HC Deb 03 May 1907 vol 173 cc1171-85

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. GEORGE ROBERTS (Norwich)

said the Bill the Second Reading of which he moved was a measure of considerable importance to a large number of workers throughout the country, particularly in regard to those engaged in piecework. The title of the Bill showed that it had particular reference to workers in the iron and steel industry. His hon. friend the Member for Gorton represented that particular section of workers, and therefore he would not occupy any time in dilating upon that topic, but would leave the subject to his hon. friend who, from his practical knowledge, would be able to state the case much better than he could possibly do. It was well known that a large number of those workers had a great grievance, and it very often happened that they suffered reductions from their wages through the lack of any measure providing for compulsory weighing in that particular industry. In all those questions in which wages were primarily concerned, he submitted that when workmen had entered into an honourable agreement to perform work at a stated sum they should be assured of receiving the amount they earned by their labour. He intended devoting his remarks to the case of a considerable number of workers who were not directly represented in the House. The title of the Bill covered workers in various cement factories in the country. Perhaps he might explain that cement was composed of a mixture of chalk and clay in certain proportions, added to which in the process of burning were coal and coke. The chalk and clay were weighed for the purpose of getting the necessary proportions, but, although this was done, under existing conditions the men had no means of knowing the weights with which they had to deal. After weighing, this mixture was put through the wash mill and reappeared in the form of slurry. It then passed on to the drying floors. The next process was that of breaking it up and putting it into kilns together with the coal and coke, and this produced what was called clinker. The compound was then drawn out and ground up and became the finished product. In all those processes the men were paid by weight—that was, by tonnage. The men who had to dig the chalk were sometimes paid by measurements at so much per yard, but in neither of those processes had the men any means of checking the weight of the product of their labour, and consequently they had to rely upon the disposition of the firms by whom they were employed to know how much work they had performed, and what wages they were entitled to. It sometimes happened that the chalk dug by the men was not only used directly by the cement works to which the chalk works or quarries were attached, but was very often transmitted to other firms in different parts of the country. It would be readily seen that a situation of this character often caused disputes between firms and the men they employed, and all they were asking for in this Bill was an extension of the principle of the check weighmanclauses of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. Therefore they had a good precedent to work upon and something which he thought would commend itself to the favourable consideration of the House. In the case of the cement workers many hard cases had been brought to his notice where men had been defrauded of wages to which they were justly entitled. He did not intend to weary the House by quoting all those cases, but in order to prove that these men had a substantial grievance he would mention one or two. In one case the difference worked out at forty tons per week. In other words, £3 or £4 per week was deducted from the wages that the men had really earned, owing to the inability of the men accurately to get from the firm the weights they had dealt with. There was also a great difficulty in getting the men to swear to such cases for fear they might be discharged. In one case an action was taken, but it had to be dropped mainly owing to the fear of the men to appear in Court to substantiate their grievance. Ono glaring case had been brought to his noticein which it was proved that the manager had placed pieces of lead on the scale, which made a difference of 6d. on every barrel of clinker weighed. Information was given to the Inspector of Weights and Measures, and he went down to the works, took possession of the pieces of lead, but legal proceedings were not taken because of the difficulty of getting the men to appear in Court for fear they might be discharged from their situations. A difference of forty tons, worked out at the rate of 1s. 10d. per ton, came to £3 13s. 4d., or an average of 2s. per man employed. A sum of 2s. deducted from the wages of this class of labourer was often a very serious matter, and all those who were directly connected with the working classes knew that it frequently meant the difference between making both ends meet and being landed in a serious struggle against poverty. In another caseit was pointed out that the firm alleged that the men had been paid for more tons than they had produced. Again the men had no check against the firm's statement, and a certain amount was deducted from their wages week by week until the men had refunded the extra sum that the firm alleged they had received. It was most unsatisfactory that a firm should have the power to make a statement of that sort and the men should beunable to check the weights in a matter satisfactory and