HC Deb 04 July 1911 vol 27 cc1050-72

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr. JAMES THOMAS

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the question the words, "upon this day three months."

I regret the circumstances which necessitate this Motion for more reasons than one. In the first place the Bill itself is of vital importance to a large number of people. The Members representing the particular constituencies affected by the Bill are so anxious to vote for the measure in the interests of their constituents, that it will be very difficult for them to express their opinion on the merits of the case I am about to put forward. I regret the circumstances which necessitate the Motion more especially when we recognise that I his is the only method by which we can secure justice for a large number of railway men. Here is a great corporation in the Midland Railway Company who ought to recognise that the interests of the company and the interests of its employés are identical, and who at least ought to make it a first duty to see that the relations between employers and employés are of the most amicable character possible. I am glad to know that there is in this House at the present moment some one connected with the Midland Railway Company. After hearing what we shall say in support of our Motion, I hope he will be able to express on behalf of that company at least that the practices of which we complain shall not be allowed to continue.

A few weeks ago in moving a reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, I took occasion to say that in my opinion the Conciliation Boards at present in operation on our railways would be rejected if the men on the different railways had the opportunity of recording a vote. I did not make that statement because I desire the abolition of Conciliation Boards. On the contrary I am a strong advocate of the principle of conciliation, and it is because I want these boards to be of some value to the men, to be the one medium for adjusting differences between employers and employés that I am so anxious for their success. But I made the statement because the Midland Railway Company more than any other railway company in this country is responsible for so disheartening and disgusting the men that they have lost all hope of redress under what is known as the Conciliation Agreement. What are the practices? Following the great agitation a few years ago there were boards set up for the purpose of considering differences between the men and the various railway companies. On the Midland Railway certain grades in the service were able to come to an agreement with their employers without going to arbitration, but a large number of grades went to arbitration. An award was given, and whilst it did not secure for the men all they thought they were entitled to, or what they felt their case demanded, yet having gone to arbitration, the responsible officials of the men laid it down that the men would act honourably on the decision come to. Immediately following that decision the railway company resorted to means by which they endeavoured to keep the men from receiving the benefits this award gave to them.

In the first place, I would mention that for the last thirty years goods guards, who are a large number of men on the Midland Railway, have enjoyed what is known as a guaranteed week. That is to say, they are compelled to devote the whole of their time to the company's service. Unlike any other class of employés, they are not allowed to engage in any other kind of work, and in return for that the railway company guarantee them a week's wage. In actual practice it has meant that during the last twenty years very few men indeed have worked other than their week, and the men in arriving at a settlement had in mind the past practice of the company. They naturally felt that in coming to an agreement with their employers the first duty of the employers would be to see that what hitherto had been, the practice would be continued under the agreement. One of the provisions of the settlement was that before any man could be reduced in position he would be given a week's notice of such reduction, the object of that being that, if there occurred a serious trade depression, a strike, or a lock-out which seriously affected the work, the company would then have the right to give a man a week's notice that they would reduce his position. On the approach of the very first bank holiday following that agreement the railway company issued notices to the whole of their guards in the London district telling them that in consequence of the bank holiday they would be reduced 8s. per week for the next week. In this House I protested and the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Board of Trade said he was sure that the Midland Railway Company would endeavour to meet the position. On the occasion of the first protest in this House the company's proposal was limited to the London area, but since then at every holiday the goods guards on the Midland Railway have received notice that they were to be reduced 8s. a week I during that week. There might be some justification if it could be shown that these reductions were absolutely necessary in consequence of depression of trade, but I am going to submit that if in any week, month, or year, you can show that a large number of men are working excessively long hours and making long periods of overtime while other men are being reduced, the plea as to depression of trade cannot be justified in such circumstances. From 30th April to 29th December of last year in the London area alone of the Midland Railway Company there were no fewer than 250 men signed on duty twice in one day. In the same period there were thirteen men signed on duty with under nine hours' rest, 174 with only nine hours' rest and 563 under ten hours' rest, all in a period when over 3,500 men were being reduced because it was alleged of slackness in trade. Let me examine it from another standpoint. In the same period there were 850 men on duty twelve hours in one day; there were 179 men on duty more than twelve hours; there were thirty-seven men on duty over thirteen hours, and for that same period there were 13,248 hours' overtime worked in one month; and at the same time there were hundreds of men reduced because it was alleged that there was no work for them. I submit that there is a clear illustration, and there is absolute proof on close investigation, of an abuse on the part of the company of an honourable agreement at which they themselves and the men arrived. But that is not all. For over twenty-five years the Midland Railway Company have employed a large grade known as shunters. It was not only a laborious class of work, but a highly dangerous class of work. When you remember that one out of every nineteen shunters in the year 1309 was either killed or injured it is hardly necessary for me to lay emphasis on the dangerous nature of the men's work. These men were employed on different parts of the Midland system. At. Leicester, following this agreement that I have already described, the Midland Railway Company issued a notice that on and after a certain date these men's hours would be increased from eight to ten per day.

