CLAUSE 8—(Provisions as to redundancy schemes.)

HC Deb 06 July 1939 vol 349 cc1545-81

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, after "relates," to insert: and it appears to the board that the purpose or principal purpose for which the mill is used or appropriated is the carrying on of business in that section of the industry. This Amendment also carries out a promise that I made to look into a matter that was raised in Committee. In the Bill, as drafted, we made it possible for the redundancy board in one section of the industry to buy machinery belonging to another section of the industry if it was in the same mill as the machinery they were already buying for their own redundancy schemes. We did that be cause it was clear in theory, and has been proved in practice under the Cotton Spinning Act, that if you wanted to buy up a spinning mill which might have some small proportion of weaving machinery as well it was very convenient if the Board administering the spinning redundancy scheme had power to purchase the weaving machinery. It was generally accepted in the Committee that this was a wise provision and that there ought to be powers of this kind, but it was pointed out that, as they stood in the Bill, the powers given are rather wide. For instance, the Spinning Redundancy Board would be able to go into a mill where there was only 10 per cent. of spindles and 90 per cent. of looms and buy them both, although that was never intended. The Amendment is to make it plain that this power to buy any other form of machinery applies only where the principal purpose for which the mill is used is that of doing the business of the section concerned with the particular redundancy scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert: (2) The purchasing powers of the board administering a redundancy scheme shall not be exercisable after the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the scheme comes into operation, but the Board of Trade, at any time during that period, may by order extend it by such period not exceeding two years as may be specified in the order, if the result of a poll of owners of mills to which the scheme applies, taken in accordance with the pro visions of the scheme, shows that the majority prescribed by the scheme is in favour of the extension. This Amendment deals with the period during which under a redundancy scheme the board can exercise purchasing powers. Under the Bill as originally drafted there was no limit of the period during which they could purchase this redundant machinery. It was the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Hammersley) who pointed out, as he pointed out again on the new Clause this afternoon, that it is very important if you have a redundancy scheme that there should be some incentive to people to offer their mills for scrapping at once, and that you should not give them the inducement to hang on to their mills in the hope that trade is going to improve and that if it does not improve, some time or other in the future, they will be able to turn the mill over to the Redundancy Board. The hon. Member's Amendment in Committee was that there should be a limit of three years for the exercising of this power, but I was not prepared to accept it. I offered, how ever, on the Report stage to bring for ward an Amendment, and what the Amendment does is to lay it down that the normal period for the exercise of these purchasing powers shall be limited to three years, but that the Board of Trade may, by order, extend it after that period for another two years, provided that it does so after a poll has been taken of the owners of mills in that scheme, and a prescribed majority is in favour.

Mr. Hammersley

I think the Amendment satisfactorily meets the case put forward in Committee. It leaves to the Board of Trade the responsibility of taking a ballot. I hope that as time goes on the Board of Trade will consider whether the majority of 66⅔ per cent. is really adequate. Perhaps later on when the Act is in force it will be brought to bear on those responsible that 66⅔ per cent. does leave a very substantial minority in the industry. I think that 75 per cent. would be better.

Amendment agreed to.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies

I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) is attending a Conference in Stockholm and, therefore, is not able to move this Amendment which stands in his name. I wish he had been here to undertake the task which I am trying to perform. Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will agree that my hon. Friend helped very materially to fashion this Measure.

So far to-day, the Bill has had a smooth passage because the right hon. Gentleman has been able to placate almost everybody. The merchants, ex porters, mill owners, financiers, bankers, almost everybody had been placated before he came to the House to-day with this Bill, except one section of the industry—the textile workers. It is typical of this Government that it always helps its friends first. It sees that they are always satisfied. The numerous Amendments that appear on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman favour the several other sections of the industry—employers, capitalists and financiers. Those sections came in force to the right hon. Gentleman and made a thunderous noise. In Committee they made such a noise as was never heard before. The right hon. Gentleman has bowed to the storm in every case except the one with which I am dealing.

Mr. Stanley

In the only really import ant Amendment we have discussed so far, the hon. Gentleman was one of the people who urged me to do exactly what I have done.

Mr. Davies

I became part of that storm myself; and anything I can do to make the life of this Government difficult will of course be done. We have come to a really important matter as far as the textile operatives are concerned. Indeed, we would not be doing our duty on these Benches if we did not raise this very vital point with which I am now about to deal. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 8 they will see that it is headed "Provisions as to redundancy schemes," and reads as follows: A redundancy scheme may contain pro visions empowering the board administering the scheme, subject to any restrictions … to acquire by agreement such plant in a cotton mill … and empowering the board to dismantle and break up any plant or other property acquired by them. These are naturally very important powers to give to any authority. I speak with a little feeling on this point, because I have seen textile mills in my own Division dismantled and pulled down, and in some small Lancashire villages, when you dismantle one or two textile mills you strike a blow at the social life of the community at the same time. A textile mill of some size in a Lancashire village is as important to the community and their social amenities as is the colliery to a mining village in any other part of the country.

When the board administering this scheme decides on redundancy it will compensate almost everybody except the workpeople. The workpeople displaced by the destruction of a textile mill and its plant must fall on to Unemployment insurance, Unemployment assistance, or Poor Law relief. There is not a penny for them in this Bill at all, unless the board voluntarily decide otherwise. The wording of the Clause is that usually adopted by this Government. Wherever the capitalists—the farmers and the other people who are their bosom friends—are concerned, the Government "shall" do certain things and they metaphorically fling about millions of money to those friends; but when you come to workpeople in the textile industry who fall out of work in consequence of rationalisation the word "may" is inserted in the Bill. It is astonishing to find how many "shalls" there are in other Clauses of this Bill; but when you come to the question of compensation for displaced operatives, the board "may" consider; and after they have considered they need not do anything unless they wish. The Amendment that I am proposing is to compel this authority to consider the problem of compensation for displaced operatives; and there will of course be displaced operatives.

This Bill is a first-class illustration of rationalisation. There is too much plant; some of it is not working at all and has been kept idle for months on end. I have been told on good authority that 60,000 looms are to be scrapped soon. I do not know whether some of this machinery will be sent to the Far East for the manufacture of the very commodities that we used to manufacture in Lancashire and thereby destroy our trade in those countries. According to the report of the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations the number of looms in place in 1938 was 485,000, and the estimated number required for full-time production was only 320,000; a surplus in that case of 165,000 looms. I understand that there are, roughly, four looms per weaver, and in some cases six looms. If the House will calculate 165,000 redundant looms at four per weaver, they will realise the tragedy that must fall on many households in Lancashire consequent upon the passing of this Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is not here because he seems to be the spokesman of all the violent anti-labour elements in this House. I wish he were in his place to hear me say that.

Mr. Petherick

Is it not the case that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) reads every word which the hon. Member says in the Official Report?

