HL Deb 14 December 1926 vol 65 cc1642-62

LORD WEIR had given Notice to move to resolve, That this House views with the gravest anxiety the long continued state of unemployment, the decrease in productivity in some sections of national industry, and believes that improvement must come in the main from a better appreciation on the part of employers, employed and the trade unions of their respective, industrial responsibilities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with a full appreciation of the difficulties, and with not a little misgiving, that, I venture to submit to your Lordships some considerations on the greatest and most vital domestic problem that confronts our country. I do so with the conviction that there is no subject calling more urgently for the attention of this House or for the earnest consideration which your Lordships have ever given to problems so vital and so bound up with the well-being of the people as that with which we are now faced. As my Motion indicates, I regard the extent of unemployment as the most significant index of our national well-being, and I choose this of intent, because the other evidence concerns material issues, while unemployment means suffering, misery and demoralisation of the human fabric of our nation. Though a cure may' lie in the adjustment of material things, the motive and the appeal are primarily and predominantly human.

Let us realise the actual situation by comparison. In pre-War days, taking the twenty-five years prior to 1914, our highest recorded unemployment was in 1908, the average for that year being 7.8 per cent, while the average for the twenty-five years was 4.3 per cent. For the last five years the average has been 12.6 per cent., the lowest was 10 per cent., and it is to-day as high as 13.4 per cent., excluding those unemployed in the coal mining industry. Very closely allied to this in its human aspect is the further fact that to-day there are some 2,500,000 men, women and children in receipt of Poor Law relief. Into all the social and economic effects and results of this I do not think that I need go, because they are fairly well known. Broadly, they are represented by a heavy reduction in national productivity, by a grim increase of the burdens on industry, on the Exchequer, on the taxpayer and the ratepayer, by an enhancement in the cost of domestic production, an increase in the cost of living and a severe handicap on our international selling ability.

The reflection on our national trading performance is that as compared with 1913 the trade adverse balance of imports over exports has increased by 260 millions per annum, disregarding the invisible export figures. Our coal ex-ports for the twelve months prior to the stoppage were 30 per cent. less than in 1913, and in iron and steel we were down 25 per cent. Perhaps more significant still, our imports for iron and steel had gone up by 24 per cent. But I will not weary your Lordships with figures, nor is it necessary, because the great outstanding fact is clear that to-day, with more than two millions additional population to maintain, and with possibly 100,000 more people in employment than before the War, the total productivity of the country, measured by any available test, is from 12 to 20 per cent. less than it was twelve years ago. This is the more disturbing in that the decrease is mainly associated with those export trades upon which our true national prosperity is dependent.

These facts have grave implications. On one side there is the human aspect of desperate anxiety, of a great measure of hardship, of intense dissatisfaction with the whole order of society that permits these disabilities; and on the other hand you have the dangerous reactions of reduced productivity on our national finances. It would be foolish to believe that this situation is entirely under our own control—there are world causes involved as well as domestic—but it would be equally foolish not to concentrate on some of the factors which appear definitely to lie within our own control, and this is my object to-day. Any survey discloses a more or less definite line of cleavage in prosperity. Services and industries mainly domestic are comparatively prosperous; industries, on the other hand, which rely on the export of a substantial portion of their products, are acutely depressed, and so acute is the depression, and so long continued, that it is no exaggeration to say that great British firms with world-wide reputations are facing desperate difficulties, or at least are confronted with reconstruction processes involving serious dislocation and financial hardship for many, all tending to weaken confidence and enterprise in great fields of industry at one time predominantly British.

It is frequently forgotten that these losses do not fall only on large well-to-do capitalists, but also on a veritable army of small investors, in many cases entirely dependant on these particular investments for their livelihood. That is a fair enough picture even before the General Strike and the coal stoppage. To-day, after these events, if I cared to draw another picture based on figures alone, it would of course assume an even darker aspect. The direct and indirect effects of these two industrial dislocations have been of the most deplorable character, and the bill of costs has still to be paid. But I am going to suggest that the General Strike and the coal stoppage have certain marked and peculiar characteristics associated with them and that, if these are once clearly distinguished and fully comprehended by the people of this country, it will be possible to say that lessons have been learned and evidence has been given which, if properly assimilated and applied, may well pave the way for the initiation of a great remedial national effort, and the return to better times. If we can diagnose correctly the real factors which produced the General Strike and maintained the coal stoppage for a period of seven months, if we can make these clear to the eyes of the people of Britain, then I believe we can look forward with some confidence to the future. I am a great believer in the fundamental common sense of the people of Britain, though their instincts are sometimes more rapid than their mental processes.

