§ MASTER of ELIBANKI understand that hon. Members desire to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the present unfortunate condition of affairs in the industrial world. I beg, therefore, to move "That this House do now Adjourn."
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDPerhaps the House will allow me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make relative to the strike in the railway world to-day?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I do not know I have very much to add to what has already appeared in the evening papers except, perhaps, by way of explanation of that statement. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been conducting negotiations for some time with a view to averting this impending calamity, and the last day or two he has seen representatives of the railway companies and also representatives of the men. Last night I announced to the House that the Executive were travelling up to see my right hon. Friend at his invitation. I believe they saw him to-day with the Prime Minister, and it is in reference to that interview, I think, a statement has already appeared in the evening papers. It is a very important statement, and for the purposes of those who have not had an opportunity of seeing it I will give it to the House. Perhaps before I do it I ought to preface a few facts in order to make it clear why the Government have taken up the position which they have taken to-day, and which they have announced to the representatives both of the 2194 companies and of the men. Four years ago we were confronted with exactly the same difficulty; we had the same demand on the part of the men for recognition of their unions, and we had the same persistence on the part of the railway companies. A compromise was arrived at which had the same element as every compromise—of something which neither party had proposed up to that date, and which was not altogether pleasing to either party, but which was regarded as perhaps the best solution for the time being.
It was decided to set up a number of Conciliation Boards containing freely elected representatives of the men to meet the representatives of the railway companies to discuss grievances. It was then proposed that that experiment should last for seven years. It was felt it was an experiment. The men never abandoned their claims for recognition, and, on the other hand, the railway companies felt that they could not go beyond treating a proposition of that kind as a mere experiment. It was decided that seven years would be a proper term for giving a chance to that experiment. The document was signed by the railway companies and by the trade union officials. I think it is the only document in existence where the signatures of the directors of railway companies and representatives of trade unions appear on the same paper, except on documents issued as reports. That document containing the signatures of the union officials as well as the representatives of the railway companies, and pledging both parties to attempt this experiment of Conciliation Boards for seven years has been in operation just short of four years. There is something like three years still to run. There has been a good deal of friction, I understand, in the working of these boards. There have been two complaints directed against the conciliation system. The first has been a complaint on behalf of the men that it has not been worked fairly by some at least of the railway companies. The second is that there are certain defects in the machinery of conciliation which are fatal to its success. These complaints were made, I believe, by the Executive Committee who met to-day. A question was put to them as to what their complaints were, and among other things this question was put to them:—
These were the questions put by the Board of Trade this morning to the executive committee of the various unions. To these five questions the following answers were given:—
- 1. What are the actual grounds on which the Executive Committee have founded their action in issuing their twenty-four hours' manifesto?
2195 - 2. What are the actual grievances in connection with the Conciliation Board Agreement of 1907?
- 3. Are those grievances sufficiently grave to justify the action which the executive have taken?
- 4. Could those grievances not be remedied in a less drastic way?
- 5. Could those grievances be remedied in the way proposed—by means of a general strike?
1 and 2. The failure of the railway companies to observe the spirit and the letter of the Conciliation Board agreement of 1907——
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD"Refusal."
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member says "refusal"——and the utter impossibility of the men's representatives to redress many grievances of which the men complain.
3. The answer is "Yes."
4. The answer is "Yes—by the suggestion offered by the Committee to the railway companies yesterday to meet the official representatives of the men."
5. The answer is "Yes. In our opinion that is the only course."
These answers came before the Government to-day, and we had to consider the whole position. We had to consider the fact that an agreement had been arrived at to try the experiment of Conciliation Boards for seven years. It was an agreement to which the men were parties—the trades unions were parties, the railway directors were parties, and to which the Government also were parties. But if, for any reason or other, these Conciliation Boards were not working smoothly, and especially if they were not working smoothly because either of the two parties to the agreement were not working them fairly, then we felt that that was a matter which certainly ought to be investigated, and ought to be investigated before we came to any decision in reference to it. It was a very serious statement of fact. We could not prejudge it. It involved necessarily some inquiry, and we decided to suggest both to the railway directors and to the men's representatives that there 2196 should be a special inquiry into these allegations. We decided to propose to both parties that there should be such a special inquiry.
