HC Deb 13 February 1933 vol 274 cc717-9

6.53 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

I beg to move, in page 78, line 15, to leave out the words "Co-operative Union," and to insert instead thereof the words "County Councils Association."

In moving this Amendment, I should like, if I may, to refer also to the next Amendment—In page 78, line 16, to leave out the words, "Association of British Chambers of Commerce," and to insert instead thereof the words "London County Council." The purpose of these two Amendments is, as I would like to put it, to improve the balance and constitution of the Wages Board by introducing into it an element representative of the third party in the case. The purpose of the Wages Board is to give due representation to employers and employed, and I think I am right in saying that the wording introduced into the Bill is the common form which applies in similar cases, such as that of the National Railway Wages Board applicable to the main line railways of the United Kingdom. The Transport Board, which has been set up as a monopoly body under this Bill, is different from an ordinary railway organisation. It includes, not only railways, but surface transport, and, in view of the new Clause which we have now introduced, it may also cover transport, in certain respects, by water. Consequently, the one body has to deal with different problems from those dealt with by the other body.

The purpose of my Amendments is to introduce into the consideration of these questions some regard for the third party in the case, namely, to give representation to the interests of the travelling public. They do not seek to alter the balance as between employers and employed. I have suggested two bodies representative of local authorities—the London County Council so far as the county council's area is concerned, and for the large area outside, the County Councils Association. My purpose would be equally met if any other bodies as effective and as familiar with the interests of the population of those areas could be suggested, but, in default, I have put down the names of these two authorities, in order that the interests of the population of nearly 9,000,000 in those areas may be represented when these questions come forward for consideration. The population, as passengers, are, of course, closely concerned with the deliberations under the Bill. If costs go up, the transport authority, having regard to the provisions of Clause 3 (4), will have to raise fares in order to make the organisation pay. From that point of view the public as passengers are concerned with the deliberations of a body of this kind, and I submit that the matter should not be left exclusively to the deliberations of a body representative solely of employers and employed, without some representation of, and consideration for, the interests of the travelling public.

Sir WILLIAM RAY

I beg to second the Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

We are dealing in this Clause with the conciliation machinery for settling disputes, which, as my hon. Friend has said, are likely chiefly to arise among the railway employés of the Transport Board. One of the features of all successful conciliation machinery has been that it has been established with the consent and good will of the persons whose interests are submitted to it. It would be a great mistake if we were to set up machinery which had not been devised with the assent of the railway employés who would be affected by it. The machinery in the Bill has been devised with such consent of the parties concerned. The railway trade unions, who represent the interests of, perhaps, the majority of the men, have agreed to the proposals in the Bill. That is the first reason which disinclines me to accept my hon. Friend's Amendments. If we were to alter the nature of the conciliation board without the consent of the men concerned, we should run a, very grave risk of defeating the whole object of this provision.

Another reason why I feel unable to accept the Amendments is that they would have the effect of altering the constitution of the conciliation board in such a way as to make it radically different from that which deals with the interests of the men employed on those parts of the main-line railways other than the part affected by this Bill. It would be Very undesirable to have two bodies, differently composed, working side by side in dealing with the same interests and questions affecting very much the same classes of men. At present the conditions of railwaymen employed by the Amalgamated Railway Companies are dealt with by a tribunal constituted, broadly speaking, on the same lines as this authority.

Moreover, on the merits of the Amendments, I am afraid I cannot see any adequate reason for putting upon this board representatives of bodies which are not directly concerned with the questions to be decided by the board. The County Councils Association and the London County Council may be representative of local interests on questions of facilities and fares, with which we have already dealt; but they can hardly be said to be interested in the questions that will have to be decided by this Wages Board. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to accept these Amendments, and must ask the House to refuse them I cannot quite see why my hon. Friend prefers the County Councils Association to the Co-operative Union in this connection. If hon. Members will look at paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause, they will see that four other persons are to be appointed, two of them representing the trade unions and the Co-operative Union respectively, and two representing the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations respectively. If the County Councils Association were to be substituted for the Co-operative Union, that would manifestly disturb the balance of that part of the representation on this Wages Board. There is no question, about cooperative unions or co-operative societies here. We need not, therefore, embarrass ourselves by prejudice one way or the other. The whole question is whether this is the Wages Board which is most likely to carry out the happy work of conciliation. It is devised as happily as may be, and I prefer the provisions of the Bill to what is proposed by my hon. Friend.

Amendment negatived.