Under the terms of the agreement they dare not increase the hours of shunters, because there was a fixed agreement as to what the hours of shunters should be. But, in order to get over that difficulty, they renamed these men, and said: "On and after a certain date we will call you train receivers; you will do precisely the same work; there will be no alteration whatever in the nature of your employment; but, in order that we can get out of an honourable obligation, we will call you train receivers, and increase your hours of work by two per day." The men naturally protested; I myself with a deputation of the men interviewed the Board of Trade on this particular point. We pointed out the absolute injustice to the men. We pointed out that if this practice were to continue it would only mean that the railway company should rename every grade and they would get out of every obligation and condition under the award. In short, that if this practice was to be upheld by the Board of Trade under this scheme it was useless for the men themselves to go to arbitration on the point. But whilst that applies to the Leicester shunters, it also applies to other shunters in different parts of the country. And, to show the justification of our case, long after this took place, over twelve months following the representations that were made to the Board of Trade, the Midland general manager sent for a deputation of these men, had them to London, and said "We will pay you back pay for all the time," which was a clear admission that what I stated in. this House nearly twelve months ago was perfectly true, and after twelve months the Midland Railway Company had to recognise it. But let us examine how they did it. Although they gave these men their back pay dating from the time of the reduction, and the men were not only satisfied but naturally jubilant with the result of the negotiations, yet immediately they got back to their depot the same general manager who recognised, by paying them back pay, the injustice which they had received, immediately gave-orders that they should be removed from that particular station. It is perfectly true that they had the option of staying at the job that they had done for years on eight hours a day, and at 30s. a week, but it was the option of staying at ten hours a day and 25s. a week.

I submit that that is not a fair proposition. I submit it for more than one reason. These men are married men with families. They have the family associations. It may be that they may have lads working and apprentices, and unless there is some real solid ground for removing a man, no railway company ought to take an advantage such as that which the Midland Railway Company took in this particular case. The same thing, of course, applies to draymen. At Wolverhampton the Midland Railway Company were bound by an award that gave the draymen 22s. a week. It is not necessary for me to argue that 22s. a week is not a very elaborate sum. No one can pretend for a moment that life is a bed of roses to draymen earning that amount of money. But at Wolverhampton the Midland Railway Company have been employing men in periods ranging from six months to six years and never putting them on the permanent staff, the object presumably being that when once they became permanent they came under what is known as the Lord Cromer award, and therefore they could demand certain conditions of service. But by keeping them on as casual men, the company got out of the terms of that award. But what follows? Within the last six months eight men at Wolverhampton have received notice that they are to remove to another town. Again I say that no one could complain of any employer of labour endeavouring to find work for his men if there was depression in that particular town. On the contrary, I would commend their action as being not only businesslike, but humane. But in the case of every man that was removed, every man who had to pack up his home and clear out of that particular town, instead of having to be moved in consequence of the depressed trade, his place was filled by a casual man in order to get out of the obligation under that award. I think I have said sufficient under this head to show that there is real ground for complaint on the part of the men, and I venture to say that when the chairman of the directors at the last half-yearly meeting reported, and was cheered in consequence, the large reductions in the wages and salaries paid, very few shareholders or even directors had any idea of the methods that had been employed in order to bring about this particular reduction.

I come to a more serious position than either of these. There has been on the Midland Railway for some considerable time a system of intimidation in operation. When these shunters complained, not to their society of trade union officials, but to the elected representative of the Conciliation Board, one of their own fellow-workers, one of the men in the company's employ, when they asked him as secretary of their grade to write to the company, drawing attention to what I have already described, one would have thought that, seeing there was no outside interference, no wicked trade unionist involved, but simply one of their own humble employés, the company would, have appreciated the men's action in taking the constitutional step of appealing in that direction. But immediately they did that Mr. Paget said in consequence of your interference, notwithstanding the fact that hitherto we have only increased your hours two per day, we will now reduce your wages 5s. per week. That immediately followed the intervention on the men's behalf by the secretary to the Conciliation Board. I recognise that that is a serious statement to make, but I also recognise that, having closely investigated and proved the circumstances of this intimidation, it is for this House to say that they will not uphold action of this description. The same thing applies to a goods guard. Immediately the goods guard wrote to the same secretary asking him to intervene on his behalf, he was threatened with dismissal, and eventually ho was reduced a shilling per week for no other reason than that he had allowed someone to interfere on his behalf. I submit that this is a course of procedure that must not continue. It is something not creditable to the Midland Railway Company.

