HC Deb 30 June 1913 vol 54 cc1590-609

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

Mr. WARDLE

I regret the necessity of having to rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. In order to explain my reason for doing so, I must go back to the events that occurred on 25th March last year, when a similar Debate took place in this House. I then drew attention to the unsatisfactory position taken up by the Great Eastern Railway Company in relation to their clerical staff. First of all, there was a reference made to the salaries memorial. I am glad to say that the promise made as to that matter on the occasion was kept. The memorial was received and a deputation was heard, though I am sorry to say the success of the deputation has not been very large. I have no desire to-night to go into the question of the salaries paid to the Great Eastern Railway clerks. I think they have had the matter put before the directors, and they have received a reply, unsatisfactory though it is. There was another question before the House on that occasion, namely, the Great Eastern Superannuation Fund. The Noble Lord the Member for South Kensington (Lord Claud Hamilton) made a distinct and definite promise with regard to representation upon this fund for the salaried staff, but to-day, instead of having kept that promise, the position is very much worse than it was on 25th March last year. I would like to point out with regard to this matter that the promise which the Noble Lord made was very clear, explicit, and definite. I will allude to it later on. What is the position? All the clerks—all the salaried officers on the Great Eastern Railway are compelled as a condition of service to subscribe to this fund a certain proportion of their salaries, but they are entirely prohibited from taking any part whatever in the management of the fund beyond the right of attendance at the annual meeting.

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

The hon. Member is entirely wrong. All contributing members of the fund are allowed to speak at the meeting if they desire to do so.

