HC Deb 29 May 1934 vol 290 cc49-74

4.24 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "if," to insert: in any one or more of the areas specified in the Schedule. I must apologise to the Committee that this and subsequent Amendments in my name do not appear on the Order Paper, but I have done my best in sending copies to the Chairman and Minister of Labour. If the Amendment be accepted the Clause will read as follows: If in any one or more of the areas specified in the Schedule an organisation of employers in the cotton manufacturing industry … and an organisation of persons employed in the industry make to the Minister of Labour … in the prescribed manner a joint application. The Bill is not clear in regard to one point, and the Amendments in my name have been put down in order to clear up the matter. They may provoke a certain amount of opposition from some quarters. I do not profess to be an expert in the cotton industry and I have put down my Amendments in order to obtain expert opinion and to make sure that the Bill will carry out what it is designed to do. Under the Bill, if two organisations in the industry make an agreement, and certain conditions are complied with, it is to have the force of law. Sub-section (1) says that if organisations apply to the Minister of Labour he may in due course appoint a board to consider the matter. Under Clause 7, the interpretation clause, the cotton manufacturing industry means the industry manufacturing certain types of goods in the areas specified in the Schedule, and if one looks at the Schedule you find the areas to which the Bill applies. It is clear that any two organisations, the employers and the employed, may come to an agreement, and make an application to the Minister, which may ultimately affect all the owners and all the men in all the areas specified in the industry, but it is not clear that they may make individual agreements in the different areas concerned. I agree that it is advisable to have a national agreement between employers and employed extending to all classes covered by the Bill, but I can foresee the possibility, when the Bill becomes law and orders are made under it applying to all the areas in the Schedule, that the agreement may break down and the order have to be withdrawn. Any agreement may be considered better than nothing, and consequently this Amendment makes it possible for any two groups of masters and men in any one of the areas specified in the Schedule to make an agreement among themselves and for such an agreement to have the force of law in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton)

I have to acknowledge at once the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) in having sent me a copy of this Amendment. The answer to my hon. Friend is perfectly clear, and I think it should satisfy him on the points that he has raised. The Bill does not prevent rates of wages being fixed specially in one or more areas. That is perfectly clear. But the Bill does require that those rates of wages shall receive the sanction of organisations representing the whole industry. That is really the basis on which the Bill rests. If any local organisation could make application by itself—an application which did not necessarily receive the sanction of the organisa- tion representing the whole industry, and that application were accepted, the Bill would be worse than useless, because we should be stabilising the very evil which the Bill is designed to prevent. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that reply.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

Let me say at The very beginning of the Committee proceedings that we have supported this Bill up to now on the assumption that it was drafted with the consent of the employers' and workers' organisations. I think I can speak on behalf of the Labour party when I say that any Amendment which would upset that arrangement, made between the two organisations in the first place, and made between the two organisations and the Ministry in the second place, we shall be compelled to resist. In any case, if any Amendment is moved with the intention which I am afraid that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment had in his mind, namely, of taking these agreements out of the hands of the recognised trade unions and employers' organisations, we shall be bound to resist them and I agree with the Minister that it would make the Bill simply ridiculous if any Amendment of that kind were accepted.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

I would like to assure the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that that is not my intention at all. I merely wanted to make it clear that it is advisable, if a national agreement breaks down, to have regional agreements instead. I still think there is much to be said for that view, but in view of the hon. Member's remarks and those of my right hon. Friend the Minister as to the general feeling in the cotton industry, I do not propose to proceed with the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "majority of."

This Amendment should be read in conjunction with that which follows it on the Paper, in line 16, after "employers" to insert "controlling the majority of the looms." The purpose of these Amendments is to define the measure of the majority as not a majority of the number of employers but of the productive capacity of the employers. I think it will be generally admitted that the proper measure of weight to be given to the votes of members of the industry should be according to the size of their productive capacity. Clearly it would be absurd for a tiny mill with a small number of looms to have the same voice, in determining whether or not the Government should give sanction to these wage agreements, as a huge combine which represented a great number of mills and a very large loom capacity. There are many precedents for basing the majority voice on productive capacity. I think that the Unemployment Insurance Act, for the purpose of determining the majority of employers' interests in special schemes, applies the test of the number of workers employed by any given firm. That is a similar test to a test of loom capacity. It is the most convenient one to be applied, by determining the productive capacity of a unit in the cotton trade. I think it will be generally agreed that it is much more desirable that the majority interests should be based on productive capacity than on mere counting of heads.

