§ (1) Every special Order shall without confirmation by Parliament have effect as if enacted in this Act and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent special Order.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "without," and to insert instead thereof the word "after."
5.0 P.M.
This Amendment raises the question of Parliamentary control, but in a somewhat different way to the last Amendment. If this Amendment be accepted, I shall propose to insert after the word "by" the words "Resolution of both Houses of Parliament." The Minister of Labour never attempted to-offer an answer to the argument which was put forward by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) that under the system by which the Government take up all the time of the House it is quite impossible for any section of Members to propose an Address to the Crown with a view to having an Order annulled. There is a general feeling that there should be some Parliamentary check upon the powers of the Minister. We have not all got the same childlike faith in the virtues of a democratic Minister as that which is held by the Member for Attercliffe. I am somewhat surprised at the exuberance of his confidence in Ministerial discretion. I thought he was a member of a group called the "civil liberties group," whose activities were mainly devoted to preventing autocratic action on the part of Ministers without the control of Parliament. Now, when an hon. Member comes-forward in order to try and prevent autocratic control, my hon. Friend objects. This is not a procedure which will involve delay, for it does not even involve forty days' delay, because the day after the special Order is made by the Minister the Government can put the Motion down upon the Paper, find time for it, and have it passed. There is no delay whatever involved, not even the delay in the procedure which they themselves suggest. I therefore suggest that on this question my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division should return to the faith which he has been so loudly professing: 1499 outside and should insist on the control of the House of Commons. After all, we profess to be fighting for democracy in this War, but the only thing we seem to be doing in this House is to destroy every shadow of democratic control over Ministerial acts by our present legislation. My Amendment provides for the control of the House of Commons. I do not think it need be any serious check on the action of the Minister. If there is no opposition to the Order, the Resolution will pass formally at eleven o'clock on the first day on which it is put down. It will very soon be obvious to the Government what is the extent and dimensions of the opposition, and, if it turns out to be only a very insignificant minority, it will surely be possible for the Government to dispose of their arguments and their opposition without any serious inconvenience. I therefore maintain that the course suggested in the Amendment would involve no inconvenience to the Government, but it would at least afford some measure of control over the Minister, which I think it is the duty of the House of Commons at the present time to assert.
§ Mr. HOLTI desire to second the Amendment, and I really do think that the Government might properly be expected to accept it, for it meets every single one of the objections which have been raised to the procedure under provisional Order. It takes no more time than the procedure under the Bill. It will not alter the procedure under the Bill, except that it throws upon the Government the onus of providing an opportunity for a discussion in this House instead of upon the person who objects to the proposal. That is the only difference that my hon. Friend's proposal makes. I trust that it may even receive the support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson). I would like to commend to him this consideration. If you really want to secure your own liberties, you must be careful to respect those of others. You will never secure liberty unless you are prepared to see that the liberties of those people with whom you do not agree are preserved as well as the liberties of the people with whom you do agree. After all, if this Amendment is accepted what is the most the Government will be required to do? The most that they can be compelled to do is to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule and take a short Debate, and they are always in a position 1500 to keep a House after eleven o'clock. It is the very most that they can be asked to do.
Mr. ROBERTSI hope that my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. It would be a restraint, and I think too much of a restraint, upon the operations of this scheme. It requires time to be found by the Government, and I presume it means that in respect of every special Order proposed to be made the Government would have to allot a day for its discussion.
§ Mr. PRINGLE indicated dissent.
Mr. ROBERTSThat is how I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment and the purpose of his speech. I must fall back upon the feeling that there are already plenty of safeguards and abundant opportunities for inquiring and investigating into the matter as set forth in the Bill as it now stands. I hope that nothing to which I have given sanction in any way violates the democratic principle. If it does, it is quite unintentional, and I feel that I may claim immunity from an attack of that character. My hon. Friend the Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) appealed to me to be considerate of the liberties of other people. I am concerned with the liberties of the workers in some of the ill-paid trades of the country, and the more we expedite the operations of this Bill the sooner we shall be able to bring a greater measure of liberty into their lives. I feel that this is quite an unnecessary restraint to put upon the operations of this measure. The state of public business might make it impossible for the Government to set apart time for a Debate of a special Order just when the application of that Order was most necessary. I would remind the House again that at the expiration of the War there may be a grave necessity for a speedy application of the provisions of this scheme, and on that consideration alone I think I am perfectly warranted in asking the House not to agree to the Amendment.
