§ "A separate section of a society which consists of persons entitled to rights in a superannuation or other provident fund established for the benefit of persons employed by one or more employers shall not be approved if the employer makes membership of such society a condition of employment."
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr. THOMASI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The object of this Clause is to give effect not only to the various promises that were made during the passing of the Act, but, in my opinion, to give effect to what was the original intention of the Insurance Act. When the Bill was being discussed there was a Clause accepted which placed the power in the Commissioners' hands to refuse sanction to any society that made membership of any employers' fund a condition of service. We accepted that Amendment as carrying with it freedom of choice so far as the individual was concerned, but, to our surprise, what the majority of the railway companies did was, instead of making what hitherto was compulsory societies approved under the Act, they made a section of the society approved and said to the men, "You are perfectly at liberty to join this society or not, but we are going to compel you to 3253 belong to the parent society just the same AS hitherto." What is more than that, the great bulk of these funds was absolutely insolvent. The men had no choice because the employers made it a condition of service. They stopped a contribution from their wages every week, and the men, while they knew all the time that the funds were insolvent, felt that the fact that the directors were behind them was sufficient guarantee for them. But a large number of the railway companies went further than that. The Great Western Railway Company not only retained this as a condition of service but they made it free for new entrants, and they said to the men, "We will give you all the advantages of the Insurance Act for 6d. a week instead of 7d," or, in other words, "If you will only make this your approved society, you may come in at 1d. per week less than anyone else." What we endeavour to do by this new Clause is what Parliament originally intended, namely, that no employer of labour, whether a company or an individual, who makes it a condition of service that a man shall belong to a particular shop dub in which he or they are interested, shall have the right to say that they will be approved by the Commissioners as a section of the society, and in that way defeat what was the original intention of the Act. I submit that this being the first opportunity that we have had of reviewing the case, we are justified in saying that advantage should be taken of it to give effect to what was the clear intention of the Act.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member who has just spoken, if, as a matter of fact, the course he has stated is being taken in connection with the Insurance Act. I do not, however, think the difficulty can be met by any amendment of the Insurance Act as such. The Insurance Act and the Insurance Commissioners come into no relation with any society except approved societies, and if a society is a section of another society, the only regulations they can come in connection with are the regulations that deal with that section. The hon. Member states that his real grievance is that railway companies make or may make membership of the Superannuation Fund a condition of service. That may be a good or a bad thing, and I am not going to comment upon it, but in any case it cannot be dealt with under the Insurance Act. It will have to be dealt with by an amendment to the Shop Clubs Act. Under these circumstances, as the hon. Member has made his protest, with which I have considerable sympathy, be- 3254 cause it does break the spirit, if not the letter, of the Act, perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHAlthough I have my own view upon this point I prefer to follow the advice which has been given to this Committee. If it is admitted that the railway companies are breaking the spirit of the Act—
§ Mr. MASTERMANI did not say that. I said "if it is admitted." I have no knowledge on the subject.
§ Mr. BOOTHI think the hon. Member for Derby made a very straightforward statement. If his facts are challenged it is another thing, but if they are going unchallenged, then it is a serious thing to be told that any class of employers can evade the Act in spirit while they may be complying with it in letter. I am sorry there is any possibility of that. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that whether right or wrong he sees in this a way to dodge the Act, and if that is so, I regret it very much. It was the intention of the House that this condition should be bonâ fide observed, and it is most unreasonable that the Insurance Act should be used in any indirect way to compel men to join a particular form of approved societies. If this Amendment is pressed to a division, I shall certainly vote for it.
§ Mr. THOMASThe facts cannot be challenged. They are well known to the Commissioners because the men themselves have appealed. The facts stated by me are absolutely true in every particular, and there is no element of doubt. What was the spirit and intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in accepting our original Amendment has been broken by the companies sidetracking the whole situation. I realise the difficulty, and it is useless to move a Clause if it is not going to be operative. I want, however, to point out that the men have felt so keenly upon this point that they thought of stopping it themselves by the brutal method of a strike, and surely that would be a disastrous thing to do on a matter of this kind. I repeat that there was a definite promise given as to the intention of the Act when it was adopted across the floor of the House, and the men said, "At last we have got freedom; we will join our own society in our own way as we think best." Now they find by a sort of subterfuge that they are prevented from doing that, and alternatively they have to pay 3255 into two societies, which they cannot afford to do. I think it is monstrous that we cannot deal with the situation.
§ Mr. GWYNNEThe hon. Member for Derby seems to be playing the part of the pot calling the kettle black. His complaint is that, certain railway companies are desirous that all their employés should belong to some particular society which they run and control. I think he must admit that the Railway Servants Society, with which he himself is connected, endeavours to force everyone to join their society. However much we may deplore the principle of compulsion, it, is the beginning and the end of this Act, and I do not think it comes well from the hon. Member for Derby to talk about what has happened as a monstrosity.
§ Mr. THOMASCan the hon. Gentleman say where my society makes membership compulsory?
§ Mr. GWYNNEI do not think it is disputed that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants tries to induce every railway servant to join the society. I did not know that that was a point of difference. On the contrary, it is an admitted fact. If that is the case it rather makes an unprejudiced person believe that the reason why they object to people joining the railway companies' societies is because the other societies wish to force them to join their society. If we are going to refuse compulsion on one side, at any rate let us refuse it all the way through.
§ Mr. WINGI would like to point out that they have not only broken the spirit, but also the absolute letter of the Act. They are allowed to become an approved society if the employer does not make membership of such society a condition of employment. The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to think that is a very small matter, but it is a very great matter.
§ Mr. BOWERMANIf it is admitted, as stated by my hon. Friend, that there is a violation of the Act, hon. Members opposite should get up and defend that violation. We, however, feel that if there is a wrong, it should be remedied. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggests that it cannot be remedied in this way. May I ask him whether, if an Amending Bill of the Shops Act were introduced, he would, on behalf of the Government, give my hon. Friend facilities for getting that Bill through?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI will certainly consider that, but, if there is a breaking of the letter of the Act, we shall see that is put right. The letter of the Act has got to be administered by the Insurance Commissioners. We cannot, however, interfere with societies which are not approved societies. If we began to do that, we should have to interfere with trade unions, and we might have to interfere with the private business of friendly societies and industrial companies, and all that would open up vast vistas of possibilities. Those matters must be dealt with in separate Acts. All we can do in this Bill is to deal with the approved societies as such.
§ Mr. THOMASHaving regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.