And now, before I turn to these lessons of which I have spoken and of that evidence on which we must base our judgment of the true sources of these present-day conditions, let me interpose a personal note. I am conscious that I am dealing with grave problems, with matters which may provoke acute and partisan criticism, and I speak to-day with the fullest sense of personal responsibility, not as a representative of employers, although I am myself an employer: I speak as a member of your Lordships' House, discharging the responsibilities attached to that position, and in virtue of any industrial experience I may have gained in a life spent in the service of industry.

I am aware that many others with qualifications greater than mine, both within the field of industry and outside of it, have made public their views, their suggestions, and their remedies for the industrial problems before us. From their contributions there emerge two outstanding desiderata for a return of our national prosperity and productivity. The first is termed "Peace in industry," and the second is that "There must be a combined effort on the part of employers and employed to secure by co-operation greater and more efficient production." With these I entirely agree. When I speak of more efficient production I really imply production at lower cost, but by this I definitely do not mean cost reduction by wage reduction. If my case depended on this I might well despair of the future.

In dealing with the first, "Peace in industry," my method will be to ask what has caused recent conflicts in industry. In the past the normal reason for such conflicts has been the workers' desire for better conditions and all that this implies, and the refusal of employers, for reasons which may or may not have been sound, to grant their claims. The legitimate claim of a British workman, as I see it, is that he is entitled to a growing improvement in his general condition of life. The advance of science and its applications to industry have increased the production of wealth, the mechanisation of process and transport has lightened the burden of manual labour; the education of all classes has effected a gradual change of outlook; and a widening of interest has made leisure more valuable. From all these developments the workman desires, and desires rightly, to profit. He expects, somehow or other, that his employer, or his trade union, or the Government will see to it that, as long as he does his work well and conscientiously, his lot will steadily he improved. I regard that as a fair, reasonable, and justifiable point of view or aspiration. It is, therefore, quite understandable if for a long time things go against him, that he will become discontented, that unrest will increase, and that conflict may ensue.

Now, let me apply the touchstone of fact to to-day's position, not with any view to discounting the aspirations I have mentioned, but to clarify the issues I desire to examine. Taking employed British workers in the sheltered industries and services, possibly some 8,000,000 in number, there is ample evidence that to-day they are substantially better off in every material sense than they were in 1913. Next, taking say 7,000,000 workers employed in the unsheltered industries exposed to the blast of foreign competition, to-day they possess as a whole a purchasing power not substantially inferior to that of 1913. I agree that the remuneration position of the latter has not improved, unless it be recorded in wage rates per hour, in which case it is higher. But, on the other hand, they are definitely much better off than the workers of all other Continental competing countries in purchasing power and working conditions, and they possess a system of social services to secure them against the contingencies of industrial life, without parallel in history, in scope, or in costliness. Coupled with this, their country is discharging her Debt obligations, bearing the burdens of defaulting debtors, maintaining a stable currency and a balanced Budget. In view of all these facts I feel justified in drawing the conclusion that the recent industrial trouble has not been brought about in the main through justifiable unrest as to working conditions.

Let me take the two recent conflicts. At the General Strike surely no one would suggest that the railway workers had any reasonable complaint as to their conditions. They are obviously much better off than ever they have been. Again, in the docks there is no evidence that the dockers were dissatisfied with the progress which has taken place in their conditions since the War. Now, in regard to coal, I will not traverse the old ground, other than to say that in April of this year, yes, even in July, 1925, the miners, if they had conducted their negotiations on a purely industrial basis, could have secured terms of settlement which represented the utmost possible under the economic conditions of the time, and on a system which embodies the sharing of results on a more practical basis than has been found feasible in many other industries.