4.38 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON

I think this Amendment clearly improves the Bill, and it is one to which both sides, employers and operatives, agree. The reason why they agree is precisely the reason put by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment, namely, that the number of looms controlled is the measure of the employing capacity of an employer. What we desire is to determine a majority by the employing capacity of employers and not by the actual number of them.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

Naturally, we all ought to bend to the decision of the employers and employed; but has the Minister considered this point: It does not always follow that the number of looms is a test of the amount of production. The number of coal mines in this country does not determine the amount of coal produced. It seems to me that it may occur on some occasions that there will be several mills working half time, and their total pro- duction will not be as great as that of smaller mills working full time and overtime as well. Has that point escaped the Minister's attention?

4.40 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY

The point that has been made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) is one about which I think we need not have any fear. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent a small concern or a number of small concerns from having a disproportionate voice in the industry. If you were merely to assess the number of units you would be putting a clog on the progress of the amalgamations which are considered desirable in the industry. A number of units which were amalgamated would, because of their being assessed on unit capacity, have only one voice, whereas what you ought to have is an assessment on the amount of what in fact the industry could produce. I do not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton is one which he will consider desirable to press. This is a sensible method of assessing the weight of the industry and is a method which is in use in the industry. It is practicable and does not put any obstacle or bar on the progress reorganisation and amalgamation which is so necessary.

4.41 p.m.

Lord SCONE

With the objects of the Amendment I am in complete sympathy, but some of us feel that the Amendment is rather too vaguely expressed—a mere majority of the looms—and we would like to have a much more definite figure. That is why some of us put on the Paper an Amendment which has not had the good fortune to be called, suggesting that 75 per cent. of the employers and the employed would be a sound figure, that is to say, three out of every four of employers or interests controlled by employers should be in favour of such compulsion. A word of explanation is necessary as to why those of us who have no personal concern with the cotton industry and do not profess any intimate knowledge of it, should intervene in this Debate. The reason is that the principle raised by this Bill looks far beyond the cotton industry, important as that industry is. For tine first time we are having——

The CHAIRMAN

The Noble Lord is going beyond the scope of the Amend- ment. It is true that there is on the Paper an Amendment in his name and that it was not called, but there is another Amendment on the Paper which may yet be called, and we cannot now discuss it on this Amendment.

Lord SCONE

I bow to your Ruling at once. I should be much obliged if the Minister would give us some idea of the figure which he would be prepared to accept before sanctioning a compulsory agreement which might be imperilled by the existence of a very considerable minority.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

If this Amendment be accepted, I am not clear how some of the Amendments which appear later on the Paper will stand. There is one in my name, in page 1, line 17, after "majority" to insert "comprising not less than eighty per centum of." It could be moved in a slightly modified form if necessary.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has no Amendment on the Paper to line 16.

Mr. WILLIAMS

But I have one to line 17.

The CHAIRMAN

We have not reached that point yet.

Mr. WILLIAMS

My attitude to this Amendment will depend on whether we shall be free later in some appropriate way to make sure that the majority is defined. Therefore, the present Amendment does concern us, because, if it be carried, automatically some of the later Amendments on the Paper can no longer be moved. We want to make sure that we shall have an opportunity of raising the question of what a majority should be.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The first Amendment on the Paper in his name refers to page 1, line 17, and it refers to different classes from those which we are now discussing.

Lord SCONE

I would like to know on what Amendment, if there be one, we shall be able to discuss the principle of majority rule in the industry.

The CHAIRMAN

That can arise on this Amendment, in so far as it refers to the questions dealt with by this Amendment and a consequential Amendment referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), in line 16, after "employers," to insert "controlling the majority of the looms."

4.45 p.m.

Mr. WISE

Would it be in order to ask whether it is your intention, Sir Dennis, to call the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—in line 17, after "majority" to insert "comprising not less than eighty per centum of"—so that we may know whether there will be an opportunity of discussing the question of majority control as affecting not only the employers' side but the employed; or can that question legitimately be raised on the Amendment now before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN

At the moment it is my intention to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) though, of course, I am not pledging myself to do so. What I drew the hon. Member's attention to a moment ago was that his Amendment does not refer to the particular class to which the Amendment now under discussion refers.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

I think on reflection the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) will see that it would not be practicable to introduce any Amendment on the lines indicated by him, that is to say, to allow for looms which may be idle or on short time. We all hope that the cotton industry is going to improve, and it would be undesirable to put any handicap on looms which are not at the moment actually producing. The method of merely counting looms is a simple test which can be easily applied, whereas the number of looms idle or on short time at any given moment is a constantly changing factor, and would introduce into the test a certain measure of uncertainty. Further, I think that, on the whole, to allow for idle looms would make a very small difference, and would not affect the main purpose of my Amendment.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would have better appreciated what I said regarding the Amendment. I never said that I objected to it. I said I agreed with it, but I thought the point which I raised was one which might have escaped the attention of the experts in the cotton industry—of whom I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman is one. Of course, I would support any Amendment of that kind which came from an authoritative source. At the same time, we shall oppose any wrecking Amendments which may come from unauthoritative quarters of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 16, after "employers" insert controlling the majority of the looms."—[Mr. Entwistle.]

