HC Deb 12 March 1901 vol 90 cc1311-23

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

*MR. BELL (Derby) moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He was, he stated, very anxious to say a few words on behalf of a large number of men directly concerned in the measure, being in the employ of the railway company. One of the chief objections entertained to the Bill had reference to the scheme of the promoters as contained in Clause 27, in which the company seek power to contribute towards certain provident funds, etc. Clause 27 reads— If a society is or shall be hereafter constituted from amongst persons in the pay of the company for the purpose of providing by means of the subscriptions of the members, with the aid of donations or subscriptions from the company and others, for the relief or maintenance of members of such society during sickness not arising from injuries in respect of which such members are entitled to compensation from the company by statute or common law, or under the Great Eastern Accident Fund Scheme," etc. From those words Members might assume that the company were actuated by some extraordinary feeling of philanthropy in putting forward this clause, and that they were simply moved by the interests of their employees. He proposed, however, to prove to the House that they were not actuated by either philanthropy or generosity. Their ob- ject was common to a great many rail, way companies in the present day. It was to attach their employees to them, and to deprive them of that to which they had a perfect right—namely, liberty of choice in regard to connection with provident institutions. There was in connection with the Great Eastern Company a provident society which had been in existence since 1851—

*MR. SPEAKER

I would point out to the hon. Member that this Bill is an omnibus Bill, and that only this one clause (27) has reference to the provident society to which the hon. Member objects. If he has no substantial objection to the Bill as a whole, I would suggest to him that his better course would be to reserve his observations until the House comes to the proposal on the Paper, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out Clause 27." I do not say the hon. Member is out of order in moving the rejection of the Bill; but if his objection is only to that clause, that, I would suggest, would be the proper and usual place to move it.

