HC Deb 02 May 1894 vol 24 cc170-85

Order for Second Reading read.

* MR. ERNEST SPENCER (West Bromwich)

moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which he explained was to establish a Ministry of Labour, to be presided over by a Minister to be called the Labour Minister. These proposals were in no way of a Party character, and had found supporters sitting in all parts of the House, not to mention the great support it had received outdoors at various Conferences, &c. The central idea of the Bill was that the time had now arrived for the union or amalgamation of the various Departments dealing with labour matters and questions, or administering laws relating to or concerning labour, under a Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament. This proposal had secured the very serious consideration of the Labour Commission, which had been sitting for some years past, and he saw from the newspapers that the subject-matter of this Bill had been dealt with by both the Majority and the Minority Report. The House was not in possession of these Reports, but for the purpose of his argument he would venture to rely on the accuracy of the advance copies which had appeared in the public prints. The Majority Report, unlike the Minority, did not recommend the appointment of a Ministry and Minister of Labour, but it went a long way in this direction by advising the extension of the Labour Bureau of the Board of Trade. The proposals contained in the Bill were not in any way antagonistic to the labour or scope of that Department. The old Labour Bureau was once described by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade as possessing a staff so insufficient that it was only a one-horse machine. The right hon. Gentleman rechristened the Bureau a Department, and undoubtedly considerable increased its usefulness, and it now very creditably collected, digested, and published statistical and other information bearing on questions relating to the condition of labour. It also possessed a much more efficient staff, including correspondents in various large towns, and published an organ termed The Labour Gazette. But admitting and giving credit for all this, the Department was still very far removed from what, in his opinion, a Department, or, as he preferred to call it, a Ministry of Labour should be when they considered the growing importance of what were called labour questions, especially when they remembered what America, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium had done in the same direction, but more particularly America, where labour questions and matters and labour legislation and the administration of laws relating to labour had since 1884 been centralised in what they termed the National Ministry of Labour, which, in addition to comprising a Central Department, had 26 Labour Bureaus in the various States all collecting and sifting facts and figures dealing with the social, sanitary, and material condition of the great labouring population, and so paving the way for such reforms as should be found practicable and necessary in an age when no individual country could afford to stand still, and must take part in the great march of progress. He now referred to the recommendations of the Minority Report of the Labour Commission, which was the production of the labour members or labour element of the Commission, and was signed by well known and recognised friends of labour, like Mr. M. Austin, M. P., Mr. J. Mawdsley, and Mr. Tom Mann; and he found that his Bill, although drafted three years ago, and it had been before the House on two previous occasions, almost exactly carried out more or less efficiently the very recommendations of that portion of such Report which recommended that a Ministry or Department of Labour should be formed, consisting of the present Factory and Mines Department of the Home Office, the Labour Bureau of the Board of Trade, and the Registry of Friendly Societies; and the Report went on to recommend that such Ministry should be under the charge of a Minister, who should be responsible for all the branches of administration specially charged with labour questions and matters, and stated that the increasing prominence of industrial problems and the growing participation in politics of the wage-earning class led them to look with favour upon the appointment of such a Minister. Upon perusal it would be seen that these recommendations were embodied in the Bill, with one exception, and that was that the Bill was silent as to whether the Labour Minister should be in the Cabinet, whilst the Report recommended that he should be. This was a distinction which it would be easy to remedy if the House thought fit, and could be very well left to its judgment and decision to be dealt with in the Committee stage, if the House in its discretion should agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. He might say that the constitution of the Board forming the Ministry was exactly framed on that of the Board of Agriculture, which he had taken as a model in this respect, and the formal portions of the Bill were taken from that measure; whilst what might be termed the inquiring clause were taken word from word from the Act under which the American Ministry had successfully worked since 1884. Personally, he would have preferred to do without this Board, and in including it in the Bill he was being governed by precedent. In addition to the matters and duties which he had mentioned, powers were taken in the Bill to investigate the following matters:— The causes of, and facts relating to controversies and disputes between employers and employé's as they may occur, and which may tend to interfere with or affect the welfare of the community, and report thereon to Parliament; to constitute a National Arbitration Board, to which all controversies and disputes between employers and employé's may, by the mutual consent of the parties interested, be referred for arbitrament under rules and regulations to be made by the Ministry; to make or aid in making such inquiries, and collect or aid in collecting such information as the Ministry may deem important in relation to emigration and also foreign pauper immigration, and the bearing of the latter on the conditions and circumstances of the native labour market; to make, or aid in making, inquiries, and collect, or aid in collecting information relating to State assisted old age pensions for the industrial classes, and report thereon to Parliament; to establish a system of Reports by which, at intervals of not less than two years, the general conditions of production and other important conditions relating to the leading industries of the country may be learnt; to obtain from other countries such information upon the various subjects committed to it asthe Ministry may deem desirable; and, lastly, to undertake the inspection of and reporting upon any schools which are not public elementary schools, and in which technical instruction, practical or scientific, is given in any matter connected with industrial subjects. It might be very fairly asked, if such a Ministry was formed, would the taxpayer get his money's worth; and in reply to this query he might say that he thought he would—first of all, by having important labour questions dealt with ably, vigorously, and energetically, and in a way consistent with the best interests of the labouring classes and the community generally; and, secondly, by doing away with costly, spasmodic, and necessarily imperfect inquiries by means of Select Committees and Royal Commissions. On the question of probable cost, it was stilted that the American National Ministry of Labour costs £30,000 per annum; but he took it that the major portion of this sum was spent in equipping and providing for the 26 Provincial Labour Bureaux. It was said that the recent Labour Commission cost, over £50,000, so by doing away with these Committees and Commissions an economy would be effected which would materially assist in paying for the new Ministry or Department. In conclusion, he was of opinion it would be greatly to the benefit of the wage-earner, the capitalist, the social reformer, and the legislator that the administration of all laws relating to labour should be centralised in one Department under a responsible Minister, and that all labour matters, teeming its they do with important, not to say gigantic, consequences to all classes, should be carefully and impartially investigated by such a Department, with permanent and skilled helpers, rather than by Committees and Commissions composed to a certain extent of partizans, faddists, and persons with conflicting interests. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR. WILSON LLOYD (Wednesbury)

said, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion, for he felt that among all the burning questions of the day none was of more importance to the country or more extensive in its character than the labour question. He hoped the Government would see their way to appoint a special Minister to take entire charge of this matter, as it was impossible for any Government Department that now existed to devote to it the time that it demanded. He was sure the Home Department, which was overwhelmed with work, would he glad to be relieved of all questions affecting labour; and as those questions were numerous and urgent, a special Minister was required to deal with them in a proper manner. He believed it was the want of a Minister to give his entire attention to questions affecting labour which alone had permitted pauper immigration to go on so long without any notice being taken of it by the Government. Nothing did so much to injure the working classes by flooding our labour market with pauper aliens, and he trusted that steps would be taken to prevent the country from being overcrowded with people who came here utterly incapacitated from fulfilling the requirements of civilised society. For all these reasons ho was anxious to see the appointment of a Labour Ministry.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Ernest Spencer.)

* COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

said, in support of the Second Reading of the Bill, that no one could deny that both political Parties when in power desired to do the best they could to advance the interests of labour; but at the present time the Home Office and the Board of Trade, which had charge of labour matters, had more business of another kind than they could well get through, and the result was that labour interests were neglected. The Labour Department of the Board of Trade might possibly do something to solve the difficulty, but he had very little hope that it would. The President of the Board of Trade took great pride to himself for having extended the Labour Department. Certainly some of the Labour Correspondents through the country furnished useful Reports; but there seemed to be no determination on the part of the Government to take action on those Reports, and the mere making of Reports, without anything being done with them, was absolutely useless. At the present time labour was in a very precarious condition indeed. Large numbers of the industrial classes in the constituency which he represented were out of employment, and had been so for a very long time. He bad constantly called the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the matter; but the right hon. Gentleman—who, he admitted, was overburdened with duties—seemed quite unable to deal with it. He therefore thought that if there was a Minister of Labour, able to devote his whole time and attention to the question of the employment of the people, great advantage would ensue. He was sure that his hon. Friend who had brought in the Bill did not consider it so perfect that he would not gladly accept any practical Amendments that might be brought forward. He was sure, too, that the President of the Board of Trade, with his experience in industrial affairs, would agree with him that a special Minister should be appointed to deal efficiently and effectually with the urgent and important questions affecting labour, and he therefore trusted that the Government would see their way to give a favourable answer to the Motion then before the House.

* SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

said, that the three Conservative Members who had consecutively addressed the House in support of the Bill did not seem to him to have made out a sufficient case to recommend this large new departure to the favourable consideration of the House. The Mover of the Bill seemed to have the assent of the House in what he said with regard to the Labour Bureau, and if it were only intended, or mainly intended, by the Bill to strengthen the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, he was sure they would all support the Bill. The Labour Department had done immense public service already, and the service it was rendering was greatly increasing; and he was sure it was the wish of the House and the desire of the constituencies in the country that the hands of that Department should be strengthened, and that the Treasury should give a favourable answer to applications for the money necessary for its needs. But while he was anxious to see the Labour Department strengthened and its statistical side improved and brought up to the level of similar institutions in America and in our own colonies, he thought it was a long stride indeed from that point to the proposal of the Bill to set up a separate and distinct Labour Ministry. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had said that the proposed Ministry was framed upon the model of the Board of Agriculture. He doubted that the Board of Agriculture had been so unqualified a success, in the opinion of Members of the House, as to make them desire to see the creation of a new Department founded upon that example. Then the hon. Member had constructed a Board very curiously composed, for on it Scotland was represented and not Ireland, and, indeed, the whole constitution of the Board was un-satisfactory. This was simply a proposal for the creation of a new sham Board, because if it was brought into existence it would no more hold a meeting than the existing Boards ever did. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would tell them how often his Board had met and what was the character of its deliberations. He remembered that just at the time when some trades were asking for the creation of a Minister of Commerce, the people of France were asking for the creation of a Board of Trade rather than of a Minister of Commerce, as they considered that a Board of Trade, similar to the Board of Trade in England, would do everything needed for commerce, having been under the impression that the Board of Trade was a consultative Department which met from time to time. He believed that if this Ministry of Labour were created, it would be, like the Board of Agriculture, an unnecessary Department. The Mover of the Bill had said that the points this Ministry ought to deal with were arbitration, emigration, alien immigration, and State-aided pensions. As to arbitration, there were Government proposals before the House, and he should not be in order in discussing them; but he would point out that many Trades Unionists, who were in favour of the creation of a Ministry of Labour, doubted the wisdom of the proposals with regard to arbitration. Mr. Mawdsley, a Conservative Trades Unionist of great and well-deserved influence amongst the working classes, had said that an Arbitration Board was unnecessary in the case of well-organised trades, while in the case of other trades—trades in an inferior state of organisation—such a Board would bring great influence to bear in favour of capital as against labour which would have to go to the wall. The House had already debated the question of pauper immigration, and had strongly favoured the view that it was not desirable to interfere with this supposed evil at all. Again, to place State old-age pensions in the hands of a Government Department was to declare beforehand that it was to State old-age pensions they must resort, although it was very probable that the Old Age Commission would report against that view, and would advise that the matter be left to Local Authorities. Finally, the hon. Member who introduced the Bill had said that if his proposals were adopted the taxpayer would get his money's worth. It, was on that point he principally took issue with the hon. Member. He thought that we already had too many Ministers, and he denied that the taxpayer would get any reward for the fresh salaries involved in the creation of a fresh Department. This country had already enlarged beyond all experience the number of Government Departments represented in Parliament, and he asked the House of Commons to pause before it again entered on the path of increasing the number of gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench. It was said that labour matters were attended to chiefly by the Home Office, and that the Home Office was overgorged with work. He was pretty well acquainted with the work of the Home Office; but while no one could doubt the enormous weight and responsibility of the functions discharged by the Home Secretary, he was bound to say, and he thought the Home Secretary would agree with him, that the Home Office was not necessarily an overworked Department. There was no doubt, however, that there was a good deal of confusion as to the respective duties, with regard to labour, of the Home Office and the Board of Trade; but that could be set right, and ought to be set right, in a different way from the way pro- posed in the Bill. There was undoubtedly a case for the redistribution of work between the great Departments of the State; but there was no case whatever for the creation of another new Ministry. There was no parallel in the world for anything approaching the number of Ministers who now sat in the House of Commons. There were, he believed, 38 or 39 of them, besides their