HC Deb 10 November 1919 vol 121 cc151-66

  1. (1) Any trade dispute as defined by this Act, whether existing or apprehended, may be reported to the Minister by or on behalf of either of the parties to the dispute, and the Minister shall thereupon take the matter into his consideration and take such steps as seem to him expedient for promoting a settlement thereof.
  2. (2) Where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended, the Minister may, if he thinks fit and if both parties consent, refer the matter for settlement to the Industrial Court.
  3. (3) The Minister may refer to the Industrial Court for advice any matter relating to or arising out of a trade dispute, or trade disputes of any class, or any other matter which in his opinion ought to be so referred.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "may" ["the Minister may, if he thinks fit"], insert the words "subject as hereinafter provided."

After the word "consent" ["parties consent, refer the matter"] insert the words "either (a)."—[Sir B. Horne.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle)

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words or (b) refer the matter for settlement to the arbitration of one or more persons appointed by him, or (c) refer the matter for settlement to a board of arbitration consisting of one or more persons nominated by or on behalf of the employers concerned, an equal number of persons nominated by or on behalf of the workman concerned, and an independent chairman nominated by the Minister. That is, in effect, to give a free choice between the methods they shall adopt, either conciliation or arbitration. A proviso which is to be moved later keeps the machinery distinct.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the words last added, insert the words Provided that if there are existing in any trade or industry any arrangements for settlement by conciliation or arbitration of disputes in such trade or industry or any branch thereof, made in pursuance of agreement between organisations of employers and organisations of workmen representative, respectively, of substantial proportions of the employers and workmen engaged in that trade or industry, the Minister shall not, unless with the consent of both parties to the dispute, and unless and until there has been failure to obtain a settlement by means of those arrangements, refer the matter for settlement or advice in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section."— [Mr. Griffiths.]

Captain COOTE

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a trade dispute relates solely to agricultural employment or non-employment in England or Wales, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who may thereupon exercise in relation to the trade dispute the power of the Minister under the preceding Sub-section of this Clause. I hope the Committee will not think that the moving of this Amendment is mere pertinacity on my part.

Mr. HOGGE

On a point of Order. May I ask how this Amendment comes before one in my name, which would include the reference in this Amendment? Mine is a general reference in the case of any Government Department. The Amendment just moved by the hon. and gallant Member is a reference to one Department only.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)

The Chair decides the order of the Amendments.

Mr. HOGGE

But that does not explain why my Amendment was not taken first.

Captain COOTE

In reply to a query which I raised earlier I received a noncommittal movement of the head from the right hon. Gentleman, and I could not decide whether it was a horizontal or a perpendicular movement. I move this Amendment because of the peculiar position of agriculture in relation to this Bill. The Board of Agriculture is admittedly the Department which should have charge of conciliations and all arrangements in connection with agricultural disputes. That is admitted. As a matter of fact the Board is already setting up throughout the country Conciliation Committees to deal with agricultural disputes, and I suggest that some such procedure as I have outlined should be employed. The answer to that, obviously, would be that if this Amendment is accepted the right hon. Gentleman will be put in a difficulty by reason of the complaints which will be made to him by his colleagues in other Departments, who will demand similar concessions for those Departments. Take the Post Office or the Ministry of Transport. They are public services; they are directly concerned in the industry which they actually govern. But the Board of Agriculture is in a different position. It is not, in my opinion, and it ought not to be considered, representative merely of farmers. It ought to be representative of all sides in the industry, both farmers and labourers. That is the position which I think it ought to take. It ought to be given the chance under this Bill to play the part which it claims to be able to play. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that this point will be considered, and if I do not press it now I should hope for favourable consideration before the Report stage is reached.

Sir R. HORNE

The Amendment in its present form is altogether too wide, and I could not accept it. It not only proposes that the preliminary inquiry which is part of the scheme should be conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture in the case of agricultural topics, but that thereafter he should exercise all the functions of the Ministry in relation to the Industrial Court and any scheme of arbitration which may be adopted. That is going directly contrary to the provisions of the earlier part of this Bill. There is, however, a great anomaly in the present position of agriculture in this country compared with other industrial pursuits. For example, the question of wages is taken entirely out of the hands of the ordinary machinery of this country for dealing with wages, and put into the care of Agricultural Wages Boards. To that extent the functions of the Ministry of Labour are infringed upon by the arrangement which exists. I think that that circumstance may give rise to the necessity of making some working arrangement with the Board of Agriculture, and I should be glad to consider what can be done before we come to the Report stage.

