided over by Mr. Speaker, when he was Mr. Whitley, that dealt with the whole question of industrial relationships so far as disputes were concerned and if I may read one part of their report I think it will give a clear idea as to the opinion held by the Government. The Committee said:
Whilst we are opposed to any system of compulsory arbitration, we are in favour of an extension of voluntary machinery for the adjustment of disputes. Where the parties are unable to adjust their differences, we think there should be means by which an independent inquiry may be made into the facts and circumstances of a dispute and an authoritative pronouncement made thereon, though we do not think there should be any compulsory power of delaying strikes or lock-outs.That, almost literally, is the opinion of the Government. It is in our opinion at present impossible either to make workers work under conditions they consider to be unfair or to make an employer run a concern under what he claims to be an unprofitable state of circumstances, and we believe that the extension of this spirit of conciliation and the use of the friendly offices of the Ministry of Labour is certainly at present the better way of dealing with these disputes.2576 We have been asked what we, have done with regard to the powers of the Court of Inquiry. I find since the Act was passed in 1919 there have been 12 Courts of Inquiry. There was one in 1919, another in 1920, the third in 1921, a fourth in 1922 and a fifth in 1923. No fewer than six Courts of Inquiry have been held this year. In other words, we have had more Courts of Inquiry to give the public the facts of disputes in six months than the previous five years could show, and it is the policy of the Ministry of Labour to say that, in all cases where the public interest is affected, the public has the right to know the facts, and because we believe that, we have had Courts of inquiry into the docks disputes, the tramway dispute, the railway shopmen's dispute, the coal mining dispute, the dispute amongst the dockers at Leith and the building trade dispute, so that we have used to the full the powers given to the Minister of Labour so far as inquiry into disputes is concerned, and the result has been good, It is a good thing that the public should know in every case of big industrial disturbance what the facts are, and whilst we cannot accept, either in principle or as a matter of policy, the idea of compulsion, we certainly accept the idea that the public must know what the dispute is about when the public suffers from it. I will now pass rapidly to deal with disputes in this country, and the method of dealing with them under the Canadian system which has been so often quoted. I find that in Canada under the Lemieux Act in 1917 the time lost in working days was 1,134,000 days; in 1915 the total was 763,000; and in 1019 it was nearly 4,000,000 days.
§ Lord EUSTACE PERCYAre those days all that were lost the industries under the Lemieux Act?
§ Mr. SHAWSo far as I know, these figures are calculated in the same way as they are calculated in this country, and they are comparable figures. They show the number of days lost by the people involved in lock-outs and strikes.
§ Lord E. PERCYThen they are the figures for the whole of the country in all industries.
§ Mr. SHAWNo; if there happens to be a joiners' dispute the figures apply only 2577 to the joiners and to those trades in the place where the dispute occurs.
§ Lord E. PERCYBut the Lemieux Act only applied to certain utility industry, and it does not apply to half the trades of the country. Has the right hon. Gentleman quoted the number of days lost for all the trades in the country?
§ Mr. SHAWAt any rate I think the Report shows very definitely that the Lemieux Act has not succeeded, and that when either side feels very keenly the strike continues in spite of the law. Now may I turn to what has happened in this country. There seems to be an opinion that in some way strikes and lock-outs are on the increase in this country, but the figures do not show that that is the effect. In 1920, speaking in round figures, in the six months from February to June the number of days lost through industrial disputes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 4,300,000. In 1921 the total was 79,000,000; in 1922, 18,500,000; in 1923, 4,200,000; and in 1924, 2,700,000. It has been argued that the present Government's occupation of office has been one of excessive industrial turmoil, but the fact is that the number of days lost in tile six months relating to the present Government's term of office has been very much less than the average over a number of years preceding. There is, under the circumstances, no ground at all in fact for the opinion that this is a time of excessive industrial turmoil, and there is no foundation for the idea that the time lost has been as great as it was before, but the figures show a decrease in the time lost under the present Government.
Now may I turn to the building dispute, and here I find myself on very delicate ground indeed, because, obviously a Minister who may he called upon to act as mediator cannot make statements which may be taken to apply to either side, and as my Department will inevitably have to deal with this dispute during the next few days, the House will understand that I must be extremely careful not to say anything which may he taken as showing bias on either one side or the other. I will simply review the actual facts without expressing any opinions at all. It was on the 20th June that the building trade employers came to the decision to lock out the workers in that trade. We immediately took action and got both sides together. I 2578 found when we got the two sides together the case in its complexity and difficulty was worse than any I have known, and I am not unacquainted with industrial disputes. I found that both the employers and the men did not believe in the good faith of each other. The men were absolutely convinced that the employers have not played the game, and the employers were equally certain that the workers had not played the game, and when you have two sides having lost faith or trust in each other the difficulty is very great indeed. We tried our best at the Ministry to get the two sides to come to some agreement. Hon. Members are aware that we failed, and immediately, in consonance with the policy of the Ministry, we set up a Court of Inquiry in order that the public might have the whole of the facts. That Court was presided over by Lord Buckmaster, and the Report which has been issued is well known to the active Members of the House.