*MR. BELL

said he had another reason for opposing. There was in connection with the Great Eastern Railway Company a provident society, which has been in existence since 1851. It was a compulsory society, and men employed in certain grades in the company's service were required, as a condition of employment, to become members of that society. Up to 1888 there were in the society three scales of payment, and the men had to contribute 8d. per week. It was found in the year 1884 that the society was insolvent, and arrangements were made whereby the members paid an additional 1d. per week. So it went on until 1898, when, on an actuarial valuation being made, it was shown that up to the end of 1894 the society had been insolvent to the extent of over £34,000. An effort had been made by those having the management of the society—namely, certain employees who paid the money into the funds—to make certain alterations, but, as a matter of fact, the employees could not under any circumstances alter or amend the rules, or make new ones, without the sanction and approval of the directors, Not- withstanding that, in 1899 and 1900 it was decided that the contribution should again be raised 1d. per week, the subscription having been raised in 1888 to 9d. The men who paid that amount received in return no more benefit than was, in many instances, received by men belonging to other societies outside the company's for a much smaller payment. One of the chief grievances in connection with this society was that the chairman and directors of the railway company were aggrieved because members of their society, who were compelled by the conditions of their employment to contract out of the Workmen's Compensation Act by joining an insurance society, should receive when they were sick from accident a certain amount from the insurance society as well as a certain amount from the benefit society. The Chairman of the Great Eastern Company felt so much aggrieved that he had endeavoured to obtain a clause forbidding employees who had met with injuries from receiving benefit from the provident society as well as from the insurance society. That was clearly a gross injustice to the men. It is tyrannous and unjust to dictate to men belonging to a society when and under what circumstances they should draw benefits. That formed a serious objection to the proposal of the clause. On the 15th June, 1900, the chairman of the company, Lord Claud J. Hamilton, sent a circular to the committee of the railway fund, in which he said— The strongest proof of this is the fact that only since January last it has been necessary to withdraw £2,000 from the reserve funds, and further withdrawals will have to be made if the present benefits are to be continued. That £2,000 was what the company pretended to pay. By some arrangement, in 1888, when they found that the society was insolvent, they came to terms with the committee of management and agreed that the company should contribute a subsidy of £2,500 a year towards the funds of the society. But that contribution had been in name only. They had not subscribed the sum annually, but it was there as a reserve fund, guaranteed by the company, to be drawn upon if necessary. From 1886 to 1900 something like £3,700 was all that been drawn from the reserve fund, and so long as the society had a penny in hand received from its members nothing came from the company. Lord Claud Hamilton went on to say in his circular— Almost the whole of the staff are members of the Company's Accident Fund, and any member of the Provident Society incapacitated by injury arising in the course of his duties in the company's service receives allowances from the Provident Society as well as from the Accident Fund. This does not appear to me to be reasonable, and in other respects it is open to objection. I suggest, therefore, that the members of the Provident Society should agree to renounce any allowances from the society whilst they are receiving an allowance from the Accident fund, except in cases where the Accident Fund allowance by effluxion of time has been reduced to half-pay, in which case the Provident Society should grant its half-pay allowance. He concluded this circular by saying— As regards the future, it is proposed to start a new society on a different basis, on the establishment of which the existing society will discontinue to accept new members. Apparently the directors and chairman of the Great Eastern Company considered it unreasonable that men who might have been injured by accident in the company's employ should receive payment from the provident society as well as from the accident fund, the full amount of which would not be more than £1 a week. The directors were not successful in getting the men to accept this alteration in the provident society, so now they were trying to start a new fund, letting the old one die a natural death. The company said that they had already subscribed £35,499 towards superanuation, pensions, and to supplementary accident and other benefit funds of the company. Much of that money which they said they had subscribed was simply entered on paper and not actually subscribed to the funds of the society. A large proportion of that money went to pay for accidents for which otherwise the men would have been entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The report of the Accident Fund established in July, 1898, in substitution for the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1896, stated that— During the year the total number of claims was 3,635, including twenty-seven in regard to accidents that terminated fatally, six that resulted in the loss of an eye, four in the loss of a leg, one in the loss of an arm, and one in the loss of sight. He maintained that a very large proportion of the £35,499 which the chairman had referred to would have gone under the Compensation Act to pay the workmen in these 3,635 cases. These matters had been discussed from time to time by the men, and eventually they wrote to the chairman of the company on 3rd December a long letter, which contained the following words— The committee, delegates, and members generally regret that it was decided to start a new society rather than enrol future servants of the company in this society on an equitable footing, but such a step having been taken they have no option but to accommodate themselves to the altered circumstances, and seek to enable the Provident Society to fulfil its mission to each and every one of its members. That proved that it was not at the request of the men that these powers were now being sought by the company. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the directors, and the chairman said— In drawing attention to the Provident Fund the directors asked leave to subscribe to that fund another £500 a year. The fund was established in 1851, and was contributed to and managed by the men themselves, and the membership was now about 9,000. So far as the men were concerned they could make no alteration or amendment in the rules of their society without the sanction of the directors. The company s subsidy was not paid into the fund, and there was at the present time £40,000 to the credit of the reserve—money which was not paid over by the company, but was a guarantee to meet contingencies should the men's contributions not be sufficient to meet the liabilities of the fund. Rather than that the subsidy of the company should be drawn on, the members had paid an extra penny a week. He wished, further, to draw attention to the effect of the clause referring to superannuation or pensions. The original rule was as follows— 31. That any free member, of not less than two years standing, who may by accident, infirmity, old age, loss of sight, or other cause be rendered incapable of earning his livelihood, shall be placed upon the pension list and entitled to receive a weekly pension as defined in the following table," etc. It seemed to be another sore point with the chairman of the Great Eastern Company and the directors that men should be thus entitled to a pension, the maximum of which, on the higher scale, was 6s. 10d. per week, and the chairman had insisted upon the rule being so amended that it should be left wholly to the discretion of the directors to say whether or not a man who should become entitled to superannuation or pension should receive it. The clause as amended was as follows— Rule 31. That any free resident member of not less than two years standing who has, on account of physical or mental incapacity, been discharged by the directors of the Great Eastern Company, or who has, on the like account, retired from the service of the company, with the approval of the said directors, shall be placed upon the pension list, and he entitled to receive a weekly pension, as defined in the following table," etc. The objection to that was clear. The rule contained the words "with the approval of the directors." That meant that a man who might be in receipt of 25s. or 30s. a week, and who might have been in the service of the company for thirty-five or forty years, when he attained the ago of sixty-five years and thought to himself. "I have done enough railway work and I will take my 6s. 10d. a week pension and retire." could not put his desire into execution without the consent of the directors. It would be in their power to say, "You shall not retire; if your present occupation is too hard for you, we will find you another office at less wages, but you have five or six years work in you yet." The men knew this, and it was at the desire of men on all parts of the Great Eastern system that he was opposing the Second Reading of the Bill unless this clause was withdrawn. Some members might think it generous on the part of the railway company to subscribe to a fund for the benefit of their employees, but it was really a condition of service, that the men should join this, that, or the other fund. Nearly all the companies had two or three of these funds attached to them. One was voluntary and another was made compulsory, and in the compulsory one there was sometimes a clause which made it necessary to join the society which had not such a clause. This rule was evidently designed to assist in compelling men to contract out of the Workmen s Compensation Act by joining the Insurance Society.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member appears to me to be discussing generally what should be the nature of funds of this kind, and to be citing from the regulations of other societies. That is clearly not in order on this Bill.