It is not limited to those cases I have enumerated. During the arbitration proceedings it was necessary for those of us who were conducting the case to get evidence. It was necessary that we should get the employés themselves to give evidence in order to build up our case. A fireman went into the witness-box to prove certain things in connection with his employment. He was a man of unblemished character, with a clean record for eighteen years. Very soon following his appearance in the witness-box on behalf of the men, he was sought out by Mr. Paget, who used language that was a disgrace to anyone calling himself a gentleman. He asked the man whether he was a member of the society, and told him it would be better if he was leaving. I am not giving the names of the men for obvious reasons, so rampant is the feeling created. I have another case, that of a man who was three minutes late on duty, otherwise he was a man with a clean record; but although ho was only three minutes late on duty ho was reduced 9s. a week for that offence. I recognise that it is not for me and that it is not for this House to go into questions of discipline as between employers and employed. I fully recognise that many of these cases may appear mere matters of detail, but they are none the less burning grievances that are bound sooner or later to cause the men to revolt. It is not only in the running department or the traffic department that this practice goes on, but the same things are prevalent through the whole of the Derby works. Every time I go to that constituency I get hundreds of complaints on the same head. I try to persuade the men that there is a constitutional method of dealing with these questions. Only a few weeks ago we had a threatened strike, but I went down and I persuaded the men not to strike. But there is a limit to human endurance, and in these cases the limit has been reached.

This is the second occasion in regard to the Midland Railway on which it has been necessary for me to ask the assistance of the House of Commons. Here is this great corporation, that ought at least to set an example to smaller employers, acting in this way. If there are directors who are not conversant with these matters it is for them to inquire, and to see that those who are vested with authority shall no longer prostitute that authority. If, on the other hand, even this protest will not have an effect, then I shall take an early opportunity of asking this House of Commons to say that no railway company, no one railway company at least, shall be the means of destroying the great scheme of conciliation set up for the purpose of adjusting differences between capital and labour without this House expressing an pinion upon it. It is for this reason, whilst I again repeat that I extremely regret the circumstances that compel me to make this protest for the men, I sincerely hope, on behalf of those for whom I speak, on behalf of the thousands of employés, and in the interests of the Midland Railway Company itself, it will never be necessary in future to bring forward the case that I have presented this evening.

Mr. HUDSON

I beg to second the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and in doing so I should like to call the attention of the House to the importance of the position as it has been stated between the company and the men. The time is not far distant when we were told that the men could count on security of service, but to-day, looking at the history of the chairman and directorate of the Midland Company—because I always hold the directors responsible for the act of their officers —these men, who have been in the service fifteen, twenty, and thirty years, do not now know from day to day how soon they are going to be reduced in their status. That is apparent from the statement which has been made. The older men in the service get notice of reduction. They may be reduced one, two, three, four, or even five days in a week, or they might happen not to be reduced at all, but they are all liable, when a notice is given, to be reduced in spite of the length of their service. Consequently you have a position in which servitude counts for nothing. It has become a very grave question, and one which is not justified by the figures which have been quoted. Take the eight months for 1910, and there was no necessity for such a wholesale reduction in this class of men when we examine the position. The number of men who were on duty up to twelve hours is not less than 815. Ten hours is the standard day, and consequently every one of those 815 was on two hours per day overtime. Then there was a considerable number of men on duty for thirteen hours. I would ask those who speak on behalf of the company to consider the seriousness of the position when we find that during the period which has been mentioned there was no less than 13,248 hours worked by these men overtime. That works out on the men employed to 3,245 instances of overtime, and yet a considerable number of men have their wages reduced to 22s. per week, while, according to service and character, they should receive 30s. per week. In fact on the company's own showing, it would appear that there was room during the eight months of last year for 220 more men to be working at the ordinary rate of pay which they had earned by service.

Even the Board of Trade return for the month of October shows that during that month, with the deductions of the intervals of four hours and more deducted from the actual time from signing on to signing off, that there were 168 cases for the month. Let us remember that the Board of Trade return is never excessive, and they never exceed the number. When we consider all the time of traveling and the time relieved, as they call it, from active service, and if we add the actual figures from signing on to signing off, then we would have a very different tale indeed. We think we ought to press, at least that all those hours should be returned in the Board of Trade returns and not to have the deductions at all. I know that much can be said as to what is termed the improved method of transit, and I am sure we do not for a single moment wish to stand in the way of the evolution of the methods of the manipulation of traffic. But we do say this, that it should be fairly administered and not administered with a ruthless hand and reckless as to how much men suffer in consequence. There is another feature of this matter. It is quite true that the administration is merely in its infancy and in its experimental stage, with a system having its centre at Derby in one instance, and at another place upon the line. The question of loading trains fully to the maximum hauling capacity of an engine is rightly the company's business with due safeguards and due consideration for those who handle the traffic.