convincing to themselves. He would now deal with the class of men known as dock labourers. If his information served him correctly, he believed that the Government were not unwilling to appoint a Departmental Committee to consider this question, and he believed that the promoters of the Bill were quite agreeable to that course being adopted. He hoped that if such a Committee was called into existence it would be composed of an equal number of employers and workmen's representatives, so that their findings might be of a satisfactory and impartial character. He hoped that any Bill subsequently framed would be wide in its scopeso as to include all sections of workers who were paid by weight or measure. With regard to dock labourers, they had no method of knowing by the production of the bill of lading or the invoice how much material they had handled. They could not demand to see the way bills or bills of lading certifying the amount of tonnage worked, and consequently they had to accept the statement of the foreman or the employer as the case might be. He knew of one organisation of labourers who had repeatedly to pay a fee of 5s. at the Customs House for the purpose of securing a copy of a way bill. He thought it would be agreed that a procedure of that sort should be unnecessary, and that the men ought to have an easy method of knowing how much material they had handled. It would be seen that when these men handled pig iron, railway iron, ballast, coal, salt, and all cargoes where piece prices prevailed, the men might suffer deduction in an unwarrantable fashion. In the case of dock labourers, he knew that interminable disputes had been produced under this particular head. With regard to this class of labour he had one or two very glaring cases brought under his notice. In Aberdeen about four years ago some men complained that they had been deprived of considerable weights in the case of nearly every steamer they discharged. Subsequently upon inquiries being made it was found that the son, who was the manager, and a foreman were in collusion, and when action was taken the case assumed such a serious aspect that the son was bailed out at the very high surety of £600 and the foreman at £250. Unfortunately both of them were able to take flight and got across the Atlantic before the action was tried. In another case the men alleged that they had been deprived of forty tons weight. This, worked out at 9½. per ton, represented £1 11s. 8d. for one boat. When it was pointed out that many boats were discharged by these men each week it would be seen that they had a very substantial grievance, and that the provisions of this Bill were necessary in order to protect their labour. The provisions of the Bill brought no new or novel principle into the legislation of the country, and were simply anextension of a principle already legally enacted which he thought would bereadily admitted to have worked very satisfactorily in the coal mines of the country. He felt that the enactment of this measure in the wide sense he had indicated would tend to allay friction, prevent disputes, and establish harmonious relationship between employers and employed. It was sometimes alleged that Parliament ought not to be troubled with these matters, and that they were best settled by trade unions. Trade unions had been attempting to adjust these matters for a great many years past, but, after all, it would be admitted that trade union action very often involved a large number of men in small disputes. They were anxious as far as possible to make the occasion for strikes as rare as possible. Strikes might occasionally be necessary, but they represented a somewhat antiquated method of conducting industrial disputes. The heaviest responsibilities of strikes fell not alone upon the workmen, but rather upon the women and children behind them, who had to suffer out of all proportion to the needs of the case. He submitted that it was much wiser and better that they should come to the House of Commons indicating lines along which peaceful methods might be established, and he felt sure that all portions of the House would recognise that they were simply desirous of securing justice for the men in ways that would be in no way inimical to the best interests of the employer. After all, the fair and honest employer had nothing whatever to fear from the enactment of such a measure as this. On the other hand, it was in the best interests of the fair employer that all who were not quite so willing to deal justly with their workmen should be brought into line; otherwise competition would be accentuated and the fair employer would suffer because of the unfair methods of his competitors. He submitted that on the Second Reading of the Bill it was unnecessary for him to speak at any greater length, because its provisions were not new to an Act of Parliament, and Members were pretty well able to gauge what the promoters were aiming at and what were the possibilities of the measure. He trusted that the Bill would receive due consideration at the hands of the House, and if the Government were not opposed to the appointment of a Departmental Committee, he hoped that Committee would be composed in such a way as to inspire confidence in all classes of workmen concerned, and that as a result the Government would frame a measure which would establish justice for the men, and at the same time not be inimical to the best interests of the employers or the trade of the country as a whole.