Mr. RUNCIMANI hope my right hon. Friend has not definitely made up his mind that this proposal is not beneficial. If it in any way tended to delay the bringing into operation of any of the new special Orders I should be prepared to support it, for I agree with him that any loss of time in bringing into being trades boards in some of the trades to which they can properly be applied, particularly when the 1501 War is over, would be to the detriment of those engaged in those trades. I think, however, my right hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that if this Amendment were accepted by the Government it would mean that the fourth Section of Clause 2 would automatically drop out. I would remind the House that the forty days are forty Parliamentary days, which may mean a great deal more. If we were about to adjourn as we are about to adjourn now for two months, it might mean a delay, not of forty days, but of eighty or one hundred days. The whole of that will automatically drop out, and it will be open to the Government to bring in their Resolution and pass it. They will be able to bring the special Order into operation without any further delay. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that that in itself would facilitate the benefits which we wish to give to the people engaged in these trades, and it would at the same time meet the general feeling which I am sure he must encounter from many quarters of the House; but the House itself, under his proposal, is parting with too much of the control which it ought to exercise over its Ministers. There is one misgiving which I have about the Amendment as it stands, but I think it might be provided for. It would mean that there would have to be one Resolution for every Order. I can quite understand that my right hon. Friend might wish to take a group of trades. I presume that he would apply one Order to each trade. In the same way, I should like to see one Resolution applied to each group of Orders. If that could be provided for, I think it would meet all that is required by the Ministry of Labour, and if that is done I hope he will be prepared to reconsider his position in connection with this Amendment.
Mr. DENNISSIn Committee upstairs the question was debated at very considerable length as to whether it would not be better to adhere to the machinery of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, and continue the procedure of a provisional Order, but that was negatived. It seems to me, from the remarks which have just fallen from my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman), that the coming into force of the Orders would be considerably expedited if this Amendment were carried. Of course, the objection to it is that this House is not such a good tribunal for deciding points of this description as a 1502 Private Bill Committee upstairs. I still adhere to the opinion that I expressed that we ought to have kept to the provisional Order, but as we cannot get that I think this is an improvement upon the Bill. It has been pointed out that a group of Orders could be brought in after eleven o'clock at night, and Members would have the opportunity of attending and de bating them, whereas under Clause 2 as it stands a Member would have to get up almost an agitation in the House be fore he could get enough people to raise objection to any of these Orders. That would be almost impossible, and even then the whole thing would be a farce, because, if the Government put on the Whips, the few people one got to attend at 8.15 or 11 o'clock would not have the slightest chance of defeating the Government, except perhaps in a case which aroused an immense amount of interest in the country. Under those circumstances, I should like to support the Amendment. I know it is no use dividing on it, because the Government can defeat us so easily, but we may hope to convince the right hon. Gentleman that it would really expedite the making of these Orders if he put in a provision, as has been suggested, whereby a group of Orders can be taken, and the matter settled within a day or two after the Orders are made.
§ Sir W. BEALEI should be very sorry by any word or act to interfere with the beneficial operation of the principal Act and this proposed extension of it. I agree in that respect entirely with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) and the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson). I agree also that at the present time under the present administration there need be no apprehension at all about entrusting the widest possible powers to the present Ministry of Labour. At the time of the principal Act I had to make representations with regard to some of the trades which it was proposed to include that they were going too far, and I found all the officials—it was the Board of Trade at that time—ready to modify their views, as they did on two or three occasions, when they heard the opposition of the trade and the reasons for it properly stated. But I do not like the idea that we as Members of this House should abrogate all our powers. I admit that every courtesy has always been shown to me, but I am doubtful about the position if they could 1503 say, "After all, he can do nothing. He cannot raise the question practically in the House." I do not want to abandon every possible opportunity of this House having a voice as to the propriety of every one of these Orders. I see the difficulties and the objections. I was very much struck by what the right hon. Gentleman said that if you had to do it by provisional Order and put a great many into one Bill an objection to any single one would cause great delay. That, however, does not apply to this proposal, which is very simple. The question is whether we should substitute simply a confirmatory Resolution of Parliament, obviating any delay in the right hon. Gentleman and his Department attaining their object, and at the same time give some real power of control to this House. When the procedure which they themselves propose has been followed I am quite sure, from what I have seen of the way that they look into things and their disposition to do justice, that any question that came forward would be narrowed down to such small dimensions that there would not be the slightest difficulty of showing the House in a very short time that the objections were ill-founded. I do not think that the proposal is at all calculated to impede official action, and it would meet, not the whole objection, but the really substantial part of the objection, which is the taking away of any practical power of a Member of this House to be heard in opposition to an Order of this kind.