I notice this year with all the arrangements which have been made, and I do not say that there has been no care at all taken, there is no less than seventy-nine cases of breaks-away owing to the weakness of coupling apparatus; or on the other hand it must have been that the trains have been too heavily loaded. That number is the Board of Trade return. That is a serious matter in the operation of traffic, and must be reckoned with by somebody. When I find that among the railway companies of the United Kingdom this stands second in the list then I think it is quite time that they should consider that side of the question, and that there is a good deal of danger attached to this. With regard to Conciliation Boards, I think it has been rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby that this company do not show any fair and amicable spirit in their working, but rather a hostile spirit to the whole scheme. That being so it is a very serious matter not only for the men but for this House. I know that some companies, and probably this one to some extent, are not pleased because matters have been pushed through all the machinery of the Arbitration Court. It seems, however, to us at least that the two grades that did not go to arbitration, that is the goods guards and the shunters, and who got an agreement outside of it which terminated on the 31st December of last year, do not seem to have shared any better than the rest of the men, or rather worse if anything. Consequently it makes it more difficult to know or to learn from the action of the company what is the real method they want. Arbitration does not seem to suit them, the Conciliation Board method does not seem to suit them, and when an arrangement has been arrived at by mutual agreement with a sectional board that does not seem to suit them. They seem to entertain a hostile spirit towards the men. Consequently I say the matter becomes more serious in regard to this company than with some of the others. The re-grading of the men which has been mentioned is a matter for which I think the Board of Trade itself should take the responsibility. "We had issued a short time ago a statistical return of the accidents for 1910. I do not think that even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade if he overhauled that document would find in the whole return such a grade as train receivers. When these people merely change the designation of a body of men from one name to another in order to avoid responsibility, I think it a case for the Board of Trade to take up, and I hope that they will do so.

It is quite true that the circumstances attending the manipulation of traffic on our railways are changing, but the work is not changing, except that it is becoming heavier, more responsible, and more exacting. There is the same work to be done, with a greater amount of pressure brought to bear upon the men. I would ask that the attention of the Board of Trade should be specially directed to this matter. I trust that not only the Midland Company, but all other companies, will come to a more reasonable frame of mind with regard to treating with the conciliation boards which have been established. It is most essential if peace is to be secured in the industrial world. They may think that at the present time the spirit of the men is crushed out, but it may not always be so. There is the possibility of even a trodden worm turning again, and, if it does, it might be no easy matter to get the spirit of revolt allayed. I do not think there have been any men on any railway in the country so badly treated as these. It is only about four years ago that 140 of the goods guards, with up to twenty-five or thirty-five years' service, were dismissed straight off. No adequate reason was ever given, and there is no adequate reason now for a good deal of the reduction from one grade to another. We have shunters reduced to porters, and yet a very large amount of overtime is being worked by those who are still left in the service. For these reasons I take the opportunity of seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. I hope that those who take the responsibility of answering for the com- pany will at least take care that there is a fair hearing in future as between masters and men. I beg to second.

9.0 P.M.

Lord CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

I do not intend to place any obstacle in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill, but I rise because this is the only opportunity of bringing forward a question in which I am deeply interested. A great many of the men for whom hon. Members opposite have just spoken reside in my Constituency, and it would be impossible to find a more hard-working or more self-respecting body of men, or a body of men who give better work for a wage which, though constant, is extremely small. If any body of men are worthy of just and honourable treatment it is the great body of men who work for the Midland Railway Company. I know there is great dissatisfaction among these men, and on the facts brought forward by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that dissatisfaction is amply justified. It is hardly worthy of a great company presided over by a body of hon. Gentlemen to practice evasions of Lord Cromer's award of the character to which hon. Members have referred. I find it very difficult to believe that the policy adopted lately is the policy of the directors generally. I cannot help thinking that it is the policy of a very young", very active, and very clever young man who is now looking after their affairs. I am sure that if my hon. Friend who represents the Midland Railway gives a guarantee that the directors will look into the matter, and do their best to administer their policy in accordance with the spirit of Lord Cromer's award, the House will be satisfied. I really hope that the hon. Member and his co-directors will look into the matter.

