THIRD READING. (Hansard, 18 July 1887)

§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

Before this Bill passes its final stage, I wish to express my deep regret at its imperfect character, and that it will still leave unredressed many grievances from which thousands of working men suffer. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members who attended the Committee and the Report stage that an earnest effort was made by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Donald Crawford) to introduce into the Bill a clause giving workmen a right to appoint their own medical officer. A more reasonable proposal in my estimation could not possibly have been made. That proposal met with the most determined hostility from the author of the Bill, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and mainly at his instigation, it was rejected by the Committee. I was certainly surprised at the opposition which was offered to such a reasonable proposal. It seemed to me that that opposition was based on the course which in the past was pursued with regard to working men, when we were told our duty was simply to pay, that our employers were very much 1299 better judges of our wants than we were, Certainly, it does seem to me only reasonable and right that those who have to pay ought to have a voice in, and the right of, selecting their own medical officer. Against the exclusion of such a very wholesome and democratic provision from the Bill I enter my emphatic protest. Then another clause which I felt it to be my duty to move, was one to exempt workmen from any deductions. I did so because I thought the time had gone by when employers ought to have the right to deduct from the wages of the workman, any amount, no matter however small it might be; but the House in its wisdom thought otherwise, and the clause was negatived. Then I introduced another clause to exempt from any such deductions workmen who had already made provision for sickness, old age or death, so that they should not be compelled to pay twice over. It did seem to me, now, that we have huge organizations such as the Odd fellows, the Foresters, and the large and powerful trades unions, and that nearly every workman has made provision for himself, that there was no necessity that this coddling process should go on. There might have been some 20 or 30 years ago, when the practice was first introduced, a necessity for these funds—and I have no doubt many employers were actuated by most benevolent motives—but the necessity for them has now been superseded by the operation of the societies to which I have referred. Again the hon. Member for Northampton interposed, and the House decided to reject that clause. Then there was another very wholesome provision attempted to be introduced, to compel employers to render a statement of the income and expenditure in matters of this kind with respect to deductions, and for the life of me I am unable to conceive how the hon. Member for Northampton could have opposed such a wholesome provision as that. Surely, when workmen are compelled to pay they have a right to know what is done with the money taken from their wages. At the instigation of the hon. Member for Northampton the House rejected that clause; but, a clause, which was introduced by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire, and which provided in part for a statement of income and expenditure, 1300 was accepted. Now, the Bill is in this anomalous condition, that where employers make deductions from the wages of workmen for the purpose of school fees and for the purpose of medical attendance, they will be compelled to provide their workpeople with a balance sheet showing what has been done with the money which they receive. So that when pence are collected—and for the purpose of school fees and medical attendance it will only amount to pence—a balance-sheet will have to be provided by the employer for his workmen; but in the case of a benevolent fund, where shillings would be deducted, the employer would not be compelled to provide his workmen with a balance sheet. It seems to me an anomaly to compel employers to render a statement in regard to small deductions, and not to enforce the same conditions in regard to the greater. The hon. Member for Northampton taunted me with my ignorance on this subject, and I frankly admit that my only knowledge of the subject has been acquired by something like 20 years' experience in workshops and on scaffolds, and never having seen a balance sheet of the money deducted, or the way in which it has been expended. What is the practice that obtains amongst employers? Some employers deduct from the wages of their workmen, and hand over to a Committee of workmen the money which they have so deducted; and the committee distribute the funds and render an account to their fellows of the money which they had received from their employers, and the way in which they had expended it; but there are other instances—a great many, unfortunately—of employers who deduct these moneys from the wages of their workmen, and retain them in their possession. There is no committee, no check, and no audit. The workmen never know what is done with the money which they are compelled to hand over to the employer, or his agent. It seems to me a monstrous thing that this system should go on unchecked; and it will, because of the exclusion from the Bill of that wholesome provision in the clause that I moved, and which would have met this difficulty. I have been informed by the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale Hayne) that in the mining 1301 districts of Cornwall, the employers do not keep accounts of the deductions they make from the workmen; and it is mixed up with their capital. In many instances the employers act in a most benevolent spirit to their workmen, and supplement the amount they deduct from the workmen's wages by grants from their private purse. But there are a large number of employers—especially the smaller employers—who make deductions from the wages of their workmen; and frequently they become bankrupt, and the workmen do not get a single farthing from the funds to which they have been compelled to subscribe. No balance sheet is ever published, and no account is rendered to the workmen, and no account is given of the way in which the money is expended. If all employers were good men—I do not say they are all bad men—there would have been no necessity for this Bill. The very fact that this Bill has been introduced proves that bad practices obtain on the part of a considerable number of employers; and it was to meet those bad practices, and to prevent their continuance, that this Bill has been introduced. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Northampton's experiences of the practices obtaining among the mining organizations of the Northern part of the Kingdom, led him to the conclusion that the practices obtained generally; but it was with some surprise that I observed the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) oppose this clause; because he frankly admitted he knew nothing about the organizations of the workmen in any other part of the Kingdom—that his knowledge was confined to the minors of the North, whoso interests he so well represents in this House. In the North of England, where deductions are made from the wages of their workmen by the employers, it is done with the full knowledge, and consent, and concurrence, and I may say the wish of the mining population; but the employers, after the deductions have been made by themselves or their agents, immediately hand over the amount to a committee of workmen who receive and distribute the funds. I imagine the hon. Member for Northampton thought that practice obtained all over the Kingdom. [Mr. BRADLAUGH dissented.] He shakes his head, but that makes his position all the 1302 more unintelligible. Having failed in that direction, I sought to induce the House to accept another clause, giving compensation to workmen when they are discharged from their employment after having contributed for a long time to such funds. Some employers make a practice of giving compensation to workmen in such a case. For instance, the London and North-Western Railway Company compensate their workmen when they are discharged from their employment after having subscribed to funds of that kind, and I sought to make it compulsory on all employers to do what the London and North-Western Railway Company does voluntarily. And I am thoroughly amazed to see how the hon. Member for Northampton could have opposed a clause of that kind, containing such an equitable and just provision. I should like to ask, in conclusion, how the hon. Member for Northampton, how any hon. Member of this House, would like to have deductions made from his income, and then be cast adrift at any period when it suited those who made the deductions, without a farthing of compensation? It seems to mo monstrous that such a system should continue—a system involving practices which might have been put an end to by the clauses to which I have referred, but which have been rejected by the House at the instigation of the hon. Member for Northampton. It is against the rejection of these clauses and against the imperfect nature of the Bill that I have entered my protest, and having entered it in the name of tens of thousands of workmen, whose grievances will still be untouched, I shall offer no further opposition to the Bill.