Mr. Davies

It is necessary that I should tell the House what is the basis of our claim. We are not claiming any thing new; this is not a new principle. Parliament has accepted this principle on more than one occasion in previous Measures that it has passed. In the Rail ways Act, 1921, the Third Schedule reads: Every existing officer or servant whose office or situation is abolished or who shall relinquish his office … shall be entitled to be paid compensation for such pecuniary loss. A great deal of money was paid out in compensation in that connection. I can not understand why something is not done in this case. Compensation to displaced workpeople is being paid under other Acts of Parliament in this country in other industries that are not as essential to the community as the production of cotton textile goods for export purposes. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the London Labour party is here because he assisted a great deal in enthroning this principle in law. The London Passenger Transport Board is a classical example of this. The Fourth Schedule of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926, deals with compensation for deprivation of employment on account of the coming into force of that Measure, and compensation is paid if a person has suffered loss of employment or diminution of salary, wages or emoluments otherwise than on grounds of misconduct, in capacity or superannuation. We do not mind the disabilities mentioned provided we can get the principle enshrined in this Clause. The London Passenger Trans port Act, 1933, deals with staff and superannuation, and Section 73 makes provision for transfer and compensation rights of officers and servants solely or mainly occupied in transport under takings. The Local Government Act, 1929, and the Coal Act, 1938, also made almost similar provisions. As stated, this Government see to it that nothing untoward financially happens to any of its own friends especially in agriculture and shipping; they are invariably compensated by subsidies or in some other way. Consequently, we are entitled to call the attention of the House of Commons not only to the tragedy that has already befallen Lancashire textile operatives, but which will fall upon others when this Bill comes into force. Unless we can deal with redundancy, consequent upon the passing of this Measure, I do not see much use of the Measure at all.

I come now to something more concrete. I was asked upstairs how much the operatives ought to get. I have case after case here where workpeople have received hundreds of pounds under other Acts of Parliament; and why should not these operatives? When I am told that the textile industry of Lancashire will not be able to bear any of this financial responsibility, I would reply in this way. It is true that the Lancashire textile industry as a whole is depressed, but there are firms manufacturing for the home trade still doing well. In any case, the whole basis of this redundancy scheme is that the owner of the machinery which is scrapped will be compensated, and we see no reason why human beings that are regarded as redundant should not be compensated from exactly the same fund in exactly the same way.

That, in brief, is our case, and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentle man can speak with authority on behalf of anybody in reply to my statement. I have travelled a little and studied Fascist regimes abroad; and the way it deals with industry abroad especially in Italy. We have now set up in this industry, for good or ill, a system of control, very much on the Fascist plan, and the industry, in effect, decides what it wants this Parliament to do. When all that is decided, this Parliament puts its seal upon that industrial controlling authority. in handling these industrial problems and the rationalisation which must ensue from this Measure we ought, I repeat, to have regard to the calamity that will befall some of the operatives consequent upon the closing down of some of these mills and weaving sheds.

I hope that I have said enough to convince at least hon. Members from the county of Lancashire of all parties of the desirability of something being done. They know the case as well as I do, and perhaps some of them know it better. The one thing that has always struck me about the people of Lancashire has been their patience with Government. When agriculture, steel, or coal suffer depression, plenty of voices roar like thunder and the Government metaphorically bring buckets full of money to hand out especially to shipping and agriculture. The cotton textile industry was once the first export industry in the whole of these isles; it is now the most depressed of all our industries. From being the first ex porting industry it has fallen to second place; and, in spite of all that, the Lancashire people are very patient in not having made more demands for assistance upon the Government. This, however, is a demand on behalf of the operatives, and I trust that the House will be good enough to listen to the appeal we are making and support us in the Division Lobby.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I beg to second the Amendment.

I was hoping that some hon. Member opposite would take the opportunity of giving us any reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted. I do not mean the right hon. Gentleman, because I quite realise that he wants to hear the Debate before making his reply. But in the Committee upstairs there was no reluctance on the part of hon. Members opposite to jump into the breach and tell us why these men should not receive compensation, and why it should be left a permissive and not a compulsory obligation, in the preparation of this redundancy scheme, to provide this compensation. I do not know whether we are to attribute their reluctance to express their views this afternoon to a change of mind. I do not know whether they are going to support the proposal or whether they think, now that we are debating the matter on the Floor of the House instead of in the comparative seclusion of a Committee Room, that discretion is the better part of valour, and propose to say nothing about it but rely on the compact majority which they can secure in the Division Lobby.

But if they are silent at any rate we need not be, and we must not be. Nobody has suffered more from the chaotic condition of this industry than the workers in it. The story has been told many times before and I do not propose to tell it again at any length, but let us remember that in the industry, as it is now being run, the average wage of a weaver, who is a skilled operative, is 30s. per week, if he is lucky, if the four looms by which he stands are fully employed over the whole 48 hours. Very few of them are as lucky as that. Seventy-five per cent. will have one of his looms idle for the whole week, 50 per cent. will have two looms idle for the whole week and some proportion of them will have as many as three looms idle for the whole week. The way in which the workers are remunerated in this industry is that they are paid in proportion not to the number of hours they spend in the mill but to the number of looms which are working full time. It is perfectly possible, and it happens in numberless instances, for a man who goes to his mill for 48 hours in the week to come home with a wage of 20s., 15s. and even 10s. In a great many cases he brings home less wages for a 48-hour week than he would have got from the public assistance committee or unemployment insurance. That, of course, is not peculiar in itself. It is a form of piece rates, and if the work is not produced obviously the remuneration cannot be paid.

But there is this difference, that because the man technically is fully employed in the mill for the whole of the time and his wages are as low as I have described, he cannot get any assistance by way of public relief or unemployment insurance or from the Unemployment Assistance Board. He cannot have his wages eked out by the public assistance committee be cause it is a principle of the Poor Law that if a man is employed you shall not supplement his wages by Poor Law relief. He cannot get anything under unemployment legislation for the same reason; he, technically, is not unemployed, so that he gets neither relief nor unemployment assistance. There is no other class of workers in this country who are under that disability, but in Lancashire thousands of men come under it. My own constituency has an unemployment percentage which varies between 20 and 25, but on the top of that there is this 40 to 50 per cent. of additional workers, who are employed but are receiving less than they would receive if they were not employed at all. In my own constituency you get a proportion of the workers, amounting to 70 per cent., who are forced to subsist either on public relief, unemployment assistance, or on wages which are less than public relief or unemployment assistance.

What remedy for that does this Measure propose? It proposes, and I do not con test its wisdom, to rationalise the industry in this way, that some of these necessarily idle looms shall be scrapped. I hope that one result of it may be in the long run, certainly not immediately, that this sporadic and casual kind of employment, with the penury which it produces, will gradually disappear. But how will it disappear? It will disappear by removing out of the industry some looms and by removing out of the industry some workers. These proposals to which we are giving legislative effect, putting the seal or the rubber stamp of the Imperial Parliament on the decision of the local industrial Parliament in this respect, do not propose to deal in any way with providing those workers who are removed from the industry with any other means of livelihood. If, in deed, men are to be removed from the industry, and it is impossible to conceive of this legislation working satisfactorily unless some men cease to be employed—one of the advantages for Lancashire if it succeeds, is that Lancashire's eggs will not be so exclusively in one basket as in the past—this legislation provides no alternative, no other basket, and neither does it provide any compensation for the loss of such livelihood as they now have.