I will inform the House, after I have read the terms of reference, of the nature and character of the inquiry which we propose to set up. The terms were "to investigate the working of the Railway Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme signed on behalf of the officials of railway companies and the three trade unions of railway employés and the Board of Trade representatives, on 6th November, 1907, and to report what amendments, if any, are desirable in the scheme with a view to the prompt and satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. "Our idea was to appoint a small Committee of Inquiry or Commission of three. One of the Commissioners we proposed should be a representative of the labour interests of this country. We proposed that another Commissioner should be a great employer of labour, and that the Chairman should be a gentleman of position and distinction, of well-known impartiality, whose appointment would command the confidence of the whole community. We all realised the importance of acting promptly. We realised also that there would be a natural suspicion in the mind of those who were labouring under a sense of accumulated grievances—grievances so severe that they were prepared to run the terrible risk of a great strike— risks, however great they are to the community, are still greater to themselves. We felt, accordingly, that there was the danger in suggesting a Committee of that kind, that they must be apprehensive that we were simply trying to put off dealing effectively with their grievances. It was urgently important that this Commission should be appointed at once, that it should proceed promptly to work and that it should report without any delay. The Government, of course, cannot abrogate its responsibility and cannot accept the report of any Commission without investigation. The responsibility, of course, must be, in the first instance, the responsibility of the Government, and then finally on the House of Commons. We felt that it must be a Commission appointed with a view to reporting and with a view to action being taken, not merely to express a series of pious opinions, which would undoubtedly carry great weight with the community, and to that extent be the means of exercising pressure upon the contestants, but with a view to administrative, and if 2197 necessary even legislative action being taken by the Government in order to see that a fair condition of things could be established.
This proposal was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who saw both parties this morning with the President of the Board of Trade. He made this proposal to both parties. He saw them successively. The executive of the railway employés took some time for consideration, and then, I cannot help thinking without a full appreciation of the character of the proposal, they decided to refuse it, and to proceed at once to recommend a great national strike. The representatives of the railway companies accepted the suggestion, and they were prepared to give evidence before a Commission of that kind. That was the position some time ago—a very serious position. It would be very difficult for anyone to exaggerate its gravity. Some of us felt that it was so grave that at any rate if a conflict must come, it is of the utmost importance that it could only come after a full understanding on both sides of the actual character of the proposals and what the real intentions of the Government were. I cannot help thinking that the proposal was not fully understood in all its spirit and intention, and even its effects. At any rate, I am very glad to be able to say this, that negotiations for the moment have been reopened, and although a strike has been announced and there is no withdrawal of the manifesto which has been issued by the executive, still the House will be very pleased to know that, at any rate, the negotiations are not broken off, that the parties are giving a full consideration to the interpretation which I now place upon the proposal of the Government that it was really not the intentions to set up a roving Commission merely for the purpose of putting off the evil hour, but rather a Committee of Inquiry, a small one, a judicial one, and above all one which would lead to a prompt decision, and what I attach far more importance to, one which will lead to a prompt report, which would involve action and decisive action, with a view to putting an end to the causes of this irritation, which has been so fruitful of unrest and disturbance and which is so charged with possible disaster and catastrophe to the industrial system of this country. I cannot sit down without once more emphasising the importance of the considerations which I yesterday put before the House, the in- 2198 portance of exercising very great patience and restraint in this critical hour of the negotiations. I hope it will be possible, at any rate during the next few hours, to eon-duct negotiations without any exasperating intervention, either inside or outside the House. It is an exceedingly difficult position. I certainly have not given up the hope of arriving at some sort of conclusion which will be satisfactory to all parties.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDmade an observation which was inaudible in the Gallery.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI hope the hon. Member will not think I am casting any reflection upon anyone. It is rather with the view of an appeal to the future than a reflection upon anybody's past. It is an appeal which I make not merely to the House, but if I may respectfully do so to the Press as well. This statement will appear to-morrow. It will appear in the first instance as a refusal on the part of the men to accept the proposal put before thorn by the Government. I hope they will all bear in mind that at the present moment, at any rate, the whole matter is; sub judice, and if the Press will kindly take note of that fact I am sure it will be very helpful in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.