Secretaries, and as there were really too many and not too few of them, the House should not embark on any scheme for the creation of another new Ministry. It was true that the proposed Minister of Labour would not necessarily have a seat in the Cabinet, according to the Bill, but undoubtedly the pressure of public opinion, which had caused the introduction of the Bill, and might cause the passing of the Bill some day, would be strong enough eventually to get the Minister of Labour into the Cabinet. Now, the Cabinet was altogether too large for the efficient doing of the business of Government, and he believed the modern tendency to create larger and larger Cabinets would result in making it impossible for great subjects of national importance to be well-considered and properly dealt with. There was this, however, to be said in favour of the Bill—it was perhaps the strongest argument that could be advanced in its interest—that the Minority Report of the Labour Commission—signed by the hon. Member for West Limerick, than whom no man was more trusted by the Trades Unionists, Mr. Mawdsley, to whom he had already referred, and Mr. Tom Mann, well-known in connection with the Independent Labour Party—was likely to contain a proposal for the creation of a Ministry of Labour. His belief was that those gentlemen were wrong; but undoubtedly their opinion that the creation of a Labour Minister would tend to lessen the evils which they all deplored was entitled to weight, and it led him to put forward his views with hesitation. In any case, the creation of any more new Ministries ought to be accompanied by a complete review of the boundaries of work between the different Government Departments. He had hoped at one time that the Ridley Commission would have conducted such an inquiry. The Commission touched the fringe of the question, but did not enter upon it. There was certainly room for a redistribution of the work of the various Members of the Government, and the consideration of how far the great Departments ought or ought not to be represented in the Cabinet. In this country we were getting into the habit of doing work through the heads of the great Departments, with seats in the Cabinet, that ought to be done by the permanent officials, as in other countries. Of course, it was right to have the Ministers in the House, but it was not necessary to have that minute sub-division of work proposed by schemes such as that proposed in the present Bill. If there were to be any extension of the system, he submitted that the creation of new Ministries ought to be accompanied by a complete review of the boundaries of work between the different Government Departments. Again, if the Minister of Labour was to be created, there should be created a definite personal Minister rather than a sham Board. He put forward, with great deference, the reasons which led him to think that the House of Commons should pause before entering on the consideration of the Bill. At the present time labour was more effectually represented in the House of Commons than it had been in the past. The President of the Board of Trade had entered into a course of improvement with regard to the Labour Department, and in doing so had been supported by the whole country. The Home Secretary had personally taken a more active interest in labour questions than any Home Secretary in the past had done. There might he ground for some rearrangement of the duties of the respective Departments; but he asked the House to pause before it tried to solve that problem by the creation of a fresh Ministry, in addition to the too many that they had at present.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I had not intended to make any remarks on this Bill until I glanced over its contents and saw that it was one of the most remarkable measures that have ever been introduced into the House, even on a Wednesday afternoon. Looking over the names on the back of the Bill one is not much impressed with the legislative faculties of those associated with the measure. I is a Bill to establish a new Minister in a country that is overridden with Ministers. Nor is he to be a pigmy Minister. He is to have functions as great as those of any other Minister of State. I object to the creation of a Minister of Agriculture, and I hold that agriculture has been under great disadvantages in severing itself from the Privy Council and representation in the Cabinet. It would have been better to have made the Lord President of the Council the Minister for Agriculture, and then agriculture would always have been represented in the Cabinet. The Vice President of the Council would have been Minister of Education, and certainly a Minister asking Parliament for £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a year ought to have a Department of his own. Now, I pass to the Labour Minister. First of all, I would say we have got a Labour Minister in the President of the Board of Trade, who discharges those duties with satisfaction so far as they deal with labour matters. To substitute a new and probably a worse Department is one of the most eccentric proposals I ever hoard. What are to be the powers and the staff of the new Department? First, there is to be a Board. That is the regular plan. When you want to conceal a really powerful Minister, you hide him under a Board. The Board will consist of the Lord President of the Council, Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State—so that the Home Secretary will have an opportunity of sitting on it—the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Secretary for Scotland, and such other persons (if any) as Her Majesty the Queen may, from time to time, think fit to appoint during Her Majesty's pleasure. That is the Board. Now we come to the Minister. The