What possible justification can there be for compelling an industry to be reconstructed, for cutting it down, for turning men compulsorily out of the industry, for taking away their opportunity of exercising the only skilled trade they know, and giving them no compensation whatever? What is to happen to them? After all, that is a practical question. People say "What about the cost? If you make compensation compulsory you must in crease the cost, and if you make the cost too high it will break the scheme? "My reply is that we are not proposing to increase the cost; the cost is there in your scheme. The question is, who is to bear the cost, whether any part of the cost of the excluded workers is to be borne by those who remain in the industry, by those who benefit by getting the others away; or whether those who are cut away are to be left to bear the whole burden themselves? It is not a question of in-creasing the cost but of sharing the burden. That is what we are asking should be compulsory. We are asking that the benefit which is going to be conferred on some shall not be exclusively at the cost of others, that those who remain in and share in the benefits which are to accrue from the operation of the scheme shall bear some proportion of the loss which it necessarily will impose.

If you do not do that what is to happen to the people? I asked that question in Committee, and the reply I got was that there is always unemployment insurance. One hon. Member suggested that that is what the Unemployment Insurance Fund was created for. That is not the case. The Unemployment Insurance Fund was created to deal with limited recurrent periods of unemployment; it was never intended to deal with a situation of this kind, where you are compelling people to go out of the industry altogether and to seek their livelihood elsewhere. That is not what the unemployment insurance scheme was for. In all the chain of legislation to which my hon. Friend has referred, the principle has been accepted that if you take away a man's office you shall compensate him for the loss of that office, and if you take away a man's livelihood you shall compensate him for the loss of that livelihood. I should attach far less importance to this proposal than I do if I saw any sign from the Government that they proposed to create new industries to take the place of this old one. If they were to go to my constituents and say, "We recognise that you will not be allowed to continue in the future to earn your living at this trade. It is good for the trade and for the country and for your colleagues that you should no longer be employed at it. We will take the responsibility of planting new industries, giving you a new means of livelihood, teaching you a new trade and your livelihood shall not be less. "If they were doing that I should attach less importance than I do to the proposals that are now made. But in the absence of that, how can hon. Members opposite justify taking away the livelihood of these men without providing any compensation to them? It cannot be justified, and no hon. Member opposite has attempted to do so.

Hon. Members opposite may say that provision is made for compensation because the Clause states that a redundancy scheme may provide for it. That is no answer. Here we have an industry which has come along the path it is now treading slowly and with reluctant steps. They will examine with the most meticulous care every proposal for a redundancy scheme that is put for ward. It was suggested in Committee by those who opposed the proposal that the necessity of providing compensation would be used to bring the balance down against a redundancy scheme when otherwise the balance might swing the other way. That was given as a reason for not making compensation compulsory, but I say that it is an overwhelming reason for making it compulsory. If you leave people to decide for themselves, they will always find good reasons for not doing some thing if they do not want to do it, but once it is decided that they shall do it and it is made obligatory, then it is remarkable with what speed and facility the obstacles are overcome and a work able scheme produced. If redundancy schemes are desired, you will get them even if compensation has to be provided, and if the schemes are not desired, you will not get them, whether compensation has to be provided or not. I say that the House dare not take the responsibility of passing legislation which, if it is to succeed, must inevitably have the con sequence of depriving large numbers of people of the only skilled trade they know, without saying to them at the same time that, in any scheme for that purpose, provision shall be made for some measure of moderate compensation.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Petherick

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) suggested, at the beginning of his speech, that the reason no hon. Member on this side rose to support the Government in this matter was that we were frightened of our constituents. As a matter of fact, I have supported the Government on this issue on other occasions, both in the Committee and on other Bills in the House.

Mr. Silverman

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I do not think I said anything about any body's constituents, except my own.

Mr. Petherick

The hon. Member certainly suggested that we were afraid of our constituents, and that, consequently, we refrained—

Mr. Silverman

Will the hon. Member allow me to tell him again that I said no such thing?

Mr. Petherick

I am glad to hear that, but I hope the hon. Member will read his remarks in the Official Report to morrow. Whether or not he said it, however, I should like to say that some of us have not been in the least afraid of supporting the Government on similar issues in the case of other Bills, and for very much the same reasons as those for which we support the Government on this occasion. I do not suppose that any hon. Member on this side of the House wishes to withhold compensation, wherever it is possible to give it, in the case of any men who are displaced as a result of redundancy schemes. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and many other hon. Members have made that quite clear. The reason I did not rise to speak before was that this matter was discussed exhaustively in the Committee, although I do not in the least take exception to the hon. Member raising it again; but I do not want to repeat the rather long speech on the subject which I made in the Committee. On that occasion, I submitted certain figures as to the possible cost of making this Clause mandatory, and those figures have not yet been controverted. I think it is very likely that the figures I gave were exaggerated, but hon. Members opposite who take the view that this provision should be made mandatory ought, in support of their case, to give some indication of the probable cost, for it seems to me that the cost of paying compensation on the basis suggested by some hon. Members in the Committee would be so gigantic that it would result in there being no redundancy schemes. If hon. Members opposite advocate a certain course, it is only right that they should make it clear that the cost would not be greater than the schemes could bear.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald

If it were shown that the schemes could bear it, would the hon. Member support the insertion of "shall" instead of "may"?

Mr. Petherick

I should be glad to hear what the figures are, and I would then use my judgment on the matter, but so far, I have not heard any figures given. I hope that before the matter is taken to a Division, we shall hear some accurate estimate of what the cost would be likely to be.

Mr. Burke

Can the hon. Member tell us exactly how many mills are likely to be closed down and how many operatives likely to be displaced? If he does that, we may be able to give him a forecast of the cost.

Mr. Petherick

I gave a number of figures in Committee, and they have not been controverted. Therefore, it seems to me that, although we are wholly in favour of paying compensation—and under the Bill as it is, compensation can be paid where possible—it would be un wise to make the provision mandatory for the reason that it would, In fact, result in there being no redundancy schemes at all. If hon. Members who advocate making the provision mandatory are unwilling to give figures showing that the industry can bear a scheme of compensation all along the line—

Mr. Silverman

When the hon. Member refers to the industry, whom does he include in it? Are not the workpeople themselves part of the industry? Are they to bear the cost which the rest of the industry will not bear?

Mr. Petherick

I think everybody is involved indirectly, of course, in these redundancy schemes, but I think an accurate forecast of the cost ought to be given, for otherwise we are working in the dark. I consider it would be wrong to give to the unfortunate workpeople concerned the impression that they are being wrongly treated in this respect be cause of the provision not being made mandatory. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has made out a case which will read extraordinarily well in his constituency, but I do not think it is right to lead the workers up the garden and cause them to believe that under this Bill, if the proposals of hon. Members opposite were carried out, the firms in the industry could stand the amount that would be involved.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald

I had not the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, but I can say that I have read every word that was said in the Committee on a similar Amendment to this one. We have no desire to lead the workers up the garden. We should not suggest the insertion of the word "shall" in place of "may" if we thought that this could not be done. We should not raise hopes on the part of the displaced cotton workers that they would get compensation if we knew that it was not possible for that to be done. Sooner or later, the House will have to realise that the workers in industry are as important as the capital in industry. At all times there is in the House a readiness to agree to compensation being given to the persons who invest capital in industries, and I have never heard it suggested by any hon. Member opposite that it would not be possible to provide compensation for those who have invested money in an industry; but whenever it is suggested that the workers who will be displaced should be given compensation, there is some doubt cast upon the possibility of providing that compensation. I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade would never agree that, where it is possible to pay compensation either to those who invest money in an industry or those who invest their labour in it, the whole compensation should be paid to those who invest money, and that it should then be said that we cannot afford to pay compensation to those who invest their labour.