4.50 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "majority," to insert comprising not less than eighty per centum of. I should say at the outset that I was under misapprehension when I intervened a moment ago. Having prepared these Amendments rather hurriedly in the one day which was available before the Whitsuntide Recess, I inadvertently omitted to include an Amendment on these lines, dealing with the employers in the industry. Under this Amendment I can only deal with the question of the majority of persons employed in the industry. However, this Amendment raises the principle, and I think, if it were carried, it would be administratively effective. During the Second Reading Debate some of us made it clear that we were apprehensive about this form of legislation, and the object of the Amendment is to ensure that statutory force shall not be given to an agreement under the Measure unless it is entered into on behalf of people who, between them, effectively represent the industry concerned. "A majority" might mean 51 per cent. The interpretation of the word "majority" for this purpose rests with the Minister, and while the present Minister might give an interpretation to which none of us could object, that would not necessarily bind his successors. I think therefore that Parliament ought to prescribe the extent to which there must be support for a proposal of this kind before an order is made giving it statutory effect.

It is a matter of debate where the line should be drawn in deciding what size of a majority constitutes effective support. The Minister by simply using the word "majority" has drawn it at 51 per cent. as a minimum, though in his own mind he may have a much higher figure for administrative purposes. But I think Parliament ought not to let the Bill go without prescribing a definite percentage to ensure that any agreement brought into operation shall have behind it a solid body of opinion in the industry. I have suggested a figure of 80 per cent. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested 75 per cent. The difference between us is not very great, but it is clearly desirable that the majority should be a large, indeed, an almost overwhelming one. This matter is of great importance if this legislation is to be successful.

I do not know what view will be taken by hon. Members opposite, some of whom are concerned with trade union organisations. I do not know to what extent there are trade union organisations to-day which can claim with truth to represent 80 per cent. of the workers in their industries. It may be that in the cotton industry there are organisations to-day which can be said to represent 80 per cent. of the workers, but I do not know. I am aware, however, that in a great many industries in this country to-day the trade union organisations do not represent anything like 80 per cent. of the workers. The total number of people seeking a livelihood as employed persons to-day is about 19,000,000 and the number belonging to trade unions is less than 4,500,000, or only about 20 per cent. We know that the cotton industry is more highly organised, as the phrase goes, than many others and the trade unions may, as I say, represent 80 per cent. of the workers, but in any event some figure ought to be prescribed.

It may be urged that if we placed the figure as high as I propose and if for any reason there was a heavy leakage from the unions, it would be impossible for the Bill to operate. I am not seeking to introduce a wrecking Amendment in that sense. It might be the case that the organisations concerned would say, "While 80 per cent. of the operatives do not belong to our union, nevertheless, we have been able to obtain the support of large numbers of those who do not belong to the union, and we are authorised in this respect to act on their behalf." That would overcome any difficulty which might be raised by hon. Members opposite who are connected with the trade union movement on the ground that 80 per cent. is too high. In any event, I urge strongly the desirability of not conferring these powers on any body of employers or workpeople unless we are assured that those who make an application, represent not a bare majority but an effective majority of the people concerned.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I am sure the Committee will see at once that this Amendment is unworkable and impracticable. The Committee has already accepted the principle that, as regards the employing side, the test is to be a majority of looms and that majority may be only 51 per cent. The hon. Member now wants to make it a condition in the case of the workpeople that there shall be a majority of 80 per cent. of those concerned. That would be grossly unfair and would give an advantage to the employers. They can act on the basis of a bare majority, not of human beings but of machines——

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I have explained that I prepared these Amendments in a great hurry before we adjourned, and, through inadvertence, I did not put down two Amendments dealing with both sides.