Mr. CLYNES

I should like to refer to what has been said on this point. We have been told of the: very great difficulty in which the Minister for Labour would be put if the duty were pressed upon him of saying that a dispute relating solely to agriculture or matters connected with it was a dispute that should be referred to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Any legislation of this kind should be in the direction of simplification and to reduce the complicated machinery which may now exist and as it is expressed in different Departments. We have had any number of instances in the past few years where men have been referred from one Department to another and from one section of a Department to another section of the same Department, so that they have become not only bewildered but angry at the inability to understand with whom they had to deal. In all business there is a very great advantage in knowing, to begin with, the parties with whom you have to deal. I suggest, even if this matter could be considered on Report, that the Board of Agriculture has not at present the machinery in existence wherewith to deal with questions of this kind. That Department would have to be set up, and the hands of the Ministry are full enough with many other matters of national interest without having to take on more troubles in respect of the labour and industrial, side. May I suggest what in my opinion is the strongest reason for not pressing this proposal? Within the last few years agricultural workers have become organised to a very great extent, as well as other industrial workers, and they would resent very strongly being separated and separately treated under conditions different from those of the general body of industrial workers. So I think it is highly undesirable that any view of this kind should be proposed, and I hope there will be no endeavour, even on a later stage of this Bill, to take any step which would cause serious difference between, one Department and another, and which, incidentally, would separate one great body of workers from the others.

Captain COOTE

I have not the slightest intention of desiring to see agriculture treated in a different manner from that of any other industry. My object was to secure that the factors of any dispute should be crystallised as far as possible, because the Board of Agriculture has hitherto always dealt with the industry as a whole, and the Ministry of Labour has not. Therefore I thought that it would be more satisfactory to the workers themselves that that Act should continue to be treated by the Board of Agriculture, with whom they were in more or less friendly relations. In view of the assurance that has been given by the Ministry of Labour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOGGE

I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the words (3) Where a trade dispute exists or is apprehended in any industry in which any Govern- ment Department is directly or indirectly the employer, the Minister shall refer the matter for settlement to the Industrial Court. The reason I move is, that in my view the matter of the relationship of workmen employed by the State is in an entirely different category from that of workmen who are working for individual employers. I am not suggesting generally that in the case of a dispute there should be compulsory arbitration between an employer and his voluntary workmen, but I am suggesting that the Government ought to take up a different attitude to its own employés. I am asking that in fill cases of disputes where the Government are the employers, that those disputes should be referred to the Industrial Courts. There is a very great distinction in the two types of employés. Men who are employed by the Government have certain privileges with regard to the nature of their employment, and the conditions are different from the case of employés who sell their labour in the open markets. As many of these Government employés are working in national services which have a great deal to do with the interests of the community, it is obvious that the Government must face this question, which in my view is the most important question we have to discuss on the Bill—namely, the relationship of the Government to their own employé. Not only have the employés special conditions, but large political influence is exercised by everybody of Government employés. Those of us who have gone through the mill of elections in this country know that that is very true, and that over and over again our own employés in the Post Office, to take only one example, bring the political pressure of their votes to bear upon all candidates in order that their industrial conditions should be improved, and I look forward to the future with a considerable amount of trepidation if there are going to be large bodies of Government employés who are going to be put into this position. The recent railway strike was an excellent example of what I mean. I have every sympathy in the world with the raising of the industrial conditions of the class that we call the working class; I have every sympathy with their wages being raised to meet the economic needs of the situation; but while that is so as an ordinary member of the general public who employ those men and who use the services sup- plied by those men, I want us to face the situation of being held up in the power of those particular employés.

