§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTMy Lords, owing to the recent Resolution of the House, I am now able to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Industrial Courts Bill. As you see, the Bill is divided into three Parts. Part I sets up a permanent Industrial Court—that has to do with Clauses 1, 2, and 3. Part II is to give powers to appoint Courts of Inquiry to inquire into trade disputes for the purpose of an impartial public statement of facts. Part III is to extend, with a certain modification, the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act of 1918.
It will be remembered that before the war the Board of Trade had power to appoint an arbitrator to settle disputes on obtaining the consent of both parties. That was under the Conciliation Act of 1896. During the war, in view of the military necessities and the dangers of the case, the Government had to prohibit strikes and lock-outs and to provide a compulsory reference to arbitration for speedy settlement of trade disputes. For this purpose the Committee on Production was the chief arbitration tribunal. After the war—that is to say, at about the date of the Armistice—the Committee on Production was replaced by the Interim Court of Arbitration set up under the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act of 1918. Those of your Lordships who take an interest in these matters—I can hardly suppose that any one fails to do so—will recollect the conspicuous success of those two bodies. I believe that in the years 1915–1918 inclusive somewhere about 4,000 cases were settled by those two Courts, of which number the Interim Court settled about 850 in the first eleven months of this year. Therefore it is not too much to say that this shows the value of arbitration, and that a permanency of that system is not only desirable, but I think imperative.
In a number of trades conciliatory machinery exists, some of which was created in the shape of Industrial Councils, otherwise known as the Whitley Councils. But it does and must happen sometimes that disputes cannot be settled by the parties concerned, and that they require the aid and efforts of some independent and impartial tribunal with a wider purview. It will be agreed that, the war being over and the military objections to stoppage of work no longer existing, it is now necessary 306 to endeavour to secure some uniform policy for settling industrial disputes, and it is this that the Bill endeavours to provide. Part I sets up a new permanent Industrial Court on the same lines as the Committee on Production and the Interim Court of Arbitration. There will be appointed as President an independent person with representatives of employers and workers. Provision is made for assessors when it is considered necessary that they should attend.
I may remind your Lordships that the Whitley Report recommended the formation of a standing arbitration tribunal such as this Bill suggests, and on these lines. Reference to the tribunal will be made only on the application, or by consent, of both parties to the dispute. It must be by voluntary action, and here again the Whitley Report agrees. Moreover, we have experience of Colonial legislation which showed that not only was a compulsory measure ineffective but not practicable. I venture to say that we must endeavour to encourage by voluntary recognition application to, and confidence in, these Courts, whose action should tend towards good will, rather than the settlement of these matters by strikes with their attendant violence and bitterness and remaining ill-will. I may say at once that it is not intended to displace or abolish any of the existing machinery for conciliation. That machinery should continue and develop its usefulness to the greatest possible extent. I think we are agreed that there is ample room for the efforts of all in order to attain the end we have in view.
I should like especially to mention the Whitley Councils, which should be encouraged and stimulated to deal with matters in particular trades. You are aware that the energies of the Whitley Councils are not confined to strikes. There is an infinite variety of matters for discussion between employers and employed in which the Whitley Councils can render encouragement and useful assistance. They can greatly tend to improve the relations between the employer and the employed, to get the parties to understand each other better, and gradually to wear down that atmosphere of suspicion which is such a potent factor in creating and fomenting difficulties in the way of settling industrial disputes. The Councils have done extremely useful work, and I hope that their work will develop.
307 Provision is made in the Bill for a large class of case—perhaps local—that can be settled by a single arbitrator. The Bill provides that suitable cases should be so referred, with consent. The usefulness of this procedure has been fully established. I believe that about 4,000 cases in the last four years have been disposed of successfully. Further, the Bill provides for ad hoc tribunals, each with a chairman and representatives of both sides as members —a popular and effective method of procedure. These are the three tribunals.
Part II, which contains the second main point in the Bill, is to establish Courts of Inquiry. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a provision of real importance and advantage. By it the Minister is empowered to make enquiry, or to refer a matter to a Court. The Minister will, of course, appoint to the Courts those whom he thinks most fitted to serve on them. There will be full power to inquire, to call witnesses and to examine them on oath, and reports of the Courts will be published and of course presented to Parliament. Interim reports will be published also, if necessary or desirable.