Mr. WARDLE

They have no say whatever in the management of this fund. They have no power to elect any of the representatives on the committee, which consists of the chairman of the directors, the deputy-chairman, two other directors, the general manager, the secretary, the superintendent of the line, and the goods manager. Therefore, thousands of clerks who have to contribute have certainly no say whatever in the management of this fund. They have no right to elect any of the members of the committee. I may go further and say that the Great Eastern Railway fund is the only railway fund with respect to which the contributing members are excluded from any share at all in the management. It has been for fifteen years without any valuation, the committee preferring apparently that secrecy should be kept. When I raised this question last year I did not say in my speech that I was speaking on behalf of any of the members of this fund. What I did say was that I was speaking as a member of the Committee appointed to inquire into the whole question of railway superannuation funds. It was a Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, which went fully into the question of the whole of these funds. They made certain recommendations to the House of Commons. I was the only Member of Parliament on that Committee. There was a railway manager on it, and the rest were actuaries and experts. I know that the Noble Lord holds a different view now on the subject of valuation from that which he held at one time. The Committee came unanimously to this conclusion:— The absence of actuarial valuations in the schemes for guarantee of certain funds is regarded by us as an unsatisfactory feature, to which the serious attention of the railway companies should be directed. Another recommendation was: We think that, even where the benefits are guaranteed by the company, it is an advantage to have a provision for election of representatives by the contributing members. Such a power tends to remove any feeling of suspicion as to the management of the fund. That was the unanimous recommendation by the Committee made two years ago. The Great Eastern Railway Fund does not allow such representation. The Great Northern Railway Fund had formerly no representation of contributing members, but the company have agreed that such representation should be provided. I called the attention of the House to the fact that here was the Committee's recommendation, and here was a railway company which had not carried out the recommendation seeking fresh powers. At the conclusion of his speech the Noble Lord said:— I am ready to state on behalf of the company that the contributors should have wider representation. We are willing to accept it, and I think we will have to embody a proposal for that purpose in a future Bill.' —[OFFCIAL REPORT, 25th March. 1912. col. 126. Vol. XXXVI.] That is clear and unconditional, and I am sure every Member of the House who heard the promise expected it to be carried out in the letter and the spirit. The staff on the railway certainly expected that it would be carried out, and it is rather interesting to recall that in the very same speech the Noble Lord, referring to the staff, said:— They believe in their board and in their chairman, because they know that their chairman never makes them a promise front which he goes —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th March, 1912. col. 124. Vol. XXVI.] Up to the 25th March last year I certainly was prepared to accept that view of the Noble Lord's word, but I ant sorry to say that I cannot do so to-day. The matter rested upon that word. It was necessary that the Bill should be introduced, and nothing was done. It was allowed to rest in anticipation that the company would carry out the undertaking which they had given. When I found out that the Great Eastern Railway Company were proposing a Bill in the present Session, the first thing I did was to look at it to see what it contained, and whether it redeemed the promises the Noble Lord made. I found that no such provision was made in the Bill. I will not go into the whole conversation, but I do not think it will be denied by the Noble Lord that when I found there was nothing of the kind in the Bill I approached him on the subject and he said that the Bill was prepared hastily and that the superannuation question had been entirely overlooked. He expressed his regret and said that he had no intention of breaking away from any pledge. Shortly after that I received the following letter dated the 22nd January, and written from the Board Room, Liverpool Street:— Dear Sir,—I tried to find you last week in the House in reference to the conversation we had in respect of the Great Eastern Railway Bill in the coining Session of Parliament and the question of making some change in the representation of the clerical staff upon the committee of the company's superannuation fund. Since last year's debate in the House of Commons I have not heard a word from any of the staff expressing a desire for change, hut in order to put the representation of the superannuation fund on the same basis as that of the pension and the pension supplemental fund my board will be quite ready"— —here we have a qualification for the first time— if the members of the fund desire, to have two elected members of their body placed upon the committee, and these members will attend at the committee meetings once a month precisely in the same manner as the men upon pension fund committees. The present Bill was brought in at a moment's notice to meet the pressing demands of the trade at Ipswich, and contains nothing beyond the powers to execute the works desired and for the raising of capital. Therefore it is undesirable, as well as too late, to encumber the Bill with other matters, but we will undertake to deal with the superannuation fund on the lines indicated in our next General Powers Bill should the members desire such alteration. On 25th March the Noble Lord stated explicitly, definitely, and clearly that representation would be given, and on the 22nd January he interpolates a new condition, "Should the members so desire." When I first brought this question before the House I was not speaking on behalf of the members of the superannuation fund—although I had been requested by a few of them to raise the matter—and I never said so. Therefore, when the Noble Lord gave his promise across the floor of the House he was not doing it for me on behalf of his own staff, and, therefore, there was no question of their desire in the matter at that particular moment. He even expressed to me a desire that he should have some evidence that there was a desire on the part of the members of the Great Eastern staff for this representation. Accordingly, a memorial was prepared and sent to the various stations and offices of the Great Eastern Railway, and 564 signatures were obtained to this, asking the board to carry out their promise. Immediately this memorial was sent out to the offices and an attempt was made to get signatures to it, the officials of the company, and all the responsible officers set their faces against it and got up a counter-memorial that practically prevented this memorial from being the success which otherwise it would have been. The annual meeting was called, and notice convening that meeting was sent out with the statement that this question was going to be raised at the meeting. I am not going to contest the fact that the notice may have been sent to every member of the fund, and that all of them may have been invited, but anyone who knows anything about these meetings knows that at four o'clock on a certain afternoon it is absolutely impossible for the whole of the clerical staff of any particular railway company, or anything like the whole or any representative number of it to be present at a meeting to deal with a question of this kind. But they were told that at this meeting the chairman would make a statement and that the question of representation on the fund would be raised.

The qualification of the promise made last year, which appeared for the first time in the letter of the 22nd January, became stronger at the meeting. This is what the Noble Lord said:— I will confess that I was rather taken by surprise when this question was raised in the House, and I imagined that some special mandate had been given to a Member of Parliament to make the representation to me, and in replying I had in mind always the fact that on our two pension funds there are two members of the committee elected by the members of the respective bodies, and I think that hastily I said"— That is what he did not say— certainly, if it is desired, representation shall be given on the committee of the superannuation funds… He goes on to 'explain that he thought it would be better to have the various parties all in the same position, but he did not say in this House "if it was desired." Therefore, when he makes that representation, he is not telling the exact truth in regard to the matter, though I do not say that he is wilfully misrepresenting it. But my quarrel with the Noble Lord goes further than that. When he made the promise in the House, distinct, clear and emphatic, there were no conditions attached to it. When he gets to the meeting he tries to influence the mind of the members present against having any representation at all, but he tells them that if there is a revision of the bargain the shareholders may want, to revise the guarantee under which this fund now operates by Act of Parliament, and that if they raise the question of representation and a new Bill has to be put through, then the shareholders may want to go back upon their bargain, and, therefore, members might be worse off than before. I do not think that anybody will say that there is anything of the kind in the letter which I have read, and in the very clear and definite statement made by the Noble Lord on the 25th March last year. If anyone challenges, I am prepared to sumbit the matter for investigation and to show that I have not indulged in a single exaggeration with regard to what the Noble Lord did on that occasion.