One Minister of the Crown, I think it was the Minister of Food, remarked with regard to the railway strike, that one of the reasons why it was not settled quickly was that all the cards were not placed upon the table. I am not intimately enough acquainted with both sides of the dispute to know whether that is right or not, but what I am attempting now to do is to perform the function of the ordinary member of the general public who is outside those unions and who has to put up with the inconveniences either on the part of the Government who lock out their men, or on the part of the men who strike. I want, therefore, by this Amendment to understand the Government attitude towards their own employés in reference to the general public, and I am suggesting that in every case in which the Government is an employer of labour the dispute when it exists or when it is apprehended shall be referred for settlement to the Industrial Court. The result will be, of course, that there will be a public hearing of the case, and the public will understand the exact situation. In the recent railway strike we had all kinds of statements thrown about by members of the Railway-men's Union and by the Prime Minister. For instance, it will be in the recollection of this House that the Prime Minister said that the railway dispute was due to an anarchist conspiracy. I have his precise words here, which are worth recalling in this connection. What the Prime Minister said at the time of the railway dispute was that The Government have reason to believe that it had been engineered for some time by a small but active body of men who wrought tirelessly and insidiously to exploit the labour organisations of this country for subversive ends. I am convinced that the vast majority of the trade unionists of the land are opposed to this anarchist conspiracy. In other words, the Prime Minister, with that looseness of phrase and general attitude towards meticulous statement, suggested that this particular strike was the work of Anarchist conspirators. I believe that he left out of that category Members like my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), with whom he is in consultation now on railway matters, because I cannot imagine that the negotiations which are going on in the railway world with the Govern- ment are being conducted between the Prime Minister and Anarchists. But, after all, we belong to the great mass of the general public, and the general public has as much right to be protected against the Railwaymen's Union as against the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister, in the course of a great dispute of that kind, goes out of his way to throw charges of that kind against a body of men with whom he is now collaborating in order to come to some sort of arrangement, the general public ought to know whether these things are true or not. I do not believe they are true. I believe that the Prime Minister knows they are not true. I believe he made a gross misstatement of the fact when he stated to the country that there was any such conspiracy. We have one of the Law Officers of the Crown present, and perhaps he will tell us what the Government are going to do with regard to men of that kind who took part in this Anarchist conspiracy. If we have a public hearing by the Industrial Court, these facts will be made quite plain to the country, and we shall have an end of this secret diplomacy in industrial matters as well as in other matters. My Friends the Labour members of the Opposition are, like myself, opposed to all secret diplomacy in foreign affairs, and I hope they will agree with me that in large industrial issues those of us who are not members of the trade unions, but who are members of the general public, have every right to have access to everything that is being discussed. The more publicity you can get on industrial questions, the greater industrial peace you will get, just as you will get your peace of the world if you will get rid of secret diplomacy.

It is a pity we are discussing this Amendment in a thin House, because it is a very important Amendment. There are, for instance, large schemes of nationalisation in the air. It has been suggested in the Debate in this House that the coal industry is to be the next subject for nationalisation, and I may say at once that if ever that issue arose in this House I should at once vote in favour of the nationalisation of the coal industry. I say that now to explain the remarks I may be going to make.

Mr. SHAW

Does the hon. Member's leader think the same?

Mr. HOGGE

Let me say at once that I have not got any leader. I sit on this bench, under the chairmanship of a Sessional chairman, like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who is the Sessional chairman of the Labour party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) is the Sessional chairman of the party to which I belong. He is my chairman in the House; I work and act with him, but I have no leader. Unlike my hon. Friend opposite, I do not mean to have. He requires two leaders and a coupon in addition.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)

The hon. Member had perhaps better give a little more time to the Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE

I might not have been betrayed into making that speech if you had called my right hon. Friend to order for his interruption. Supposing coal were nationalised to-morrow, the State would be employing the coal miners, and if the railways were nationalised to-morrow, the State would be employing the railwaymen. Supposing these men, like the Post Office servants, have a dispute. Are they to be entitled with their peculiar rights towards the State to the same rights as all other men who are employed outside? I cannot see how they are to be if the State is to be protected against itself. I shall be glad to know what the view of the Government is with regard to that situation. My Amendment is quite clear in that case. I say in every such case the dispute ought to be referred to an Industrial Court.