Bill says— It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen, from time to time, to appoint any Member of the Privy Council to be President of the Ministry during Her Majesty's pleasure. And what are the powers of this Minister to be? He is to take over the powers and duties vested in Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department for the regulation and administration of the laws relating to mines and factories and the appointment of Inspectors under the Acts mentioned in Part I. of the Schedule of the Bill. Could anyone conceive a more audacious proposal? This Minister, who nobody ever dreamed of before, is to divest the Home Office of most important duties. Those duties are at present performed with the utmost care and efficiency, and with the general confidence of the public. The staff that carries out those duties must be very large. What about the cost? Are you going to spend money on an effete and an inexperienced Minister, when you have already the best Minister you can get at a reasonably economical rate? But the authors of the Bill do not stop there—and surely legislation of this sort ought not to be allowed in the House of Commons. The duties include the powers and duties vested in the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury relating to Friendly Societies and aids to thrifts and providence among the industrial classes in all Acts mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule. The Friendly Societies and aids to thrift and providence! I suppose that means the savings banks, for I cannot conceive any more powerful aid to thrift and providence than the savings banks. These are all to be transferred to the new Minister. Savings banks are now admirably managed by the Post Office, and Friendly Societies are also under Government supervision. A pretty large staff would be required in the proposed Department to deal with these things. Then the Hill goes on to say—and I hope this does not weary the House— The Ministry of Labour shall also undertake the collection and preparation of useful information and statistical details of subjects connected with labour in the most general and comprehensive sense of the word, in relation to the industrial, commercial, social, educational, and sanitary conditions of the industrial classes, and specially to capital, the hours and conditions of labour, the earnings of labouring men and women, with the view of promoting their material, intellectual, and moral prosperity. Did anybody ever read such a suit-clause as that? But what is the Minister of Labour asked to do in addition to that? He is asked to undertake a task which has baffled the wisest heads in the country— The Ministry of Labour shall also constitute a National Arbitration Board, to which all controversies and disputes between employers and employés may by the mutual consent of the parties interested, be referred for arbitrament under Rules and Regulations to be made by the Ministry. Was there ever a more wild and lunatic scheme for bringing employers and labourers together? I would draw the attention of the Minister of Education to this provision— The Ministry of Labour may undertake the inspection of and reporting upon any schools which are not public elementary schools, and in which technical instruction, practical or scientific, is given in any matter connected with industrial subjects, and the aiding of any such school which admits such inspection, and in the judgment of the Ministry is qualified to receive such aid, and the aiding of any system of lectures connected with industrial subjects, and the inspection of and reporting on any examination in such subjects. Surely this would enlarge the expenses of the Education Department, and bring them we do not know whore. I cannot find out what is to be the status of this new Minister. He is to be a Privy Councillor; but not being acquainted with the Act alluded to in the Bill, I do not know whether he is to take office without being elected. Clause 7 says— The office of President of the Ministry of Labour shall not render the person holding the same incapable of being elected to, or sitting or voting as a Member of, the Commons House of Parliament. I should think not. The clause dealing with the appointment of the staff is also very vague. It says— The Ministry of Labour may from time to time appoint a secretary and such officers and servants as the Ministry may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine. And it goes on— There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament to the President, if not one of the Officers of State above-mentioned, nor any other Officer of State receiving a salary, and to the secretary, officers, and servants of the Board, such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine. All expenses incurred by the Ministry of Labour in the execution of their duties under this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament. I see one of the promoters of the measure behind me, and I ask him in all seriousness, Who drew this Bill? I think, on reflection, its authors must see that it is not a Bill the House is likely to assent to; indeed, I cannot imagine how they ever conceived that the House would be likely oven to discuss it. A Department which would have to take over a large part of the functions of the Treasury, and which would have to discharge the most varied functions in all matters connected with labour, would necessarily have to be one of the largest in point of numbers, and would necessarily impose a large burden on the finances of the country, and the result would be that it would discharge duties which are being adequately performed at the present moment. And that is the notion of legislation which comes before Parliament in this extraordinary Session—1894!