Mr. DAVIES

But I hope that Parliament is not expected to accept the consequences of the hon. Member's inadvertence. That, in effect, is what he is asking us to do, but I think he will have to get up earlier in the morning if he wants to induce us to accept that position. The hon. Member asks that a trade union before it is allowed to take any action under this Measure must show that it represents 80 per cent. of the workpeople in the industry. The hon. Member knows that no young person under 16 can join a trade union. Suppose there are 100,000 workpeople and that 25,000 of them, as might well be the case, are under 16, it would be impossible in that event to get the 80 per cent. I am suspicious of the hon. 'Member's intentions in this connection, but in any case on the ground that it is unfair to impose a condition on the employés' side which does not apply to the employers and also on the ground of the impracticability of the proposal, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

4.57 p.m.

Lord SCONE

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It has been explained that there has been an unfortunate mix-up in connection with these Amendments and that we have not been able to discuss the whole principle of majority rule in relation to this kind of legislation owing to the fact that the Amendments had to be put down hurriedly. What we are trying to show is that it will be dangerous if a substantial proportion of those engaged in an industry, whether employers or employed, are not in favour of an order made under this compulsory legislation. I hope it will not be out of order if I make a comparison with the Agricultural Marketing Act. Under that Act, there has to be a substantial majority of producers in favour of the initiation of a scheme. These Amendments have not been put down for the purpose of wrecking the Bill or making things awkward for the Government. They are designed to help. This legislation will very likely be followed by similar legislation affecting other industries, and we desire that it shall not be prejudiced by the introduction of schemes which may prove unsuccessful largely because a substantial proportion of those concerned have been forced into them against their will.

If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment—and I agree that 80 per cent. may be too high a figure—I hope he will at least state what figure he, himself, has in mind. I hope he has some figure in mind. If we are to go on the assumption that a bare majority will be sufficient, grave apprehension will be caused not only in the cotton industry but in other industries which have a reasonable expectation that similar legislation affecting them will be introduced. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to state what principle he has in mind for deciding what is a satisfactory majority.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment, because, if these words were inserted, the purpose of the Bill would be destroyed. I do not think there is a trade union in the country to-day which can claim to represent 80 per cent. of the workers employed in the industry with which it is connected. The best thing that can happen with regard to industrial relations in this country is that there should be organised bodies to conduct negotiations, and if you can get organisations representing the workers and the masters agreeing on certain conditions, and give the Minister power, if he be satisfied that they represent a majority in the industry, to make an Order accordingly, it will be a good thing. Until about two years ago the relations between employers and employés in the woollen and yarn textile industry were splendid, but we have to regret to-day that those relations are not quite as happy, and anything that we can do to bring about good relations between the two sides will, I am certain, help the industry a lot. I cannot understand the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who is usually so good at figures, putting in this figure of 80 per cent. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R Davies) drew his attention to the fact that the juveniles employed in the industry cannot be members of a trade union below a certain age.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Why not?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

I am rather surprised to learn that the hon. Member wants to draw them all into the trade unions, as it is rather against his principles. I trust the Minister will oppose this Amendment. I am prepared to leave it to his judgment to say whether parties who have appended their signatures to an agreement are representative of the industry or not. It is not a new principle at all, and I trust the Minister will resist the Amendment.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK

I am in substantial agreement with the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). I do not know how much latitude is allowed in discussing the general principle of the Amendment, but I put down two Amendments with a similar object, though not specifying the exact percentage. I believe it is inadvisable to give to the Minister, and subsequently to the board, power to bring in an Order on a bare majority. Under Sub-section (4) of Clause 1 the board has to consider whether it is expedient, as well as being satisfied with regard to the majority, but I do not think that is a sufficient safeguard. May I suggest to the Minister that he should consider, between now and the Report stage, some words implying that employers or employed coming forward with an agreement to be sanctioned by the force of law should represent a substantial majority? I commend that suggestion to my right hon. Friend, if he does not see his way to accept this Amendment.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. WISE

I am always surprised in this House to find how representatives of various parties align themselves on Amendments in Committee. We have here a staunch defence of the democratic system coming from the Tory benches, with violent opposition from those hon. Members opposite who continually profess to believe in democracy. I think the Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) for reminding them, after the speeches of the two hon. Members of the Opposition, as to what this Amendment is really about. We are not discussing ordinary agreements between employers and employed. This is a question of agreements which are to be given statutory force. It is a very novel departure and, in my submission, an extremely dangerous one, but, unlike the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), I am not a Fascist. I have no doubt his argument in favour of the establishment of a corporate state impressed the Committee very much, but on this side we still have a hankering for the retention of our old institutions and of a certain amount of freedom in bargaining between employers and employed.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

I am not certain that the hon. Member has read this first Clause. It is after the negotiating bodies have met and come to an agreement that the agreement is to be given statutory force. There is no intervention by the Minister until after agreement has been arrived at.