I have much sympathy with the President of the Board of Trade on this issue. I know that throughout the negotiations the word "may" was understood by both sides to be the word that would be inserted in the Bill. I do not think the unions representing the cotton workers ever suggested the insertion of "shall" in the early stages. They were so anxious to get an agreed Measure that they withheld that suggestion. I shall understand it if the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies later, says that since it is an agreed Measure and since the workers in the industry agreed to the word "may" in the early stages, it is now rather late for us to run the risk of wrecking the Bill by insisting on the word "shall" being included.

Mr. Fleming

The hon. Member has had experience of colliery schemes. Can he tell us of any colliery scheme, when there was an amalgamation and some colliers were displaced, where compensation was given to the workmen?

Mr. Macdonald

I will come to that matter later. I fully appreciate the difficulty of the President of the Board of Trade. I know that he will be bound to tell us that he has carried on with this Bill on the understanding that we would be satisfied with the word "may." It was during the Committee stage that we proposed, for the first time, the substitution of "shall" for "may." If we insert the word "shall" to-night, I know that we shall run the danger of destroying the Bill. I recognise the difficulty, but we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without emphasising what we believe to be the right thing, namely, that where a Measure displaces labour, some compensation shall be paid to the workpeople, and furthermore, that where a Measure provides compensation for those who invest money in the industry, it is quite unjustifiable that the same Measure shall not provide compensation to the labour that is displaced.

I happen to live in a mining area where there are also a few cotton mills, and I have seen this thing working for years. Provision is made all the time for the people who provide the essential capital of industry. We do not quarrel with that, for under private enterprise, somebody has to find the capital. But we know also that labour is just as essential. Our great case is this. This Bill makes compensation mandatory with regard to one section of the industry, and then, when it comes to the workers, the word "may" is inserted. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) spoke about our leading the workers up the garden. What will the word "may" do? Will it not lead to many expectations? The inclusion of that word suggests the possibility that compensation can be paid. I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is possible for him, between now and the last stage of the Bill in another place, to do something to get agreement on this matter. We do not want to destroy this Bill. The cotton workers of Lancashire have sacrificed too much already in order to get the Bill to be parties to its destruction now. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that he will make one further endeavour to get all those involved in the negotiations to accept the insertion of the word "shall"? I want to make it clear that the cotton workers have no desire to destroy the Bill, and if they thought that the inclusion of the word "shall" would destroy the Bill, they would wish that word to be withheld from the Bill. But at the same time, we are anxious that something should be done to safeguard the interests of the workers who will be displaced.

Mr. Fleming

Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the point which I put to him?

Mr. Macdonald

Certainly. Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhougton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to what we tried to do in connection with the 1938 Measure and what we failed to do. We made the same case then as regards the mining industry and we met with the same opposition, and we have not got such a scheme inside the mining industry.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Burke

In supporting the Amend-I should like first to reply to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). He told us that no one in this House wished to withhold compensation if it could be paid. That argument" has been advanced over and over again. It is advanced every time we ask for any payment to members of the working class. But when public opinion decides that it must be done, somehow or other the money is always found. We have been told recently that there is no money to grant an addition to Old Age pensions, but everybody knows that public opinion will, before very long, compel that money to be found. In this case, the money can be found in the cotton industry for these people, if the Government wish it to be found.

The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that this matter was agreed upon by the sponsors of the Bill. I am not concerned, and I hope the House will not be concerned with what the sponsors of the Measure may have agreed about privately outside. This House has a right to say for itself what shall go into this Bill and if the Government desire this word to go in, there is no need to be bothered by any commitments which may have been made by anybody outside the House. The question has, certainly, been discussed in Committee upstairs. There we were asked about the probable cost. We cannot say what the probable cost will be, because we do not know how many people are likely to be displaced. But I can tell hon. Members that if we put in "shall" instead of "may" it is likely to reduce the cost of the redundancy schemes be cause, if it is known that, before a scheme can be put into operation, so much will have to be provided for displaced operatives, those concerned may think twice about recklessly closing down mills and causing unnecessary hardship. I think this Amendment would provide a very fine brake upon any attempts to carry through redundancy schemes without full consideration.

Let me put another view. We cannot deal with the finance situation, but I would like the House to consider the human side of this question. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth in very perfect English and in very cold terms told us that this thing could not be done and that by our proposal we were only seeking to "lead the people up the garden." We feel very keenly about this matter. We are not talking, and certainly I am not talking, just for the sake of "leading the people up the garden." When I go home to my constituency I will meet an entirely different set of circum stances from those which will be met by the hon. Member, or by the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) who has pushed and fought for his own particular interests in the rayon industry.

Captain Strickland

Does the hon. Member suggest that they are my own personal interests?

Mr. Burke

No, I do not mean the hon. and gallant Member's personal interests. What I mean is that he has put his own particular point of view for the rayon industry and has fought for it. I am trying to put my point of view for people in whom I am as much interested as the hon. and gallant Member is interested in those for whom he speaks. I hope that, having gained so many concessions for those for whom he has spoken, he will be with us now, in trying to get some concession for the people for whom I am speaking. When I go home, I will meet four unemployed persons for every one that the hon. and gallant Gentleman or the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth will meet. There is no part of the country where unemployment has had such a bad effect as in the North East of Lancashire. The striking feature of the Lancashire cotton towns to-day is abject poverty. They have gone through years of depression. They have had to face, not merely the ordinary unemployment which we all know about, but that other kind of unemployment, that under-employment, which people in many parts of the country do not understand. That kind of employment is never referred to in the statistics which are given to us by the Minister of Labour when he has to tell us that the figures have gone up or down, or when he is explaining the figures away. He never talks about that type of unemployment because it is not revealed in the statistics.

Sir H. Williams

If the hon. Member studies the monthly statistics published by the Ministry of Labour he will find that they include an element—speaking from memory I think the number is about 200,000—consisting of those who are working what is called organised short-time.

Mr. Burke

The hon. Member is one of those people of whom, unfortunately, there are millions in this country who just do not understand, who are not even beginning to understand the problem with which I am dealing. I am not talking about people who are working short-time. I am talking about people who are working full-time, who are putting in a 48 hour week at full trade union rates and who are getting less than they would get on the dole. Let me give the hon. Member a specific case. It is the case of a man with a wife and four children. He works a full 48-hour week and his average wage is 27s. 5d. for that week. He is not entitled to go to the relieving officer and ask for any supplement. Under Part II of the 1934 Act, he is debarred. If the relieving officer is good enough he may get round the Act in some way. In this case he has done so and has given this man a food ticket value 5s., so that his income now, for all the weeks that he is on that system, will be 32s. 5d. If that man had been unemployed he would have had 35s. a week, but for putting in a full week, at the full trade union rate, he loses 2s. 7d. If that were a solitary case, or one of a few cases, one might say that there was not much to be done for those people, but I can give other cases.