§ Mr. WILSON-FOXSome of us approached the consideration of this Bill with considerable misgiving, and it was only because of the strong case made by the Minister in charge of the Bill that we have modified our objection to it and are prepared to support it as a whole. But that does not mean that we should necessarily accept as fair and right every detail of it. Those who had the advantage of hearing the discussion in Committee approach it from a somewhat different point of view to those who, like myself, heard the points debated for the first time. After hearing the whole of the discussion on the first Amendment I came to the conclusion that it was evidently a case for compromise, and that while the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was perfectly right in insisting that there should be no unnecessary delay in giving effect to these special Orders, which, if they are required at all, are no 1504 doubt properly and urgently required, there is great force in the contention put forward by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman) that it was not right to deprive this House altogether of the power of looking into and controlling these matters before they become permanent.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend, seeing that the view of the House is generally in favour of this control not being entirely lost, will not offer a cast-iron front to the proposals which have been made to him. I was rather afraid when he spoke of this Amendment that he really was desirous that even if the-House wished, there should be no discussion upon these special Orders when made. That, I submit, is not a right attitude for the Government to adopt. It should be the care and duty of the Government to provide facilities for Members to discuss matters of this practical importance if a sufficient number of them wish to do so, and the onus ought not to be thrown upon them of trying to put questions with the result that they get evasive replies, or of seeking to force the Government to find time for a Motion which it is right and proper should be discussed. I cannot see that the argument of my right hon. Friend which apply with force to the preceding Amendment has really any application whatever to this Amendment. Time will not be lost if reasonable opportunities for discussion will be given in cases where it is needed. In these circumstances I support most strongly the appeal made to him from every quarter of this House to reconsider his attitude upon this Amendment.
§ Mr. DENMANI find myself in disagreement with the mover of this Amendment and those who have supported it, and I hope that the Government will stick to its guns. The chief argument I have heard in favour of this Amendment is that it really adds to the speed of the procedure of the special Order. That, of course, is not the case. The special Order under the Amendment would not come into force until it had been confirmed by Resolution in both Houses of Parliament at certain times of the year. That might obviously mean a delay of some months. If the House were not sitting it would take some time before the Order could be confirmed under the Amendment. In the Bill as it stands a special Order becomes operative immediately it is made. Sub- 1505 section (4) of Section 2 contains some concluding words which are always put in in connection with such Orders—
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done hereunder or the power of making a fresh Order.What always happens is that when a special Order is introduced and action is taken thereunder, if within forty days it is annulled, of course future action is debarred.
§ Mr. DENMANYes, previously to the address in either House. Therefore, the procedure contemplated by the Bill is very much more rapid, and I think we all realise that if it is to be effective we shall need rapid procedure. Can we rely upon the other House passing a Resolution in favour of a special Order with that rapidity and willingness which we would like? The Amendment, not the Bill, contemplates that either House should have to take positive action to annul an Order, but it would have to be set in motion to produce some favourable Resolution in favour of certain industries. That seems to me to be inviting the other House to consider matters in which they are not experts, and I should very much like to see the Bill left as it is in that respect. I think we are all agreed upon one point which was raised on the previous Amendment, which is that we ought to recover our power of debating special Orders. The remedy is not to insert provisions in this Bill, but to prevent the Government taking all the time next Session. After all, this Bill will not be very operative before next Session, and if next Session we secure to ourselves the powers which I think we ought to have not only on account of this Bill but many others involving the same procedure, whereby, an fact, we could discuss these special Orders we should really be securing what we all legitimately desire.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSI cannot agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle, though, of course, I recognise points of legitimate argument can be advanced on behalf of both sides of this and every other question. What is required with regard to these special Orders is that they shall not be delayed, and that their incidence should be certain. In the Bill as it stands their incidence is not certain, and may not be certain for some months under certain conditions, whereas If it be the 1506 duty of Parliament to bring in a Resolution confirming these Orders at once the matter is definitely settled in a very short time. It would be bad for industry, and bad for the country, that there should be a long interval of, at any rate, potential uncertainty in a matter of this kind. I, therefore, venture to join with other speakers who have taken part in this discussion on the Amendment, with the solitary exception of the hon. Member for Carlisle, in asking the Government that they will not meet the obvious wishes of the House in this particular. There has been no concerted organised action to defeat the Government on this point. Whatever else may be said of the speeches made they are obviously sincere, and they have come from Members of the House of very different points of view and predispositions on matters of this kind, and, with this unforced and unorganised unanimity of criticism, I do hope that the Government will realise that, by allowing it, they are helping and not injuring the Bill, and conceding what all Members of the House desire.