Mr. THOMAS

I am not quite sure whether the Amendment was put down seriously for acceptance, or whether it was put down with a view of giving my hon. Friend an opportunity of discussing the railway strike. I am inclined to believe it was the latter, because I cannot quite conceive such a distinguished representative of the Wee Free party being the champion of denying to any section of the working classes their political rights. Let us clearly understand that the effect of this Amendment, if accepted, which I am quite sure it will not be, by the House, would be not only utterly to destroy the principle upon which this Bill is based, but to introduce into this country for the first time the principle of compulsory arbitration. If that is to be one of the new planks of my hon. Friend's party programme, I wish him luck in his propaganda, but at all events he may know right away that, so far as the Labour party is concerned it will receive no blessing or help either from those inside the House or those outside the House. My hon. Friend referred to some statement made by the Minister of Food. I have, a distinct recollection of many statements made by the Minister of Food, and I can only conclude that the one to which he referred was as foreign to the facts as some of the others I happened to read myself. But the real point we are discussing at this moment is whether any employé who for the moment is the servant directly or indirectly of the State shall be denied the ordinary and only protection that the working classes possess in this country, namely, the right to sell their labour to the highest bidder. That, shortly, is the issue, because if it is wrong for the Government servant to have the power to withhold his labour, it is equally wrong for the municipal employé to exercise his citizen rights. There is no difference between the municipal employé in his relationship to the municipality and the Government employé in his relationship to the State, and I do submit that, so far as the Government employés are concerned, they are not now treated better in Government Departments than are workers by private employers. As a matter of fact, there are a large number of State employés to-day who find themselves working under conditions that are not so favourable as those of private employés.

The second point one has to consider is the statement with regard to political influences. I submit that there is one answer to all this, and it is that the working classes are as honest as any other section of the community. There is no monopoly of vice or of virtue in any section of the people, and we are entitled to claim that the British working man is as good a citizen, is as honest a citizen, as any other class of the community. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) says, "Hear, hear!" but his Amendment clearly implies that they are not, and his statement clearly implied that they were not, because he asked what is to become of the ordinary Member of Parliament if he is to be subjected to the pressure of the miners, the railwaymen, the Post Office employés, and so on? What does that mean? It means that my hon. Friend believes that if the majority of the people in Edinburgh were State employés they would make it very uncomfortable for him as a Member of this House.

Mr. HOGGE

They do now.

Mr. THOMAS

My hon. Friend says they do now, and, therefore, being an honest politician, he wants to deprive them of the opportunity in a backdoor way, and I hope his Constituents will clearly note how much ho resents their anxiety that he should do his duty in this House. Because, after all, that is exactly what political pressure means; and I submit it is far better for the Government employé to say to his Member of Parliament, "As a public representative you have, in a constitutional way, a method whereby you can redress my grievance," and I submit it is-far better for him to use that method than it is for him even to strike. Yet not only did my hon. Friend want to deny them the right to strike, but, in addition, the right to bring any political influence to bear upon their Member. This is a new doctrine of Liberalism which is passing from stage to stage, and I can only conclude it is not only the latest development, but it is the last word from one of its chief exponents. At all events, I am glad to have had this opportunity of knowing where my hon. Friend stands, and I hope he will press the Amendment to a Division, so that he will be able to know, not only how many members of his own party support him, but how many adherents he has in the House.

Sir E. POLLOCK

In spite of much temptation, I shall attempt to confine myself in the remarks I have to make to-the Amendment. Sometimes one is called upon to make an after-dinner speech for which it is difficult to find a subject, but the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has invited me to make a speech before dinner, and has given me every possible subject to which I could address myself—the Prime Minister, the Food Controller, his own Parliamentary position, the nationalisation of mines, Parliamentary procedure, Parliamentary leadership, the railway strike, and so on. All these offer congenial topics after dinner, but not before, and therefore I shall attempt to confine myself to saying a word or two about the Amendment itself. As has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), this Amendment introduces a form of compulsion, and in particular cases, where particular persons are concerned, it insists upon an arbitration under the Act. As my right hon. Friend was most careful to point out, the basis of the Bill now before us is that it should not be other than voluntary. We hope it will not be less effective. We hope to procure by good will what we would probably fail to secure by anything less. It is intended to be voluntary. It would be unfortunate if, by putting in a Clause such us this, it should savour of any other method. It is suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) that it may be legitimately made compulsory. He distinguishes between the employés in a Government Department and others who are not so engaged. I do not think it would be at all just or fair to insist on that in connection with the employés in Government Departments, or to suggest that there is ground why they should lose some of their rights. I do not know why they should be treated differently from other employés. For my own part, I think it would be very wrong to differentiate Government employés from others in this matter. Widely as my hon. Friend opposite drew his illustrations, and large as was the area from which he drew support for this Amendment, he gave me no ground, or any just cause, for treating employés in Government Departments otherwise than others.