Mr. Hammersley

I am sure the hon. Member does not want to give a wrong impression to the House. He will agree that the circumstances which he has de tailed do not refer to the cotton trade as a whole, but only to one section of it.

Mr. Burke

That case refers to the weaving section of the industry, but the weaving section of the industry is the largest section and employs hundreds of thousands of people. But I will go from the weaving section of the industry to the spinning section, about which the hon. Member knows something, and I will give another case. Here is a case which has been before the card room workers' union. It is the case of a woman whose normal wage is 28s. a week. She received an injury to her hand and came up for compensation. It was discovered that her average weekly wage during her last period of employment had been us. 6d. and her compensation was fixed at the rate of 8s. 6d. These facts have been recorded in the Press and are well known. If hon. Members consult the "Manchester Guardian" of 4th May, they will find there an account of an investigation conducted by Mr. E. M. Gray of the Manchester School of Economics in which he examined 17,600 cards of weavers in a number of towns. He discovered that under-employment affected 60 per cent. of those 17,600 workers. In no week over a long period were less than 40 per cent. of those people suffering from under-employment.

What it means is that these people, for months and years past, week in and week out, have been weighed down with worry and sinking into debt. They have not been able to get sufficient food. They had to go round the cheapest stores for their food; they have to look for second-hand clothes and they have exhausted their savings. Some of them, in better days, put their savings into these mills. That was before Mr. James White came along and bled Lancashire white. Those people are not responsible for the present state of affairs. Hon. Members opposite may say that they are not responsible either and I agree that the main cause has been the loss of markets. But there is some responsibility due to the employers. The people for whom I plead never exported abroad the machinery which has taken our trade from us. The people for whom I plead have not sent their money out to be invested in China and India and elsewhere. There is more British capital invested in China than there is capital belonging to any other country. Those people have just had to suffer.

Now that the House has an opportunity of saying, "Because of the state of the organisation it may be that you will have to go out of the industry altogether," it is the duty of the House, not to tell us what might have happened at the joint committee, not to tell us what the trade union representatives may have said, but to meet the case which is being made for the worker. Just as the House has made concessions in other directions, just as the joint committee have been forced to agree to things which they did not want, so the House and the Government if they want to do so, can say on this occasion, "We shall not allow this to be permissive and as we have compelled you to pay for scrapped material, so also you shall pay for scrapped humanity."

Mr. Fleming

The hon. Member knows that the representatives of the trade; unions did, after long consideration, agree that the word in the Clause should be "may." Is he asking the House now to reject the advice of the trade union leaders?

Mr. Burke

Yes, I am. I am saying that the joint committee put this forward along with many other things which the House in its wisdom has rejected. The House is the final arbiter and while we may be guided by what has been agreed to outside, we have rejected other decisions of the joint committees and I say we ought to reject this one. The hon. and learned Member knows that the joint committee has accepted certain things, not because they wanted those things but in order to compromise. This word "may" has been accepted by way of compromise. We say that that compromise is unjustified and we ask the House to say that it is not necessary for the Lancashire operatives to be asked to make this sacrifice.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

This Debate has been characterised by very deep and genuine feeling and there has been only one point on which an intervention was made which I thought unnecessary. That was an intervention by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who, because none of my hon. Friends on this side at that time rose to speak in the Debate, expressed the view that they were acting on the principle that discretion was better than valour and that they were afraid to express on the Floor of the House opinions which they had expressed in the Committee. I think that is an un fair suggestion and that my hon. Friends on this side refrained from speaking because they, like hon. Members in other parts of the House, are anxious that this Bill shall pass, and realise that we have a tremendous lot of work before us. They wanted no doubt to listen to what I had to say, reserving to themselves the right, if they thought I was not stating as they would wish the arguments in which they believed, to supplement them later. I do not think any hon. Member will feel that there is any fear on the part of hon. Members to maintain the opinions which they expressed upstairs and which are on record.

Mr. Silverman

I did not want to be unfair to anybody. I said perfectly clearly that no doubt they would be con tent to express their opinions where they will be equally on record, in the Division Lobby, at the end of the Debate.

Mr. Stanley

I think we can well leave it there. Every hon. Member realises the position exactly. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment and who, I am sorry, is at the moment out of the House, did so in a speech of great power. He began by a great declamation about the capitalist system and the actions of hon. Members who sit on this side on behalf of their friends in the capitalist classes. He said that the Government and their supporters never thought of doing any thing for the working class. He rather spoilt the effect of that argument by citing a long list of instances where com- pensation has been inserted in various Acts, and it is interesting to note that all those Acts were passed by Governments which were supported by hon. Members on this side. The fact that he was able to cite a number of cases in which this compulsory compensation has been inserted in Acts of Parliament passed by this Government or their predecessors which were supported by my hon. Friends, is a sign that we do desire, where it is possible and practicable, that this compensation should be paid to the workers in industry under conditions of this kind.

In the examples which he cited—the Railways Bill and the Electricity Bill, for instance—there are two clear distinctions-between them and the machinery in the Bill which we are now discussing. There is, first, the distinction that industries like railways and electricity are not exporting industries, but quasi-monopolistic industries in which the argument of costs does not loom so great. There is the further important distinction that these were industries where the compulsion was ordered by Parliament and laid down by Parliament and had to go through; it is very different in this Bill, where all that is laid down by Parliament is the machinery whereby the redundancy schemes can be put into effect if those in the section desire that it should be, and where if, for some reason or another, members of a section do not think that a redundancy scheme would be advantageous to the section, it is left open to them not to have a scheme, and not, therefore, to deal with redundancy.

I have been told from several hon. Members who spoke from the other side what I was going to say in my speech, and I do not intend to disappoint them. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) in his remarkable speech said I was going to say, and that I was entitled to say, that the word "may" instead of "shall" was not the invention of the Board of Trade of the Government, but that it was in the scheme originally put up to them by the Joint Committee, and that on that Joint Committee served members representing the trade unions concerned in the industry. I am going to put up that argument, and I believe I am justified in doing it. I will not put it in the way it was argued by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke), on the ground that something put forward by the Joint Committee is sacrosanct, and that because it has been put forward by the consent—no doubt the compromise consent—of all on that Committee, Parliament has no right to criticise or to alter a word. That has never been the line I have taken in the discussions on this Bill. What I have said is that we want to know the reason which moved these representatives of the trade unions concerned, gentlemen who are just as intimate as hon. Members who have spoken with the conditions that exist in Lancashire and who, to say the least, are just as anxious as hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to improve those conditions wherever they can, and who can point to just as good a record as any hon. Gentleman who has spoken in improving those conditions.