With all this in front of us I ask your Lordships, why the conflict? The answer, I believe, is exemplified in the advice given by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to the miners in the month of October, when he said: "Place your hopes for the future on the ballot box and not on strikes." In my view we have here evidence of what lies at the root of our industrial conflicts of the post-War years. We have the British workman told by an ex-Prime Minister and a responsible Leader of a Party that he must look for future prosperity in industry and the enhancement of his industrial conditions to political action. In quoting this as the advice of the Leader of the Socialist Party, I do not wish to imply that merely because it comes from such a source it must necessarily be dangerous and misleading; my contention is that industrial conditions can wily be made worse, and economic recovery retarded by whatever Party shapes its labour policy with the ballot box in view.

The possibility of achieving prosperity in industry lies almost entirely in the character of the people in industry, in their qualities of energy, self-reliance and intelligence, and so far as the solution of labour problems is concerned, in the faith of the two parties in each other. Whenever that faith is deliberately sapped by a third party claiming to hold a specific for improvement in the lot of one of the others, then an alien element of real danger has crept into industry. At no time has it been more important than to-day that the two parties should work together freely and with mutual confidence. In almost every sphere, research and enterprise have prepared the way for fresh advances, given industrial peace and industrial co-operation. The chemist, the metallurgist, the technician, yes, even the great industrial leaders, are blazing fresh trails and opening new fields of industry and new forms of employment in existing industries. A continuous change such as I have indicated, responsive to fresh discoveries and new invention is the healthiest condition for our industries, but it demands a flexibility and an accommodation both in the employer and the employee which only their intimate relationship can bring about—a relationship which can only he transformed and injured by the participation of third parties.

I think it is singularly unfortunate that to-day the Socialist Party holds out among the chief of its inducements the bribe of better industrial conditions. So far as I am aware there is no single attribute in human character which legislation can develop to make industry prosperous. Successful production can only be assured by the acceptance of their full responsibilities by both parties, by the enterprise and intelligent direction of the employer, and by the conscientious and contented service of the worker. In the past, to make the employer discharge certain of his responsibilities, the trade unions came into existence, and they played a valuable part in building up satisfactory industrial conditions and, so far as I am concerned and so far as all thinking employers are concerned, the trade unions have still legitimate and useful functions to discharge, which I hope they will long continue to do.

But no one associated with industry can fail to appreciate the changes which have come over trade union policy and trade union practice. On the purely industrial aspect the trade unions have failed as a whole to adapt themselves to the continuous change and rebirth at work in most of our industries. They have displayed a rigidity and lack of vision which have obstructed and retarded improvements in method, to the injury, ultimately, of their own interests. As tools of the extremists and as political weapons co-operation has in numerous cases been the furthest thing from their thoughts, and it is quite useless to deny that they have been used as the forcing house of class feeling and of class warfare, while the avowed aim of many of their officials is the overthrow of the existing structure of society. The complaints of the inefficiency and shortcomings of the existing system may be many, but I suggest that it is poorly realised how largely these deficiencies are caused by the action, corporate and individual, of those who are actively opposed to that system. That the system functions at all under its present handicaps is a tribute to its essential merits and to its adaptability.

Suggestions have been made that what is called a truce should be established for five years, or some such period. This sounds admirable, but it seems to me to connote an entirely mistaken attitude; it assumes a state of hostility, and at some date a temporary cessation with the forces still in being, and I feel that this phraseology of the armed camp must be departed from. Round the conference table on neither side should industrial conditions be settled as concessions for the moment, or as in a game in which step by step encroachments are prepared at one stage to be pushed home at a later. Industrial settlement must be agreed as something which will help the worker, help the employer and his industry, and lead to improvement in stability and efficiency.

In the General Strike and the coal stoppage, we see the real outcome of the policy of political trade unionism acting intentionally or unintentionally with revolutionary aims. What has been the result of that policy? Surely the greatest blow to legitimate trade unionism and to the British workers' conditions and to the prospects of trade recovery which could possibly have happened. I have the privilege of knowing many trade union leaders who have done great things for their men, thinking always of the industrial interests. I know they have had misgivings as to political association; I know they have succumbed halfheartedly to the temptations and allurements of lending their industrial influence, or being forced to do so in support of the new policy. To-day they know that their misgivings were sound.

