Commenting on the important question of the linking of wages to the cost-of-living figures in his quarterly report, which the meeting approved, Mr. Roberts said: "The clause in the recent wages agreement which provided for discussion of wages in relation to cost of living was inserted at the suggestion of the operatives' representatives for several reasons. First, that having arrived at what could be considered a reasonable basis of wages, and anticipating a rigid control of prices, it would be unfair to make capital out of the country's needs and prejudice the export trade. Secondly, that if the cost of living rose it would be better to have planned control of wages rather than make periodic demands for advances with their consequent dislocation of trade.
"It now appears," he continued, "if we understand the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly, that our well-meant efforts were misdirected and that we ought to have agreed to wages becoming stabilized for the period of the war, no matter how prices rise. Apparently this means that employers can take their profits while the workers make their sacrifices. We were under the impression that the Government had powers to prevent profiteering. Rightly used, these powers would have prevented and will prevent any considerable rise in prices; in fact, they appear to be doing so in other belligerent countries. We would infinitely prefer that prices—and, therefore, wages—should remain stable," added Mr. Roberts.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.