HC Deb 04 January 1916 vol 77 cc883-5

Sub-section (2) of Section four of the principal Act shall be read as if the words "or to any agreement between the owner of the establishment and an employé with regard to any periodical increase of remuneration" were inserted after the words "nineteen hundred and fifteen."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

This very simple Clause is one to effect a measure of justice to a number of employés of firms, particularly on the clerical side. It will surprise the House to know that clerks to whom increments are due have actually been refused them because the consent of the Minister of Munitions is required. We desire to make it certain that a clerk shall not be put to the trouble of making any appeal, either to the Minister of Munitions or anyone else, to secure an increment of salary to which he is entitled under a pre-war agreement, and that he shall not be prejudiced as he is by the principal Act being quoted against him.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Pre-war agreements?

Mr. GOLDSTONE

Yes, pre-war agreements.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Might I suggest that my hon. Friend confines it to pre-war agreements? It will be very dangerous if it is applied to after-war agreements.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I beg to second the Motion, and I would like to suggest as another alternative to the words "pre-war agreements" the insertion of the words "existing before the establishment became a controlled establishment."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not mind that.

Mr. SNOWDEN

There may have been agreements made quite innocently sometime after the War.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I agree.

Mr. SNOWDEN

If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that view nothing more need be said.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Subject to that Amendment, I do not in the least object to this Clause. I can quite see that my hon. Friend wants to safeguard the man who gets a periodical rise in his salary. He does not want the Minister of Munitions to interfere. As a matter of fact, we do not interfere. We make it a rule that those agreements shall not be interfered with We are afraid, however, that there might be collusive agreements between, say, the manager and the firm by which the profits could be given away in the shape of increased salaries. That is why I accept the Clause in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), confining it to agreements existing before the establishment became a controlled establishment. If it were not confined to that, the whole of the profits might by collusion be handed over to the managers and so forth.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

I would like to accept the suggestion of the right hon Gentleman.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Amendment proposed: After the word "agreement" to insert the words "before the establishment became a controlled establishment."

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I should like to point out that there is an interval in which the excess profits may be swallowed up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have something to say on that point.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

This does not affect that matter in the least; it stands on an entirely different basis.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

I assume the Minister of Munitions will not oppose any new agreement, providing it is a reasonable one, whereby some employeé receives additional remuneration by reason of additional duties performed.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

We do not interfere in any case under £250. That practically excludes all the class which my hon. Friend has in mind. If you go beyond that, we are very much afraid that collusive agreements may whittle away the whole of the excess profits.

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.