§ Sir GEORGE REIDI agree with other speakers that this is one of the most important, and may prove one of the most useful measures with which this Parliament can deal. For many years I have had in another hemisphere a large amount of practical experience in the working out of various methods of settling labour disputes, and I am bound to say that the only method in the whole of my experience, which has worked smoothly and satisfactorily, has been the one contemplated in connection with this measure, which is that of an equal number of employers and employés meeting together to thrash out their difficulties face to face with a chairman appointed by the Government. That has been the system in vogue in Victoria for many years, and the main point really is whether the method proposed is a good method of enabling those engaged in our great industries to come together to settle their disputes. I have not had the experience which other Members have had in connection with matters of this character in this country, but I would venture to say, with every confidence in the machinery which is to be used in connection with these trade disputes, that I rather deprecate the idea of political discussion while these disputes are pending. They might perhaps have an unhappy 1507 effect. Whether that is so or not, I have not the slightest want of confidence in the method proposed for settling these disputes, and I feel I must support the proposal of the Government.
§ Sir H. NIELDI am afraid the last speaker has wholly misapprehended what we are discussing. None of us in this House proposes to go back on the Trade Boards Act or to alter the method at all. The only thing is that we are now asked to abrogate all the functions of Parliament. Just think of it! In the year 1918, in a democratic House of Commons we are asked to abrogate every possible control over a trades Order, because the means suggested by Sub-section (4) of Section 2 are wholly illusory. The right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to this proposal that the Government would not be able to find time to discuss the Resolution here or elsewhere. Then what a farce it is to suggest that Sub-section (4) of Section 2 affords any security at all! Surely the Government must think that this House is atrophied altogether. We are told that we are out of touch with the electorate. No wonder, when measures of this sort are introduced by a Government which commands the support of all parties in this House! I think we are straining a great deal to ask the House to give up every control over proposals of this description.
I attach the greatest possible importance to the inquiry by Select Committee. I admit it cannot be had because of the delay. I would have liked to have insisted upon another inquiry outside before the Order is launched, so that it might be within the powers of the Department to decide, as they do with regard to the rules. I remember one particular inquiry held by the Government some months ago to inquire into the application of certain new rules to docks, wharves, and harbours. They had a Commission, and the trades were allowed to appear before them, and then there came legislation. That is not to be had now, and we are not to be allowed to have any security at all for public ventilation. Do not let it be thought for a moment that I am against this; on the contrary, I have served on these Committees, and I am perfectly ready to recognise the usefulness of the trade boards and to realise that after the War it may be necessary to increase their efficiency in the scheduling of new trades. But do not 1508 let us come to the conclusion that this House is to assent to everything that is done. Those who declaim loudest about control of this House are the persons who to-day who in respect of this measure are prepared to give carte blanche and give up all the rights we have. All that we ask is that it shall be necessary for the House and for the other House to pass Resolutions confirming the Order when once it is made as a substituted method for the forty days. The hon. Member for Carlisle suggested that another place would refuse to pass this Resolution. If the attitude of the other place is to be attacked, as it generally has been in years past, it must be remembered that it is the very Assembly who would pass a Resolution of this sort, always ready as it has been to help industrial workers to obtain justice from employers. The other place is the very place that would readily pass a Resolution of this sort, whereas the difficulty might be experienced here. Nobody would want to act without reasonable cause. As there is the substantial point of time and of giving the control, limited as it is, that ought to be given to the House of Commons, I hope this stone-wall attitude on behalf of the Ministry will not be persisted in, and that they will accept this Amendment as being a substantive means of securing what they desire to attain.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman)The hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) accused my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir G. Reid) of not understanding the Bill.
§ Sir H. NIELDNo; of misapprehending what was under discussion. He was making a Second Reading speech.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWell, of misapprehending what was under discussion on the Bill. I think that my hon. and learned Friend himself misunderstood the procedure under the Bill as it stands. He spoke as if there were no sort of inquiry. If he will look at the Schedule of the Bill he will find that there is to be a public inquiry. That public inquiry is to be held with a chairman who is not connected with the Government in any way. That was the effect of an Amendment we accepted in Committee. I should have thought everybody would have realised that that would be an absolutely impartial inquiry, where both employers and employed, with an impartial chairman, would get fair play.