*MR. BELL

I am quoting to show the objections to these compulsory societies. I think I have given sufficient facts to prove that these societies are objectionable to the men employed in the railway service. At the outest of my remarks I said that many people would consider at first sight that the railway companies were actuated by a spirit of philanthropy. But I find that no such spirit prompts them. If it were otherwise—if they were really philanthropic and kindly disposed towards their servants—I ask why should they forbid their employees to take part in political or civic duties? This company forbids its members taking part in civic duties.

*MR. SPEAKER

Is there a clause to that effect in this Bill?

*MR. BELL

No, Sir.

*MR. SPEAKER

Then it is a rule of the. House that a matter affecting railway companies generally cannot be dealt with in debate on a private Railway Bill unless there is a clause in the Bill dealing with that matter.

*MR. BELL

I am sorry that I am debarred from entering upon that question, but at any rate the subject to which I was going to refer is familiar to the whole of the Members of the House, and it is one that has caused a vast deal of indignation amongst railway men.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not in order in continuing on the subject.

*MR. BELL

said he was not going to discuss it. He asked the House to register their disapproval of the attempts of employers, where it was not desired by the men, in any way to attach them to societies, and make it a condition of their employment that they should become members thereof.

MR. MAEKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

seconded the Amendment. As it had been ruled that any discussion on the proceedings of the Great Eastern Railway Company would be out of order, he would not be able to raise the question he wished to raise. He would ask the Speaker's special ruling on this question. The Great Eastern Railway Company was the only company in this country that had refused—

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech and then ask if it is in older.

MR. MAEKHAM

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Bell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. PENN (Lewisham)

said that Clause 2 was put in the Bill by the directors as a purely permissive clause, in order to enable the railway companies, if they thought fit, to subscribe towards the funds raised by their employees. He must say as a director of the company that he failed to agree with the hon. Member for Derby when he said that the company wished to make membership of the society a condition of employment. That would be a most arbitrary proceeding, and one with which he could not possibly associate himself. But in asking that they might have power to subscribe to the fund, they only took permissive power in the event of the society being started. The society, if started by the men, would be managed by the men, and the company desired to have power to help them. He could not agree with the hon. Member that there were a large number of open sores in connection with the matter, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Derby. The directors were anxious to help the men in every possible way to practise habits of thrift.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said he did not think the hon. Member who had spoken as representing the Great Eastern Railway Company had met two material points raised by the hon. Member for Derby. Though the hon. Gentleman said it would be a voluntary fund, as a matter of fact the men had experience of other funds, and they knew that every man in the service would be practically forced to join.

MR. PENN

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. There are 30,000 members of the staff who are eligible under the existing fund, and only 9,000 are in the fund.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

asked the hon. Member if he would pledge himself on behalf of the railway company that they would put some words in the Bill which would make it perfectly clear that the question of joining or not would be left absolutely voluntary to every servant of the company? Unless the hon. Member gave that pledge he certainly would vote against the Bill as it stood. The hon. Member said that the society would be managed by the men, but that would be useless unless a pledge to this effect were given. The other question raised by the hon. Member for Derby was that the men would not be able to make any alteration whatever in the rules. It seemed to him that while the fund might be nominally managed by the men it would be entirely under the control of the directors of the company. On that point the hon. Member for Lewisham had given no satisfaction.

*MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

said the hon. Member for Lewisham, who spoke for the directors of the railway company, said the employees of the company would be free to join as many like societies as they pleased, even if the Bill became law, but he overlooked the very important factor in the situation that of the employees of the company there were thousands earning less than 20s. a week, and thus they were not in a position to contribute to more than one society. Those who had experience of the industrial world were aware that the man who did not join the society promoted by a company would stand very small chance of being promoted in his occupation. He respectfully submitted that the fact that the fund was to be invested as a part of the Great Eastern Railway Stock removed it outwith the control of the members of the society. It was therefore a purely nominal control which the members would exercise over the fund. The Bill provided that the railway company "may contribute half-yearly out of the revenue of the company such sum as they may from time to time determine towards the funds of the society." This was an attempt to pauperise the working class which should be deprecated most strongly. Let the Great Eastern Railway Company pay their workmen sufficient wages to enable them to pay their contributions to their trade society, and then they would be under no obligation to the company for yearly or half-yearly grants. His strongest objection to this form of society was that it tended to undermine the self-respect of the employees of the company. If this proposal became law and the society was formed it would result in making every employee of the Great Eastern Railway Company who joined it subservient to the will and the wishes of the company. There was no provision in the clause that members of the society on leaving their employment or being dismissed were entitled to be recouped for the payments they had made to the funds of the society. That was a very serious consideration. Unless men were obedient and submissive in every respect, not only to the directors themselves but to the officials under the directors, who were often a thousand times worse than the directors, they were liable to be dismissed, and to lose not only the benefits of the society but also the money they had paid into it. Ho trusted, therefore, as a matter of fair play that the House would not endorse Clause 27.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said it seemed to him exceedingly strange that two Members representing the working classes should object to the scheme proposed. Here was a large company coming forward asking power to subscribe to the funds of a benevolent institution, and it was met by objection. Large corporations had been told that they ought to do more for their employees, and it did seem strange in this case that a gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench should get up to object to such a scheme. It ought to be the duty of every large corporation, and of small companies also, to subscribe to these funds.

*MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

said they did not object at all to employers of labour encouraging their workpeople to be thrifty and prudent and to lay by for a rainy day, but they objected to such a scheme as was foreshadowed in this Bill, which might be made a condition of employment between workmen and their employers. Frequently such provisions as this were converted into machinery for coercing workmen to do things which of their free will they were not disposed to do. It was because of the coercive powers that such a provision gave to large employers that they objected to its being inserted in the Bill.

*COLONEL BOWLES (Middlesex, Enfield)

hoped that the Bill would be allowed to pass the Second Beading, as the question could be so much more thoroughly discussed in Committee upstairs.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

said that working men wanted to do their own business, without the intervention of railway directors. There was an element of compulsion running right through the whole of this Bill, which was distasteful to working men who sought independence. They were entitled to form their own opinion, without being led by Committees upstairs.

MR. YOXALL (Northampton, W.)

said this matter bad been discussed upon a totally new principle. A clause like the one suggested had been inserted in a number of Bills last session, and a Departmental Committee had distinctly laid it down that Parliament might properly interfere by providing against a rule of this kind. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill maintained silence upon this point they would be bound to vote against the measure.

MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)

said he rose to support the hon. Member for Derby in his opposition to the Bill. Men would be forced to enter the service of this company, and they would be compelled to become contributors to this fund. They claimed the right of a workman to contribute to any fund which he thought was best calculated to advance his own interest. They asked for a free hand for the men, so that in sickness or death, or in leaving one district for employment in another, they could go to their particular society for assistance from the funds. If they carried this objectionable clause to its logical conclusion, this advantage would be denied to the workmen. He entered his strong protest against the clause, which he believed was the thin edge of the wedge for the purpose of intimidating and coercing the workmen.

Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

I think the hon. Member for Lewisham would shorten this discussion, and save the time of the House, if he would undertake that this clause should make it clear that no compulsion or pressure should be put upon the men to join these societies.

MR. PENN

replied that there was no compulsion, simply because the rule was not in existence.

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

contended that in a matter of this kind everything should be done fairly and aboveboard. Workmen should be allowed to choose their own societies. These great companies should not be given the power to coerce their employees to join those societies, which were a source of terror to their employees, who were often tyrannised over by every little official. It was a monstrous thing to try and force such a clause through this House, and he hoped it would be eliminated.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said he was surprised that the Covernment had not given the House the benefit of their advice on this question. The hon. Member for Lewisham had replied to the appeal made to him by saying that the rules were not yet made. What they wanted to know was whether the company would engage, if the Bill passed and they were empowered to make rules, that it should be part of those rules that no sort of compulsion should be applied, and that this should be embodied in the Bill when it went into Committee. If an undertaking of this kind was not given, it was clear that they would be obliged to proceed to a division. If the Bill was lost it would be entirely the fault of those who were promoting it for not giving the undertaking which was asked for on this particular point.

MR. GRAY (West Ham, N.)

said his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham was in a very awkward position, because he was not personally responsible for the Bill, but was merely acting as a mouthpiece of the directors, I with whom it was impossible for him to consult. But there was an Instruction on the Paper with regard to the Bill, which would come before the House on Thursday, when a definite reply could be given. There were many other valuable clauses in this Bill, relating to level crossings and the building of bridges, which ought not to be delayed on account of this dispute. He sympathised with the view that this fund should be a voluntary one, but he thought it was a question which could be settled in the Committee upstairs.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

I understand that the promoters of this Bill, or those representing them, do not feel that they have any authority to give the undertaking which is asked for. Therefore I suggest that in the general interest we should give them an opportunity of obtaining the undertaking we ask for, and for that purpose I now move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned; to upon Thursday.