There were other statements made at that meeting with the object of influencing members against representation. For instance, they were informed that no other company's fund which was guaranteed had such representation. But this is not the fact. Indeed, all the funds which are guaranteed. the North-Western, the Lancashire and Yorkshire and various other funds, have elected representatives of the men on the committee, and I cannot see why there should be the slightest objection to the Great Eastern Company taking their men into their confidence and having their elected representatives on the committee, so that they may have some share in the management of the money which they contribute. I will not go into the proceedings of this meeting at very great length; I do not wish to do so, but it is a very curious thing that the resolution which was moved approving of the present position of the fund and of the way in which it had always been managed under the present constitution of the committee, was submitted by a member who Lad actually no right to be present at the meeting, because he was himself a superannuated member, and, according to the rules, was not entitled to vote at the meeting or to be present. In my opinion the people at this meeting who were in favour of representation on the fund did not get fair play. Some of them tried to speak but were prevented by other members of the meeting, who represented chiefly the head office in London. It is true the chairman appealed to the meeting to allow them to speak, but in doing so, he made this remark, that in this House he had been often very much more interrupted by the friends of those people than they had been interrupted at that meeting. I thought that a very curious way of trying to keep order.

I have been looking at last year's Debate and I find that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) followed the Noble Lord and the Noble Lord interrupted him no less than eight times, and, so far as the Noble Lord's speech was concerned, he was interrupted twice. Therefore, I really think the Noble Lord ought not to complain in regard to his treatment in the House of Commons. So much for the position of the Noble Lord as to the fulfilment of his pledge. The House of Commons rightly looks upon a man's word as his bond, and it seems to me that the Noble Lord only needs the opportunity to fulfil his pledge, and to say to-night that be will fulfil it. Let me say here that in the discussion on the Railways (No. 2) Bill the Noble Lord had some very strong things to say about the word of an English gentleman, about the Prime Minister's word of honour, and about the fulfilment of his pledge. If the Noble Lord will only carry out what he said on that occasion on the subject of pledges, we shall all be satisfied. On 13th February he said—the quotation is so happy a one that I think I had better read it:— "I acquit the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, of any attempt whatever on his part to depart from the engagement into which the Government of which he is a Member entered with us in August, 1911, but after what he has said about the Prime Minister, I cannot acquit that right hon. Gentleman of an endeavour on his part to do that which I think is contrary to the honour of a statesman and the honour of an English gentleman—trying to depart [Hon. Members: 'Oh !']—yes. trying to depart from a solemn engagement—[Hon. Members: 'Withdraw.'] I withdraw nothing— a solemn engagement which he entered into during the discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and the railway companies in respect to the Trade Unions dispute in August, 1911…And now, because there is a show of opposition on the part of certain Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House, and a few lion. Gentlemen on this side of the House, the Prime Minister, who had not felt it his duty to come here during these three nights of Debate in redemption of his debt of honour, not only to us, lint to the country as well—he has not seen that it was his duty to come here except for ten minutes. He now sends a message, and instead of coining here in person, he delivers it to the President of the Board of Trade, that he thinks a time limit which was never mentioned in these negotiations is a proper thing to insert in this Bill. I say it is a gross breach of honour on the part of the Prime Minister."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 13th February. 1913, cols. 1358–9, Vol. XLVIII] Then the Noble Lord had something to say about the Prime Minister not being present. I met the Noble Lord in the Lobby last Monday, and I should have been very glad if this thing could have been settled without its coming before the House at all, but I have not seen him since then until to-day. It. is a matter in which he is specially implicated, and it was on, that ground that I felt that I could not settle with anyone else but the Noble Lord himself. It may be said that this is a question of the wishes of the men, and it may also be said that they have had representation on the fund, and that it was discontinued in 1897, and the present arrangement made. Let us look at that matter, Is it now really a question of the wishes of the members of this fund? So far as the Noble Lord's pledge is concerned, can he say anything about those wishes when that pledge was made? If he desires to say now that the wishes of the members of the fund shoud be taken linto account, what I have to say is this: Had he said in January, before the meeting was held, that he was willing to take a free and open ballot in order to ascertain the wishes and desires of the members of the fund, that would have been gladly accepted, but that he can now say there shall be a ballot of the members of the fund as to whether they are willing to accept such representation is another thing altogether. What is the position? The position is that the members of the fund have already been influenced, and strongly and distinctly influenced. If they took a ballot now, they would know that in voting in favour of representation on the fund they would be voting against the wishes of the chairman.

