§ 3.0 P.M.
Mr. NEWDEGATEThe matter which I wish to bring before the House is one of very considerable hardship to a member of the Midland Railway Friendly Society. I am sorry the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) is not present, because this man is one of his constituents. The case is as follows:—Number 32,577 on the Friendly Society List, of 18, Camber-well Road, Stoke-on-Trent, was thirty years a servant of the Midland Railway. Twelve years ago he gave up the position of signalman at the place in my Division. For forty-two years he subscribed to the Midland Railway Friendly Society which 1937 gives medical benefits and has an insurance fund. On page 17 of the Book of Rules, clause 7, sub-section (3), after the age of sixty-five, this member would have been entitled to superannuation at 5s. a week as an old subscriber, when he ceased to be a servant of the Midland Railway. All this time he has been subscribing 2s. 6d. a month to this friendly society. He became sixty-five on the 13th of August last. When he sent his last three months' subscription of 7s. 6d. in July, he asked when his superannuation money would be paid him and in what manner. He then had 2s. 6d. returned to him of his last month's subscription, and he was informed that the society was reorganised on the 18th of July, and he would not be able to receive benefit, as he supposed, from that fund. Thereupon he returned his 2s. 6d. in protest, but it was sent back to him again. Had he been sixty-five by the 18th July, there would have been no question of his receiving a pension of 5s. per week, but because unfortunately his birthday did not come till the 13th August there was trouble about it. Under the new rules instead of 5s. per week he is only to receive 1s. 3d. per week up to the age of seventy, and 7d. per week afterwards. I was asked to interest myself in the case, and I have written several letters to the railway company about it. Had he remained an employé of the Midland Railway Company, the 5s. would have been made up partly out of the funds of the society and partly out of the funds of the railway company. This morning I received a reply from the Midland Railway Company regretting that they had not answered by letter sooner owing to the illness which we shall always regret of Sir Guy Granet of the Midland Railway Company. The letter then proceeds as follows:—
Under Clause 72 of the Insurance Act the Midland Railway Society was called upon to prepare a scheme for the disposal of its existing funds and the scheme for the reduced benefits was allowed.I do not wish in any way to criticise the Midland Railway Company or the society; it is not my business to do so; but I may mention, as was pointed out in my letter, that the majority of the committee who manage this society are employés of the Midland Railway Company and are elected by the men, the rest being appointed by the railway company. It was also pointed out to me that this man during the forty-two years he had been a subscriber had received great benefits, but I complain that any Government Department should have 1938 been found to consent to a reorganisation of the scheme of a friendly society which was, to my mind, an absolute breach of faith to people who had subscribed for so many years on the strength of receiving certain benefits.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)I understand the hon. Member says the reorganisation of the friendly society was effected under the Insurance Act. There is-a blocking Motion on the Paper entirely covering all references to the Insurance Act, and I must therefore ask the hon. Member to discontinue his references to that Act.
Mr. NEWDEGATEI will certainly bow to your ruling, but here is a man who has been subscribing all these years to this society on the understanding that at sixty-five he would receive 5s. per week, and for some reason or other some Government Department has allowed this benefit to be reduced.
§ Mr. BOOTHOn a point of Order. If this is brought home to a Government Department it can only be the Department administering the Insurance Act, and therefore it is clearly out of order under your ruling.
Mr. NEWDEGATEI sent these facts to the President of the Board of Trade, and, if I have been out of order in bringing this case before the House, I suppose some communication would have been sent to me to-that effect. It is a great hardship, and I do ask the Government to see that justice is done to a working man who, owing to his thrift and foresight, subscribed all his life to this society. This man, when he gave up being an employé of the Midland Railway Company, could, if he had chosen, have received a lump sum down instead of any benefits he would have received under the society's regulations. He was, however, persuaded to remain a member of the society, and now he has reached the age of sixty-five, instead of receiving 5s. per week, he is to be put off with 1s. 3d. till he is seventy, and then only 7d. per week for the remainder of his life. It is perfectly scandalous and unjust, and I most earnestly hope the representative of the Board of Trade will see that justice is done to this man.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASThe hon. Member opposite has raised this question on behalf of the father of one of his constituents, but. there is a far more important principle 1939 underlying it than would appear from his statement, and my difficulty is to know in what way the Government is responsible. Under what I always contended was a most unfair and unfortunate system, railway employés were compelled to join the friendly societies attached to the particular railway company that employed them, and since the Insurance Act became law it has been clearly proved these societies in the main were hopelessly insolvent.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is quite evident if I allow any references such as the hon. Member is making to the Insurance Act the Debate will become widely extended, and I must ask the hon. Member not to make any reference, direct or indirect, to that Act.