HC Deb 28 July 1943 vol 391 cc1580-3
Mr. Arthur Greenwood

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make any statement as regards the Government's proposals in connection with workmen's compensation legislation?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

The Government have had under consideration the claims which have been put forward from various quarters for increasing the rates payable under the existing Workmen's Compensation Acts, and, after lengthy discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation, have decided to submit to Parliament a Bill embodying certain increases. The increases are intended to be of a temporary nature and are without prejudice to the introduction of a revised scheme of workmen's compensation which the Government have under consideration in connection with the Beveridge Report. The Government had hoped to pass this legislation before the Adjournment, but they recognise that there are various aspects on which Members may desire further time for consideration, and they realise that it would not be practicable for the Bill to be dealt with in the very limited time now available. Arrangements have, however, been made for the Bill to be introduced. Copies will be available to hon. Members almost immediately, and, if there is a sufficient measure of agreement, it is hoped to take it on an early day after the House resumes.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Do I understand from the Home Secretary that this will be the last attempt to deal with workmen's compensation before the general and revised scheme, which he talked about, will be introduced?

Mr. Morrison

Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. Bevan

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the proposals of the Government in this regard will be satisfactory in doing justice to workmen, and before he introduces his Bill will he take into consideration the very strong state of feeling which exists in the mining industry on this matter?

Mr. Morrison

All states of feeling have been taken into account, and we think the Bill is the best we can do in the circumstances with which we are faced, until we deal with the matter in relation to the Beveridge Report.

Mr. G. Griffiths

May I ask the Home Secretary what he means by his reference to a general measure of agreement? Does he mean that Members who are not altogether agreed with the Bill must keep their mouths shut when it is presented?

Mr. Morrison

That, I think, would be too much to hope for; but the language I used was that, if there is a sufficient measure of agreement, it is hoped to take the Bill on an early day after the House resumes. I think hon. Members generally will be quite clear as to what that means.

Mr. Buchanan

The Home Secretary has told us that he has had discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation, who have been consulted in regard to the Bill. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about a measure of agreement, does he mean by that that the House as a whole will have to shut their eyes to anything in the nature of an Admendment to the Bill? In view of those negotiations has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind that the Government's decision is to refuse to accept any Admendment to what will be a major Bill?

Mr. Morrison

We had better wait and see what Admendments are put down; but responsible negotiations have been conducted with the employers and with the representatives of the Trades Union Congress, and I am sure that the House will take full account of that fact.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Does the Home Secretary mean that if Parliament exercises its proper function of dealing with these proposals on their merits, and if the House disagrees with some of the things which have been agreed to outside the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Measure? It that what he means?

Mr. Morrison

No, Sir, I have not said that at all. Really, in the present circumstances, the Government must be influenced as to the future of the Bill by the spirit in which it is going to be treated.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of Order. Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had been negotiating with outside bodies? Has it now become the practice of the Government to negotiate with outside bodies, and have the outside bodies been informed of the terms of the proposed Bill? Parliament has not.

Mr. Morrison

My hon. Friend is getting very hoity-toity about a procedure which is perfectly well known. He is becoming constitutionally pernickety all of a sudden. It is a common practice for discussions about Measures of this kind to take place with the Trades Union Congress. If my hon. Friend objects to the Government discussing this matter with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation, it seems to me curious doctrine from a Member of the Labour Party.

Mr. Bevan

Further to my point of Order. I submit that it has always been the practice of the Government to receive representations from bodies as to the form that legislation should take. I submit that it is a most unusual and irregular position for the Government to negotiate the terms of a Bill with outside bodies and to agree on the terms of the Bill, before the Bill is presented to the House of Commons.

Mr. Buchanan

While we accept the right hon. Gentleman's lecture to us about this matter, recognising that he is a great man and an authority on all these points, may I put this point to him? He has negotiated a broad agreement with the Trades Union Congress and the employers, and then he says the future of the Bill will depend on the reception of these proposals. The point which I wish to make is that these bodies have negotiated with the right hon. Gentleman outside, and have had the right to a say on what form the Bill ought to take. What position then is the House of Commons to take? Have we no rights outside what the Trades Union Congress and the employers have negotiated with the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Morrison

I take my hon. Friend's reproof in the spirit in which he uttered it and which I quite understand. I should be the last person in the world to deny the rights of the House of Commons, and I was not denying any rights of the House of Commons. Any Minister who did so would be a complete foal, and I do not propose to do so. On the other hand, it is the custom, on Measures of this sort, to conduct responsible discussions with industrial bodies—

Mr. Buchanan

Nobody is denying that.

Mr. Morrison

—and not to treat them on the basis that they can make representations and that the Government will then tell them what they have to take. We cannot treat these great bodies in that spirit on a Measure of this kind. We have entered into responsible discussions with them, on a frank, man-to-man basis, and I propose to continue treating them in that way. The only point is that if on this Bill we are going to be involved in what one may call a Parliamentary shindy, the Government clearly must consider whether it is expedient to proceed with the Bill. That is not to say that I am denying that Parliament has to consider this Bill, or that Parliament has its rights. Clearly it has its rights.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

This is developing into a Second Reading discussion, and I do not think we can proceed with it any further on this occasion.