§ Sir K. WOODI think it is only fair to say that Lord Buckmaster's Report stated that the main ground of the difficulty was the Liverpool dispute.
§ Mr. SHAWYes, and if I were in a position to argue the case I could go a lot further than that, but I prefer not to discuss it at the present time. After that Report had been handed in we again brought both sides together, and we were in contact with them all the time, and we tried to get an agreement between them. On the 29th July the Chief Labour Adviser, Sir David Shackleton, took on behalf of the Department certain definite steps that led to an invitation being issued for the 6th August for both parties to meet again, and as some newspapers have drawn quite a wrong conclusion from that perhaps I may state just what influenced the Department in calling that meeting for the 6th August. There had been a rather unpleasant incident at the meeting before, and it was evident that so far as the workers side was concerned there were certain executive committees which had to be consulted. The Bank Holiday was intervening, and it was felt to be best in the interest of peace and in the interest of getting a settlement, to allow Bank Holiday to go over in order to allow the men time to consult their executive, so that when the meeting was held again there might be 2579 some definite idea as to what could be done. That is the position up to date so far as the building trade dispute is concerned.
As to what will be the cost of the building of houses in certain eventualities, I prefer not to deal with that question. If certain eventualities occur, a calculation will be made, but it is a bit too early in the day to make such a calculation now, and it is certainly not my business to make calculations as to what will take place if certain things eventuate. I hope that in the present very strained condition of affairs in the building trade that as little as possible will be said in this House to aggravate either one side or the other. It would be perfectly easy to make an attack either on the employers or on the men. There is any amount of ground for making attacks on both sides, but at the present moment that would not help, and the best thing that can be done is to allow the industry itself to come to a final conclusion, and get the trade to work, because any attempt at compulsion front outside is certain to make matters worse and not better.
With regard to the electrical industry there is a Joint Industrial Council, and on the 15th of February last that trade union asked for an all-round increase of 10s., and on the 14th of March that demand was sent to the Joint Industrial Council. The figures of the voting have already been given, but in order to refresh the memories of hon. Members, may I say again that on the question of a strike a ballot was taken in which 12,742 men voted. There are in the industry about 29,000 men, and in this ballot there voted in favour of the strike 7,630 and in favour of arbitration 5,112, the majority in favour of a strike being 2,518.
§ Mr. PERCY HARRISBut there are 29,000 men in the trade.
§ Mr. SHAWYes, so far as we can ascertain. This vote, however, did not determine the strike, but what it did determine was that if no satisfactory way was found out of the difficulty in future negotiations the ballot was to hold good. There will be another meeting of the Joint Industrial Council, or rather of the National Council, on the 15th August, and the two sides will con- 2580 tinue their negotiations. The London section held a meeting on the 25th of July, arid I hope that the 15th August will see a settlement between the two sides. I am afraid it would be rather premature to jump into the arena before the ordinary meetings of the employers and the employed have finished their deliberations, and such action might be resented by either side, or oven by both sides.
I can, however, tell the House quite openly that it certainly is the intention of the Ministry of Labour, if these negotiations break down, to use every effort in the way of conciliation that can be used in order to bring about a settlement, and in any case, whether in this or any other industry wherever the interests of the public are affected, it will be considered the duty of the Ministry to set that the public is made aware of the whole of the facts. It will not, however, be the business of the Ministry to take sides either with the employers or the workers, because the first time that happens the usefulness of the Ministry of Labour as a conciliatory factor would disappear. Everything we can do in the direction of conciliation will be done and everything we can do to give information to the public will be done. Again I repeat it is not the idea of the Government that a great change in the policy of disputes is necessary, and it is not their intention to promote legislation for the purpose of devising new means of dealing either with strikes or lock-outs. We hope that so far as both sides—employers and trade unionists—are concerned, a spirit of greater reasonableness will be shown; and if it were possible, when negotiations take place between trade unions and employers' associations, for those negotiations to he concluded quickly either one way or the other, I am satisfied that many disputes would he avoided. There is nothing worse than to have men in factory or workshop working away week after week, knowing that a request has been made, and hearing nothing of the result. You get disgruntlement, disgust and, finally, sometimes, revolt. If any word of mine uttered from this place could help employers or workmen quickly to come conclusions when negotiations take place, I am certain that we should avoid wary of the disputes that we so regret.