Let me mention one class or section which has done infinite harm. They are not trade union leaders, they have no experience of leading any one; they sit and write about the ideal conduct and direction of industry as if it were a game, as if technical problems were propositions in euclid; as if human nature were invariable and inert; they regard industry as they would a problem in chess, then tell those who have spent all their lives in it and in learning its complexities that they are incompetent. Fertile in fault finding and with an affectation of knowledge which they do not possess, they set themselves in books and papers and lecture hall to disseminate their crudities of thought and partisan sophistries. Given real responsibility for the conduct of any industry they would ruin it in a month; they have played and are playing their mischievous part in promoting and fanning industrial strife.

With these and many other factors operating against the recovery of a better spirit in industry what can we do to effect improvement? Let me say to the employer, to the workman and to his trade union: "For industrial recovery, put not your trust in politics." Let me suggest a moratorium. For the purposes of this it must be recognised that political views of all shades can be sincerely held, and in some cases respected no matter how they may differ from one's own. No one denies that the existing order of society has its limitations; and we may believe that these can better be remedied one way than another. But surely our first consideration should be to ensure employment and the means of livelihood to those who are suffering hardship and demoralisation to-day. When we have first restored healthful activity and material comfort to our people, we can then consider more clearly and with infinitely greater hope, the sufficiently complex problems of adjustment to our respective points of view.

From this, however, I must exclude those who declare themselves bent on wrecking the machine at any cost, believing that from the chaos and destruction of existing institutions they can establish some new order which they cannot even define—from these extremists giving their allegiance only to the declared enemies of our country no help can be expected: with them no reason can hope to prevail. But from all men of good will intent on repairing the damage wrought by evil counsel, by alien corruption, and by a mistaken sense of loyalty to hidebound and unintelligent leadership, it should be possible to bring together in one Council Chamber a few men capable of concentrating on the industrial necessities of the time, apart entirely from political considerations. Men of good intent not coming as delegates to voice an official policy dictated to them, not representing organisations, but coming together as practical men to seek a solution of practical questions, these to my mind can make the best beginning.

The unfortunate tendency of recent years to over-organisation has affected both the employers and the men; regimentation on both sides has produced a rigidity and dependence on by-laws, agreements and precedents not readily adaptable to the changing conditions essential to the success of modern industry. Therefore, I do not suggest but would even deprecate the creation of new machinery, and propose, therefore, unfettered discussion as a necessary preliminary. On such a basis and with good will and sincerity on either side, I believe it may be possible to come to a common understanding which would enable a better working atmosphere to be created and to permeate not only the official counsels el industry but the shops and factories themselves, and restore that confidence in each other which is necessary for successful to-operation. I have indicated some of the disabilities which paralyse our action as employers, which prevent the recovery of prosperity, and perpetuate unemployment; I have indicated the lines on which a movement might be made, and I believe the time is ripe for it. I can only hope that the recognition of this opportunity will not be allowed to pass without at least an attempt being made towards reaching the basis of what I would call a common industrial creed which will make for greater social happiness and national peace.

Moved to resolve, That this House views with the gravest anxiety the long continued state of unemployment, the decrease in productivity in some sections of national industry, and believes that improvement must come in the main from a better appreciation on the part of employers, employed and the trade unions of their respective industrial responsibilities.—(Lord Weir.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD)

My Lords, I am quite sure that this House owes a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Lord who has just sat down for bringing this matter before its consideration and particularly for the manner in which he has done so. I can only express my own personal regret, a regret which I am sure will be shared by every member of your Lordships' House, that owing to the exigencies of public business his Motion should have come on at such an hour as not to enable him to have an audience at all comparable to the importance of the subject or to the admirable way in which it has been introduced.