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

No, no.

Mr. WARDLE

Against the wishes of the general manager and the high officers of the company, and that they would not have a free and fair chance of expressing a clear, open, and honest opinion as to whether they should have representation at all. If the Noble Lord says anything in this discussion, let us hear from him whether the company are prepared to make a statement to members of the fund that they shall have a free, open, and straightforward ballot if such a ballot is to take place. We have heard that the wishes of the members of this fund are to be consulted. In the year 1897, when the Bill was brought forward, the members of the fund were not consulted for months, arid it was practically not until the stage when it must become law that the members were consulted about the question. It is quite true that the officials of the company probably desired, and probably even asked for representation on the old fund. It was their stipulation in connection with the old fund that no pension higher than £500 a year should he given to any chief official or any official of the fund. They did not like that and therefore they did undoubtedly move to get a change in the fund. Was it because the fund was financially unsound that the change was made? In the last actuarial report, made in 1895, the actuary stated that the fund "is. in a solvent financial position, the deficit on 31st December, 1893, being: only £1,300," which was very small as those funds go. If it was not hopelessly insolvent at the end of 1893 when -the actuarial valuation was made, why was the change made in 1897, and the guarantee, of which the Noble Lord makes so much, given. It was simply because they wanted to extend the payments to the chief officials of the company that the guarantee became necessary, and there was no necessity for it from the rank and file, and it was never asked for by them. I defy the Noble Lord to prove that there' was any petition from the rank and file of the Great Eastern Railway Company's servants, that they should have the opportunity of electing their representatives on the committee taken away. What is all this about. Really, I am sorry that this matter has come before the House, and I am astonished that at this time of day this company should refuse to allow—for that is what it comes to—their clerks to elect half, if you will, for that is what other companies do—of the representatives on this committee, and give them a fair and reasonable opportunity of taking part in the management. Remember that the money that is contributed to that fund at present is all contributed by the staff. The company give a guarantee, it is true, but they do not pay into the fund. Therefore, I venture to say, it is really too much, after the solemn pledge which the Noble Lord gave to the House in March of last year, that he should have taken all this time and gone into these devious ways in fulfilling his promise of getting representation on the fund on the present basis.