He suggested also the question of political influence, arguments against which were expressed so well by the right hon. Member for Derby. It would be very wrong indeed to impute to the employés in a Government Department the exercise of this, or to say that they unfairly took advantage of their position. I think that quite unfair and a slur upon them which they do not deserve. It is only for the purpose of making it quite plain the view I hold is the same as the one expressed by the right hon. Member for Derby that I say what I have said. Having pointed out that the Amendment is really a compulsory Clause, and that there is no ground for separating these particular employés from others, I hope the Committee will be good enough, if the Amendment is not withdrawn, to support the Government.

9.0 p.m.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

I think, with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby—who, I am sorry, has left the House—that he has misunderstood the reason for putting forward this Amendment, and the purpose of it. Unless I am mistaken—I did not quite hear the whole of my hon. Friend's speech—ho is not in any way differentiat- ing in this Amendment from the Government employé and the private employé but he does differentiate between the private employer and the Government as an employer. That is the intention, and I think it is very reasonable. If I am in order, might I refer to Clause 10, which deals very much with this sort of question? It says: This Act shall not apply to persons in the naval, military, or air services of the Crown, but otherwise shall apply to workmen employed by or under the Crown in the same manner as if they were employed by or under a private person. 9.0 P.M

The Solicitor-General points out that the Amendment is suggested compulsion on a Government Department. That is so; and really I think it is reasonable. Surely, the Government are only too willing to set an example under this Act! They will surely be prepared always to submit to this voluntary arbitration! It is open to the Government employé, the Government servant, not to accept the findings of the Court. The Amendment gives a Government employé the right to have his case tried by what we hope will he an impartial tribunal, whereas at present I do not think the Government always is an impartial tribunal. It is the fact that private employés and workmen are bettor treated than many Government servants. For example, take the Whitley scheme. Government Departments have been extraordinarily slow to adopt the Whitley Councils; in fact, they are still "sticky"—if I may use that word—about the Whitley Councils. They did not lead the way in establishing Whitley Councils in the past, and the Government have been very slow indeed to recognise the right of combination on the part of their employés. We know the difficulties in connection with the police in this matter. I am not for a moment making an attack on the settlement; but the Government have not been from the start keen to recognise any independent union amongst the police. I think Government employés really do need a safeguard; and unless this Amendment is accepted it, will be open to the Government Departments to refuse arbitration to their employés. It is also open to employers of labour in private life to do the same. Nevertheless, I think public opinion will probably have a greater effect upon them than on a powerful Government Department. Therefore, I am very much inclined to support this Amendment. I do not think it inter- feres in any way with the Government employé, who has every liberty to dispose of his labour just as if he were a private employé, but it gives him a safeguard whenever he is involved in a trade dispute with the Government that he is not going to be told that "this is a threat of a strike against the people," and "he is taking the life-blood of tae community." At any rate, he is safeguarded by having an open, a public, and, as we all hope, an impartial inquiry. The Amendment is most valuable. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, as I think quite honestly, misunderstood the meaning of it.

Mr. HENDERSON

I want to appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh to withdraw the Amendment. I do so from an entirely different standpoint to that so far urged. Some members of the Committee will recollect that this question of dealing with Government employés has had special treatment in the constitution of a Court which deals with their cases. This Court was set up by the War Cabinet when I was a member of it. I had a good deal to do with setting up that Court. It deals with a large number of cases, and I think, on the whole, it has given satisfaction. I should be very disappointed at this stage if, either by putting a Clause in the Bill or the Amendment of my hon. Friend, we should in any way interfere with the work of that Court. Apart from that, I desire to have it made clear by the Solicitor-General as to whether this Bill in any way is going to interfere with that special Court. A friend of mine, Mr. Gosling, has been a member of it from the first. He has been very devoted to the work. I do not know who is chairman now, but the then Member for Derby (Dr. Collins) used to be chairman, and I think the third member was the general manager of the North-Eastern Railway, Sir A. Kaye Butter-worth. I hope we shall have an assurance, even although my hon. Friend does not press his Amendment, that the Court to which I am referring, which deals with the case of the Civil servant, is not in any way going to be interfered with; for I know the difficulty we had in getting that Court established.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Perhaps I may be allowed to give the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has asked for, that the Court he has mentioned is in no way interfered with.