A question to which hon. Members opposite have not referred is the treatment of the casual workers in the goods yards. Instead of going to the Labour Exchanges, and giving the recognised rate of wages for casual work, the company, in Nottingham and other places, have a number of men hanging round their gates, and when they take them on they pay them only the miserable wage of 3½d. an hour. That is not a proper wage for a great company like the Midland to pay. It is not a proper wage to be paid for casual work by a strong corporation yielding handsome dividends. I hope that my hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Hills), who is, as the House knows, thoroughly in sympathy with the workers in most things—in fact, he and I sit together on the Executive Committee the Anti-Sweating League—will look into this matter, and, if possible, pay a wage which cannot come under the designation, as the present rate certainly does, of a sweating wage.

Mr. HILLS

I have the honour to represent the Midland Railway Company in this House, and I can assure the House I do not in the least complain of the discussion; in fact I welcome it. I am very glad to have the opportunity to meet all the complaints that have been brought forth. I fully recognise that this is the only opportunity that Members who take an interest in labour questions have for ventilating these subjects, and I hope before I sit down—though I fear on all points I cannot expect to satisfy hon. Members—that I shall carry with me the general sense of the House. To come straight to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). He attacked the Midland Railway Company on the ground that they had tried to upset the award given by the Conciliation Board by unfair attacks upon the men, and unfair use of their powers by reducing the men in rank. He took three cases to prove his point. I will take all the cases in turn. The first case that I shall deal with is the case of the Leicester shunters. I must ask the House to bear with me for a few minutes because I have to explain certain details about the working of the line. Until quite recent times all goods traffic that came from the north for stations to the south of Leicester were sent into the goods yard at Leicester. They were there re-sorted into trains, and sent to their different destinations. In fact, trains were broken up in the goods yard at Leicester and re-formed into trains for stations south of Leicester. That employed a large staff of shunters.

It did not work very well, and recently a different system was introduced whereby the breaking up of trains was carried to Syston, a station north of Leicester, and not Leicester itself. This involved an increase of the shunters employed at Syston, and a decrease of the shunters employed at Leicester. In the work of the shunters two classes of men were employed. A shunter is a man who is paid 30s., who works an eight hours day, and is a man employed to break up trains, and sort out the carriages according to their destination. The lower grade of train receivers are men who have to shunt the whole of the train, and are not responsible for breaking it up. I think the House will understand that the shunters' work is more skilled work, and therefore the shunter is paid a higher wage, and works a shorter time. It is not the case, I can assure the House, as alleged by the Member for Derby, that the Midland Company have specially created a bogus class of railway servants in order to defeat Lord Cromer's award. The two classes of men do quite separate work, and I think the House will realise that they are two distinct classes; that the work should be performed by two different classes of men. I assure the House that this was not a change made in order to defeat the award. This reorganisation at Leicester meant the employment of fewer shunters at Leicester; that seven shunters were not required for work in the yard there. In July of last year those men were reduced to train receivers, their wages reduced from 30s. to 25s. a week, and their hours increased from eight to ten per day. No, they got notice that they might be reduced in July, but the actual reduction took place in January of this year.

They thereupon complained to the general manager. He saw a deputation from these men, and now again I should like to tell the House that in all this reorganisation of the working of the line we do try as far as we can to carry it through without individual suffering; we do try, and I think we succeed, to improve the working of the line without individual men suffering. The general manager accordingly saw these men, and he gave them the wages of shunters — that is the higher wage. He could not find work for all at Leicester, but until work was found elsewhere, he paid them shunters' wages, he repaid them the arrears lost through the lower rate, and he paid them the overtime they had worked by working the ten hours per day instead of eight. Places are now being found for these men, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby spoke as though moving these men from Leicester was a special hardship to them. I ask him to understand that there is no work for these men at Leicester. The company are very careful and anxious that no man should suffer; so these men are being dealt with as I have just said, paid the higher wages for the less onerous work, and places are being found for them in different parts of the Midland system.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

May I tell the hon. Gentleman, who is a director of the company—I think it is desirable he should have the facts—that the Board of Trade, who will reply, was appealed to for eight months after this reduction took place before the general manager even would allow these men to come before him. I think that disposes of that point. When I also tell him that it is not Leicester alone, but other places on the system, he will, I think, appreciate that the facts are absolutely as I gave them.

Mr. HILLS

My point is shortly this: that when the men came to the general manager he repaid them all they lost by being put into the lower grade. Surely no one could treat their employés more fairly than that? He met their case at once. I ask the House to consider the fact that we cannot guarantee that every man is to work all his life at the same place, in the same grade, or under the same conditions. We are so arranging that these men, as vacancies occur, are shifted off into other shunters' posts on the system.