MR. HODGE (Lancashire, Gorton),

in seconding, said that a few weeks ago the Home Secretary was good enough to receive a deputation of those interested in this particular measure, and on that occasion he promised them a Departmental inquiry. At the same time he thought it was wise that the principle of the measure should be established by a vote of the House. As was stated when they met the Home Secretary, they had nothing to fear from inquiry, but everything to gain. He thought it would be an easy matter to establish the fact that this particular proposal was absolutely essential, not only in the interests of the workmen concerned, but in the interests of fair competition with honest employers. In an article in a trade journal devoted to the employers' interests it was stated that the existing methods had been found satisfactory. That statement was made in view of the introduction of this measure. He had sent out a circular of inquiry to seventy steel works, with respect to the question of compulsory weighing. Hediscovered that there were only three at which every ingot was weighed. In eighteen works the employers gave facilities occasionally for weighing material the men produced, and the workers were paid on the average of the results ascertained. At forty-nine of these works the men complained most strongly of unfair treatment in the matter of weighing. He would mention a case in point. He had a letter from a works in Scotland where the men were so dissatisfied with the amount that was being paid to them that they demanded a test weighing. When the test took place they discovered that the average weight of the ingots was 4 tons 12 cwts. Later on when they asked the stock taker as to the amount allowed they found that they had only been allowed 4 tons 6 cwts. Naturally the men complained strongly of being robbed of their wages in that fashion. No other word could properly designate that act on the part of the employer. It was simply robbing the men of what they had earned. The promoters of the Bill were not asking the establishment of a new principle. There were already the check weighman clauses of the Mines Regulation Act, and there were the "particulars" clauses in the Factory Acts for the protection of the interests of operatives in regard to payment for piecework. The system of weighing a certain number of ingots occasionally and then paying on the ascertained average, so far as the steel trade was concerned, was unsatisfactory for the reason that the weight of the material differed according to the carbon in the metal at the time of testing. If there was much carbon in the metal, then naturally the ingot was more solid and weighed more than another of a lower carbon. There was more expansion in the lower carbon than in the higher carbon, and he had found in his experience that employers, when they were, as a result of dissatisfaction, forced to weigh, were always careful to have the test weighing done from a low carbon, because it paid them to do so. The only fair method of weighing was to weigh every ingot, and the fact that there were three up-to-date works which did this showed that such a system was practicable. What was possible in these cases was possible in all. The latest and most up-to-date works were those erected at Cargo Fleet. If it was said that it was practically impossible to weigh each ingot the statement was of the most inaccurate and misleading character. Nothing could be more simple or more easily done in these particular works. For twenty years the steel workers had been agitating in this direction, but until the present Home Secretary promised a Departmental inquiry they had made little progress. When a deputation waited on him recently, the present Home Secretary inquired as to whether they had ever taken any action with the view of getting at any firm whom they had charged with unfair dealing. About two years ago they got affidavits sworn as to the manner in which the workmen in certain works were being robbed, but the works were owned by a limited liability company, who had neither a soul to be saved nor a body to be kicked, and they were informed by counsel that it was impossible to raise a criminal prosecution against the manager, because he was not pocketing any gain. In order to bring a criminal prosecution, it would be necessary to prove that he had gained by the transaction. He thought the Home Secretaries before whom the question had been brought had been with the workmen in regard to the principle they were seeking to establish. As to the custom in the tin-plate trade, the workmen had an arrangement with the employers that if a workman, who received the correct weight of metal for the purpose of making tin sheets, drew them light, on account of faulty workmanship, he might be penalised by the employer taking sheets to make up the weight for such light or faulty work. But the workman had no means of knowing or checking whether the iron put in was correct in weight or not. Some of the employers in South Wales had recognised that fact, and in three instances they had voluntarily given the men the privilege of putting on a check weigher to check the weights. If the iron went in light that was the fault of the employer, and the workman was not penalised. The workmen agreed to that, and, on the other hand, they said that if a workman, through negligent workmanship,' ran the sheets light, he should be penalised. The deputation that waited on the Home Secretary a few weeks ago represented over 100,000 men, but that number did not cover the whole of the men whom a Bill of this kind would affect. Having looked into the question, he believed he was safe in saying that the measure affected at any rate 250,000 men, who would be directly benefited if the measure were carried. He and his friends were very much indebted to the Home Secretary for granting a Departmental inquiry. The workmen had nothing to fear, and everything to gain, by such a course of procedure. The promoters of the Bill, on whose behalf he spoke, would be perfectly prepared to adopt the idea of the Home Secretary that the Bill should be committed to Committee of the Whole House, so that it might be practically shelved for this session, in view of the fact that they had no desire to force legislation until the Departmental Committee had reported. He begged to second the Motion.

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)