As well as aiming at elucidation and disentanglement of industrial disputes, there will be a great advantage in an impartial presentation of the facts to the public. I think we are all aware how much harm is done, and to what an extent cases are prejudiced, by wild, unfounded rumours and violent statements which, of course, provoke equally wild and equally violent rejoinders, which grow as they circulate and render a difficult situation much more difficult than it was at the beginning. I am not so sanguine as to hope that rumour and rejoinder will entirely be eliminated by Courts of Inquiry, but at any rate these Courts will give the public an opportunity of understanding the rights of the case from an authorised statement.
There is a provision which, I believe, at one time was advocated, but which does not find a place in the Bill, and that is the prohibition of strikes during or pending an inquiry. Colonial legislation in this respect was the reverse of successful, and, to quote the Whitley Report arguing in favour of an independent inquiry into disputes, that Report pronounced against the power to delay strikes or lock-outs. As regards the procedure, if a dispute is reported to the Minister your Lordships will see how he will act. Probably he will refer it to 308 the Whitley Council or some system of conciliation such as exists, for instance, in the engineering trade; or, if that has been a failure, he would, with the agreement of the parties, refer the dispute to one of these three tribunals, and if no agreement to go to arbitration is reached and a strike is threatened, the Minister may order a Court of Inquiry when, as explained, witnesses can be summoned and the public put in possession of the facts of the case.
Then in regard to the expense of the matters contained in the Bill, as we have so often heard the apprehension expressed as to new Departments and so on, I should say that there is to be no new Department set up; that the new Courts will take over the trained, expert staff of the Interim Court of Arbitration, so that I do not anticipate any large expense on that head.
As to Part III, Clause 6—and this is my last salient point—it is provided to continue the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1918. I believe that it was with the assistance of your Lordships that I passed the first Act and also the Act of renewal. The debates on these Acts having been so recent, I do not think I need recapitulate the reasons that led the Government to introduce them. The Act was renewed owing to the recommendation of the Provisional Joint Committee of the National Industrial Conference, and I need only remind your Lordships that the employers agreed that it was passed owing to the apprehensions of the workers that the increases of pay which had been fixed by the Production Committee might suddenly be reduced if the protecting Act were withdrawn. These increases were arranged to meet the food prices. Serious and genuine apprehension still exists in some trades in which permanent wages arrangements have been made—in others progress has been slower—as to what would happen if the protecting Act were allowed to lapse. The labourers' and women's unions are apprehensive that wages would drop if this protection were withdrawn.
The date suggested is September 30, 1920—ten months from now. That date was decided upon, I think, because it is the date fixed in the railway arrangements, and also with the ironmoulders—and the employers agreed to the date. I need not insist on the fact that the placing of wages on a new and permanent basis is a matter of the first interest to workers. In such trades as shipbuilding and engineer- 309 ing, where piece work greatly obtains, negotiations have been necessarily complicated and difficult. While some arrangements have been made these are slower, but it is hoped that by September 30, 1920, very considerable progress will have been made.
The question of renewal was discussed by trade unions and employers with the Minister of Labour. The trade unionists were all for renewal, and the employers, in view of the fact that stability was essential for the progress and revival of trade, did not oppose an extension but desired an amendment. By the Act the employers were forced to go to arbitration and to abide by the Award; but the workers were not so bound. Now the right to obtain a new rate and sue employers for it no longer exists. Both parties must agree to a change of rate. By reading Clause 6 of the Bill and the Schedule the effect of the amendment will be seen.
It is quite possible that on this point, which is rather a difficult one, I may be a little obscure, but, briefly, the effect of Clause 6, taken with. the Schedule, is this. Until September 30, 1920, employers will be bound to pay, and workmen entitled to sue for, the prescribed rate and such substituted rates as have already been set up under the interim Acts. No new compulsory rates will be created and neither party will, in future, be able to insist on compulsory arbitration for securing the substituted rate. With the concurrence of both sides, however, the Industrial Court will be able to hear a claim for an increase of wages and give an Award thereon. This Award will not be legally binding on the parties, but will have all the sanction of an honourable and moral obligation.
