§
(4) The following provision shall be inserted at the end of Sub-section (1) of Section six of the principal Act:—
In the foregoing provision, the expression 'deductions' includes deductions for or in respect of any matter whatsoever (other than deductions under the National Insurance Act, 1911, as amended by any subsequent enactments), and notwithstanding that they are deductions which may lawfully be made from wages under the provisions of the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1896, and where any payment being a payment authorised to be received by an employer under Section one, Section two, or Section three of the Truck Act, 1896, is made by any employed person to his employer, the employer shall for the purposes of the foregoing provision, be deemed to have deducted that amount from wages.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in Sub-section (4) after the word "enactments," to insert in the Bill the words "and payments into funds which it is proposed to distribute which have been established by authority of an Act of Parliament or which maybe certified by the Board of Trade or by the National Insurance Commissioners to be for the benefit of the employés."
There is no definition whatever of deductions in the old Act. When an Order has been made establishing a minimum wage in any particular trade, this Bill enacts that no deductions whatever are to be made by the employers from that minimum wage whatever it may be. Then, in the present Bill, we have the proviso that 1524
the expression deduction includes deductions for or in respect of any matter whatsoever (other than deductions) under the National Insurance Act, 1911, as amended by any subsequent enactment.That means that the only possible deduction which the employer may make from the minimum wage are the payments which he makes on behalf of the employés to the National Insurance Commissioners. The object of this Amendment is that the employer may alternatively deduct payments which he makes on behalf of the employés into a superannuation fund, or a pension fund, or an insurance fund, which is either established by Act of Parliament or approved by the Board of Trade, or approved by the National Insurance Commissioners. This Amendment is the result of a Conference, which took place some weeks ago, of representatives of superannuation funds from all over the country, and I should have moved it in Committee but that I was ill. It appears that there is a very large number of funds which, if the Bill is passed in its present form and extended to their trades, will be completely smashed up. For instance, there is the fund at the very well known Bournville Cocoa Works. Everybody knows that Messrs. Cadbury's have got a wonderful scheme of pensions for their workers. The House will agree that these pensions schemes, provided that they are good schemes, are of very great benefit to the employés in the trades in which they are established. A large number of employés at the Bournville works are already under Trade Board minimum rate of wages, and up to the present the deduction has been apparently allowed to be made because there was no definition in the old Act, and this definition in the new Act will prevent that very excellent scheme of pensions continuing.
§ Mr. ANDERSONDoes the scheme to which the hon. Member is referring involve a compulsory or a voluntary deduction from wages?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIt involves a compulsory deduction. That is the whole question. It is exceedingly difficult to say whether it is voluntary or compulsory, but no one can be a member of one of these schemes unless deductions take place, and they cannot take place if the Bill is passed in its present form.
§ Mr. ANDERSONA voluntary deduction can take place.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am bound to say that I think not. There are many compulsory schemes which have been passed by the House and approved of by employés or by the National Insurance Commissioners, which will be destroyed if there is no Amendment. Under the Bournville scheme the men pay from 2½ to 5 per cent. on their wages. They retire on a pension generally at the age of sixty. If a man loses his work he gets all his pay back with compound interest, and the firm's contributions are not given back to the firm but added to the fund. At present there are 3,008 members, and the fund amounts to £308,000, while the annual contribution amounts to £30,031. Most Members of the House have heard of this fund, and realise the inestimable value of the whole of Messrs. Cadbury's organisations, and that it is highly approved of by the men is evident by the fact that 3,008 of them contribute to it. I will not weary the House with the details, but I may mention that no fewer than 2,896 women contribute to the women's fund. The Cunard Steamship Company have a similar fund, to which 1,036 members contribute. They are of all ranks. I do not suppose for a moment that the Cunard captain will ever come within the provisions of this Bill, but if you go down as low in the scale of work as the second stewards it is possible that they may be brought under the provisions of this Bill. I am not saying a word against this Bill. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, but I am an equally strong supporter of pension schemes. Under the provisions of the Cunard scheme the men contribute, the masters contribute, and there are excellent provisions for pensions which are approved by practically the whole of the staff. The English Sewing Cotton Company is another firm which has one of these funds. Messrs. Rowntree, of York, are another, and there are many of these large firms which have these schemes. Let me refer to one or two schemes which are compulsory. There are in London no less than ten municipal boroughs which have large schemes of this kind that have been approved by the National Insurance Commissioners and substituted for the provisions of the National Insurance Act. Under the provisions of that Act anybody who has a scheme of this kind may go to the Commissioners who, if they approve its provisions, can substitute it for the provisions of the Act. Among the 1526 borough councils of London, Kensington Council, for instance, go further than a mere scheme under the National Insurance Act, for they have a statutory scheme passed by Parliament in their Borough Council Act of 1907. It is very difficult to see how Kensington Borough Council will be able to reconcile the provisions of their Act enabling them to make deductions from the workmen's pay in respect of their scheme, if this Bill is passed in its present form. It is a compulsory scheme and every employé of the borough council engaged in ordinary sanitary work, or other duties, is subject to a deduction from his wages. The fund is for various purposes of relief—maintenance during sickness, the maintaining of children after the decease of the parent, funeral expenses, and other benefits. It was after the Insurance Act was passed in 1911 that the borough council of Kensington applied to the National Insurance Commissioners, who granted the power to make deductions under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, under which, if they find that the terms of employment can secure provision in respect of sickness and disability on the whole not less favourable than the benefit given under the Insurance Act, they are empowered to grant the right to make deductions. But I submit to my right hon. Friend that it will be impossible to pass the Bill in its present form without due regard to these other Acts of Parliament.
Another instance is that of the Metropolitan Water Board, which employs a large number of men. They have a superannuation provident fund, which came into operation in July, 1909, and it is administered in pursuance of an Act of Parliament passed in 1907, namely, the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Act. The contributed funds under that scheme now amount to £193,000, and in the event of any deficiency it would not have to be made up by the members, but by the Metropolitan Water Board itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) suggests that voluntary contributions can be deducted now, but I would point out that under this particular scheme, which is compulsory, the employer is bound by Act of Parliament to make deductions, unless the particular Act is abrogated. The Metropolitan Water Board scheme was put before the National Insurance Commissioners, who held that it was better than the scheme under the National 1527 Insurance Act, and they gave a certificate for the purpose of establishing the scheme. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that this matter must be met by the Government in some way. It was not my fortune to be able to attend the Committee upstairs, but I understand that the Member for York moved an Amendment of this character, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he would give it his consideration between then and the Report stage. I am rather afraid that his objection may be not that these schemes are bad, for he cannot say they are bad, seeing that they have been approved by the National Insurance Commissioners, but that they might open the door to unscrupulous employers, who would make bad schemes, and enforce deductions from the workpeople's wages. In order to meet that objection, however, I have inserted in the Amendment the safeguard that it shall only apply to schemes which come under the Insurance Act, or which are statutory, or which are approved by the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think one could possibly make a better suggestion. The Board of Trade themselves object to taking the responsibility, because they think they would be in some shape or form guaranteeing the solvency of a scheme, but the schemes to which I have been referring are solvent, they have been approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and in many cases they had been pronounced better schemes than those under the Insurance Act itself.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSYes; they certified that they give no less benefits than are given under the Insurance Act. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be in a position to give this question a little more careful consideration than he was able to give it upstairs. I submit that there must be an Amendment of the Bill to save the statutory and other funds to which I have referred. The Bournville scheme, as I have stated, has a capital of over £300,000, and to say that such a scheme as that, or such a scheme as that of the Metropolitan Water Board and other schemes of the like character, including the schemes of the ten metropolitan borough councils, are to be torn asunder and broken up because 1528 of the provisions of this measure, would be an absurdity. This Amendment is not against the provisions of the Bill, which has no stronger supporter than myself. I move it because I think it will improve the Bill. There will be a great extension of trade boards after the War, and these schemes are bound to be extended, and I, therefore, submit to the right hon. Gentleman that some such safeguards or provisions as that which I now move should be introduced into the Bill.