said this was a Bill which raised questions of very considerable importance, and certainly it was one which created throughout the country very widespread interest. The arguments for it had been very fairly stated by the two hon. Gentlemen who had already spoken. He was glad to think that the arguments for the Bill did not rest, speaking generally, on any allegation of malpractice on the part of the employers, but rather on the general broad ground of the defective system under which the men concerned had no precise and definite method of ascertaining exactly what wages were due to them. This question had been raised in his Department periodically since 1893. It was not a new question to him, because fourteen years ago, when he was Undersecretary at the Home Office, it was raised, and, looking back at the Papers, he found that in November, 1893, he argued that if it was right to adopt the checkweighman system in coal mines, it was right also that it should be adopted in other employments where the conditions weresimilar. He suggested to the then Home Secretary that he should receive a deputation on the subject, and his right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the following spring receive the first deputation. In reply to the deputation his right hon. friend said heagreed that where payment was by weight the process of ascertaining the weight should be above all suspicion; that he had complete sympathy with the object of the deputation, but that he could not promise legislation definitely until he had ascertained the views, in the first instance, of the employers. That Government came to an end. The Home Secretary in the next Government, who received deputations in 1897, 1898, and 1900, stated that he agreed with the opinion of his predecessors and he said, moreover, that a strong primâ facie case had been made out. He also said that he wanted to make further inquiry as to the views of the employers. Difficulties seemed to have been raised at that time and subsequently by the employers. They said that they had no objection to the appointment of checkweighmen, but that there were certain practical difficulties in the way which made the change undesirable. They said further that in view of the fact that there was practically no grievance, it was not worth while making any alteration in the system. Nothing further seemed to have been done for the next half-dozen years. He recollected receiving the deputation to which the hon. Gentlemen had alluded. That deputation presented the same case with perhaps greater force, and represented that there were short weights given by some employers, especially in iron and steel works. He said in answer to the deputation that he was anxious that the matter should be considered broadly so as to secure the greatest possible accuracy where wages were paid for piecework by weight without interfering with the necessities of an industry. It was really to attain that object that this Bill had been introduced. Hecordially supported the Second Reading. Of course, he could not be committed to the clauses as they stood. But the Bill affirmed two principles—one, that in certain industries where men were paid by rates of weight or measurement they should be able to check the weights by a check weigher or deputy; and the other, that where men were paid by piece they should have particulars. He thought the House would assent to both those principles. So far as the question of particulars was concerned, his sincere wish was to deal with it as a whole as soon as possible. He had had experience of the excellent working of the particulars clause of the Act of 1895, and there was no earthly reason why that principle should not be made universal for all piecework. There were practical difficulties owing to the immense variety of trades concerned, but the Government were taking measures with a view, if possible, of bringing in some legislation by which they could make the principle of the particulars clause general. There were one or two weak points in the Bill. Its scope was too narrow. He saw no reason why it should be limited to the industries specified in the second clause. There were many industries in the Birmingham district which might be excluded from the operation of the Bill as it stood, and the measure did not include the loading and unloading of ships where the men were paid by weight. Their case and the case of other trades not included ought, he thought, to be considered. Then the Bill evaded the central difficulty of the question. It did not establish any precise method by which the exact weight was to be ascertained, but left the difficulty to be solved by the Home Office in framing and administering Rules. That task the Home Office could not undertake They must get into closer relations with the different trades. Many industries working by different methods were concerned. It was desirable, if possible, to arrive at some common basis which would be accepted and applied by both masters and men without any friction or trouble. The Government thought it desirable, especially as the matters involved were highly technical, that they should have an expert inquiry. The contention of the iron and steel masters who were chiefly concerned in this matter, was that modern developments made weighing a matter of difficulty, that even half a minute's delay in the different processes which had to be gone through meant loss. His hon. friend denied that. That was one of the points the Government wanted to see settled by experts on both sides. Whatever difficulty there might be in establishing a suitable method, he thought modern ingenuity would be able to overcome it. There were also technical questions in connection with cement works, chalk quarries, and so forth. He proposed to set up a committee and submit to it, in the first instance, the case of the iron and steel trade; then the case of other trades. They might then be able to arrive at something which would afford a common basis for dealing with all cases where wages were paid by weight. The Committee, which was practically now made up, would comprise Mr. Ernest Hatch, chairman, a factory inspector, and Mr. Lloyd Morgan, the Member for West Carmarthen, who would form the neutral element on the Committee; and then the expert element, consisting of Messrs. Ains-worth and Eccles, representative members of the iron and steel trade, and, as repre- sentatives of the workmen, his hon. friend the Member for the Gorton Division of Lancashire and Alderman P. Walls, of Workington. He thought that Commttee would bevery well capable of sifting the evidence and coming to some sound conclusion in connection with the different trades. The Government accepted the Second Reading of the Bill, and were also prepared to agree to the suggestion that it should go to a Committee of the Whole House. Whatever might be said as to the merits of the new Standing Order, he could assure the hon. Member for North Armagh that it was never intended that all Bills read a second time should necessarily go to a Grand Committee. There were many measures of a pioneer character which were simply brought forward for general discussion in order to open out public opinion on a certain principle. To send this Bill to a Committee would be of no practical use. Therefore he thought that it should be dealt with in the way suggested, and that when the psychological moment arrived it should receive with all dignity its discharge for the session. Meanwhile, the Committee would get to work, and as the result of its labours he hoped to be able to bring in next year a non-contentious Bill which would finally settle this matter which had been the subject of friction and unnecessary trouble for many years.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said he would support the Second Reading of the Bill and of the principle which it embodied; but as the Bill was to be hung up for some months, he wished to make a a few observations which had occurried to him in reading the details of the measure. He did not agree with the view that the scope of the Bill was too narrow. The measure was drafted from the point of view of two or three particular trades, and he thought it would be unfortunate to include in it the loading and unloading of ships. If legislation were desired on that subject, it would be better left to the Board of Trade. In laying out new steel works, it would be feasible to arrange for a continuous system of checking and weighing, but there were many steel works against which no charge could be brought of ever having defrauded their people systematically, where it would be impossible to carry out a continuous system.