Those are the three points in the Bill. The remaining clauses deal principally with matters of detail with which I need not trouble your Lordships beyond saying that in Clause 11, where the agricultural labour question is dealt with, you will find that the Minister of Agriculture is to act conjointly with the Minister of Labour. That is the Bill as I have tried to explain. It is generally agreed, and experience shows us, that it is for the employers and workers to settle their disputes without the dictation of the Government, but that the Government can and should give aid to the extent of providing opportunity and assistance in order to probe and simplify a situation by such aid and inquiry as may be desired. 310 This the Government endeavour to do by this Bill, in regard to which a very great measure of agreement has been reached—and agreement is essential. A proof of the measure of agreement was to be observed in the proceedings of the House of Commons last night, when the Third Reading was passed without dissent. That is my case for the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMy Lords, I feel certain that all your Lordships wish this Bill well. If it succeeds in removing even in a few small instances some of the discontent and misunderstanding between employers and employed, or in healing the strife which from time to time breaks out between them, it will be more than abundantly justified. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill in terms, if he will allow me to say so, of singular lucidity, did not himself venture to suggest that any startling results would necessarily follow from its passage into law—and I think he was wise. A Bill of this kind must of necessity be something in the nature of an experiment, and every one will recognise that a measure which is primarily directed to healing quarrels that have actually broken out will go a very little way to solve the general industrial discontent, which is one of the gravest difficulties we have to face at the present. A measure to accomplish that must go much further. It may be doubted whether it would be possible to frame such a measure.
What we have to face is this, that at the present time many employed in industry are not merely asking for better wages and better homes. They are asking for these undoubtedly. But they are also asking for something more. They are insisting that their standing in industry should be on a different footing from what it was before; that they should not be regarded merely as chattels of machinery, but that they should be looked upon as intelligent beings, engaged in their degree equally with their employers in working out the industry out of which they get their livelihood. I am quite certain that the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Londonderry, and all noble Lords present who are connected with industry, will say that, ill-formulated and ill-expressed though their desire may be, at the bottom of their demands there is a 311 something which mere money payments will never satisfy.
This Bill, of course, is intended to satisfy the quarrels that will find expression and will possibly be measured in terms of wages and hours. There I hope it may succeed. But I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I mention the experience that I have had when acting in precisely the very position that these Industrial Courts will have to occupy when once they are set up. I had the honour to be selected by the federated employers in the boot and shoe trade, and by the employees too, as general nominee of them both, to act as Standing Arbitrator between them in just such cases as those which will arise under this Bill. There was an agreement made between the employers and the men that they would not strike until they had referred their differences to arbitration, and if the agreement was broken I used to have deputations before me on each side to see whether or no there had been a breach of the bargain, and, if so, what was to be done.
The difficulty which thus arose must also arise before these Courts, and that is the difficulty of being able to ascertain what is the real trouble as between the employers and the men. It is by no means an easy matter. You will get a factory full of discontented people, and, strangely enough, when they come to formulate the cause of their discontent, unless you can put it merely into a question of money and hours, it is extremely difficult to make it plain; yet the grievance is there, it is very real, and very often it causes serious dislocation in the business. It is sometimes due to carelessness and ill-considered action on the part of a foreman. Sometimes it is due to a feeling that the men are being over-pressed. Again and again it has been my experience that the causes which led to most of the friction were not what we often regard as the main causes—namely, the questions of wages and hours. Those are matters which are more easily considered and adjusted.
I would also like to point out, as a matter of procedure, that although the Courts of Inquiry, before a dispute has broken out, have power to summon witnesses, yet I notice that no such power is given to these Industrial Courts, and I should have thought that they equally required the power to summon before them any witness they thought fit. I hope that I have not 312 detained your Lordships long in making these few observations upon this matter, but it is one in which I am deeply interested, and I am sure that every one of your Lordships will hope that this Bill may have a beneficent effect upon the difficult relations that exist to-day between employers and labour.
§ LORD ASKWITHMy Lords, having had some experience of these Courts I desire to add a few words upon this Bill. I was very glad to hear from the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading that the existing machinery is to remain, and I gather that that means that the Conciliation Act of 1896 will still remain in full force and is not to be repealed, although the clauses of this Bill appear to cover some of the clauses of that Act. The value of the Conciliation Act is this—that until the beginning of the war, for nearly twenty years, it was the thin thread upon which all the conciliation and arbitration in trade disputes that occurred in this country was practically hung. The work-people and the employers have got to know it. I do not think that there were many—I do not recall any—complaints of undue interference by means of the terms of that Act; and after a time a slow confidence, which is so difficult to obtain, soaked into the mind of the country that it was possible to have conciliation and arbitration. It would be a sad pity if that Act were repealed, and if it were held that there was a new-fangled notion brought forward by Parliament which was to be imposed upon the people.
