CLAUSE 5.—(Suspension of power to make special schemes.) (Hansard, 27 June 1921)

§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY
I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words and provided that this Section shall not apply in any case where application has been made to the Minister to approve a completed scheme on or before the eighth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one. The object of this Amendment is the same as that of an Amendment moved in Committee, although the words have been slightly altered for the purpose of securing the adhesion and consent of the Minister of Labour. When the principal Act was passed, now nearly a year ago, a provision was made that schemes of mutual agreement between employers and employed should be sanctioned by the Ministry. It was definitely provided that in any particular trade, where employers and employed mutually agreed upon a scheme for contributions and benefits in that particular trade, the sanction of the Ministry should be given. In other words, the principle was laid down that employers and employed should assist each other, the employer by keeping the men at work as long as possible and the employed by not going upon unemployment benefit sooner than was absolutely necessary. That, generally stated, is the provision of the Act which this Clause is intended to amend. To the astonishment and consternation of everyone who wishes for good understanding between employers and employed, there was found in this Bill the Clause in question— Clause 5—which will destroy the results arising from the carrying out of this provision in the original Act. It is not a straightforward attack upon the good 1952 understanding between employers and employed, but an attack by way of a flank movement. There is one large interest which has escaped this attack, and that is the interest of insurance employés. I hope the friendly societies will benefit by that exception. I hope the insurance scheme, which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to exempt from Clause 5, is a scheme inclusive of friendly societies and all those employed by them. That will be so much the better. I am not jealous of that in the least, but I desire other trades and industries to have similar advantages. In Committee the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) made this statement: I am interested in a scheme of the miners. The owners and workmen have been considering the possibility of arranging a scheme of their own; but I do not know whether they have yet made a formal application. That means that notwithstanding the fact that the two parties have been engaged for a long time in formulating their own scheme, of which the whole industry is in favour, they will be debarred from having a scheme which the principal Act would have enabled them to have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 21st June, 1921; col. 74.] I cannot find words which more clearly and more adequately describe the situation in regard to this Amendment. If during the eight months the Act has been in operation and the still longer period' during which it has been law, any trade has not formulated and submitted a mutual scheme, that is because of want of due diligence on the part of those concerned in the trade. If it is shown that a scheme has received the mutual approval of employers and employed, by preparation, by agreement, and by submission to the Ministry of Labour, then I submit such a scheme should not be extinguished and destroyed. How is it proposed by this Clause, as it stands, that such a scheme shall be extinguished and destroyed? If, by the 8th June, that scheme has not been advertised, then it will be wiped away. No matter how good the scheme may be for the benefit of both sides, no matter if the scheme is one which 1953 the Department cannot find any objection to, and would like to see in operation, the mere fact that it has not been advertised, or published, is going to destroy it. I hope the absurdity, the unfairness, the injustice of such a provision will be evident, on full consideration, to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I have made some concession, in the words I have suggested, to the difficulty my right hon Friend put forward in Committee. There he was asked if he would accept the Amendment on the basis of a "special" scheme, but I have altered that to a "completed" scheme, so that, if the scheme be not nebulous, be not a mere suggestion or proposal, but if it be a formulated scheme, agreed to by all concerned, a completed scheme, I submit it ought to be accepted, and I hope it will be accepted by my right hon. Friend. Everything that can be done in this House to improve the relations between employer and employed is of the utmost importance at the present time—never of greater importance than it is now—and if this House can, by assisting to bring employer and employed together in schemes for the mutual benefit of the trade in which they are concerned, then a long step will be taken towards that good understanding without which industrial peace can never be secured. I hope my hon. Friends in the Labour party will fall in with that view. It is a view that suggests that various trades shall be dealt with and considered in comparatively watertight compartments, each, employer and employed, going together in regard to these systems of relief or of mutual benefit. It is from that point of view that I venture to move this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE
I beg to second the Amendment, and I hope the Minister of Labour will see his way to accept it. It seems to me to be a very reasonable one, for many reasons. The Government, under the original Act, mad practically a bargain which they thought at that time was a good one. They profited by these special schemes by only contributing out of public funds three-tenths of the sum which they would otherwise have paid from public funds for persons employed in the particular industry which was to be excepted. That, they thought, was a good, sound scheme, and for the saving of the public purse. They put that scheme forward, and it was 1954 approved by Parliament. Further, they put considerable pressure on certain industries to formulate these schemes.
The insurance industry, which I am very glad has been accepted—I suppose we may call it an industry—was originally not particularly anxious to have a scheme of its own. There was a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether it was to be applied for; but the Minister of Labour told the industry that unless they formulated a scheme he, by virtue of the power under the original Act, would formulate a scheme for them and force them to have it. That is very strong, because it shows the Minister had to put pressure-on certain industries to formulate their scheme. Now he turns back and says to some or other of the industries that they are not to have a scheme—although they have gone to considerable labour and expense to formulate and make preparation for it—both employers and employés in some of these industries. It does not seem reasonable or fair, under all the circumstances, for them to be turned down, especially when these schemes have-been formulated and lodged, and I am not now referring to schemes that are very much in the air, but to the more or less completed schemes embraced by the Amendment.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be pressed and I will endeavour shortly to explain why. Under Section 18 of the original Act we certainly said that we would encourage people to contract out in particular industries. Suddenly I find myself in this position: to secure the solvency of this scheme one of the things I have to do is to increase the contributions, and I really cannot have a lot of people coming to me now with schemes that are in the air and saying that they want a special scheme.