Why was it that they were prepared to assent to this compromise and to agree to the word "may" being inserted in the Bill? Is not the reason clearly that they saw that in the type of scheme which we have accepted for this Bill the insertion of the word "shall" would do no good to the parties concerned, but might, in fact, cause them a great amount of injury; and that, although by accepting this Amendment a scheme will have to contain this condition for compensation, you do not under the machinery of the Bill make it obligatory to put for ward a scheme at all; and you run the risk, therefore, if you put this extra obligation upon those who are to put forward a scheme, that the schemes will not be brought forward. It has been admitted by all that that evil will not be remedied. The hon. Gentleman in very eloquent terms drew attention to a great evil in Lancashire, of which I agree many people are only too ignorant. That is? the condition of under-employment which prevails in some of the sections there. It is to meet that problem of under-employment that redundancy schemes are put forward. Do you really benefit the great mass of the people for whom you speak if you put into a scheme an obligation which may prevent the scheme ever being put forward, which may prevent a remedy ever being taken, and which may lead to the continuation of the sort of circumstances which the hon. Gentleman deplored?

Mr. Burke

The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the employés, rather than wreck the Bill, made the sacrifice by agreeing to the word "may" instead of "shall." In that way he is suggesting that the employers would not make that kind of sacrifice and that it was the workers who had to face up to the alteration of the word rather than wreck the scheme.

Mr. Stanley

I do not think that is a fair comparison. I will restate my argument. My argument is that the workers' representatives on the Joint Committee agreed to the introduction of the word "may." Why? Because, I think, they believed that the word "shall" would not be enforceable, and that because it would not be enforceable, it would not be to the benefit of the workers. That was the dilemma which I put to the House, that if you put in the word "shall" and the people concerned in the scheme thought that word imposed an additional financial obligation upon those who had to pay the levy, it would in their minds destroy any possibility of a scheme at all. In every section they will have to examine the problem of redundancy, how much is likely to have to be spent, how many firms there will be to bear that burden, and whether it is a financial obligation which is possible for the section to bear. Obviously any extra in any particular section that is added has to come into consideration and may be enough to turn the scale between the section accepting or rejecting it. There was some talk between hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House about leading the workers up the garden, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince was rather afraid that even the insertion of the word "may" would lead the workers up the garden, for it was put in with the intention of nothing of the kind being done. I cannot believe that the workers' representatives, who must be aware of the minds of the others who sat on the Joint Committee, and who must have discussed this matter with them, would have agreed to this compromise if they believed that all the time the other members of the Committee had no intention of making it a reality and that it was simply put in as some sort of eyewash.

Mr. G. Macdonald

It was not my intention to give that impression.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. Gentleman seemed to be afraid that that might turn out to be the case. I cannot believe that the workers' representatives would have agreed to it unless they thought the other people concerned were sincere and that they meant "may" to mean some thing and to mean all that hon. Gentle men opposite want it to mean in the scheme where it is practicable. It is my belief that that is the spirit in which the Joint Committee put it forward and that that is the way the sections will operate it and in which the schemes will be scrutinised as they come up through the machinery which is provided in the Bill. I believe that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House desire that wherever it is possible in this sort of machinery—new and regrettable because it is machinery which only comes in an industry which to some extent has declined from former prosperity—when people are displaced, compensation is contemplated. I do not believe that to make it obligatory would be a benefit to the workers or that it would result in any more schemes dealing with compensation. I believe, on the other hand, that there would be fewer schemes dealing with redundancy. I believe that under the permissive powers in the Bill as it now stands the promotors of schemes in the sections and the members of the sections will make an honest attempt to provide this compensation as and where it is practicable.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith

I speak here on behalf of a large number of people who during the past 20 years have taken a strong stand in favour of this principle. It is a principle for which I have stood uncompromisingly ever since I had experience of the effects of redundancy and of unemployment. I have stood for it in trade union conferences and conferences in all parts of the country when our movement was not taking the stand upon it which some of us thought it should have taken. We passed through dark days because of the non-acceptance of that principle. With the development of industry in this country as a result of mechanisation productivity has increased to such an extent that the output per man or woman employed now is greater than ever it was in the world's history, is, relatively speaking, greater than in any other part of the world, and in these conditions we are bound to plead for the acceptance of this principle. In addition to that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), who has spent the whole of his life in this industry and who knows what went on behind the scenes and what occurred to make the trade unions agree to this compromise.

The President of the Board of Trade told us that though this principle had already been accepted it was in the cases of quasi-monopolistic industries, and that here we were dealing with an export trade. The logic of that is that this principle will never be applied to those whose lives are invested in the export trade, but only to those engaged in the home industries; but we on this side are not pre pared to accept any such differentiation. He was quite right when he pointed out that the trade unions had agreed to this Bill as it now is, but what were they up against? They were up against having to reach an agreement with the representatives of all interests in the cotton industry, and he knows the difficulties that he himself had to contend with be hind the scenes in trying to placate the whole of those interests, even with the great power which his position as President of the Board of Trade gives him and with this Government with its enormous majority behind him. There fore, I say it is not fair to emphasise the fact that the trade unions have given way in this matter.

In regard to the question of "shall" or "may" I had a bitter experience of how we were let down in the engineering trade in 1922. I am not critical of those who were responsible for negotiating the agreement of 1922, but our hearts have been burning with indignation ever since at the way we were dealt with then. We had been locked out for six months and were forced round the conference table and forced into those so-called negotiations. One of the clauses in the agreement stated that the employers "may" do certain things, and we have been engaged in a ten years' legal battle trying to prove in the courts that the word "may" should be read in the same way as "shall." Having had that experience, on no consideration can we on this side agree to the word "may" remaining in the Bill, and the only logical step for us to take is to support the Amendment.

During the next few weeks there will be published in this country a book which I hope will be read by every hon. and right hon. Member. We are living in a democratic State, and if that means any thing it means that we should set a better example to the world than do certain other countries. It is true that as a result of negotiations the Joint Committee have agreed to the Bill as it is, but surely the decision of Parliament overrides that of any Joint Committee or any industry. On a fundamental principle of this character this House, if it claims to re present the people of this country, ought to override any negotiations which have taken place outside. No matter what has occurred outside, we of this party must stand for this principle. I have had the experience over several periods of signing on at the Employment Exchange along with thousands of others. The people that belong to me are as good as any people that belong to any hon. or right hon. Member in this House, but they are no better than anybody else's people, whether they be Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen or Welshmen. Surely after the developments we have had in this country we ought to be setting an example to the world and this House ought to stand for the adoption of this principle: that seeing that most of our men and women are pre pared to accept employment, to run after employment, if reasonable conditions and wages are offered to them, if employment cannot be found for them they ought to be decently maintained.

Here we have a Bill which proposes to reorganise the whole of the cotton industry. When it becomes an Act of Parliament a large number of mills will automatically close down. We are not speaking critically of that, because we believe we have arrived at a period of development within the present social system when that reorganisation must take place, when increased efficiency must be brought about in order that we may hold our own in the world's markets and improve our export trade. But when the mills are closed down what will happen? If two mills close down the directors will be automatically compensated. [Hon. Members: "No."] Generally speaking, in all cases where there has been re-organisation the directors of any undertaking which has been closed down have either been compensated directly or have been given shares in the efficient undertaking which is allowed to remain.

Sir Henry Fildes

Can the hon. Member give one case where it has happened?

Mr. Smith

I would have armed myself with examples if I had known that my statement would be challenged.

Sir H. Fildes

I know of 50 cases where it has not happened.