MR. HODGE

said that the purpose of the Bill was simply to provide that the men who were paid by the ton or measurement should have a means of checking their work and so secure the amount of money which they had really earned.

LORDBALCARRES

said he was satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Member, and he was much obliged for it. An hon. Member below the Gangway had said that he had sent out seventy circulars to steel works and he found that there were only three at which there were facilities for continuous measurement and weighing. In regard to Cowden-heath, he knew that in that particular steel works, in three out of five processes of steel-making there was an arrangement for estimating the weight of every ingot. With regard to the Committee, he would have been better pleased if it had consisted of three representatives of the iron and steel trade like the hon. Member for Gorton, and one Member of the Home Office to hold the scales even. He did not think these outside impartial men were required at all. Everybody knew what the difficulties were and the object to be attained, and he very much feared—

MR. GLADSTONE (interrupting)

said the Committee would have to inquire into other things affecting distinct and separate trades, and they could not ask Members representing a particular trade to do that. What he proposed to do by way of experiment was really to adopt the principle of nucleus crews and to have three impartial men who could sit continuously and then Members representing particular trades who could go away when the inquiry in regard to the particular trade which they represented was finished and be replaced by members of another trade.

LORD BALCARRES

said he understood then that there was to be a permanent committee and trade and expert members would be imported for each particular trade. That of course made all the difference, and he should think no difficulty would arise. He hoped, however, the draft rules would be published in good time during the present autumn so as to give those concerned an opportunity of considering the matter in a friendly manner before the Government Bill was introduced next year. There was no difficulty in the Bill, but only in the rules. He thought the Home Office would not be prejudiced in any way by taking the steel and iron trades into their confidence early and publishing the rules in good time. The principle was good, and he hoped the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman would lead to a good result.

MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)

said herose to express his satisfaction at the Home Office having committed itself fully to the principle that the wage earner should be able to find out what he had earned and what was due to him, and should not be obliged to take whatever was given him. This principle was embodied in the "Particulars Clause" of the Factory Act of 1895. He himself took some part in the Committee work of that Bill upstairs. He was satisfied that a large number of poor workers, women and young persons, were called upon to give their work from Monday to Saturday and take what was given to them without having any power whatever to ascertain whether they were receiving what was due to them or not. In his own constituency there were many young, poor, and ignorant workers who were bitterly disappointed at what they received, and who were unable to say whether they received enough for the work or not. The Bill touched the principle of the right of the worker to see that he got a satisfactory wage, and he heartily supported its Second Reading.

MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)

said he would not have intervened in the debate, but for the fact that it seemed to him from the remarks of the Home Secretary that while the right hon. Gentleman seemed willing to pass the Bill he was preaching its funeral sermon. The noble Lord said the Bill would be hung up for a few months. Had the noble Lord said a few years or even a decade he thought he would have been nearer the truth. The right hon. Gentleman contended that the Bill was too narrow; that the trades dealt with were not sufficient in number; that he would have the Bill considerably broadened, and he indicated in the latter part of his speech that he would appoint a Committee to inquire into the iron and steel trades.

* MR. GLADSTONE

said that was not so. The Committee had an extremely limited function; they had only to inquire into and ascertain the best way of computing the wages.

MR. WATT

said the right hon. Gentleman proposed to appoint this Committee for two or three trades first, and then a fresh Committee would be appointed to inquire into other three or four trades, and so on ad infinitum.They might reach the Day of Judgment before they reached the Act. This Parliament would not last for ever.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

Hear, hear.

MR. WATT

said the pendulum might swing back, and the next Parliament would not think of dealing with the iron and steel trades on the lines of this Bill. He expressed his regret that the Bill was likely to be always in the future and not in the present.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next. —(Mr. George Roberts.)

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.

House counted, and forty Members being found present,