Sir GILBERT PARKERThe light hon. Gentleman said he would read the statement which has been made to the Press.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think I have given the substance of it. The statement which the Prime Minister made warned them in very grave language of the responsibility which would be cast upon them if they refused that offer. I am sure the men themselves will be the first to realise what a tremendous and terrible responsibility it is. I am very anxious at this moment not to say anything which will render the negotiations-more difficult. The mere fact that there has been I think, rather a misinterpretation of the proposal is regrettable, but I am still very sanguine that when the men come to realise the full character of the proposal of the Government, that it is intended to give them every fairplay and every opportunity, and that it is not at all a mere attempt to lure out of their hands the great weapon of striking, but that it is merely an attempt for the moment to see whether we cannot arrive at the facts which must alone be 2199 the basis of safe negotiations, to arrive at that promptly, to arrive at it without loss of time, and in such a way that if the men are not satisfied with the recommendations of the Committee they still could fall back on the very powerful weapon in their hands. I hope and trust that in the meantime it will be possible to arrive at some means of obviating the suffering which must occur if the struggle goes on.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDWill the House grant me its usual indulgence while I make a statement with regard to the point of view of the men, certainly not for the purpose of aggravating the situation, but for the purpose, I hope, of smoothing over the difficulties which may exist? After a very hard day's work, which has proved that the ways of peacemakers, as well as of transgressors, are hard, I have to say that I hope there is a possibility of re-opening all the case. I should like to make it quite clear to this House that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the proposal that was made to-day was not made to the men in the way he has made it now. I do not intend to dwell upon that point, but I think, in justice to the men, that ought to be known. I heard the statement myself, and I think it is only fair and just to the men to say that. I will not go into the details, because that is only to be provocative. I would only ask hon. Members to please keep in mind that when the decision of the men was come to, after that statement was made to them, the way in which it was done was not the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated.
There was a misunderstanding apparently all round, and so much is that the case that the men's reply will be in the newspapers to-morrow. I suppose that has been done, and cannot be undone. In that reply hon. Members will see certain points raised which could not properly be raised in connection with the statement we have just heard. It is possible—I do not want to say it is not—that it was purely a matter of misunderstanding, but so grave was the misunderstanding, and so very keenly did we feel it, that what I intended first of all to do this afternoon was to ask the Government to give us an opportunity of moving a Vote of Censure upon them for the way they had conducted the negotiations. But I am delighted beyond measure that such a thing is not necessary for the moment, 2200 and I sincerely hope it will not be necessary at all. I do not know whether it is possible—I hope it is possible— to re-open the negotiations. Both sides have drifted very far apart, and as hon. Members who have read their newspapers know, a strike has actually been declared. As a matter of fact, preliminary steps have been taken to re-open negotiations, and if these preliminary steps are successful, might we beg hon. Members on both sides of the House who can influence railway directors to argue with and persuade them in the ordinary way to try to make it easy for either side to declare a truce until this inquiry is held, if the men should see their way to accept the inquiry. I would like to guard myself in this respect too. I hope that nothing I have said will be taken to prejudice any decision which the men may come to to-night or to-morrow morning. They have their very great grievances, and it is just possible that they may still come to the conclusion that it is impossible to re-open the matter. So far as we are concerned here, we propose to state the case as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated it here, and to discuss the whole situation with him after the misunderstanding, as I call it, has been somewhat removed.
I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, one or two questions. Would it be possible for him, supposing these negotiations are re-opened, to announce the names of the Commission, say, by Saturday forenoon, or some time during Saturday at the latest? Would it also be possible for him to make a statement that when the Commission is appointed it will meet, say, on Monday, or not later than Tuesday next week? The situation is a very pressing one. A strike has been declared, and of course until the men get a very firm offer from the Government one way or the other, it will be impossible to take any of those steps which we would all like, if possible, to be taken in order that the men may resume the normal operations of their labour. I would also like to ask whether I understood him aright to say that as soon as the report of the Commission is published the Government will take immediate administrative action for carrying it into effect, provided, of course, that the Government agree with it. We would never think of asking it to give effect to a report with which it does not agree. I wish also to know whether, if these steps fail, the Government would 2201 promise to take such legislative action as it considers necessary in order to establish peace on a tolerably permanent footing. All I can say is that I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, and the House, that if it is at all possible to assist in securing peace with honour, and peace with fairplay to both sides in the dispute, those of us who sit here will do our very best in giving that assistance. Those who are here, at any rate, will do our best to establish that. I think I ought to say something as to the condition of the truce. I understand it would be this. If an agreement is come to and if the negotiations which are opened up end successfully and the men declare the strike off, it will be on the condition that the men who have been locked out or who have already ceased work would betaken on by the companies, and that each side would meet the other in that respect, so that the whole railway system would be put into active operation again. That must be understood as a necessary preliminary to any successful negotiations.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt is only by leave of the House that I can speak again. I will answer the four questions which have been put to me by my hon. Friend. His speech, to which, I am sure, we have listened with great satisfaction, is a very good guarantee, I think, that if the negotiations are reopened they will be conducted in the very best spirit and with a real desire to settle the dispute. He asked whether I could announce the names of the Commissioners by Saturday. If the Commission had been accepted today, we could have announced them to-morrow. If the Commission is accepted to-morrow, and if the Commissioners accept to-morrow, the names certainly could be announced on Saturday next. My hon. Friend asked me if we proposed that this Commission should meet on Monday. That is our idea. We think that prompt action is essential to meet these grievances. To keep them alive would be a constant source of irritation, and is the very last thing in the world the Government or anybody else desire to do. The sooner we dispose of the matter the better it would be, because it is a constant menace to the industrial peace of this country. Therefore, if the Commission were appointed on Saturday, we would make it a condition of acceptance that they should meet on Monday, and begin their work immediately next week and go on de die in diem until they came to a con- 2202 clusion. The third question was in the event of the Government accepting the recommendations of the Commissioners, and the Government accept absolute responsibility in that respect—whether having regard to all the circumstances of the case we would be prepared immediately to take administrative action in reference to it, and whether if we discovered that our administrative powers were insufficient and inadequate we would take steps to strengthen those powers. Certainly, that was the intention of the Government.