Mr. Smith

Well, all right; but every body who is versed in industrial affairs knows that what I am saying is a fact. I do not mind my statement being challenged, only I have made it a practice to fortify myself with documentary evidence to prove anything I say and the reason why I did not do it this afternoon was that I never expected that the statement would be challenged. Everybody knows that it has happened in most re-organisation schemes, and the hon. Member is only trying to side-track me when he interrupts me.

My final point is this: We on this side are here only because we have reflected throughout the ages the aspirations, the principles and the ideas of the common people of this country. As our people have become more and more politically conscious they have refused to stand for the humiliating treatment which they have suffered so long. As I walk through Knightsbridge I see how the parasitical section of this country lives, and then I go back to the cotton areas and see how the people live who have made this country great, the people who have built up its export trade and the people who will protect this country if it becomes involved in a certain situation. We should not be doing our duty this evening if we did not put this point of view before the House, and did not remind our party that when we get into power it will be no use saying that we are not prepared to translate into concrete reality the ideas we have put forward from this side. We say that because of our experience of certain people who misled the people of this country, and let the country down, but eventually found their way on to the Treasury Bench. It is no use saying one thing on the platform and saying some thing else here. It is no use denouncing vested interests on the platform and then coming here and being influenced by the flattery of those same vested interests in this House.

When an opportunity like this comes along we must, if we are to be worthy of the people of this country, take a stand for the principles we have professed. We have to give our people some hope and retain their confidence, and we can only do that by standing up for the principles on which we have come to the House. Here we have an opportunity of translating those principles into concrete realities, and we ought not to be making excuses for not taking advantage of the opportunity. Although this proposal has been rejected to-day by the President of the Board of Trade we are convinced that it is only a matter of time before it will be accepted by the House.

Sir H. Williams

I would like to make a brief observation in reply to the eloquent speech to which we have just listened. It was what I might describe as the standard speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on any occasion, but he made the statement that under the Bill all those capitalists whom he was denouncing would get compensation. There is not one provision in the Bill whereby any capitalist is compulsorily compensated.

Mr. E. Smith

I know that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) is smart, and that he always takes points up, but I hope that he will not misrepresent what I said. I said that generally speaking when any director is displaced in industry as a result of re organisation an arrangement was made to compensate him.

Sir H. Williams

But we are discussing the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are supposed to be."] The hon. Member's speech was in respect of an Amendment to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman sitting next to him made the same mistake. The only provisions of the Bill whereby a capitalist is compensated are those cases where they want to sell machinery in order that that machinery might be destroyed.

Mr. Silverman

It is certainly voluntary whether a scheme is adopted or not, but once a scheme has been accepted by the requisite majority and adopted by the trade, then it must be operated; and under the operation of that redundancy scheme looms are to be scrapped. They are taken and bought and the owner of them is compensated. That is the point of the dis- tinction that we are making between the scrapping of machinery with full compensation and the scrapping of the labourer with none.

Sir H. Williams

I am sorry that the hon. Member, who sat in the Committee upstairs, has not taken the trouble to read the Bill. The powers under a redundancy scheme are to be acquired by agreement, and at no stage in the Bill are those compulsory provisions. The speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent had not the faintest relation to the Bill.

Mr. Silverman

Your speech has not.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

In the mining industry we know about amalgamations. I can say from my own experience that when amalgamations take place directors are found positions on the central governing body of the firms concerned.

Sir H. Fildes

I understood that the hon. Member was describing the conditions that obtain in the cotton industry.

Mr. Tinker

I have in mind the general application of this principle. We know from experience of amalgamations that all the interests concerned on the financial and management sides are found positions. That is why we have taken the opportunity of trying to impress upon the House the unfairness to the-workmen's side in this Measure. I know the difficulties. There has been an under standing between the workmen's representatives and the employers to get an agreed Bill, but we bring this principle before the House, even though we recognise that we cannot get it carried in view of that agreement, because we know we should not be doing our duty unless we impressed upon the House how we felt and unless we brought forward the worker's point of view.

We must all recognise that there are two sides to the industry. If somebody is to be squeezed out and the employers side can be recompensed, surely it is only fair to give the workers' side some recompense. It may be that the employers' side say that there is the Unemployment Fund. I agree that, as a last resort, there is that fund for the workers, but is that sufficient? Is the miserable pittance given to a man who is out of work for a long period because of these amalgamations sufficient recompense? We could not allow this opportunity to pass this evening without giving some sign of our feelings on the matter. When these agreements are made I trust that recognition will be given to both sides of the industry, and although we cannot succeed to-night in impressing that upon the House, I hope that hon. Members will have in mind, when these amalgamations take place, the fact that there is another side which ought to be considered.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Watson

I would like to support this Amendment before we go to a Division upon it. I supported my hon. Friends' Amendment in Standing Committee. What has struck me as peculiar this evening is that the forces which gave the President of the Board of Trade most trouble in Committee have been placated, whereas the side that almost consistently supported him loyally in his efforts to get the Bill through the Committee stage are now turned down absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman turns down absolutely our plea that compensation for the employés should be obligatory. He has been able, during the period that has elapsed between the Committee stage and to-night, to placate very powerful forces that gave him trouble on the first seven Clauses of his Measure. As a matter of fact, until this question came before the Committee there was no unity on the Government side with regard to the Bill. Those on the Government side paid no attention to the fact that this was an agreed Measure, and the right hon. Gentleman had to appeal again and again to his own side on the ground that it was an agreed Measure. He has been able to satisfy the rayon interests which gave him trouble in Committee, but when we come forward with a modest request that the employés should be as much entitled

to compensation as the employers, he turns down the claim of the workers.

I shall not contest the point that was put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). He was perfectly correct in saying that it was agreed that a certain amount of machinery would be scrapped and that compensation would be paid. There is no doubt about the compensation being paid in respect of the machinery, but the employés only "may" be compensated. It will depend upon the scheme. It may end in some employés being compensated and others not being compensated. You may have in the industry in future a great deal of trouble on the differentiation meted out to certain sections of the industry. It is most unfair that the employés should be placed in a position inferior to the employers.

I cannot understand why the workers' representatives on the Joint Committee agreed to a Measure of this kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) said that this was an agreed Bill, but not this Bill that we hold in our hands this afternoon. This is not the Bill that was agreed upon by the Joint Committee. That Bill was amended in Committee and there are yet to be moved by the President of the Board of Trade whole pages of Amendments which will alter the Bill still further. The Bill that it is proposed should leave the House to-night is not the Bill that was agreed to in the Joint Committee. The President of the Board of Trade would be equally justified in accepting this Amendment and putting in the word "shall" as in accepting Amendments to placate the rayon interests on the other side.

Question put, "That the word' may stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 116.