Mr. WISE

I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but the de- parture from principle is in giving such agreement statutory effect. In normal cases an agreement between two parties arrived at after negotiation is a thing which is possibly maintainable by the courts, but not by a special Statute which says that anybody committing an offence against it is liable to a penalty without the thing being taken into court. I still hold to my description of the hon. Member for South Bradford as a Black Shirt, and I am only surprised that his shirt at the moment is only partially striped, but no doubt grace will come to him in due course.

I was surprised again at the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), who, although he belongs also to a party some sections of which at the moment are clamant in favour of democracy, is endeavouring to maintain that principle by resisting this Amendment, which is applicable to a trade union, possibly representing a bare majority of the workers in an industry and probably not really representing those workers, because in general negotiations between trade unions and employers the opinions of individual members of the unions are not invariably consulted with that care with which they might be consulted. I think the Committee will agree that, although the appearance of the hon. Member is benevolent, the voice which thundered from inside was that of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), with another version of the corporate State, but this time with red shirts instead of black shirts. We only need, I think, an additional voice, possibly from supporters of a social credit scheme, to produce almost a national emblem of red, black and green. I hope the Committee will realise the necessity of proceeding with great care, and I hope the Minister will express some figure to define what majority is necessary for the enforcement of an agreement between employers and employed in this industry.

As those who are supporting the Amendment have said, we do not like the principle of this Bill, and we want to take care that what may be a bare principle is not made worse by lack of caution at the beginning. I do not think that 80 per cent. is an overwhelmingly high figure to require before any agreement is given statutory force, because this figure is not going to debar employers and employed from coming to agreements as they have done in the past and as I hope they will continue to do in the future. The only reason for giving this statutory force is that unfortunately in the cotton industry in the past agreements have not always been kept as they should have been kept, and quarrels between employers and employers and between employed and employed have been far more prevalent probably than in any other industry, not excepting the coal industry. I think that is possibly because the cotton industry is mainly domiciled in Lancashire, and I have always felt that the county crest of Lancashire should be a mule. But even assuming all the obstinacy and prejudice that both sides have brought to bear in the discussion of working agreements, I think we should be better off without any statutory force being given to such agreements, and if we cannot have that, I think the figure of 80 per cent. is not too high to insert in the Bill.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

I am supporting the Government in this matter, and I hope they will not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) are, I take it, against the principle of the Bill, and I can understand them putting forward wrecking Amendments, because this is a wrecking Amendment, as I will try to show. The hon. Member for South Croydon mentioned members of trade unions, in connection with this figure of 80 per cent., and if the Amendment were carried, I can say quite honestly that there would be very few agreements made at all. As everyone knows, trade unions from time to time occupy a very curious position. They come under a slump, as it were, and many of the people, in their disappointment, leave the unions. There are fluctuations even in the best trade unions from 65 to 70 per cent., and very seldom does it get to more than 80 per cent. It may be argued that if they do not represent the whole of the trade, they should not claim to be able to make any agreement at all, but if you follow that line of argument, it means smashing altogether the trade union idea. If hon. Members opposite believe in trade unions, they are going a long way towards breaking them up by putting in 80 per cent. before an agreement can be given statutory force.

I hope hon. Members opposite will recognise what has happened in the cotton industry in the past, where certainly some employers have broken away from agreements arrived at, and consequently this House has recognised that something must be done, and the Minister has taken it upon himself to meet both parties, who have said to him, "We cannot go on as in the past, and we want your help." This is largely an agreement that they have made. I have been making inquiries this week-end, in my division of Leigh, of a certain number of cotton employers. I have tried to find out if they agreed with this Bill, and they have said that they do. They recognise that in the past many small employers have broken away and caused difficulties, and so if this Bill has a large measure of agreement, do not let us try to break it up by saying that a figure of 80 per cent., or even of 70 per cent., should be put in, because it would be very dangerous. As mentioned already, there is something now in the Bill, in Subsection (4) of Clause 1, which to my mind protects any attempt to overrule a big body of opinion. I wish hon. Members opposite would read Subsection (4). It states: If the hoard is satisfied that the said organisitions were so representative as aforesaid the hoard shall inquire whether it is expedient that an order be made under this Act, If they are satisfied about that, the Order is made. When going into this matter the board will first examine the employers' side and then the workmen's side to see if they are representative, and, if they find that they represent the big volume of opinion in the industry, surely it is all the protection necessary. I hope that those hon. Members who are not particularly interested in the cotton industry will recognise the broad principle governing the kind of agreement which we are trying to bring forward and will not be led away by the argument that, unless 80 per cent. of each side be agreeable, the agreement ought not to receive the assent of the House of Commons. We have to see that consent is given to what after all will make industrial relations better than they have been in the past.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