§ Sir F. FLANNERY
No, no! My right hon. Friend is not dealing with what I said. The Amendment applies only to those schemes that are practically complete.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am not for the moment dealing with the Amendment. I will come to it. I am endeavouring to put to the House precisely why I am taking the present course. Under the present circumstances I have to safeguard myself for the time being and during the period of insolvency. We say in Clause 5: 1955 The power of the Minister under Section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period: These schemes are not set aside for ever —not at all—as the Amendment seems to suggest. Where the public faith has been pledged I want to keep my word. In one case—the insurance case—which has been mentioned, these good people had got to the length of submitting a scheme to me and of having had it approved by me and publicly advertised. I felt I could not go back on that. My hon. Friend (Sir F. Flannery) says, "Oh, we are very nearly up to that." What is his proposal? Another proviso, that this section shall not apply in any case where application has been made to the Minister to approve a completed scheme. What will happen? I have had a number of applications already, not as a result of this Bill, but to approve completed schemes. How am I to define a completed scheme? I should say it is a scheme in connection with which a special Order has been issued. Yet, under the terms of this proviso, the purpose of which I fully appreciate and with which I sympathise, I shall get any number of people saying, "We have made application to you to approve a scheme," and I should be ripping up the whole fabric of my purpose here by allowing this further proviso. I really cannot agree to it, because it would undo what I have in mind, namely, getting my fund into a solvent position as soon as possible. Then we can get back to the special schemes. The only Case I have exempted is where my word has been pledged.

§ Mr. SPENCER
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "has been" ["where application has been made"], and to insert instead thereof the word "is."
I also propose to move to leave out the word "eighth," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eighth." The Amendment will then read: and provided that this Section shall not apply in any case where application is made to the Minister to approve a completed scheme on or before the twenty-eighth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one. I have the utmost sympathy with the Amendment as it is drawn, but it really 1956 does not go far enough to meet the case. The Government have undoubtedly led us to believe by their policy that we could formulate definite schemes and submit them at any time, and that if they complied with the conditions laid down they would receive their assent. There are societies which have spent a considerable amount of time and money, and not only the employés, but the employers, also, have been devoting themselves to the same end. Now the Government absolutely changes its policy. After we have understood that these schemes would be accepted, they have reversed the whole procedure. It is a breach of faith with the associations. The Government have led them to believe by the 1920 Act that they had a right to formulate schemes, that those schemes would have consideration and that if they complied with the conditions laid down they would be accepted. This is an unwarrantable reversal of your policy and it is a policy built upon shifting sand. If the Government are going to pursue a policy of this character they cannot expect workingmen to have any faith in what they do. So far as Clause 5 is concerned it is one we are viewing with considerable alarm, and this difficulty has been added to by changing the waiting period from three days to six. Under this Bill the possibilities are that we shall get no out-of-work pay whatever. If we had our own scheme the possibilities are that we would have so formulated the plan that it would have met the peculiarities of our industry, but under this scheme we are not going to have any out-of-work pay at all.

§ Mr. A. HENDERSON
We are discussing this Bill in rather difficult conditions. I would like to ask the Minister in charge the intentions of the Government. I understood that they wanted the Third Beading to-night, but there is no possibility of that, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm a suggestion which has been made that the Third Beading should be taken tomorrow and concluded at 8 or 8.15.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I should have been glad to get the Third Reading to-night, naturally, but I fall in at once with the suggestion which has been made—that if I get the Report stage to-night, I will take the Third Reading as the first Order to-morrow, in the hope that it may be completed about 1957 the time my right hon. Friend has suggested. Once more I appeal to the House, in view of the fact that I must start the machinery of this Bill on Friday. I fall in with the suggestion to get the Report stage to-night and the Third Reading to-morrow.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Does that mean that we are not to take any stage of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill to-morrow, and may we take that as an omen of its final decease?

§ Sir D. MACLEAN
What other business is it proposed to take to-morrow, after the Third Reading of this Bill?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think we had better deal with that matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.