Division No. 221.]	AYES.	[6.40 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Boyce, H. Leslie	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)	Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Albery, Sir Irving	Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)	Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Alien, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)	Brocklebank, Sir Edmund	Chorlton, A. E. L.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)	Christie, J. A.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)	Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Clarry, Sir Reginald
Balniel, Lord	Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)	Clydesdale, Marquess of
Beit, Sir A. L.	Bull, B. B.	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Bennett, Sir E. N.	Burton, Col. H. W.	Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Blair, Sir R.	Campbell, Sir E. T.	Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Bossom, A. C.	Cary, R. A.	Cox, H. B. Trevor
Bower, Comdr. R. T.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Cross, R. H.	Jennings, R.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Crossley, A. C.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Crowder, J. F. E	Keeling, E. H.	Schuster, Sir G. E.
Cruddas, Col. B.	Kellett, Major E. O.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Davidson, Viscountess	Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.	Smithers, Sir W.
Denville, Alfred	Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.	Snadden, W. McN.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Dodd, J. S.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Doland, G. F.	Levy, T.	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Donner, P. W.	Lipson, D. L.	Spens. W. P.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.	Loftus, P. C.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm 'I'd)
Drewe, C.	M'Connell, Sir J.	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Dunglass, Lord	McKie, J. H.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Eastwood, J. F.	Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Eckersley P. T.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Sutcliffe, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Maxwell, Hon. S. A.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Emery, J. F.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Thomas, J. P. L.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)	Moreing, A. C.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Everard, Sir William Lindsay	Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)	Touche, G. C.
Fildes, Sir H.	Morris-Jones, Sir Henry	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Findlay, Sir E.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Flaming, E. L.	Munro, p.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.	Waterhouse, Captain C.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Wayland, Sir W. A.
Granville, E. L.	Petherick, M.	Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Gridley, Sir A. B.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Wells, Sir Sydney
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.	Pilkington, R.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Grimston, R. V.	Ponsonby, Col. C. E.	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Porritt, R. W.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Guest, Lieut. Colonel H. (Drake)	Radford, E. A.	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Hammersley, S. S.	Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.	wise, A. R.
Hannah, I. C.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Remer, J. R.	Wood, Hon. C I C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)	Wragg, H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-	Ropner, Colonel L.	York, C.
Hoare Rt. Hon. Sir S.	Rosbotham, Sir T.
Holmes, J. S.	Rowlands, G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Howitt, Dr. A. B.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.	Mr. Furness and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
NOES.
Adams, D. M, (Poplar, S.)	Garro Jones, G. M.	McGovern, J.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Mainwaring, W. H.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Marshall, F.
Amman, C. G.	Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Mathers, G.
Banfield, J. W.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Maxton, J.
Barnes, A. J.	Grenfell, D. R.	Messer, F.
Barr, J.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M"ddl'sbro, W.)	Montague, F.
Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Benson, G.	Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Naylor, T. E.
Bevan, A.	Groves, T. E.	Noel-Baker, P. J.
Broad, F. A.	Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Oliver, G. H.
Brown, G. (Mansfield)	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Paling, W.
Buchanan, G.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Parker, J.
Burke, W. A.	Hardie, Agnes	Parkinson, J. A.
Charleton, H. C.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Pearson, A.
Cluse, W. S.	Hayday, A.	Price, M. P.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Pritt. D. N.
Cocks, F. S.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Collindridge, F.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Ridley, G.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Hopkin, D.	Riley, B.
Daggar. G.	Isaacs, G. A.	Ritson, J.
Dalton, H.	Jagger, J.	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Sanders, W. S
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	John, W.	Sexton. T. M.
Dobbie, W.	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Shinwell, E.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Silverman, S. S.
Edward., Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Simpson, F. B.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)	Lathan, G.	Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Lee, F.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Foot, D. M.	Leslie, J. R.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Frankel, D.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Gallacher, W.	McEntee, V. La T.	Sorensen, R. W.
Gardner, B. W.	McGhce, H. G.	Stephen, C.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)	Viant, S. P.	Wilmot, John
Stokes, R. R.	Walker, J.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Strauss G. R. (Lambeth, N.)	Watkins, F. C.	Young,. Sir R. (Newton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	Watson, W. McL.
Thorne, W.	White, H. Graham	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thurtle, E.	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)	Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson,
Tinker, J. J.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, to leave out from "to," to the end of line 10, and to insert: persons of any class specified in the scheme who, having been employed in or about a mill to which the scheme applies, have lost that employment, if the loss of employment appears to that board to be ascribable to the opera-lion of the scheme. This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) during the Committee stage. He pointed out that the provision with regard to compensation in the Bill as drafted only applied to a worker who was employed at the actual time when the mill was purchased for scrapping, and that there was a possibility, to put it no higher, of some sort of collusion which might deprive the worker of his right to compensation—that, when the owner of the mill had agreed to sell the mill for scrapping, he might dismiss the workers then and a week or 10 days later sell the mill, thus avoiding any obligation to pay compensation. I promised at the time to look into the point and see whether I could find any wording which would get over that difficulty. As a result I have put down this Amendment, which would make it possible for the board administering the scheme to look into the whole circum stances of the case and pay compensation if they thought that the loss of employment was ascribable to the operation of the scheme, without being bound by the fact that the worker must be in employment at the actual moment when the mill was sold.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment, and agree that it goes a long way towards meeting the point which he has outlined. I am not quite sure that the wording is happy, but I do not want to raise any point about that. There is, how ever, another possibility, to which I think I referred in Committee, which has nothing to do with any kind of collusion. I am thinking of the case of the man who, owing to the peculiar conditions of em- ployment in the industry, might not actually be employed on the date on which the scheme takes effect. While that might not be used for the purposes of any un worthy action by the employer, or any attempt on his part to back out of his liability, it might just happen, without any ulterior motive, but quite genuinely and legitimately, that the worker was not employed, and that, owing to the conditions of the industry, it would nevertheless be unfair to exclude him from any compensation to which he might other wise have been entitled merely because on a particular date there happened not to be any work for his loom to do. I am not sure that the Amendment meets that case, because the fact that he was not employed on the operative date would have nothing at all to do with the scheme, but would be due to the general conditions in that particular mill and in the industry at that time. His con tract may not in fact have been terminated. Nevertheless, if the result of the scheme were to be that the man was never to be employed again, and if the scheme was one in which compensation was provided for, it would not be equitable that he should get no benefit at all. It might perhaps have been better if we had put down an Amendment to cover that point, or an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I do not want to oppose the present Amendment, because I think it meets the point which the right hon. Gentleman has described, but I would ask him whether, between this and another stage, he would consider what has been said and see whether this further case could not be met also.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I will certainly look into the point, though I must say that at the first glance I should have thought it was met. I should have thought that the case of the man who just happens to be stood off for the one day on which the transaction goes through could probably say that the total loss of his employment was ascribable to the operation of the scheme. That is my personal view, but I will certainly look into the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, in page 8, line 40, at the end, to insert: (4) An order under the proviso to the last preceding sub-section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it has been made, and shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. Some attention was drawn to the pro vision of this Clause which, while limiting the period during which a redundancy scheme might be submitted, at the same time gives the Board of Trade power to extend that period to a final period which is three times as long as the period originally laid down. I think it is quite right that, in a Bill of this kind, which we hope will last for a considerable time, there should be a certain amount of flexibility, but I agree that it is perhaps too great an executive power to give to the Board of Trade to turn a term of five 3'ears finally into a term of 15 years. The Amendment, therefore, makes it certain that, if the Board of Trade wishes by order to extend the period of five years, the order must be laid before Parliament and must receive an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.