I want to point out a misapprehension under which the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) and one or two other hon. Members are labouring, judging from the speeches that they have made. They talk as if, when an agreement is entered into between a majority of employers and a majority of employés in this industry, statutory effect were immediately given to it. That is not what Clause 1 says. It merely says that in the event of such an agreement there is an obligation on the Minister to set up a board in order to inquire into the application and report to him thereon. When the board is set up they have to consider, first of all, whether those making the application do in fact represent the majority of the employed and employers in the industry. After that, they have further to consider whether it is expedient that an Order be made. If they do so find, they make a recommendation to the Minister. Finally, under Clause 2, after such a recommendation has been made, the Minister may make an Order. Therefore, a good many stages intervene between the agreement, which merely gives a prima facie case for setting up a board of inquiry, and the Order. I am sure that the board, if it does its duty properly, will bear in mind the size of the majority as one of the essential elements before considering whether it is expedient to advise the Minister to make an Order.

5.18 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON

My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) and my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) have disclaimed any anxiety to wreck this Bill. It is clear that they dislike it, but they ask me none the less to accept the Amendment with a view to its improvement. Obviously, for reasons that have been stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), the Amendment, if accepted, would in fact ruin the Bill, and I am not prepared for a moment to consider it. The ostensible ground for supporting the Amendment which has been advanced by those who dislike the Bill is the fear that the rights of minorities are disregarded and not properly protected by the Bill. I believe that, if this Amendment were accepted, it would have precisely the opposite result from that which they profess to wish to obtain.

May I support what my hon. and learned Friend has just said with regard to the infinite precautions which we have taken in this Bill to ensure that the rights of minorities are fully considered throughout the whole of these proceedings. In the first place, I do not set up the board at all if I have reason to believe that the organisations do not represent the majority. That is the first safeguard. Secondly, the board itself is required as its first duty to be satisfied that the organisations do represent the majority. That is the second safeguard. The third is that, if the board be not satisfied that the organisations represent the majority, they so report to the Minister, and no further proceedings are taken at all. We have taken every precaution, therefore, to ensure that these organisations do represent the majorities on both sides. So far as the employers are concerned, the fact is—and every hon. Member who sits for a Yorkshire or Lancashire constituency will bear me out—there are many who do not belong to an organisation but who are still none the less prepared to carry out the agreements that are made. What will be the effect, therefore, if we impose this merely arithmetical formula? It will have exactly the opposite result from that which is desired, and I cannot for a moment accept a proposal to take 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. or any other percentage.

The Bill makes full provision to enable minorities to express their objections, and clearly it is better that they should be able to express their opinion before the board. The board, sitting with assessors, will give full weight to what they say, and that is better than imposing this purely artificial, arithmetical formula and incorporating it in the terms of the Bill. The object of the board will be to determine whether the interests of the majority and of the industry as a whole outweigh the objections of the minority, and the one and only thing which they will consider is what is really in the interests of the industry as a whole. Those most concerned—in fact, those entirely concerned—namely, the employers and the employed in this industry, have come to the conclusion that this Bill as drafted is in the best interests of the industry as a whole. Indeed, they go further and say that the Bill is essential unless there is to be chaos in the industry. They have come to this agreement, which I am putting into legislative form, and it is an arrangement from which, frankly, I am not prepared to depart without the consent and agreement of both sides. If I did, I should ruin the very object which I have in view.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT

I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has rejected the Amendment. In fact, I do not think that even the promoters of the Amendment would vote for it. I do not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates the anxiety which some of us feel. I am not with hon. Members who oppose the Bill in principle. I believe it is necessary, for I am convinced that in future industries must have power to organise themselves, and to have compulsory powers, and I am concerned to see, as far as is possible, that in this, which is the first and presumably the model of what I believe will follow in other industries, the best possible form is laid down. As it goes on errors will be discovered, but we want to get it as nearly perfect as we possibly can to start with. The reason that I am not satisfied with the Bill is twofold, land my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) can weave into my hosiery any colour he likes. The first is because I think the machinery as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) and enforced by the Minister may tend to be a great deal too cumbrous. The second is that in the cotton industry—about which I admit I know little or nothing—as with many other industries some of us contend that the trade unions do not properly represent the employed and the employers' associations do not properly represent the employers.