§ Mr. DENMANI beg to second the Amendment.
I have one of a similar character upon the Paper, though its machinery is quite different. In Committee, where this subject was discussed, we had cases brought before our attention such as those referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and under these voluntary schemes in which employer and employed take part deductions from the wages of the workers are permitted, and everybody is quite happy with them. There are trades to which the Act has already been applied, and in which deductions are now being made. In my own Amendment I suggest that the body to determine whether such a deduction should or should not be allowed should be the trade board itself. After all, it is a body representing employers and employed, and it is a matter which might safely be left to these people to look after their own interests. If the Minister in charge does not wish to accept this Amendment, and perhaps would prefer mine, then I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour should express such a preference, will withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI should be quite ready to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman if my Amendment does not meet the views of the Minister of Labour. All I desire is to get an Amendment embodying my proposal accepted in some reasonable form.
Mr. ROBERTSThis matter has been discussed at considerable length in Committee, and the representations which were made to me in regard to it certainly made some impression upon my mind. Of course, I am anxious to meet the views of hon. Members, but I am afraid that, in this instance, I am unable to do so, and that I must stand by the Bill as it is, because, if exceptions are made then, so 1529 far as I can see, there is no possible limit to them. I am very doubtful that we are at all justified in allowing deductions to be made from the minimum rate of pay. After all, when a trade is brought before the Board it must be a very ill-paid and ill-organised industry, and that being the case the scheme would fix a rate of pay which would not more than approximate to a bare living wage. That being the case, we ought not lightly to make deductions from such a minimum rate of pay. My hon. and learned Friend spoke of the large sums voluntarily subscribed to the schemes which he named, but it is very often the case that a workman very strongly objects to subscribing to a fund of the kind, though he feels compelled to do so in order to maintain his position. For my own part, I feel there are very many dangers attendant upon making exceptions, for, as I have remarked, once exceptions are made I can see no limit to them, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment. Still, I cannot conceive that such funds as those already in existence, funds like that of the Bournville Works, will he smashed up unless I accept this Amendment. First of all, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the worker and employer joining in those schemes. But in the cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred the wages are higher than the minimum rate, and it is to foe expected that the workers at Bournville are in receipt of a rate of wages in excess of the minimum rate, and therefore they would be able to empower a firm to make deductions from their wages. Other hon. Members have had experience of the workshop deductions, and I myself have experience of the strong objection entertained by workers to deductions being made from their wages. They much prefer that they should receive their wage and make out any payments themselves. I can assure my hon. Friend opposite that I have had inside workshop experience, and that that was always the stand I made, and indeed it is the general practice throughout the trade with which I am associated. We always insist upon receiving the wage in full, and appoint our own officials to receive payments in respect of any funds to which we desire to subscribe. My hon. and learned Friend rather alarmed me when he pointed out that certain local authorities have statutory powers to compel workpeople in their service to subject themselves to deductions. I was not quite aware of 1530 that, and it is a point that I shall have to investigate; but in respect of other schemes, those which are alternative to the Insurance Act, and which of course are approved by the Insurance Commissioners, they are not affected by the Bill. That, I think, my hon. and learned Friend realizes!
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIs that clear?
Mr. ROBERTSWell, they simply apply to such classes of workers as, in my opinion, are never likely to be brought within the scope of the trade boards. They are invariably the better paid classes of workers—those in the employ of public Departments or railway and other statutory companies. I could not say with absolute certainty that there is no person now employed by such bodies who ought not to be brought under the trade boards, but so far as I can gather from information in my possession in regard to alternative schemes which have been established, they are not likely to be brought under the scheme of the trade boards. But in respect of the first point which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned, I shall, of course, have to investigate that, and if the case be as he submitted, I shall have to meet it in another place.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI will send my right hon. Friend a reference to the various Acts.
