INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS BILL. (Hansard, 8 May 1931)

§ Mr. MANDER
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
782 I do not think it will be necessary for me to explain at any length the provisions of the Bill, as I think they are fairly well understood. It was introduced in 1924 by the late Mr. Frank Murrell and met with overwhelming support from every part of the House. Although to a very large extent there is general assent to the principle of the Bill there are some provisions that have not yet been agreed to by certain interests. Negotiations are going on, and the Trade Union Congress is paying close attention to the matter. I wish to make it clear that I am entirely friendly to those negotiations and that when the Bill reaches its Committee stage I shall be glad to accept any Amendments to bring it into line with the agreed proposals or, if thought better, to withdraw the Bill so that the other Bill may come forward in due course.
The object of the Bill is to give statutory authority to the decisions of joint industrial councils. Industrial councils in many cases are asking unanimously for these powers, and in particular one industrial council in my own constituency, the National Industrial Council of the Lock, Latch and Key Industry. Industrial councils complain that although agreement may have been come to by employers and employés through their organisations, yet because certain employers will not come into line, and persist in paying lower wages, the whole object of the agreement is upset. That must be contrary to the interests not only of the employers but the employed. It means that lower wages are paid and that the good employer is placed at a disadvantage by the bad employer, who will not toe the line and rise to the agreed standards of the trade. The principles of the Bill are that the Minister should take the initiative in setting up joint industrial councils wherever possible and that after receiving the agreements of the different councils he should give them the power of law. I ask that the Bill may be allowed to go through, so that it may be carefully considered in Committee and brought into line with the result of the negotiations in which hon. Members opposite are interested.

§ Mr. E. BROWN
I beg to second the motion.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I hope the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr.- 783 Mander) will agree to withdraw this Bill. I know that he has worked most assiduously on this matter and that the Bill is on the lines of the Measure introduced a few years ago with the sanction of the trade unionists of the country. Since then there has been an attempt to secure an agreed Bill.

§ Mr. MANDER
The horn. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. Hayday) was not in the House when I made my speech. May I repeat what I said? I referred to the fact that negotiations are going on and I said that I was entirely friendly to those negotiations, and that when the Bill gets into Committee I will gladly accept Amendments to bring this Bill into line with his ideas, or if that is impossible, to withdraw the Bill in order to make way for the Measure in which I know the hon. Member is interested. I do not think I can go further to meet him in this matter.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
We have just reached an agreement in regard to this question; and there are some provisions in this Bill which differ from the Measure which we hope to introduce shortly into the House as an agreed Measure. The difficulty is that if this Bill gets a Second Beading and goes to a Committee it would be somewhat difficult to alter it in so substantial a manner as to meet the fundamental changes which we desire to introduce. The lines of the proposed measure have been finally accepted by the industrialists of the country. It has been referred to the Association of Joint Industrial Councils, which is composed of representatives of workmen and employers, and they phoned through yesterday saying that they were in complete agreement with the proposals submitted to them. Steps will therefore be immediately taken to put the agreement in the form of a Bill. There are one or two points upon which the Bill will differ from the present Measure. I know that the hon. Member is quite as anxious as we are in this matter. We want to get the support of the Government, no matter what it may be, and we are more likely to receive that support and assistance if we introduce a Measure which has the complete agreement of employers and employed on the Joint Industrial Council. It is much easier to get a Bill through this House if we have an agreement, 784 and in view of the limited time at our disposal it is hardly likely that any Bill given a Second Beading to-day will have much chance of getting on the Statute Book during this Session.
The present position of trade unions is left undisturbed in this Bill, as it is in our proposed Measure. The operation of this Bill is restricted to agreements made by industrial councils. The agreement which has been arrived at between the representatives of employers and workmen proposes to make agreements apply not only to the industrial councils but also to any other negotiating machinery now operating. That is an important difference. The proposed Bill will have a much larger scope. There are many agreements operating for wage fixing purposes in the industries of the country, and it is felt that apart from the Joint Industrial Councils that this other machinery which exists should be brought within the operation of any Bill which legalises a voluntary agreement. If such a Bill as that could find its way on to the Statute Book it would be of inestimable value and importance in making these arrangements, and we should be able to enforce them against recalcitrant employers, who might be inclined to break away from any national agreement.
The present Bill places in the hands of the Minister of Labour the power to vary an agreement, the discretion is entirely in the hands of the Minister. The suggestion in the agreed Bill does not rule out the possibility of modification, but it desires to ensure that such modifications shall only be made when all the parties to the agreement have been consulted and have given their consent. There are many other reasons one could give for suggesting that this Bill should be withdrawn in favour of the agreed Bill, but that is my main reason. For a number of years this question has been the subject of controversy in the industrial field, and it has been somewhat difficult to compose differing ideas and opinions. We have now reached a stage when there is complete agreement between the parties who desire this form of legislation. They desire to extend it outside industrial councils. If this Bill receives a Second Reading, it might be that we should be precluded from moving these fundamental Amendments because of the 785 Title. It might be held that they were outside the Title of the Bill.

§ Mr. MANDER
In that case I would withdraw the Bill.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I am much obliged to the hon. Member, and I should like to thank him—

§ Mr. MANDER
I meant that in case any Amendments which it might be desired to move were outside the Title of the Bill I would withdraw it.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
If this Bill is given a Second Reading and goes to a Committee upstairs, it might prejudice and jeopardise the passing of an agreed Bill, upon which there is complete understanding between organised employers and organised workmen. That Bill being upstairs would create a difficulty and the agreed Bill would not have the same measure of support. While appreciating the past efforts of the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading—he has from time to time been in communication with the Joint Industrial Councils representatives and with the Trades Union Congress—we do feel that we could almost at once get another agreed Bill introduced, and that we could by common consent of the House get facilities granted for the speedy passage of that Bill.

§ Mr. MANDER
Directly the hon. Member introduces his Bill and it receives a First Reading I will withdraw the present Bill.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
The hon. Member must pardon me. It is said that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." I am sure the hon. Member would not like complications to arise from criticisms of his Bill by employers' and workmen's representatives such as would spoil its possibilities and at the same time retard the facilities for an agreed Measure. I 786 cannot imagine any Government saying, upon the introduction of a second Bill dealing with a subject which in part is dealt with by another Bill, "Very well we accept the other Bill." I ask the hon. Member to give the weight that is due to these great organisations outside. They have been discussing the matter for two or three years and have arrived at absolute unanimity on the matter. The hon. Member might take my assurance on that point. He in turn might ask why I should not take his assurance. He says, "As soon as you get an agreed Bill I shall stand back." I speak authoritatively on this matter, as representing the association of industrial councils outside and the great organisations of employers who already have wage-fixing machinery. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed further with this Bill.

§ Mr. MANDER
Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the Bill to which he refers will be introduced before Whitsuntide? There has been much delay over this matter. I have been told so often that agreement has been reached and that a Bill is coming forward soon, that I am naturally a little bit suspicious, and I am not anxious to lose my Bill until I am absolutely certain that a new Bill is ready and will be presented within a very limited period of time.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
As to time and facilities we must negotiate, but I have here the completed subject matter of the new Bill, the draft proposals, not the draft Bill. Immediately I get a final word of acceptance from the Association of Industrial Councils—