Take the case of the goods guards. I understand the complaint of the hon. Gentleman is this: that we have reduced a certain number of goods guards as being superfluous, whilst at the same time a large amount of overtime is worked. I think that is the charge he makes against us. I have three answers to make to that. The first is general: it does not pay the Midland Company to work overtime. We are trying, and have tried for years past, to reduce the overtime, and I think the figures that I shall give the House in a few minutes will show that we have succeeded. The second point is that actually as a matter of fact these men now are working much less overtime than they have worked in the past. I should say in passing that I quite agree that over a certain period last year, whilst the reorganisation was going on, a considerable amount of overtime was worked. There again I ask the House to consider that the companies exist for the purpose of carrying the public and the goods of the public, and that we cannot prevent the working of overtime sometimes. You cannot prevent working overtime sometimes. Of course, the House knows railway companies have to get the goods to their destination, and the men have to work overtime occasionally. Take the month of May this year. Two thousand goods guards were employed roughly speaking. They worked 51,000 terms, and the average of the terms of the month per man was twenty-four days. The number of working days in May was twenty-seven. Goods guards have a guaranteed week of six days of ten hours per day, and they are paid for that whether they work upon the line or not. That guaranteed work is regarded as very valuable by the goods guards. It means this, that all the goods guards for that month only worked on the average twenty-four days out of twenty-seven working days. Coming now to the overtime. On forty-two occasions only I think the men worked twelve hours, which works out at.08 per cent. of the whole, so that only in eight-hundredth per cent. were men whose normal day was ten hours working twelve hours. When you come to thirteen hours the percentage is.003 per cent., so only in three-thousandth per cent. were men working for thirteen hours, and no man was working for fourteen hours.

I will now give the actual number of goods guards and brakesmen who worked overtime for each week in June. For the week ending the 25th of May there was one; for the week ending the 1st of June there were two; for the week ending the 8th of June there were twenty-two; and for the week ending the 15th of June, thirteen; for the week ending the 22nd June there were six, and for the week ending the 27th June there were seven, so that the House will see that except for Whit week on the whole of the Midland system there were never more than seven, and often only one or two men per week who worked more than the normal shift of forty hours. My last answer to the ease of the goods guards is this: The goods guards appealed to the sectional arbitration board. It considered their case, and I am informed that an agreement was very nearly reached. The matter has now gone to the Central Concilation Board, and it is therefore sub judice, and I appeal to the House to leave it there, because with all their faults the Arbitration Boards are set up to settle those differences, and I do not think we in this House ought to prejudice a case which is still being considered by these courts. So much for the goods guards.

The last case brought forward was the case of the Wolverhampton draymen. What happened in March last was this. A goods agent at Wolverhampton put certain draymen on short time owing to the lack of work. Before that the men engaged temporarily had been dispensed with. Headquarters disapproved of his action and paid the wages, and therefore gave back the men their full time, even though they did not work full time. There were too many men there, so four draymen were found places elsewhere, and there again I call the attention of the House to this matter, which means that no readjustment of traffic is brought about at the expense of the men, because the men whom the goods agent had put upon half time were reinstated, all their arrears were paid up, and since there was not work for them all at Wolverhampton some were moved elsewhere. In face of these facts, can any hon. Member fairly say we intimidate our men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] I most profoundly differ from that. We try to work a conciliation board in the way they should be worked. They are, of course, now in the experimental stage, and I do not think it increases the efficiency of these boards to have them attacked in this way in this House. We have loyally observed in every case the award of these boards, and I can give the House figures and facts to show that we are now engaged in carrying out this award in the way the board intended.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

When the hon. Gentleman states that, he cannot know that for two years the Midland refused to allow the boards to meet.

Mr. HILLS

I have no information about that; but anyhow, there is a remedy to that sort of thing, and that is by appeal to the Board of Trade. I do appeal to the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. It is of extreme importance. It gives through connection with Bradford, and it involves expenditure of a very large sum of money on works. The Midland Railway have tried to work their line and to act towards their men not only justly but generously. I think we have convinced the Board of Trade of that, and the fact that no complaint reached the general manager proved, to my mind, that the men think so. Before I sit down I will give this pledge to the House, that if any complaint of the men reaches me I pledge myself that that complaint shall be investigated.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant)

I am anxious not to stand between the House and its decision upon this matter more than a very few moments. But I think after the appeal made to me by the two hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway it would not be respectful to them if I did not say one or two words on behalf of the Board of Trade. I welcome the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby that he is a strong advocate of the policy and principle of conciliation, and I also welcome the similar statement of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and the assurance he gave to the House that the Midland Railway are more than anxious to carry out not only in the letter but in the spirit the awards of the Conciliation Board. I find, however, considerable difference in the point of view put before the House by the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Newcastle on the one hand and the point of view of the hon. Member for Durham on the other. I know that the Midland Railway Company stated to me, and I have every reason for believing the truth of that statement, that they have not only a rule but a tradition which they carefully follow that in any change in the management of the line they endeavour to carry out these changes with the least possible hardship to the individuals concerned.