I am concerned to see that the real good of the industry is taken into account in this matter, and I am not satisfied that this Bill does that. You may set up all the boards you like, and the Minister may say with perfect reason that the only people he can deal with are those banded together to present their case, namely, the organised bodies of employers and employed, I want to be sure, however, that it will be possible to take the view of the industry for the benefit of the industry apart from the question of majorities or minorities. The minority is often as right as the majority. I want to see some machinery by which the real good of the industry is considered and not necessarily the view held by the majority organisations. I am not happy that the Bill does that. This Amendment will not do it, and I hope the Minister will consider whether there is any way by which he can simplify the procedure, possibly by seeing that other interests get a chance of expressing themselves and by making sure that the real opinion of the industry is obtained and not merely the opinion of an organised clique.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY

There is undoubtedly a considerable number of Members who are anxious least we should do anything in the Bill which will give the right to a bare majority to over-rule a substantial minority. I think that their apprehensions are unjustified and founded on a misconception of the scope and purpose of the Bill. The Bill does not introduce a new system for industry throughout the country. It is an experimental Bill to endeavour to help the cotton trade. One of the problems of the cotton trade for many years has been the difficulty of carrying out agreements arrived at between representative organisations, and the sole purpose of the Bill is to make those agreements properly arrived at after due consideration obligatory on the trade. What should be borne in mind in examining the Bill is its parochial character and its experimental nature.

The CHAIRMAN

I hope that the hon. Member will not refer too much to the Bill instead of to the particular Amendment.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY

I accept your Ruling. I was intending to point out that in the Amendment an effort has been made to drag in the whole question of majority rule, whereas it should be examined from the point of view of whether or not it does something to destroy the object and purpose of the Bill. In the cotton trade a very large proportion, or at least a notable proportion, of the employers are not necessarily representative of any particular organisation. If we were to introduce a particular numerical assessment of the number of people to be classified as a majority we should run this great danger, that so many of either the employers or of the employed might be sitting on the fence, as it were, that we should be imposing not a bare majority rule on the industry but, in fact, minority rule. It is because the cotton industry has suffered so long from an obscurantism which has resulted in the imposition of minority rule that this Bill has been brought forward. I trust that those hon. Members, with whom one has every sympathy, who dislike the idea of a bare majority overruling a substantial minority will appreciate that in this case the effect is much more limited.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I realise, as I remarked when I moved the Amendment, that there would be difficulties in its standing by itself, but I ask the Minister to consider whether he should not, on Report stage, insert before the word "majority" the word "substantial," in order to show that it is the intention that a bare majority is not to prevail. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) suggested that Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 provided some additional protection in this matter, but it does nothing of the kind. Sub-section (4) states: If the board is satisfied that the said organisation were so representative, that is to say, of a majority, and it still leaves it a bare majority. Personally, I do not think that is quite good enough.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

The hon. Member says that I said something which the Bill does not say. I merely said this, that once the board are satisfied that the organisations do represent a majority, they then have to inquire whether it is expedient that an Order shall be made, and I said that in considering whether it is expedient they will certainly take into consideration the size of the majority.

Mr. WILLIAMS

They may do, but there is no instruction that they shall do. The difficulty is that a bare majority will obviously be the organised body. The minority, particularly of the workpeople, is obviously not organised at all, and the views of that minority may never come to the board. In view of the circumstances which exist I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I hope that between now and Report stage the Min- ister will consider the possibility of inserting the word "substantial."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. HAMILTON KERR

I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "agreement" and insert "application."

This Amendment attempts to remove a possible ambiguity which might arise concerning the assessment of majorities. As a specific instance, it is possible that organisations representative of employers and of employed enter into an agreement, and that at the period at which the agreement is entered into they are such majorities that nobody thinks fit to apply for a legal ratification of its terms. But it may be that in the course of years, through some event or other, one of the sections which has signed that agreement sustains a loss of membership, and, feeling its influence weakening, it applies for legal sanction to put the terms of the agreement into effect. It is obviously undesirable that a section which no longer commands a majority of the workers in that section should be allowed to apply for legal sanction to put the agreement into effect. Therefore, the Movers of the Amendment feel that it would be more just to require that the majority should exist at the date of the application rather than at the date of the agreement.

5.35 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON

I am prepared to accept this Amendment, for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Mover.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ENTWISTLE

I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out the first majority of. With your permission, Sir Dennis, I think this Amendment ought to be considered in conjunction with the next Amendment—In page 2, line 13, after employers," insert controlling the majority of the looms, because they deal with the same point. In Sub-section (1) the Minister has to decide whether a sufficient case has been made out by the organisations representing the majorities on the two sides before he sets up a board. In this Sub-section the board is to report, after inquiry, on the question of fact whether the organisations do represent such majorities, but the principle is the same, and I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 13, after "employers," insert: controlling the majority of the looms."—[Mr. Entwistle.]