Mr. HOGGE

Before I withdraw this Amendment may I say that obviously we cannot have a Division. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?!"] The reason is that if you have a Division on an Amendment when a majority of those voting have not heard the Debate, it is useless, although I would willingly go through the Division Lobby with the hon. Members who have heard the Debate. I think this subject is much more important than the time given to it would suggest or even the arguments used against it. I repeat that you would have never had the recent railway strike if there had been some kind of machinery to which the dispute could have been referred. You had that strike because of the absence of that machinery, with the result that the entire community were inconvenienced. I am looking forward to the time when large bodies of labour in this country will be employed nationally, and I am asking where the rest of us are going to be placed if we are not protected. I am in the same position as my right hon. and learned Friend opposite of still speaking before dinner, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HENDERSON

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to Sub-section (3), which reads: The Minister may refer to the Industrial Court for advice any matter relating to or arising out of a trade dispute. These words are very similar to the words found in the Report of the Joint Committee of the Industrial Conference, but in that Report it was suggested both by employers and trade unionists that the advice had to come from the National Industrial Council. Are we to assume that the Minister has given up hope that we shall bring such a Council into being, and if not, is he going to have advice from the National Industrial Council when it is created, and advice also from this Court when it is set up? The advice that he gets from such a Court cannot carry with it the same influence and weight as would come from the National Industrial Council. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks this Sub-section is of such value that he must retain it in the Bill, but I hope he will withdraw it and leave the position as it stands in the Report to which I have referred, in the hope that when we get over one difficulty to which I need not refer now, and which the right hon. Gentleman knows about, we may get the National Industrial Council brought into being, and that it will serve the purpose of giving the Government advice as laid down in the Report, which found acceptance with the great body of employers who attended the Industrial Conference over which the right hon. Gentleman presided.

Sir R. HORNE

I ought to say at once that I am looking with great hopes to the setting up of the National Industrial Council and the prospect of getting advice from it upon all the matters with which they are so competent to deal. There may be different topics which are more easily dealt with by the Industrial Court. I do not anticipate there will be many such topics, but I think it is better that one should keep the door open for obtaining the advice of this Court where it may be required. I am certain that with regard to labour matters in general the advice the Minister will require would more often be obtained from the National Industrial Council than from the Industrial Court, but I do not think I ought to close the opportunity of getting information from the Industrial Court if such an occasion arises.

Mr. CLYNES

There is a close relationship between this Clause and Part II. of the Bill dealing with the question of the Courts of Inquiry. As I understand Part II., it proposes to institute a system of inquiry. I conclude that the object of an inquiry must be that of securing a settlement of disputes without a stoppage of work, and that that settlement will be provided in the main through the decisions of the Court of Arbitration. Clause 2, which we are now considering, refers to these Courts of Arbitration and the powers the Minister may exercise in relation to them. What I wish to ask is what does the Minister understand by the relation of Clause 2 and Part II. of the; Bill in this respect? How far will this part of the Bill dealing with inquiry be used in order to make inquiry the medium for conveying cases to the Court of Arbitration? Take, for example, Part II. of the Bill, which seems to lead us nowhere except to the publicity reports which are to become public property, and surely it is not intended to stop that? I think there must be some businesslike relationship between what I call inquiry and the conduct of Courts of Arbi- tration, and if my right hon. Friend will explain that relationship we may be able to allow this Clause to pass.

Mr. HODGE

I think we ought to delete this Sub-section-, and rely more upon the work and advice of the Industrial Council.

Sir R. HORNE

Hon. Members need have no apprehension with regard to the obtaining or advice from the Industrial Court, that it will clash with their proper function in deciding cases that come before them. The relationship with the Court of Inquiry that my right, hon. Friend has asked about is really tins: You could never get the parties before you in the Industrial Court unless they both consented to come. Therefore, it may prove where both parties are recalcitrant that you cannot get the Court to work at all. There are other cases where it is absolutely essential that the light of day should be thrown upon the dispute in order that public opinion may be formed on the matter at issue, and that public opinion may bring the parties to their senses and compel in some instances an harmonious settlement. A Court of Inquiry can be moved by the Minister alone. If he thinks that it is a case for inquiry, he can institute an inquiry without requiring the consent of both parties. The Court of Inquiry having obtained the necessary information, may make a recommendation, but, obviously, it can give no decision. It publishes the information upon which the public may judge. I imagine that a quite common form of recommendation that you would got would be that it was eminently a matter which was suitable for the Industrial Court to deal with, and that the parties should appear before that Court to have the matter brought to a final settlement. These are two totally different functions, but both of them are very valuable, and, accordingly, I desire to retain them both in this measure.

Question put, and agreed to.