Mr. ROBERTSI confess I was not aware of the case, and I wish my hon. and learned Friend had been well enough to attend the Committee, because in the meanwhile we would have investigated the matter, but I lay down the broad principle that no deduction ought to be suffered from a worker in respect of a minimum rate of pay. Our experience of the trade boards is that they are very cautious and conservative bodies of people, and the minimum rates that they fix are not as a rule high, and they simply correspond to a bare subsistence standard; and even while it may be that a scheme might ultimately be beneficial to the workers, I feel that we ought not to subject them to compulsory deductions unless we are able to assure to them that they will not only have a living wage, but also a margin over and above with which to make provision for the various vicissitudes of life. Where they have such a margin, then they may agree with their employer to make a deduction in respect of funds of this character.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSUnder the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill the employer may deduct the Insurance Act contribution, and these schemes which I have mentioned are only substitutions for the Insurance Act scheme.
Mr. ROBERTSI do not think they are substitutions, because, after all, the employer would have to make the deduction in respect of the State insurance scheme, but these are additional deductions, as I understand.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNo. Many of these schemes have been approved by the Insurance Commissioners as substitutions for the scheme under the Insurance Act.
Mr. ROBERTSI do not think my hon. Friend is quite accurate there. I am not aware that a private firm can establish a substituted scheme of the character indicated by him. I am advised that these schemes are confined to those made by a public authority, such as a railway company or other statutory company. However, I recognise that part of my hon. Friend's case must be further investigated, and I promise it consideration. But in respect to the general principle, I prefer to retain the provision that a worker shall receive at least a minimum rate in full, without deduction.
Mr. RUNCIMANI think, if I may say so, that my right hon. Friend has arrived at the right conclusion. He will, of course, I presume, after what he has said, keep an open mind on some of the points that were put to him by my hon. and learned Friend, but I feel with him that it would be a very dangerous door to open, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the number of people who would be likely to benefit from the trade boards who are equally affected by these funds is very small. I doubt very much whether it would be in the intention of the Ministry of Labour to extend the operation of this Act to any of the categories, with one or two trivial exceptions, perhaps, in the mind of my hon. Friend. It would, therefore, be a dangerous thing to open the door to the extension of a system in regard to minimum wages, which, even in regard to other wages, has in many quarters led to much opposition, and I think my right hon. Friend himself expressed a certain amount of natural prejudice against deductions from wages before he actually received his remuneration. That being the case, I think he has done right to refuse to accept the 1532 Amendment, and I presume that if there is a sound case in respect of any trades likely to come within the working of the Act he will be prepared to consider it before the matter is disposed of in another place. For the time being, I support the right hon. Gentleman heartily in not opening this door.
§ Mr. J. W. WILSONI also have received representations from the workers at the Bournville Works in regard to this matter, and I do not regret that the subject has been brought before the House if only that it has produced a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is obvious that the minimum wage applies to many workers if they are doing the same kind of article. For instance, at Bournville the cardboard-box makers would be in a scheduled trade, but, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, they would probably be getting a higher wage than the minimum wage, and if it is plain that, although they are a scheduled trade, yet because they are getting a higher wage than the minimum rate it will not interfere with a bonâ fide society which may have been going on for twenty or twenty-five years, it is a great point gained. I think the distinction has to be clearly made that this trades board schedule does apply to work where the minimum does not operate, and it might have given rise, as it has in this case, to the misunderstanding that the society would be seriously prejudiced. But it is evident that so long as the deduction made by the society does not bring the wage of the earner below the minimum wage scheduled, there will be no undue interference with the society. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made, and I hope the interpretation I have put upon it is perfectly plain and will be understood in the country.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSHaving regard to the promise which has been made by my right hon. Friend to consider the matter before the Bill reaches another place, I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.