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

I have no, complaint whatever to make with regard to the manner in which the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) has presented his case to the House, though I am bound to say there are one or two slight inaccuracies—I am sure not intentional—in the speech he has just delivered. I am afraid, in order to put myself and the clerical staff of the Great Eastern Railway Company in the position they ought to occupy before this House, I shall be compelled to detain the House much longer than I should desire, but it is absolutely necessary that I should reply to the remarks and the strictures made by the hon. Gentleman. I should like to refer, first, to the establishment of this fund. It was established originally in January, 1879, on an actuarial basis, and the representation then was the chairman and three other directors and three elected members from the contributing members. That went on for many years, giving satisfaction, on the whole, to the staffs, but at the same time causing great anxiety both in the minds of the staff and of the directors as to the future solvency of that fund. It was here where the hon. Member, I think, was in error in the speech he made. It was in 1897 a special general meeting of all the members of the fund was called to consider the draft scheme, and the chairman—that was myself—stated:— That the continued annual expense to the company of this fund and other funds of the company had been a source of considerable apprehension to the directors. They felt, too, that there must always be a considerable degree of uncertainty as to what the character of the actuaries' reports might at any time be and, although the shareholders had cheerfully acceded to the request that had been previously made by the directors to contribute a special grant of £1,500 per annum, which the actuaries pronounced to be necessary to ensure the solvency of the fund, the directors felt it would be impossible to ask the shareholders to render any further assistance towards the fund. The result would be that the members would either have to increase their contributions or have their benefits diminished. The chairman also stated that the directors had felt for some time that the benefits members received under the old fund were not commensurate with the expense to which the company had been put with regard to the fund, and they had therefore long been considering whether the fund could not be on a basis which would afford fuller security to members, and be less costly to the company, and at the same time enable the committee of the fund to largely increase the benefits. I added that the matter had been -brought to a head by the re-establishment of the Railway Clearing House Fund. I happened to be chairman of the Supeannuation Fund of the Railway Clearing House, with a membership of something like 15,000 clerical members, and I was very much struck by the disadvantage under which the clerical staff of the Great Eastern Railway Company stood as compared with the clerical staff of the Railway Clearing House in their fund. I went on to say that:— The directors, when agreeing to accept the com pany's share of any additional financial responsibility which the change of basis with the Railway Clearing House Fund might involve, felt that having undertaken this…they must be prepared to place their own servants on an equally favourable basis. At that conference all the speakers expressed their entire approval of the new scheme, and the resolution proposing its adoption was unanimously carried and unanimously confirmed at a later meeting. What was the new basis of the fund? Instead of being on an actuarial basis it was placed by the company on the basis of a guarantee, and instead of four directors and three elected members, the Act of Parliament provided four directors and four statutory members, and the members who were adopted by the House of Commons as statutory members were the very men who had been always elected in previous years by the members of the fund, namely, the general manager, the superintendent, and the goods manager, with the addition of the secretary, Therefore it shows that the members in acceding, and they were delighted to accede, to the scheme giving the company's guarantee instead of an actuarial basis to their fund, were only too glad to accede the statutory position to those very men who in open voting had been returned as their representatives. Now, and this is the strong point, I want hon. Members to bear in mind that for sixteen years since the establishment of this fund I as its chairman presided at monthly meetings of the committee and at the annual meetings of the members. I may have been absent from one or two, but, generally speaking, I have always been there as chairman, and not once during the sixteen years has a word come from any member of the fund, or even the whisper of a word animadverting upon its administration or asking for a change in the basis of the committee. That is a very strong point indeed. Why is it we have never heard a word of complaint in regard to the administration of the fund? It is because the benefits afforded by the fund under Act of Parliament cannot be reduced, and the contributions on the part of its members cannot be increased. Therefore the fund works automatically, and gives the maximum amount of satisfaction and security to the 4,500 members who now form the contributors to it. What are the benefits? I should like hon. Members to hear what they are, because I maintain there is no other superannuation fund in England which gives equal benefits to its members. A clerk can retire at the age of 60, and on his retirement claims as a right one-fiftieth of his salary for each year of his membership of the fund, calculated not upon the average of his salary during that period, but upon the average of the last seven years. That is a most liberal and generous provision. It is further provided that the pension shall not exceed two-thirds of the salary which the beneficiary has been receiving, but it must not come to less than £30 per annum. The House will see, therefore, that members of this fund, upon their retirement at 60 years of age, can obtain almost two-thirds of the salary which they have been enjoying. That, I think, is the reason why the fund has given such immense satisfaction to its members.

The hon. Member talked about an actuarial calculation. The Great Eastern Company guarantees the pension to every member of the fund, and the charge for that guarantee is a pre-debenture charge. It is part of the working expenses of the company, and therefore ranks before the debenture interest. I put it to any Member of this House: if he desired, as a trustee of a fund, a debenture stock for its beneficiaries, would he consult an actuary as to the value or solvency of the debenture stock? He knows perfectly well that that debenture stock has behind it an enormous amount of preference and ordinary stock, and that it is absolutely as sound and good a guarantee as any fund of the kind can possibly have. As regards what took place last year, the hon. Member stated the case from his point of view quite accurately. I may say that when in the course of that Debate the hon. Member mentioned this subject, I was very much taken by surprise, because previously I had not heard a word from any member of the fund expressing a desire for any change in the composition of the committee. I, therefore, thought that the hon. Member had a mandate from a considerable portion of the clerical staff of my company to make that request. The hon. Member will excuse my saying so, but I think he rather laid a trap for me, and I confess I fell into it. I do not usually fall into traps, but I did so on that occasion, and I said that I thought the basis of the fund might be enlarged, and that we would give effect to it at some future time in one of our Bills. When I said that, I thought the hon. Member was speaking on behalf of a majority of the members of the fund. I say again now, so far as I am concerned, from the theoretical point of view, I see no reason whatever why the members of the Great Eastern Superannuation Fund should not have elected members on the committee the same as other funds have.