I particularly welcomed his statement that he spoke as a member of your Lordships' House rather than as a representative in any sense of the employers' side of industry. I have always felt that your Lordships' House has an opportunity to perform great service on the industrial question. It is quite true, and deeply to be regretted in my judgment, that there are no representatives of the working class amongst your Lordships, nor are there a large number of employers, but it is just for that reason that I think your Lordships can take up this question with a great deal of impartiality and discrimination and may easily be able to tender advice to the country which will be of the greatest possible service in the settlement of this very difficult and supremely important question.

My noble friend began by emphasising the extremely serious position of industry at the present moment. No one would, of course, care to deny that, for a moment and the figures which he gave as to the percentage of unemployment were indeed very striking. It does show that there is something very wrong with industry not only to find that there is such a large measure of unemployment but to find that, even when allowance has been made for that, the productivity of this country is very much less than it ought to be. It is not because I desire to minimise in any way the seriousness of what my noble friend said that I think it right to remind your Lordships—he did mention it, but perhaps did not dwell with quite sufficient emphasis upon it—that after all a great part, the greatest part, I think he would admit, of our industrial difficulty at the moment is due undoubtedly to the grave economic dislocation which was caused by the War. It is not necessary to elaborate so obvious an observation as that. I only make it for this reason, that though the position is serious nothing is gained by exaggerating its seriousness and much of the very depressing conditions which at present prevail will, I hope and believe, pass away as economic stability is recovered, not only in this county, but all over the world, and the last remnants of the effect of the War gradually disappear.

My noble friend went on to inquire—and that is the most important part of his speech—what can be done and said, with great truth, that in order to ascertain what remedy is practicable, the first thing is to be quite sure of the disease from which we are suffering. Putting aside then what may be called, in a sense, the accidental causes due to economic dislocation following upon the War, what is it that really is wrong at the present time? It is quite unnecessary to argue that something is wrong. That was not only admitted, but strongly asserted by my noble friend. He evidently thinks that what is most wrong at the moment is the incursion of politics into industry. In one sense I quite agree with him, but even here we must be careful to distinguish exactly what we mean. It is no doubt true that the working class is now possessed of great political power. It is no doubt true that the voters are inclined to use their power in order to carry through changes in legislation which they believe will be of advantage to them in their lives. I do not think that any legitimate complaint can be made of that. Every class that has had power in this country has in its time done the same and certainly, as far as I am concerned, I would most fully admit that much of modern legislation, which no doubt owes its origin to the inspiration of the working-class voter, has been on the whole of great advantage not only to him but to the community as a whole.

In that sense, therefore, I do not think my noble friend would suggest that you can complain of the incursion of the ballot box into industrial problems. I do not think that is what he meant at all. He meant what our American friends call "playing politics"—that is to say, using in this case industrial questions, and industrial difficulties, not with a view of solving those difficulties and finding a remedy for the actual evils which they display, but for promoting some quite different political and Party political cause. It is disastrous not only to industry but to every department of human life where that procedure is employed. In some countries it is employed in connection with foreign affairs, where it is perhaps even more disastrous than when it is applied in the case of industry. The worst form of that is that which my noble friend described as wrecking the machine at any cost, where you have the kind of man who disapproves of what he would describe as the capitalist organisation of industry and goes about to render that organisation impracticable, puts sand in the works of industry, is anxious not to improve the condition of the worker but to make it still worse so that he will provoke him to demand far-reaching and revolutionary changes. I cannot acquit Mr. Cook and other leaders of that type of having played politics in that very disastrous, base and heartless fashion.

So far as that is a full account of what has recently taken place I should join with my noble friend in the warmest words of condemnation which the English language would afford. I am bound to add that I am not convinced that the desire for improvement of the material conditions of labour has had so little to do with what has recently occurred as my noble friend appeared to think. He said definitely that in his opinion these were not due to justifiable unrest as to working conditions. Well, I doubt whether that is so. I noticed a statement published in The Times the other day and drawn from some official source, which estimated at over 50 per cent. the strikes which in the last sixteen years have been caused through differences about wages and to that we must add I forget what percentage, but a considerable one, as to working conditions and so on.