I find it difficult to reconcile that statement with the point of view of my two hon. Friends who raised this discussion. I do not want to go into details, but I think I ought to refer to one point raised by both my hon. Friends—the re-naming of these grades. Of course, if it was possible for a railway company to re-grade and re-name certain members of their staff they might thereby, as the hon. Member said, get outside all the obligations asked for in the awards of the Conciliation Board. That would be a disaster which it would be necessary to curtail, and which would compel us to step in and say that it was not according to the letter or the spirit of the principle of conciliation. The hon. Member for Derby told the House he believed that these men who were renamed train receivers as against shunters were engaged in precisely the same work. When I was investigating this question, the very first point I put before the general manager of the line was as to the precise nature and duties of train receivers. I can assure my hon. Friend that he intended, and I believe the company intended and still intend, that the train receiver should do a less important and a less dangerous work than that performed by shunters. The hon. Member for Newcastle told the House that the Board of Trade figures were never exaggerated. I think I may claim that as one more testimony to the accuracy of Board of Trade statistics. The October return, the last published, showed that in the month of October 168 men had worked over twelve hours in one day at least out of the month, twenty-six men had exceeded thirteen hours on one day, two men had exceeded fourteen hours. The total number of goods guards was 2,200, and the number of days worked 52,000. This railway company is an enormous concern, carrying the public over a great number of miles in this country, and they find it impossible to do without overtime. It does not pay the Midland Company to work overtime.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

Yes, it does.

Mr. TENNANT

When time and a quarter rates are paid for overtime it must, I think, be to the interest of the company to curtail it as much as possible. I think very often it does good to ventilate the grievances of the men in order that an improvement in their condition may be arrived at. I understand that it is not the intention of my hon. Friend to divide, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. FIELD

As an Irish Member I take an interest in these railway questions. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member who took up the side of the railway companies, I disagree with him when he says that these discussions are useless. As an old Member of this House I remember the time when a discussion on a railway Bill was almost impossible, because the House was full of railway directors and shareholders, and the grievances of the men were positively unheard. I agree with the action taken by hon. Members opposite on this matter and also with the more same attitude of the Board of Trade. I think the small wage which is paid for casual labour is a point which ought to be considered by those who are defending this railway company.

Mr. POINTER

In spite of the reply of the hon. Member who represents the Midland Railway Company and the satisfactory reply given by the official representing the Board of Trade, it appears to me that we ought to divide against this Bill. I understand that an arrangement has been arrived at whereby this Bill is to be allowed to go through. But I understand also that that decision was come to because it was understood that something like satisfaction was to be given in regard to the points raised. Instead of giving us that satisfaction almost upon every point there has been an attempt to wriggle out of a responsibility. When my hon. Friend was speaking about the changes from one place to another and the creation of a new class as train receivers the hon. Member opposite seemed to suggest that it all arose out of the fact that Leicester had been replaced to a certain extent by Syston. The hon. Member did not explain how it was that these train receivers should be put to work at Syston in a greater proportion than at Leicester. If he wants us to believe that the breaking up of the trains and making up different trains to different destinations and districts is not a very important work and not attended with considerable danger, then I wish to say that as far as we are concerned—and we know something about the danger attending this operation—we are not likely to accept this version of the position.

With regard to overtime, the hon. Member appeared to suggest that this was one of the thing's which was not at all a usual occurrence. This seems to me like trying to get out of a responsibility by degrading a number of men by putting them off and balancing it by paying a heavier rate of overtime. It has been said that overtime is very unusual, but I am given to understand that it happens very often indeed. In Sheffield last week a similar thing occurred; There we found men complaining because they were asked on the Midland system to work excessive overtime, while the reason for that excessive overtime being necessary was that the staff had been reduced. So far as I have been able to gather in regard to this question of overtime it seems to have been a shuffling and a reshuffling in order that the Midland Railway Company may escape something discreditable to them. There is one point I should have liked the hon. Member to have touched upon. Whether he did not think of it or had any reason for avoiding it, or whether if he had touched upon it he would have been obliged to do so so gingerly as not to give satisfaction I do not know.