As I have already pointed out, the Government is setting up this Commission with a view to being advised as to the action which it should take. In order to lead to immediate action it is proposed that this Commission should be set up. The fourth question is a very important and a very difficult question. The hon. Member says that a truce to be binding must be a truce all round, and not merely that the men who struck should return to work, but that those over whom hangs the menace of a notice should also be allowed to return. Of course, I cannot pledge myself to do more than to bring all the influence of the Government to bear in a case of that kind, but I must say that the hon. Member has met us in a very fair spirit, and I cannot imagine if there is a truce of that kind anyone interposing any obstacles. I am sure that it would be the general opinion of everybody throughout the country that when everybody is willing to do his best to obviate this disastrous industrial war all the parties must give fair play to the truce by making it a real and effective one, and, therefore, I am sure that the Government will have the support of the House of Commons in bringing pressure upon both parties in this case, so that the men who are out shall return to work during the period when the investigation is taking place.
§ Mr. SNOWDENArising out of what the Chancellor has said, may I ask, if the Report of the Royal Commission made suggestions that could not be dealt with by administration and the Government would be prepared to legislate, are we to infer from that that the Government would be prepared to summon Parliament before the time fixed for the Autumn Session?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy hon. Friend is asking me a question which I should not care to answer myself without consulting my colleagues, especially the Prime 2203 Minister, but with regard to that everything depends upon the character of the recommendations. If the recommendations are such as involve very urgent considerations upon which the peace of the community depends, and that it depends upon them being dealt with promptly and without delay, I cannot imagine anyone objecting in that case to Parliament being summoned at any period.
§ Sir W. ANSONI think that on this side of the House we are fully alive to the gravity of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and more particularly to the importance which he attaches to reticence in letter and speech lest anything should be done which might mar the possibilities of a happy solution of this serious difficulty. Under those circumstances all one can say as to the plans of the Government is that we recognise the value of the prompt action which the Government propose to take, and we feel quite sure that if it should be necessary to summon this House again at any inconvenience we would willingly come. The Government's duty—and I think we recognise it as the duty of all of us—is to be impartial as between the two parties to this strike. The Government has another duty, which was recognised yesterday, and which I feel sure they have not ceased to recognise, a duty to the public to protect life and property and to ensure that the people of this country obtain the necessaries of life. I feel that the public at large is entitled to that assurance under present circumstances, and I do not doubt that that is the intention of the Government as was declared last night. Under those circumstances we will endeavour to carry out the injunction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not say one word more than that, and we all hope that the efforts of the Government to solve this painful difficulty may be crowned with success.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNI am sure that everyone in this House realises thoroughly the gravity of the situation and hopes sincerely that there may be a satisfactory settlement. May I, however, say that it seems to me that if there is a satisfactory settlement by Conciliation Boards it does not go to the root of the evil, the question of the wages. We all know that the cost of living has gone up in England and that wages have not gone up in proportion. Might I suggest that if the Government 2204 appoint one Commission they should appoint a second Commission at the same time to investigate——
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)The hon. Member would not be in order in introducing a new subject at this moment.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNWith all due respect might I say it is with reference to this present dispute. I am suggesting a second Commission in order to get at the root of the evil. If we had a second Commission to inquire——
§ MASTER of ELIBANKBy the leave of the House I beg to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.