Though it may be perfectly true—it is true, no doubt—to say that in many respects the workers' condition now is a great deal better than it was some years ago, yet that is not a complete account of the matter. There is no doubt—I do not think one can resist the evidence—that there was at the back of the recent coal strike a perfectly genuine though mistaken belief that wages were being unduly lowered in relation to economic facts. It is quite true that I do not myself share that opinion. I believe that a proper appreciation of the facts would show that the proposals made by the employers were absolutely necessary if the industry was to be carried on, broadly speaking, and it is possible that my noble friend may be right in saying that the leaders of the workmen knew that perfectly well. As to that I express no opinion. Some of them may have done so, some may not. But the thing that impresses me—I admit I am in this respect an onlooker—is the impossibility of convincing the workmen in this and in many other cases of the truth of the economic facts alleged. I cannot help feeling, if my noble friend will allow me to say so—in fact, I do not know that he will disagree—that fundamentally the great trouble, that which causes almost all of the difficulty, nine-tenths of it, is the condition of suspicion which prevails between the employers and their workmen in so many cases.

I am not, of course, suggesting it does so in every case, but in many cases it is that atmosphere of suspicion which makes a workman absolutely decline to believe what he is told by his employer. I am exposed to the observation that I am not an employer of labour myself, though professionally I have been brought into contact with a good many of those who are; but I did once have a little experience of my own which, if the House will allow me, I should like to recount as an example of what I mean. It does not refer to what is ordinarily called industry but to agriculture, but it will illustrate the kind of thing that I have in mind. When I was in the House of Commons I sat as member for an agricultural constituency, and one summer I went round the constituency with the object of interviewing the labourers apart from their employers and of finding out what that section of my constituents really thought. I remember that on that, or some similar occasion, I talked about this very question of wages to a long line of men—eight or ten of them—who were in the employment of a gentleman who, I am sure, was on the whole a good employer. I pointed out to them that the reduction of wages which was then threatened and unfortunately in progress was absolutely necessary in consequence of the great agricultural depression that had come after the boom just after the War. They absolutely declined to believe it, they would not hear of it.

I told them various facts which were within my knowledge and I hope they thought me a well-meaning man—at any rate, they were very polite as Englishmen almost always are—but they had no kind of belief in anything that I said. I remember they said, as conclusive proof that I was wrong, that the farmer had recently set up a new motor car. As a matter of fact, that had nothing to do with the matter and could be explained quite well, but that was the kind of attitude of mind that I found. They absolutely refused to believe what I said. I remember in the same peregrination meeting a number of them in a schoolroom. The farmers had been good enough to allow them to come from their work to meet me, of course in the absence of employers. There were thirty or forty of them on that occasion. I began with what I regarded as a platitude, that of course there were good employers and bad. Thereupon there was a general cry from the whole room: "Not here, they are all bad"—which was quite untrue from the ordinary point of view. It was a considerable shock to me for the moment, but that illustrates the kind of thing I mean.

Perhaps I might give one story that as told me which explains this kind of thing, assuming it was true, and I have every reason to believe it was true. It was told me by a person of strong Con- servative opinion who, I believe, was in a position to know the facts. This was the story that was told me. There was a dispute about wages in a big industrial works. The employers met the men, they argued the point, they gave reasons why it was impossible for the business to afford what the men desired, and so well did they argue that the men agreed and accepted the view of the employers. That was the result of the discussion. The men went back to work, or continued their work, and three months afterwards the dividend of the company was declared at the rate of 30 per cent. That is the story told to me and it is that kind of thing—though I believe that to be a very rare and unusual experience—which produces suspicion, just as the attitude of men like Mr. Cook naturally produces, inevitably produces, the most profound suspicion on the other side.

Now, I cannot help feeling—I hope my noble friend will not disagree with me in this—that the real root cause of the trouble is this suspicion and distrust. I was therefore particularly glad to hear him make that very striking and interesting offer of some kind of free and open discussion between, I will not say representatives, but between important individuals of the two classes. I most heartily agree with him in his rejection of such a term as "truce." That is an entirely wrong way of looking at it. We want a permanent settlement of this question if we can get it. We want to go to the root causes of the trouble. It is not for the Government to do anything except to express the warmest sympathy with my noble friend's suggestion and wish him God speed in his efforts to bring about such a round-table conference. I will only say, if I may, addition that we must be realistic in this matter. A great number of statements have been made in public recently in a great number of organs of public opinion breathing the most earnest desire for co-operation, for peace in industry and for good will. They are all excellent things in themselves but, if they lead to nothing practical and definite in the end, they may easily do more harm than good.

