HC Deb 03 June 1897 vol 50 cc244-51

The following provisions shall apply for settling any matter which under this Act is to be settled by arbitration:—

  1. (1.) If any committee, representative of an employer and his workmen exists with power to settle matters under this Act in the case of the employer and workmen, 245 the matter shall, unless either party objects, be settled by that committee.
  2. (2.) If either party so objects, or there is no such committee, the matter shall be settled by a single arbitrator agreed on by the parties, or, in the absence of agreement, by the County Court Judge, or if the Lord Chancellor certifies that under the circumstances of the particular district it is not convenient that the County Court Judge should be called upon to act as arbitrator, by a single arbitrator appointed by such County Court Judge.
  3. (3.) Any arbitrator other than the County Court Judge shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury.
  4. (4.) The Arbitration Act 1889 shall not apply to any arbitration under this Act; but an arbitrator may, if he thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the County Court Judge, and the decision of the Judge on any question of law, either on such submission, or in any case where he himself acts as arbitrator under this Act, shall be final; and any award made under this Act shall be enforced in the Sallie manner as an order of a County Court.
  5. (5.) The costs of the arbitration shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator.
  6. (6.) The duty of a County Court Judge under this Act shall, subject to rules of court, be part of the duties of the County Court, and the officers of the Court shall act accordingly.
  7. (7.) Any sum awarded as compensation shall be paid on the receipt of the person entitled, and his solicitor or agent shall not be entitled to recover from him, or to claim a lien on the amount recovered for, any costs except such as have been awarded by the arbitrator.
  8. (8.) Any committee, judge, or other arbitrator may appoint a legally qualified medical practitioner to report on any matter which seems material to any question arising in the arbitration; and the expense of any such medical practitioner, not exceeding two guineas, shall be paid by the employer.
  9. (9.) In the application of this schedule to Scotland "sheriff" shall be substituted for "County Court Judge."

MR. PICKARD moved in Section (1), after the words "employer and his workmen," to insert the words:— such committee shall be composed of an equal number of employers and workmen's representatives. He maintained that in these matters there should be a mutual arrangement, and that negotiations should be put on such a footing that workmen and employers should be enabled to work in a conciliatory spirit in connection with any arrangement entered into.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

hoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. Under the Bill the Committee could only be appointed in the first place by mutual agreement, and even after the Committee was appointed no case could be presented unless with the consent of the two parties. He hoped that in the vast majority of cases the Committees would consist, not of an equal number of employers and workmen's representatives, but a majority of workmen's representatives. The best Commit tee lie knew to exist was in large works near Birmingham. It had worked with admirable satisfaction for a long period of time, and it consisted of 12 workmen and one employer, who was the chairman. There was no question of equality of interest, but matters were discussed in a practical way, and the employer gave his opinion. He doubted whether there were many cases of division, and if there were, the views of the majority of the workmen were taken. The Amendment would prevent an employer from allowing his workmen to be in the majority.

In answer to Mr. PICKARD,

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said that if an employer was so foolish as to insist upon having a majority on the Committee, the workmen would probably refuse to join the Committee, and if a workman was injured they would probably refuse to submit his case. He knew several cases where an employer had not attempted to obtain a majority, or even an equality.

*MR. BURNS

appealed to his hon. Friend riot to press the Amendment, and supported the view of the Colonial Secretary.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

asked whether it was contemplated that the Committee should be confined to a single firm or colliery, or whether there was to be a scheme of grouping of a district?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said that it was distinctly the intention of the Government that the greatest liberty should be allowed in the formation of these committees. They should either be committees of particular firms, committees of trades, or of districts; but the Government would look into the matter and see whether the words were wide enough to meet the view of hon. Gentlemen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Section (1), after the word "objects," to insert the words, "by notice in writing sent to the other party before the committee meet to consider."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved in Section (1), to leave out the word "that," in order to insert the words, "the arbitration of such." The object of the Amendment was to make it clear that the committee shall act as an arbitrator.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. L. WALTON (Leeds, S.) moved, at the end of Section (1), to insert the words, "or referred by them in their discretion to arbitration."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

accepted the Amendment, substituting the words "an arbitrator," for "arbitration."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University) moved, after the words last inserted, to add,— Any conciliation board consisting of equal numbers of employers and employed, shall be authorised to undertake arbitrations under this Act. He said he proposed this Amendment at the request of the London Conciliation Board.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

hoped his right hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, as the Government were prepared to put in after "arbitrator," Section (2), the words, "or conciliation board," which would have the same effect.