§ Sir H. NIELDMy hon. Friend will admit that the Department will be the judge of what the results of that inquiry amount to?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANQuite so. It is almost inconceivable that the Minister of Labour would be likely to try to force upon the House or anybody else an Order against the decision of the impartial umpire who had been appointed to go to the inquiry. Everybody has expressed the greatest confidence in the Ministry of Labour, and I am quite sure that either now or at any future time that sort of thing would be quite impossible. Our position is that the safeguards are absolutely adequate without any further provisions than we have in the Bill. Although this is a new proposal which was not considered in Committee upstairs and we have not had a great deal of time to consider it, at the same time the objections to it seem to us to be equally strong as the objections to the last Amendment. I do not understand why democrats like the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) think there is such a tremendous gain in being able, as he said, to come down and have a few minutes' discussion, and then take a. Resolution at eleven o'clock at night or afterwards.
§ Mr. HOLTThe gain is this: Under the proposal of this Amendment we are at least certain of getting a discussion, whereas under the proposal in the Bill there is no certainty that there will ever be a discussion at all.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThe hon. Gentleman knows quite well that a discussion after eleven o'clock, especially in these times, is not a particularly fruitful way of legislating. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) a short time ago referred to my having had some experience as a Whip. He will realise that this sort of discussion at eleven o'clock would absolutely put in the hands of obstructors the power of shelving any Resolution of the kind, because he knows perfectly well that the Closure could never be applied to a Resolution which was taken at eleven o'clock until about one in the morning, and he also knows that it is very difficult to keep 100 Members here till one o'clock in order to carry the Closure. That argument is a little overdone. The hon. and learned Member for Ayrshire said he had great confidence in the present administration 1510 of the Labour Department, which I am sure my right hon. Friend would be very glad to hear. He spoke as if things might be different in the future, and several hon. Members have spoken in the same strain. I do not think for a moment that in the future you will ever get a Minister of Labour who would go against the opinion of any impartial inquiry which has taken place beforehand. Hon. Members do not realise that it is not the arbitrary act of a Ministry to set up a trade board, but that it is the result of a very careful and long investigation. It is the result of the opinion of the employers as well as the employed, and the trade board is very often wanted by the employers as much as by the employed.
§ Sir H. NIELDLaundries!
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANMy hon. and learned Friend did not give a very accurate account of what happened in the Select Committee on that point.
§ Sir H. NIELDWill the hon. Gentleman say in what respect it was inaccurate?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI will if he wishes it, and if I am in order. My hon. and learned Friend described the procedure of the Select Committee as having reduced the proposal to very narrow limits. As a matter of fact, what they did was exactly the opposite. To begin with, the proposal was confined within very narrow limits, and those who objected did so on the ground that it did not go far enough. Because it did not go far enough they proposed and carried that it should include other forms of laundries, but, because of the Rules governing a Select Committee, it had to be thrown out, because a Select Committee cannot enlarge upon the proposal referred to it.
§ Sir H. NIELDI was a member of the Committee, and I know perfectly well what happened.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI am very sorry to differ from my hon. and learned Friend, but I think he had better refresh his memory upon the point. We have been looking up the matter very carefully for some days, and I think there are other hon. Members who will bear me out that that is the true history of the question.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANAt first sight that is rather attractive, but, as a matter of fact, in practice, during the forty days the Ministry would be employed in collecting the members of the Board. The preliminary work would fully occupy the forty days. In fact, it would never be able to begin until that time Lad expired. Therefore the gain does not appear to be very much. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) to suggest that there should be one Resolution referring to a number of trades, and that, if that were once passed, any of the trades mentioned in it could be brought in in the course of a Session.
Mr. RUNCIMANWhat I suggested was that the Amendment as it has been moved might give rise to the necessity of having a Resolution for each special Order, that it would facilitate the procedure if the Resolution could cover a group of Orders, and that by that means we should be able to get rid of all the delays occasioned by having to deal with them Order by Order.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThat could be done, and no doubt would be an improvement, but it would be very difficult indeed at the beginning of a Session, especially at such a time as we might have when the War ends and the munition workers are being discharged, and there is great danger of sweating in other trades, to foresee all the trades that it might be necessary to put into the Resolution.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWhy at the beginning of a Session?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWe have until Whitsuntide.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThis does not depend upon Whitsuntide.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThat is so, but I do not think it would be a very expeditious procedure if we had to bring in this Resolution with regard to every trade in regard to which we might want to set up a trade board in the course of a Session. There has been a good deal of objection to giving up the Provisional Order procedure. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing said that he was very much astonished that in 1918 any such proposal as these special Orders should be put forward.