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.)

I do not propose to say any more than a few words on this Bill, which has suffered very severely already at the hands of the noble Lord opposite. I think, however, I ought briefly to indicate to the House the position the Government take up in connection with the question. I am not one of those who think that, if we had to begin afresh our administrative arrangements, there would be anything unreasonable in establishing a Department that might be called a Ministry of Labour. From an abstract view, and even from that of administrative convenience, there might be advantages in collecting together in the bands of a single Department some of the functions now discharged by various public offices. The truth is, in this and other matters we have advanced in a haphazard and piecemeal fashion. As in the case of education—though the Department is now one of our most important Ministries, and is responsible to Parliament for an expenditure of £6,000,000 annually—we began in a tentative fashion extending the area of administration of the Minister from time to time, so in the matter of labour. The Home Office and the Board of Trade have had from time to time new duties in this direction cast on them by Parliament. After all, we must deal with this as practical men, and I have not heard any argument to show that any substantial inconvenience has resulted from the present arrangements. To take my own Department—and I am the person most interested—the Bill proposes to transfer the whole powers of the Secre- tary of State for the Home Department in relation to mines and factories. Why should they be taken away from the Home Department? Not unless a case can be made out that the powers are either badly or insufficiently used. Has anyone attempted to make out such a case? I speak from only two years' experience in the Home Office, but I have personally paid close attention to the duties of the Home Office relating to mines and factories, and I submit that, though there may be shortcomings, largely due to the imperfections of the legislation we have to administer, there is no reason to think that any one of those drawbacks can be substantially met by the mere chance of another Minister calling himself by another name, with the same staff and with the same powers as I have at the Home Office discharging these duties. The promoters of the Bill then proceed to cut and carve in a similar way at almost all the leading Departments of the State. They propose to take something from the Treasury, from the Board of Trade, from the Foreign Office, and from the Education Department, and to aggregate them in a new Department. To lay the foundation for such a case they must make out either maladministration or inefficient administration. No attempt has been made to establish such a case. The Board of Agriculture has involved the public inconsiderable unnecessary expenditure by taking away from the Privy Council duties that were adequately performed by that Department. This is a more ambitious, a more gratuitous, and ill-founded design than that of the Ministry of Agriculture or of the Secretary for Scotland. In these circumstances, though not out of sympathy with the idea that a Ministry of Labour might be a useful Department in an administrative system, I agree with the noble Lord that new Departments are not to be multiplied without necessity, and I ask the promoters of the Bill to be content with having ventilated the subject, and not to divide the House.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,) Sheffield, Brightside

asked whether the Bill was really in Order, seeing that the Money Clauses would arise only in Committee of Ways and Means?

* MR. SPEAKER

I must point out that the discussion of the Bill on this stage is not irregular; but, as the Bill would involve a charge on the Revenue, the provisions imposing those charges are printed in italics, and technically form no part of the Bill. The Chairman in Committee would not put any questions on those clauses unless the charges to he imposed by them were previously sanctioned in a Money Committee, and the Motion setting up that Committee could not be put unless a Minister of the Crown signified the Queen's recommendation to such charges being incurred. As I understand, the Government are not prepared to signify this recommendation, and the Debate, therefore, is of the nature of an academical discussion, as no effect can be given to it; but the Debate is not irregular.

Question put, and negatived.