MR. BURNS

hoped the Attorney General would reconsider the concession he had made, as it was not desirable to have the same tribunal of masters and men who discussed wages in the pre-strike period dealing with the questions here involved.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

This is only to give the alternative of a conciliation board where such a board had the confidence of both parties.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Words proposed by Attorney General agreed to.

MR. WALTON moved, in Section (2), to leave out from the words "shall be" to the end of the section, and to insert the words,— determined by suit in the County Court of the district in which the injury complained of was occasioned. He moved the Amendment in order to provide the parties with the opportunity of having recourse to the ordinary tribunals to settle the very important questions which this Act involved. This proposal created the County Court Judge as arbitrator, but stripped him of all his judicial functions. It was most important to have judicial procedure, so that the Judge's decisions could be corrected on appeal. Under this legislation there would be no appeal. Most important issues of fact would have to be decided, and the Bill bristled with points of law.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said that the Government proposed to adopt Amendments now on the Paper, which would meet all the points of the hon. and learned Member, without involving the readjustment of the whole framework of the Bill. An appeal on questions of law to the Court of Appeal would be provided. There must be some means of reviewing the decisions of County Courts in order that general principles might be authoritatively laid down.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

hoped that the Court of Appeal would not be called in, or the way would be opened to much litigation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Section (2), after the words, "by a single arbitrator," to insert the words "or conciliation board."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved, in Section (2), after the word "if," to insert the words "in England."

Amendment agreed to.

SIR ROBERT REID moved, in Section (2), to insert at the end:— In cases in which the County Court Judge, or an arbitrator appointed by him, is the arbitrator, the workman or his representative may deliver to the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which he resides a statement of the nature of his claim with his name address and that of the employer, and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to give notice of the said claim to the employer and to make the necessary arrangements for the arbitration, and give notice thereof to both parties, and all such claims may be amended by the arbitrator on such terms as to adjournment or otherwise as he thinks just, in order that the questions in dispute may be disposed of.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY moved, in Section (3), after the word "Judge," to insert the words, "and the costs of such settlement by arbitration." He thought it was unreasonable that a workman who became entitled to a sum of money by sustaining an accident should have that sum lessened by the costs.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

I cannot conceive anything more calculated to provoke litigation than the provision that the expenses should be borne by the State. The Government, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, in Section (3), after the word "shall," to insert the words,— subject to a right of appeal in every such case by any party to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal. The Judges of the County Court were not bound by each other's decisions. Instead of having a body of settled principles, they would probably have 50 different settlements of the same point in 50 different districts, and it was therefore absolutely essential that an appeal should be allowed.

SIR R. REID

deprecated any encouragement of litigation, and therefore hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

contended that it was necessary the County Court Judges should know authoritatively what law they were to obey.

MR. HALDANE

thought it would be a great misfortune if the Amendment were accepted, because it was very undesirable that the Court of Appeal should be let loose in these matters.

*MR. J. WILSON (Durham, Mid)

hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. On this point they were deviating from their original purpose. He trusted they would insist that the decision of the County Court Judge should be final.

MR. BURNS

said that if the Amendment were accepted the result would be that in many cases the whole of the money would be thrown away upon lawyers.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said they were all agreed that they should prevent litigation, and lie asked his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment and allow the Government to consider the matter between now and the Report stage. If they found they could admit the Amendment they would do so.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he could not take the course suggested, and he was prepared to convince the Committee. [Laughter.] Exactly the same proposition was made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer during the discussion of the Finance Bill of 1894. It was adopted, but the Inland Revenue Department refused to go to the County Court. The late Government went out, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office and supported his own Department in refusing to act upon his own Amendment. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "No, I did not!" and laughter. ] He would remind the Committee that it was purely on questions of law that the appeal was to arise, that the appeal would not be to the High Court, that there would be none of the expense incurred which took place principally in the High Court, and that it would go direct to the Court of Appeal. He thought it was absolutely necessary that an appeal should take place, not on questions of fact, but on questions of law, and he must really press his Amendment.

MR. WALTON

desired to enforce the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite. County Court Judges were lawyers, and they were to enforce this legislation. County Court Judges had a professional tendency to differ in regard to points of law, and the result was that unless they constituted a Court of Appeal which could produce harmony amid this judicial babel, they would have a revival of the juridical heptarchy. They would have a distinct code of law, so far as this legislation was concerned, in every County Court district. He should have thought the statement of the Attorney General would have been entirely satisfactory to the Committee that they must get the Act judicially construed and some definite legal code established before they could give it efficient practical operation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 79.—(Division List, No. 237.)

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Forward to