Mr. MANDER

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out from "report" to the end of the Clause.

As I said on Second Reading, it seems to me that this Bill is so hedged round with safeguards that its application will be somewhat delayed, and this Amendment would remove one of what I call the unnecessary safeguards. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the necessity for unanimity in coming to a decision. I regard that as a sort of super safeguard. Is there any precedent for requiring unanimity in the report of a committee? One of the criticisms against the League of Nations is that unanimity is required in its decisions. I cannot help thinking that the ordinary rule of representative institutions, namely, that the majority should rule, is a wise one. Further, in this case it is not a question of ruling, but simply a case of making certain recommendations and bringing certain facts to the attention of the Minister, who is then free to act. The board may be constituted of an unlimited number of persons, it may be two or three or a dozen, and it would seem unreasonable that one person out of a dozen or even out of six should be able to prevent the facts being brought before the Minister. The board has two duties to perform—to find out whether an application is representative, and then whether it is expedient that it should be granted, and I submit that the board should be unhampered and allowed to function in the ordinary way that committees do, submitting its recommendations, whether they be unanimous or only have the support of a majority.

5.40 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON

Previous criticisms have suggested that the Bill goes too far, but the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) seems to think it does not go far enough. As I have said before, the Bill in its present form has been agreed upon by both the parties concerned in its operations. They are entirely satisfied with it, and it is quite certain that if one extended the scope of its operations—and that would be the effect of this Amendment—in the way proposed we should be adopting a course which would commend itself to neither party. The effect of the Amendment would be to take away from the board all its duties except merely the duty of considering whether the organisations are or are not representative of majorities.

Mr. MANDER

I did not move the first Amendment. It is the second Amendment which I moved, the one which removes the necessity for unanimity.

Sir H. BETTERTON

I beg pardon, it was my fault. I thought the hon. Member was moving his first Amendment. As he says, the second Amendment deals with the question of unanimity. That, again, is a safeguard which we have deliberately inserted, and to which both sides have agreed. For the reasons I have given before I am not prepared to accept any Amendment, certainly no Amendment of substance, unless I am satisfied that both sides want it. I am satisfied that neither side desires this Amendment, and, therefore, I am not prepared to accept it. I think that what is here required is a necessary and proper safeguard in a Measure which, as has been pointed out, is of an experimental character. We should run the risk of making a serious mistake, indeed, unless we had this safeguard in a Bill of this sort.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT

I never thought the day would come when I should find myself associated with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) in disagreement with His Majesty's Government and with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but I really am not happy about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot imagine that either side of the industry could object to allowing a report to go up to the Ministry if there were only one dissentient voice. If this Bill is to be the forerunner of many others, and is to introduce a new system into the cotton industry, the more information the Minister has the better. If I understand the hon. Member's Amendment aright, it does not propose that the Minister must take action, it is merely a case of laying information before him, and I feel that the more the Minister knows about matters the better. While I do not suppose the hon. Member will press his Amendment, if the Minister insists on refusing it, I hope the Minister will consider between now and Report stage whether he is not stultifying himself in refusing to let himself be furnished with information which might be of value to him.

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. Member will explain to me exactly what he is talking about. The Amendment is to leave out the last two and a-half lines of Clause 1.

Mr. BEAUMONT

That was the Amendment to which I was endeavouring, possibly inadequately, to address myself. As I understand it, the Amendment proposes to delete the words in the Clause which state that no recommendations shall come before the Minister unless they are unanimous. I was suggesting that such recommendations might be of extreme service to the Minister in understanding how these agreements between two sides of the industry which were applying for statutory powers were working and showing him the conclusions reached by these investigators. I am sorry if my remarks did not explain that point clearly. I feel that such recommendations, for the consideration of the Minister only, may well be of value and cannot possibly be objected to by either side, and I think it is a pity that the board will not be allowed to state their conclusions unless they are unanimous.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

If the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will turn to Clause 5 he will find that the board is composed of only three persons, the chairman and two other members. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted, I imagine that one member might recommend that an order be issued and the other that the order be not issued, and the situation would therefore be impossible. If the board consisted of about 12 persons, or of 47 nations like the League of Nations, there would be some sense in a majority ruling, but when there are only two persons and a chairman the proposal is reduced to absurdity. If the Amendment were accepted, both employers and employed would say that Parliament was not keeping faith with them, and they would not make any application to the board. There would be then a continuance of the squabble that has been going on for years.

Amendment negatived.