§ Sir H. NIELDI must rise on a point of explanation. What I said was that I was surprised that in 1918 it should be proposed to abrogate the functions of Parliament altogether.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI was trying to point out to my hon. and learned Friend that that was done in 1901 in respect of the Factory Acts. Therefore, it is not so astonishing that in 1918 we should follow the example of the Factory Acts. If anyone wanted to substantiate the case against procedure by special Order under the Trade Boards Bill, they ought to show that the procedure by special Order under the Factory Acts had had any bad effect. If they could, that would be some argument. They have not been able to show that the special Order procedure under the Factory Acts has had any bad effect. Therefore, we propose to adhere to the procedure suggested in this Bill, and we hope the House will agree to it.
§ Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKLike the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman), I am hoping that the Government will stick to its guns. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Under the Government's plan we get these trade boards in forty days, whereas if the matter goes to another place, goodness knows what may be done to it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) is very indignant that any aspersion should be cast upon the promotion of social reform by the other place.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt can do it at present under the Bill.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKI would submit that we do not know what the future may bring forth. If the present Prime Minister ennobles the captains of industry at the rate he is doing it now, the whole character of the other place may be altered. Great jealousy has been expressed as to the control by this House, very rightly on important points, but I submit it is equally legitimate to be jealous that the will of the people should be carried out, and that the House of Commons should be the expression of the will of the people and should carry out the will of the people promptly and sufficiently. The country has thoroughly made up its mind that it wishes to see the sweated wage eliminated from our midst, but at the same time it is very jealous that the confusion of after-war conditions 1513 may force vast numbers of the workers' wages far below subsistence level. That being so, the House of Commons and the Labour Ministry are only interpreting the will of the people in bringing forward proposals to deal promptly and expeditiously with the danger that is ahead of us. I cannot understand why the proposal of the Government should have met with so much opposition, when it is plainly in the interests of the country and the desire of the country that an efficient weapon should be in the hands of the Labour Ministry to deal with a very grave danger.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think my Noble. Friend has not sufficiently studied the Bill. He said he wishes to be content with forty days, because if the Resolution went to the other House no one knows what might happen. But as the Bill stands the other House can do what it likes. Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 says
every special Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKDoes not my right hon. Friend wish to have any control at all?
§ Sir S. BANBURYI wish to have control, but I am only alluding to the argument of my Noble Friend, who apparently was under the impression that if the Amendment was carried some additional power would be granted to another place, whereas, as a matter of fact, the powers which are already in the Bill give the other place the right to bring forward an Address, not after eleven o'clock, but at four or five o'clock in the afternoon, and if it is carried the proposal is rejected. My hon. Friend opposite said there was no fear of any Minister overriding a decision which had been come to at an inquiry presided over by an impartial chairman. Does he forget the case of the Board of Education and the Swansea Church of England school, where an inquiry was held and the Board of Education overruled it and did exactly what the inquiry desired it should not do? With that before us, and knowing that Ministers are sometimes arbitrary and the tendency to arbitrariness is increasing and will increase, there is some reason to put some restraint upon them. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman, not only here but upstairs, that what he feared was delay. It was not that he did not wish to consult the House of Commons. It was 1514 not that he did not think the House of Commons ought to have some control over the matter. Unless I am very much mistaken, a note was circulated with the Bill that the control of the House of Commons was going to be preserved. The only reason why it was to be preserved in that form was because of delay. Now comes the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and shows a method by which delay would be diminished. Is it accepted? On the contrary, there are excellent arguments for declining that also. The real fact is that the desire is to retain the whole control in this matter in the hands of the Department, and to deprive the House of Commons of any effective control over it. The delay is merely camouflage. It is merely put in to satisfy the Press and the public outside that the House of Commons is still to have control, and that the only reason why Provisional Order is done away with is delay, whereas the real reason is that Ministers desire that there shall be no control by the House of Commons, and that everything shall be left in their hands. I think this is an extremely modest Amendment, and I cannot understand how the Government can refuse it. It seems to me to be of the most simple character. It does not preserve very much control to the House. The modification that it shall include more than one special Order is reasonable. I do not think it should be necessary to come down with a Resolution for every special Order, but provided that one special Order should be allowed to be included, I think it preserves a shadowy control by the House over the acts of Ministers, and I trust now that I have reminded my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) of the case of Swansea, and have shown that his argument is absolutely illusory and has no foundation whatever, I look to him to support me on this Amendment. It is not often that a speech turns votes, but I trust this will be one of the occasions.