The noble Viscount has most lucidly explained how this Bill falls into three parts. The third part deals with the continuance of wages at their present rate, and also allows that to go on until September of next year. It continues an Act which otherwise would have ended on Friday next. I do not suppose there is the slightest chance of the cost of living going down before September next. There is no sign of it at the present time. Therefore it may be a futile fear that wages would have to be reduced, but although the argument of the employers on the importance of stability need not necessarily be endorsed by events, as it is open under the Act for applications for new advances in accordance with the cost of living to remain, the matter could not really be left open, because the railway settlement had already allowed the arranged wages to continue until 313 September next. That is an instance of one section of the workers, instead of going to the existing Courts, running to Downing-street, which I consider an unjust, pernicious, and ludicrous system.
It is pernicious because it over-rides and discredits the Courts which are set up under the previous Act, and if it continues it discredits the Courts which will be set up under this Bill. It is unjust because it deals only with a single section of the workers, without any proper purview of the general conditions of trade in other sections of work, and when anybody who knows anything about trade disputes must know that an increase given to one section will spread far wider than was originally intended. It is therefore unjust both to the employers in other trades and unjust to the efforts of the leading trade unionists in trades not affected, who have not a chance of stating their views, and who may not have been desirous of applying at the moment for an increase of wages, possibly having come to a settlement upon their own account.
It becomes also ludicrous when you see leading Ministers of the Crown dabbling in these trade disputes, taking a special train down to South Wales to settle them in a grand manner, which may appeal to their sense of notoriety but nothing else; or going up to Manchester, as occurred some years ago, when a Minister of the Crown was practically flouted by the cotton employers. I hope that the first section of this Act will permit Courts to be set up as permanent Courts, to which Ministers of the Crown will insist that claims by workpeople should be remitted, and that they will not discredit their own Courts by interfering in the matter themselves. If they do, I trust it will come up in Parliament, and that strong exception will be taken to this action.
Permanent courts of arbitration are no new thing. They have been on their trial for five years, and the proof that they have done fairly well is shown in the action taken, without consulting their constituents, by the Labour leaders in the House of Commons. There is no novelty about this Act. It reminds one at first of a Latin line which your Lordships must have learned in your early days at school. It begins with the words Parluriunt montes. But any change in the working conditions of arbitration or conciliation must be of a very small character at first. It requires 314 some time for the conditions to soak into the country, and the country, being very conservative in that matter, is loth to accept anything new which people think may be an imposition upon them by the employers or by Parliament.
The second Part with regard to the Courts of Inquiry is of a more important nature. It is to a certain extent, I think, gleaned from the Canadian Act, commonly called the Lemieux Act. I had to go to Canada in 1912, and I made a report upon that Act. I notice that some of the clauses which were considered to be difficult of working in the Canadian Act have been omitted from this Bill, but as a matter of fact in practical working I am not sure that they are of very great importance. For instance, the taking of evidence upon oath or the non-production of documents being treated as contempt of court is not a very practical matter, when you come to the actual hearings. I do not know that I can recall any instance in which employers have not been willing, either by offering themselves or at the request of the Court, to produce any book that the Court desired to see; and as to evidence upon oath, any witnesses who are heard can always be checked by the statements of other witnesses or by the statements of the employers against them.
The novelty in Part II of the Bill is that the results of the inquiry should be stated to Parliament. A great deal of nonsense is talked about the advisability and the necessity of publicity in these cases. In 999 out of 1,000 cases the public does not want to know anything about them, and does not care. During the war suggestions were made from time to time that more publicity should be given to awards, but owing to the pressure on space the newspapers very seldom were prepared to publish the award in full, and the effect of publishing half an award, or the newspaper's idea of what the award really meant, led in many instances to most serious and unnecessary strife. You must have the whole document, if it is an award, published; and if it is a. report, that also should be published in full. The advantage of putting it before Parliament is that you will have on the public records and available for discussion in Parliament. (or for any Labour leader to obtain) the full report, and reference can be made to it. I think that is one of the principal novelties in this Bill which is useful. Otherwise it is 315 not a new thing; it is a small thing. But it has been accepted by the Labour leaders, and in those circumstances I suggest to your Lordships that it might be inadvisable to amend it in any manner which would be at all serious, because it might appear to be dictation to the workers of this country, although it might be very innocuous in its real effect.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
316§ [From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, November 17.]