9.0 P.M.

Members below the Gangway are always most courteous to me in this House, but outside they sometimes indirectly suggest that I am a bit of a tyrant, and a little hard on those who serve me so well. I do not think anyone can say that I have ever knowingly done an unkind thing to any member of the Great Eastern staff, though I have always been, and always shall be, a great stickler for discipline when discipline is necessary. What do hon. Members want me to do? They want me to coerce a large majority of the members of the Superannuation Fund to adopt a course which they honestly believe to be contrary to the interests of themselves and their families. That places me in a very difficult position indeed. I am quite willing, and so would my board be, to give effect to what I said last Session, if I felt sure that a fair majority of the members of the fund desired such a change; but can any member ask me deliberately to coerce a majority of the members of the fund at the dictation of a small minority? It would be contrary to the spirit of fair play which generally animates Englishmen. Therefore, I feel that so long as the majority are opposed to this change it is exceedingly difficult for me to give effect to the promise that I made to the hon. Member. The hon. Member referred to what took place on the occasion of the annual meeting of members of the fund. I must correct a slight inaccuracy in his remarks on that point. I stated what had taken place in this House, and I said that as chairman I was desirous of knowing whether the members really wished for this change. When those desirous of the change rose to speak I admit that they were subjected to very considerable and continuous interruption. On three or four occasions I interceded on their behalf, and, finally, when the interruption had become very great, I said that it was nothing compared with the interruption, not that I was subjected to, but to which Members in this House were occasionally subjected. I kept myself out of it altogether. At that meeting there were about a thousand members present, or nearly one-fourth of the whole membership of the fund, and when the resolution was nut from the chair only twelve voted in its favour. I gather from that that a very large majority of the members are opposed to any alteration in the present basis of the fund.

I quite admit that some members may have been influenced in their voting by what I said to them, not only as chairman of the company, but mainly as chairman of their fund. I take an enormous interest in that fund, and feel bound, so far as I can, to safeguard the interests of its members. I used words to this effect "The frame of mind of a shareholder when his stock is above par is very different from what it is when the stock is at 60 or 63. The shareholders were very generous in granting you their guarantee when I made the proposal many years ago, when the stock stood above par; but they may take a different view now, when it is at 63. You have got a splendid bargain which cannot be interfered with except by mutual consent. Do not give the shareholders an opportunity of interfering with that bargain, or they may possibly endeavour to withdraw their guarantee." I was in a most difficult position as chairman of the company, guarding the interests of the shareholders, and as chairman of the fund, guarding the interests of the members, but I did not in the least endeavour to improperly influence anyone.

I did not think it my duty as chairman of the fund to point out the possible danger which might take place if they opened the question with the shareholders. I do not think the hon. Member charges we with any breach of faith in respect of it. I have seen a circular, a most misleading circular, which has been sent to hon. Members, which charges me with deliberately omitting from this very Bill any mention of this subject. As I have informed the House, my board decided to have no Bill in Parliament this Session. I went to the United States and to Canada in that belief, and did not return until October. In the middle of October representations were made from the borough of Ipswich that the traffic arrangements, the arrangements for sidings, and the facilities for the removal of goods, were not commensurate with the vast increase—I was very glad to hear it—which had taken place in the trade of Ipswich. It was clear that we had to do something to remove this grievance, the presence of so serious a barrier to the future progress of the town. I immediately went down to the place. I met the mayor, who is, I believe, a political friend of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners. After going over the ground, and hearing all the different points, we proceeded to the Town Hall. I stated what, generally speaking, I thought we should be able to do. This was accepted by the merchants, the representative of the corporation, and the Dock Commissioners, who were present in the room.

I came back to town, summoned the board and the solicitor of the company, who had only ten days in which to prepare the Bill, specifications, notices, and everything else. It was, therefore, absolutely impossible to include in that Bill anything beyond the requirements of Ipswich, or to do more than to raise the capital to carry out this and other improvements of a similar character elsewhere. I go further, and say that when I said we should include a provision for this matter in a Bill of the company, I meant an Omnibus Bill, a term which is, I think, familiar to Members of this House, and which includes all the sweepings up of different items, where everything is put in in which pledges have been given, promises made, or expectations raised. When we gave orders to the solicitor to prepare this Bill I confess I had absolutely forgotten all about the superannuation matter. It would have been impossible, even if I had remembered it, to introduce anything of the sort into the Bill when at the same time the annual meeting of the members of the superannuation fund had not taken place. I gather the House thinks there has been no breach on my part of the undertaking which I gave. The great majority of the members of the fund were not desirous of any change, and that has placed me in a very difficult position. But I am going to make this proposal to the hon. Member. I am perfectly prepared, either by an open vote or by a ballot vote, or by any mode, or in any way suggested by the hon. Member, to ascertain the opinion of the members of the superannuation fund, and if a majority be in favour—he may circularise the members if he likes—of altering the representation and embodying that in a Bill, I, on behalf of the company, will take the earliest opportunity when next we have a Bill, which probably may be next Session, to give effect to that wish. I do not think I can say more than that, because I am sure hon. Members will not wish us to dragoon our clerical staff. The clerical staff of the Great Eastern Railway is an educated body of gentlemen fully capable of taking care of themselves. If they have strong views in regard to the excellence of the superannuation scheme, why on earth should their views be disturbed? They are able to think for themselves, and to work out calculations. They know perfectly well how the thing stands. I think it would be a great error of judgment for me to be a party to coerce them to alter their views in that respect. But if hon. Members opposite think that a ballot vote will give them the opportunity of expressing themselves, I shall be very happy to give effect to any change of views in the first Bill we introduce into the House of Commons.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