The old, hard English proverb must never be forgotten: "Fine words butter no parsnips." That is too true, and I venture very respectfully to ask my noble friend whether he is quite sure that the whole root of the trouble is in the desire of the workman to better his material position—whether that is the whole of his aspiration and desire in this matter. I must honestly confess to a certain amount of doubt upon that point. I do not think that the whole question will be solved nowadays by saying to the workman: "We will ensure that you will always get good wages and that your material position will gradually grow as the prosperity of the industry grows." That, is a great thing, but I am not sure that it is everything and I am not sure in my heart of hearts that it is the main thing. I cannot help feeling that we have to dig a little deeper than that if we are really to reach a solution of this question. We have, somehow or other, to bring about—I am sorry to use words which are already too hackneyed, but no other words occur to me—a sentiment of partnership in business between employers and employed. I do not believe that you will get permanent peace unless you can get that mental attitude. I do not believe that it is possible. If that is accepted, if that is the ideal that you set before you, if you desire to get the workmen into the state of mind of partners in the business, you must consider how far you can give them the position and, still more, the responsibilities of partners.

If my noble friend succeeds in getting his round-table discussion, that will be a body infinitely more capable than I can presume to be of expressing an opinion and finding a solution of these troubles. I cannot help hoping that that conference will consider very carefully whether the time has not come to aim at such a reorganisation of industry as I have indicated. It means not only the ordinary share in profits, not even a share in capital, but some kind of voice in direction, not necessarily by membership of the board of directors—though that has been tried with great success in some cases—but some other method of bringing influence to bear, not so much on the day to day management of the concern as on its general direction. I am sure that something a that kind will have to be done before we can solve this question.

I think I could show, if it were germane to the temper of this discussion, that such a proposal is quite in consonance with the political opinions of any of the three Parties. I believe it is, but I prefer not to put it on that ground this evening. I prefer to say: In the end, what else is there to be done? In the end, unless you can produce this real co-operation between employers and employed, unless you can make them feel that they are partners in a common enterprise, whatever may be your future political aspirations, whatever may be your future ideas as to economic organisation of industry, unless you can produce that result, surely, in view of the very serious figures and reasons given to us by my noble friend at the beginning of his speech, it may well happen that, before you can introduce your new economic system, whatever it may be, the industry of the country will have ceased to exist.

I remember that years ago, when I was keenly interested in this problem of co-partnership, when it had just come before me professionally as counsel for the South Metropolitan Gas Company, I went to see the Board of Trade on the subject. I was received by the officials of that great Department and by the gentleman who was then—for it was before the days of the Ministry of Labour—at the head of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. We discussed the matter; they, of course, knew a great deal more about it than I did. I urged it upon them. They said: "A great deal of what you say is true, and no doubt there are grave difficulties." At last the chief of the Department made use of a striking expression. He said: "I do not know whether co-partnership is the solution of our industrial troubles, but of this I am quite certain, that, if it is not the solution, then no solution exists." I can only Say in conclusion that the Government are very glad to accept the Motion of my noble friend and, as I say, to express their warmest thanks to him for having brought the matter before the House and their hope that he will not weary in well-doing in seeking a solution to these terrible problems.

LORD THOMSON

My Lords, it is not my intention to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I feel that someone should reply from this Bench, and being that anomalous type, a Labour Peer—though not a trade unionist, as the noble Viscount has pointed out; but I happen to enjoy the privilege of the acquaintance of many trade unionists—I should like to put certain points of view. I may say that the noble Viscount has anticipated a great deal of what I was going to say, and with nearly all that he said I am in cordial agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Weir, while putting his case, I think, with very great fairness and in the least provocative manner, did leave on my mind the impression that the chief evil in the present situation was the fact that politics were mixed up with industry. I agree with the noble Viscount that that is not so, and in fact it is entirely not so. The noble Viscount rather qualified his objections to that statement, but I am entirely opposed to it, and I shall endeavour in a few sentences to show that the mixing of politics and industry is most essential to carry out what we all wish to effect.