§ Mr. BURNSI sincerely trust the House will not accept the advice of the right hon. Baronet, and I particularly appeal to hon. Members not to endorse his view on the ground that there is a comparison between the Swansea Order issued by the Board of Education and a Board upon Minimum Wages and Insanitary Conditions in a trade which has been abominably bad for such a long while that masters and men in equal numbers on the 1515 Trade Board decide to alter it and the Board of Trade gives expression to something which the trade has already decided. There is no comparison between that and the Swansea Order. The right hon. Baronet is a very adroit angler for votes, and he thought if he could throw three or four flies over certain Members with whom he agrees on education he might perhaps get them into the Lobby on a matter which I sincerely trust the House of Commons will decide on its merits. The Swansea Order dealt with faith, with opinion, with political controversy of the most acute and almost rabid character, and for the right hon. Baronet to compare one with the other is really to abuse the affectionate regard that we have for him personally and which shows itself, whenever he suggests a certain course, in my subordinating my personal regard for him and voting against him The other argument is that advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir H. Nield). He said that if the Amendment is not carried, Parliament will lose control over certain matters which it ought to have control over. I speak with some direct knowledge on the subject and I should like the House not to be misled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who seems to be obsessed on trade board matters by his experience in connection with laundries. What are the facts under which this Bill comes into operation? In an unorganised trade in a badly paid trade, where probably there are starvation wages and insanitary conditions, the Board of Trade is compelled by the public opinion of the best employers and nearly all the workpeople to hold a public inquiry. It is openly held, and the employers and employed put their views before an impartial Government Department, and after hearing that inquiry the Board of Trade makes a special Order that wages, hours and conditions shall be so-and-so. Then, when the special Order is made, the precaution is taken, on behalf of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, that either House or both shall have an opportunity of presenting an Address.
§ Mr. PRINGLENo. My right hon. Friend has not heard the discussion or he would know that under existing conditions the House of Commons has no opportunity, while the House of Lords has. The object of the Amendment is to give both Houses alike an opportunity.
§ Mr. BURNSThe hon. Member is even more ingenious than the right hon. Baronet. It is perfectly true that the House of Lords has more opportunities of presenting an Address because the House of Lords, very sensibly, very rarely sits after eleven. They do their business at a more reasonable time of day. But the House of Commons still has an opportunity of presenting an Address, though it can only do it after eleven o'clock. To me it is immaterial whether it is moved at three o'clock in the afternoon in the Lords or at one o'clock in the morning in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMy right hon. Friend is not aware that it cannot be done here at all.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BURNSThat is the hon. Member's opinion. It is not mine, and it is not that of the Ministry of Labour. This Address, according to the Bill, can be moved for in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords at different and not altogether similarly convenient times. When it is presented a Board can be set up composed of an equal number of masters and men. When an equal number of masters and men, jointly representative of the whole trade, have come to the conclusion that the industrial conditions of that trade ought to be altered, that weighs with me with greater force than if either the House of Commons or the House of Lords decided either for or against it. The idea that the course suggested will save forty days of time is illusory. That forty days ought more properly to be used for getting the machinery into operation for launching this Trade Boards Act, not six or seven months or a year, as has too frequently been the case, after a trade has expressed itself in favour of a trade board, but immediately. It should be done as swiftly as it can be done. The other suggestion, that trades should be grouped, would be fatal to getting a trade board for a single trade through altogether in one Session. If you aggregated several Trade Board Orders in a special Order you would have an aggregation of special points of friction, not in one trade, which is comparatively easy to deal with, but in probably five or six, or, after the War is over a dozen trades. The result of it would be that in the Lobby we should have the laundries saying to the jam, and pickles to both, "You oppose this as applied to us, and we will oppose it 1517 as applied to you." The result would be that the last condition of the sweated small industries would be undesirable, and there would be very few trade boards set up or special Orders passed. My own view is that, in the matter of the trades boards, one at a time is very good fishing. I sincerely regret that when I was at the Board of Trade, for the reasons briefly alluded to by the Minister for Labour and his colleague, the Trade Boards Act applying to laundries did not pass.