The Noble Lord has made a frank speech, as he always does. But there are points raised this evening that certainly are important in regard to recent events in this House. In the first place, there is the issue raised in a definite form as to the position that Members of this House find themselves in a matter of this sort, the exact relationship of the particular Bill that we are discussing to the position of any individual Member. I want to say at once that so far as the Noble Lord is concerned if the statement that he has made now had been given effect to following his promise, there would not have been anything to complain of this evening. The real difficulty that we are in is this: That already the staff have been threatened; already the staff have been told that if they go on in this way they unquestionably will suffer. Already the general manager has intimated to a man who is prominent in this as he was prominent in another matter affected by what was called the "salaries memorial," that if he took similar action in future on behalf of his fellow clerks it would be detrimental to his interests. The real position is that whilst it may be assumed that a ballot would be a fair opportunity for a legitimate expression of opinion, whilst it may be understood that it is a real way to test these men's opinions and to give effect to them, I do submit to the House with the greatest possible respect that the case is altered when the general manager has already given expression to the opinion he has; and when the Noble Lord himself says that he would have the committee of management in no other hands, and he ventured to say "that the shareholders will not agree to its being otherwise." That was the statement made by the Noble Lord at the committee meeting in 1897 to which he referred. The Noble Lord quoted that. I am quoting from the same minutes. The Noble Lord having quoted that statement, we are brought to this situation. That was his opinion on that occasion. He says that he was trapped into giving the other pledge. Therefore I submit that he had to choose between the pledge on that occasion and the pledge given to this House. It is apparent that he decided that the pledge given in 1897 was more important than the pledge given on the last occasion. There is this analogy. He says quite frankly, "I admit giving the pledge; I admit you are entitled to put the interpretation that you have placed upon this pledge; yet I have to choose between fulfilling this pledge and doing something that I do not believe will be in the interests of the staff." I think that is a fair statement of the Noble Lord's case. Let the Noble Lord remember——

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

I think I should be coercing the staff to do something which they believe to be contrary to their interests.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

Very well. Let us see where the coercion comes in in a moment. Let us assume it is coercion that will be applied. What is the difference in the position to-night and the position mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. When the Noble Lord accused the Prime Minister of a breach of faith he said, "It was a solemn undertaking given to us who represented the railway companies." Supposing the Prime Minister had said—as he might have said on that occasion, "That after considering the interests of the public, and all that was involved by the public; after realising that the public would have to pay—which he did not anticipate when he made this promise—that he had decided that it was his duty to stick to the public interest." Would not that have been precisely the same answer as the Noble Lord has given here this evening? That would have been precisely the situation if the Prime Minister had made that answer on that occasion. The Noble Lord said, "This pledge having been given we intend that you must fulfil it." Therefore I submit that it is not fair to throw this position back upon the staff. I put this question to the Noble Lord. What would happen if he called a meeting of the staff at four o'clock in the afternoon if every member of the staff decided to attend? Is it suggested that the Great Eastern is to stop; that the whole of the work should be dislocated? Does he not know perfectly well, as everyone knows, that in a matter of this kind it is impossible for each member of the staff to attend. Unfortunately whether the Noble Lord knows it or not it is a fact. What happens is that at this particular meeting men would be whipped up by the officials, encouraged by the officials, and a few people come there to voice opinions that they think would be favourable to the Noble Lord, and others and those who might fully express their opinions, keep back for fear of the events I have mentioned.