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASMy difficulty is to find out in what way the Government are responsible. This man with thousands of others relied upon the good faith of his employer. He said: "Never mind what is the financial position of this society. I do not mind whether it can pay the benefits it proposes to pay; I am an employé of the company; this is the company's friendly society, and they will guarantee me the benefits if I require them. This man and thousands of others paid into the society on the understanding that at sixty-five years of age they would get a pension of 5s. per week. He has just discovered, as have hundreds of others, that, owing to the re-organisation of this society, instead of obtaining the 5s. per week, which it was understood they were paying for, and which they were led to believe they would receive, they are only to get 1s. 3d. in the future. That clearly is an injustice to these men. It is not merely an injustice to the men on behalf of whom the hon. Member opposite has spoken. It is an injustice to thousands of men, for the same principle applies to some of the other railway companies. But I come back to the question: How can this House enforce upon the railway company its? It may be true that, as a result of this case being mentioned here to-day—although my own experience, having mentioned many cases, is that the mention has not had the desired effect—it may be that the Midland Railway Company, being made acquainted with these facts, and realising that they are accused "by their employés of an absolute breach of faith, may take up a different attitude. But the fact remains that, in spite of 1940 the many protests they have received from those who are suffering, no remedy has, up to the present, been applied. I associate myself entirely with the facts presented by the hon. Member, but I would remind him that this is a general and not merely an individual case, and if, as a result of this discussion, the Midland Railway Company and other railway companies are aroused to a sense of their responsibility, I shall be well-satisfied. But I fail entirely to understand how the Government can be held responsible, or how they can alter the situation.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)I also am at a loss to know how the hon. Member for Tamworth seeks to hold the Government responsible——
Mr. NEWDEGATEI was not allowed to give my explanation. It was that the Government ought not to allow new schemes which cause injustice like this to men who have subscribed their money on a certain understanding. But I was called to order when I tried to make that suggestion.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONThe hon. Member no doubt made the suggestion, but he did not say why he attached responsibility to the Board of Trade. At a late hour last night he communicated with the Board of Trade his intention to raise this matter.
Mr. NEWDEGATEI am sorry, but I could not get the information earlier from the railway company, owing to the illness of Sir Guy Granet. I only got it yesterday, and when I sent the information to the Board of Trade, I apologised for its being so late. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman who represents that Department is quite as anxious as I am to see justice done.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONIt is absolutely impossible for a Government Department getting notice after the office is closed for the night to obtain all the necessary information in time for a discussion the next day. It appears to mc that this is a case of criticism not of the Board of Trade, or even of the railway company. This is a friendly society connected with the Midland Railway Company. It is, apparently, a regularly managed society. It had a committee of management, consisting of three officers, appointed by the company, and sixteen members elected from the various departments of the railway. That was its constitution until 1910, when the 1941 reorganisation took place. That reorganisation appeared to have been agreed to by a majority of the members. [Hon. Members: "No, no!"] I say that it appears to have been agreed to. I can go no further.
Mr. NEWDEGATEThis particular man knew nothing about it. The proposal was never put before him. I believe it was never put before any of the members.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONThe statement of the hon. Member that this man knew nothing about the matter is not a negation of my statement that the reorganisation appears to have been approved by a majority of the members.
Mr. NEWDEGATESurely, if anything of the kind is done which concerns the people who pay subscriptions to a friendly society it ought to be put before the subscribers to ascertain whether they are prepared to consent to an alteration which would involve their receiving a smaller benefit.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONThat depends wholly on the rules. It is a question as between the members of the society. I do not see, after all, how the hon. Member attaches any responsibility to the Board of Trade, but, if he wishes, the Board of Trade will make inquiries into the matter, so far as ho has disclosed any facts. The question appears to me to be one to be discussed by those concerned in the administration of insurance or friendly societies, but though the Board of Trade has supervision over the action of the railway companies, it has really no responsibility in this matter.
Mr. NEWDEGATEBut if the Registrar of Friendly Societies approved the alteration, surely that carries with it responsibility on the part of the Board of Trade. I am sorry I could not give longer notice.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONI am not blaming the hon. Member for that. I only ask bow can he expect me to say anything as to the facts of the case when there has been absolutely no time to make any inquiry? How can we know what has happened in this particular case?
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe Government must know that the provisions of a scheme can only be altered with the consent of the Registrar of 1942 Friendly Societies, and they therefore ought, at any rate, to be in a position to answer a question on that point.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONHow can the Government be expected to answer a question with regard to a particular matter of which notice was only given last night, after the office had been closed?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI have already called attention to the fact that the discussion of this matter must be kept within very narrow grounds, and that hon. Members are not entitled to discuss the National Insurance Act.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONThe hon. Member for Tamworth sent a communication to the Board of Trade last night. The matter has been before him since July last. We have had absolutely no time to inquire into this particular case. It all depends upon the constitution of the society. But I repeat that the Board of Trade will make any investigation the hon. Member desires. It, however, admits no responsibility in the matter, and I do not think the hon. Member should have insinuated a charge, as he has done, without giving us an opportunity of full inquiry.