Have we not rather got beyond these niggling and punctillious points about Parliamentary control? If one thing has emerged from this War, it is that sweated industries, low wages, and long hours are a mistake, and insanitary conditions are a scandal amounting almost to a public crime; and if on their own initiative masters and men decide to strike out a new line and to reorganise industry on the basis of better wages, shorter hours, and more humane conditions, Parliament ought not to go about with Sam Weller's double-billion-power microscope, finding means by which defects can be found here and there and providing pretexts, either for the House of Commons or the House of Lords by forty days and forty nights to cause delay, which would mean in the wilderness for the trade boards, thus depriving these poor sweated workers of the rights which their masters, through intelligent self-interest, have made up their minds to confer upon their workpeople. The only defect there is in this Bill is that pointed out by the right hon. Member for the City of London. I regret that the House of Lords should have an opportunity of presenting an Address at all. I
§ deplore the necessity at this time of day, when this House is congested with public business and overcrowded with parochial and petty details that ought to be and should have been left to Government Departments to deal with more expeditiously than they now have the opportunity of doing.
§ I am pleased beyond words that I have this opportunity of supporting the Minister of Labour. I hope he will stick to his special Orders. I trust he will adhere to the machinery and the procedure by means of which no haste will be taken that should not be taken. I sincerely trust that he will not budge, but that he will stick to the Bill, and that under no circumstances will he deprive enlightened masters and intelligent workmen from using the Trade Boards Act and the machinery of this Bill for getting rid of unorganised trades of women and young persons who, unlike engineers, bricklayers, and masons, are incapable of defending themselves against the encroachments of bad employers, and who appeal to this House to do something to enable them to protect themselves. I trust, therefore, that the time of the House of Commons will not be taken up by these details, but that they will be remitted to a competent, fair, impartial, and non-too-hastily moving Department, the Board of Trade, to be interpreted with common sense, and to give these sweated workers what is their due, and to provide a too-long delayed remedy for a condition of things which, in my judgment, has been intolerable.
§ Question put, "That the word 'without' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 23.
1519| Division No. 69.] | AYES. | [6.5 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Boyton, Sir James | Crooks, Rt. Hon. William |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Currie, George W. |
| Alden, Percy | Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Dairymple, Hon. H. H. |
| Anderson, William C. | Bridgeman, William Clive | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Arnold, Sidney | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Dawes, James Arthur |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas |
| Baker, Col. Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Butcher, Sir J. G. | Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Willoughby, H. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Carew, C. R. S. | Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Du Pre, Major W. Baring |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Chancellor, Henry George | Fell, Sir Arthur |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.) | Clyde James Avon | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson |
| Beach, William F. H. | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Finney, Samuel |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) |
| Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth) | Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Collins, Sir W. (Derby) | Fletcher, John Samuel |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Colvin, Col. Richard Beale | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Gilbert, J. D. |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Cotton, H. E. A. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John |
| Bowden, Major G. R. Harland | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Glanville, Harold James |
| Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford | Macmaster, Donald | Samuels, Arthur W. |
| Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur |
| Greer, Harry | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Shaw, Hon. A. |
| Greig, Colonel James William | McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Shortt, Edward |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Maden, Sir John Henry | Smallwood, Edward |
| Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich) | Malcolm, Ian | Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) |
| Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton) |
| Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness) | Martin, Joseph | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Mason, Robert (Wansbeck) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (A't'n-u-Lyne) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Middlebrook, Sir William | Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry |
| Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hills, John Waller | Morgan, George Hay | Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald |
| Hinds, John | Mount, William Arthur | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter) | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.) |
| Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Col Hon. F. S. (York) | Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) | Wardle, George J. |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Perkins, Walter Frank | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Kenyon, Barnet | Philipps, Capt. Sir Owen (Chester) | Watt, Henry A. |
| King, Joseph | Pratt, J. W. | Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A. |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Whiteley, Sir H. J. |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Randles, Sir John S. | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon) | Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Egbaston) | Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| M'Callum, Sir John M. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward |
| McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk, B'ghs) | Robinson, Sidney | |
| Mackinder, Hallord J. | Rowlands, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Macleod, John Mackintosh | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood) | Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John |
| Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Horne, Edgar | Wiles Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Joynson-Hicks, William | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Marriott, J. A. R. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Clough William | Marshall, Arthur Harold | |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Nield, Sir Herbert | Mr. Pringle and Mr. Holt. |
| Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Peto, Basil Edward |
Question put, and agreed to.