The complaint I refer to is one that is coming forward almost every week in the year, and it is in regard to cases of victimisation arising out of the working of the Conciliation Board, and out of the general desire on the part of a certain class of men to uphold the dignity of their labour. I find that when they attempt to do this they are browbeaten by an official who speaks to them more like a blackguard and he invites them to retire, be- cause he says it would be very disagreeable to have to dismiss them, and if they would voluntarily retire he would be very pleased indeed. These men hold that so long as they are at their duty and perform it in a proper manner that trade union activity and other activities outside their work are things for their own private consciences, and they are not going to submit to any interference in regard to them on the part of the railway company or anybody else.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

Have they been dismissed?

Mr. POINTER

No, they have not been dismissed. I would draw the attention of the Noble Lord who has just interrupted me to the fact that several thousands have been dismissed during the past few years for that and other reasons. I would also point out to the Noble Lord that the work of a railway servant is rather different to that of ordinary employment. Here you have a company which comes to this House and asks for certain powers, and the nature of that employment is far more constant and regular than in many outside trades. I think my hon. Friends who represent railway interests, so far as the men are concerned, can tell you, and back it up with figures, that until quite recently it was unusual for men to be discharged from the railway service, but within the last few years, what with amalgamations, agreements, and the growth of the trade union spirit, dismissals have been far more frequent, and, so far as the Midland Railway Company is concerned, Mr. Paget, who I understand is the son of Sir Ernest Paget, has quite an unenviable notoriety for his treatment of men in this connection. I for one, upon that point alone, should feel inclined to urge this House to refuse to the Midland Railway Company larger powers than those which they already possess until they have the decency to discharge the obligations already resting upon them. I welcome the statement of the hon. Gentleman, so far as it goes, but I think everyone who has listened to the statements from the one side or the other will have come to the conclusion that his brief was a very poor one and that he did not exactly understand all the facts with which he was supposed to be dealing. If I might say a word with regard to the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench and represents the Government in this matter, I would say how profoundly disappointed we are every time he gets up to speak on this matter. Had he been ap- pointed to the Board of Trade to watch the interests of the railway companies he could not do other than he does. Every time he shuts his eyes to all abuses, and he will not have a suggestion made that railway companies can do any wrong. I hope, if again the hon. Gentleman presides over the destinies of his particular Department on an occasion like this, he will at least make some little effort to be fair in the attitude he takes up and will not refuse so resolutely to see any wrong in any railway company's action.

Mr. C. DUNCAN

I should like to say a word or two on this particular Bill. The railway companies in this country have tremendous powers given to them, and those powers are exercised as a monopoly. It seems to me that complaints are being so continuously made with regard to the treatment by the railway companies of their employés that it is becoming really a matter of serious importance to this House. According to the statement of one hon. Member, one would imagine the Midland Railway Company were the best employers in the whole of the country. That is not my experience. I have had some little experience of the Midland Railway Company in Derby, and I know it refuses entirely to meet the representatives of the trade unions when any dispute occurs there. It may be they meet the representatives of the Railwaymen's Union, but they absolutely refuse to consider other unions, and it seems to me this matter is becoming of greater importance than in the past. Surely, if the Government itself concedes the right of trade unions sending their representatives to consider the difficulties which must necessarily arise in all large industrial concerns they ought to insist that those people who come to this House asking for privileges and extended privileges should place themselves upon terms of equality with the Government with regard to the treatment meted out to their employés. After all, that is the whole principle that has been contended for, not only in this Debate, but in practically all the Debates that have taken place in this House with regard to the treatment by railway companies of the men they employ.

I know, as a matter of fact, the Midland Railway Company in Derby bring new conditions into operation without a moment's consultation with their men. They ride rough-shod over their workpeople, and not even a single moment's consideration is given to the wishes, the dislikes, or the opinions of their employés. This kind of thing is really becoming a scandal in this country, and I feel the directors of these railway companies ought to be told there is a place for them to occupy, and that is a place where they must show some common sense and reason in the running of these gigantic concerns. I am not for a moment minimising the difficulties directors of railway companies have necessarily to meet. I can understand and appreciate that they are big concerns, and have control over thousands of men, but there are other concerns with equally large numbers of men in their employ, such as the Post Office, and Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co., Limited, who are always prepared to meet the representatives of the trade unions concerned, and these concerns, as a matter of fact, have less disagreement and less trouble with their men, because they give them the opportunity of meeting them face to face and talking over difficulties. That is all that is asked for in this Debate, and, when we find the various railway companies riding rough shod over their men, the House will not be surprised if the Labour Members who have been returned to consider and carefully look after these men rise up and protest against this brutal treatment. They treat their workpeople almost as goods and chattels, and not as human beings. I think the time is rapidly becoming ripe when a much firmer stand will have to be taken, and I think I can prophesy the various railway companies a good deal more trouble in the future unless they show a little more common sense and reason in their dealings with the men whom they employ.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.