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

It is the statutory annual meeting of members of the fund. Every member has leave to attend if he wishes to attend.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

That may be so, but does the Noble Lord say that while it is true they can get leave, that when the meeting is called for four o'clock at Liverpool Street Station it is not practically impossible for the staff to come up? I say it is obvious they cannot. It is useless to assume that it is open to every man to come and attend. Here is the other point. When the Noble Lord talks of the benefits of this particular fund, is it not true to say that joining it is made a condition of service? These men have no choice. Whatever other provisions they may have made, whatever may be the position of the men with regard to their domestic relationships, the fact of the matter is that the Great Eastern Company says to them, "Unless you join this particular fund we will not employ you." Having made that a condition of service, having compelled these men to join and stopped from their salaries periodically a certain amount of money, is it unreasonable that we, on the men's behalf, should claim they are entitled to some particular representation upon this committee?

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

If they wanted to, certainly.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

That is exactly the position, and, that being so, are we not justified in saying that, seeing it is the committee that spends the money and that the officials are included, surely the great bulk of the staff ought to have equal representation with the official side? Let me put this further point. Is it not true that the Noble Lord has repeatedly stated in public and to the staff that in calculating the wages of the employés they must have regard not alone to the weekly wage, but to many of the privileges that the men enjoy? Did not the Noble Lord go further and say that, in addition to the privilege tickets and free passes, "there is the superannuation fund, for which we are responsible?" If that is so, and if the company calculates these privileges as being advantageous to the men and as something the company have taken into account, I submit it is not fair to suggest in this House or anywhere else that this is a free gift from the company when, as a matter of fact, it is part and parcel of the wages. I submit we are entitled to go further. The Noble Lord has made a fair offer, much fairer now than prior to this Debate. I think we are entitled to ask something more and to say, seeing you have already shown a bias in favour of this fund, seeing you went so far as to say that if any change took place the shareholders would have to reconsider the position——

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

Might.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

The Noble Lord said that if any change did take place the shareholders might have to reconsider. their position, and, in addition to that, it is well known that every official takes the view of the Noble Lord—if not, what becomes of the claim that everyone is in favour of it?—and, having regard to that I submit it has created in the minds of the men a feeling that if they had shown any opposition whatever they might be running foul of the official view of the manager. I do not think it is unfair to say that, and I think if the Noble Lord would add to what he already stated, a definite statement that there is to be a free and independent expression of opinion, and that so far as he is concerned he will not look with disfavour on any man who, works or votes in any way, I think it would go a long way to meet our objection. I think we are, at least, entitled to ask the Noble Lord to say that. His expressed opinion is already on record, and surely now, if he is prepared to say." We are prepared to have a free ballot of the members," we are entitled to ask him to say, further, that whatever his former opinion might have been, he is now prepared to view the position from a free and unprejudiced standpoint, and with the one desire to take the majority of opinion on his staff. I do say that it is a mistake—and this is my last word—in the twentieth century to assume that the old relationship, between employer and employed must continue. Whatever may have been the position of the staff on the Great Eastern and on other railway companies, we must now have democratic control in these matters. The staff are going to say, "We will have a voice in the management of these matters," and I ask the Noble Lord to declare what I think is due to this House namely, that the men should have a free; choice, and if he does so, I think my hon. Friend would be prepared to accept that suggestion.

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON

The proposition which is made by the hon. Member, I am bound to say is not particularly complimentary to myself, because it is a suggestion to the effect that I coerce and intimidate my men, and that they are afraid, knowing my views, to express their free and unfettered opinion upon any subject which may come before us. I think any suggestion of that kind is absolutely unfounded. If it were correct I should not be able to get on so well as I do with every section of the staff of the Great Eastern Railway, and I think sometimes that those representing the men are jealous that this should be the case. I am perfectly prepared to give an assurance in reply to the hon. Member that every member of the clerical staff will be entitled to vote exactly as he likes, and express a free and unfettered opinion, and in no way will any member of the staff suffer for having done so. I cannot say more than that. I trust, however, that the House will not go away with the idea that I, or any member of my board have ever endeavoured to influence unduly any member of our staff, or that we have played the part of tyrants; because that is certainly not the case.

Mr. WARDLE

I should not have accepted the Noble Lord's undertaking without his second statement, and under the circumstances I beg to withdraw my objection to the Second Reading.