I suppose it is an axiom that since the time when political equality was given to the masses of the people in this country they have used that political equality to achieve, as far as possible, economic and social equality. As the noble Viscount pointed out, right through the history of this country political means have been used to acquire economic power, and certainly reforms in industry which we enjoy to-day would never have been obtained without the vote of the workers. All the reforms in the past have been opposed—I do not say by people of the stamp of Lord Weir—but the opposition has been overcome by the vote of the ever-increasing number of voters. Then there is another point. The noble Lord, Lord Weir, appears to think that this political element in industry is a source of danger. Personally I think it is a safety valve. It is a sentiment of political helplessness that makes working class people bitter, so far as I know. I have known so many trade unionist representatives in another place who have become extraordinarily moderate and reasonable since their arrival in that place. The reason is not that they have altered their convictions—on the contrary—but that they have learnt that it is better to reason things out, and to do what the noble Lord himself suggests, that is, take things to the conference table as often as possible.

I would remind him, moreover, that these evils are not purely economic, nor are they susceptible to purely economic solutions. If the last dispute had been susceptible to an economic solution, pure and simple, can your Lordships imagine that the Government would not have gladly given £25,000,000 to avoid the loss involved to the trade of this country? The noble Lord thought that the trouble is that when a Government interferes with what ought to be two partners in industry, that Government intervention prolongs the dispute. It has been pointed out countless times during the last eight months that never, in one certain industry, have the representative bodies of the two sides been able to agree. I am not talking of individual employers in the coal industry, but has there ever been a real agreement, or anything more than a truce, between the mineowners' association and the miners' federation? I do not think so, and since this industry, like other industries, is vital to the prosperity of the country, surely some political element should come in, and should be there to bring them together, if possible.

The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, went on to talk about co-partnership. Personally I am entirely in agreement with that as an intermediate settlement, but I would like to point out that when I consult my friends in the trade union movement I do not find a very great readiness to accept even that solution, and I submit that the reason is ethical. There are many sincere and decent and moderate men in the trade union movement to-day, who genuinely detest the system of industry for profit. They say that if they go in for co-partnership with the employer they are merely extending a system of which they disapprove, and becoming accomplices in wrongdoing, and they advocate the creation, by political means, of a state of affairs where the lion of industry will lie down with the lamb, and there will be no exploitation of anybody. Personally I do not look forward to such an ideal state, and I would welcome any system like that to which the noble Viscount referred. I, indeed, personally found little on which to differ seriously from the noble Viscount, and I would like to point out to Lord Weir that I have not been traversing his views from any political hostility, but merely from a desire to help him to that goal which I know he has in mind. I am convinced, however, that we have first to clear away some misconceptions about industry, and I am sure that if the people for whom I am speaking could get round a table, a speech such as the noble Lord has made would get for him the cordial sympathy of a good many workers in the Labour movement.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for literally more than two minutes, but I wish to emphasise, if I may, what the noble Viscount has said, and the way in which he expressed his belief that the difficulties to-day were not due merely to questions of improving the material position of the worker, his wages or his hours, but that there was a deeper trouble to be dealt with. My own experience of working people, for a considerable period of years thoroughly endorses this. I remember, again and again, working men, who have been thinking out the question as carefully as possible, telling me that the real matter at issue was not so much hours or wages, but was a question of status. I recollect in particular a man who could by no kind of means be regarded as revolutionary, saying that when he went into his work he left his individuality outside and became simply a number, and that however much you may shorten hours and improve wages you will not have dealt with the centre of the matter until you improve the status of the worker by giving him some real share in the work in which he is actively engaged. I agree with every word that the noble Viscount has uttered, and most cordially support what has been said by the noble Lord who moved the Resolution, when he emphasised the importance of closer co-operation between employer and employed. I am convinced, however, that yon will never get this until greater efforts have been made to meet the difficulty about the status of the worker.

On Question, Motion agreed to.