HL Deb 24 March 1927 vol 66 cc763-72

LORD STRATHSPEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government if it will suggest to the heads of the banks whether they can see their way to give a lead to the general desire of the country to achieve permanent industrial peace by recognising the national association of employees in their own profession (the Bank Officers Guild), as such recognition of an association which has justly made a name in England and Wales for sanity and idealism would be an example that might have great effect in the cause of peace in industry.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name is one of great importance. I wish particularly to point out that this Bank Officers Guild embraces the whole of England and Wales but does not include Scotland or Ireland as they come under a different constitution. The membership of this Guild is approximately 23,000, and all we are asking for now is that the Guild should be properly and legally recognised as a trade union. After all, a properly constituted union is of more value and of greater safety to the country than a number of disconnected units. I would point out also that this Guild is non-political, and embraces within its ranks members of all the Parties. In support of this request I wish to emphasise that peace in industry is an essential thing. To these workers, whether by hand or brain, there must be given some practical and earnest response to this cry for peace. What is required at the moment is a frank gesture by some great industry which will at once focus the eyes of all the belligerent parties and show the way towards a better state of things. The banking industry, by reason of its overwhelming importance and its intimate connections with the Treasury, which, of course, are likely to increase rather than decrease, offers just that material for an example to industry and the nation which I feel that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to foster and encourage in every way possible.

I find that the Bank Officers Guild has been actuated in its finances both by the interests of the clerks themselves and of banking generally. It has undoubtedly done a great deal to raise the financial rewards of the bank clerk. Those rewards, before the birth of the Guild, were not such as to do the directors of banks any great credit. It appears that it has been sought to take steps to set up a joint national Whitley Council, but so far the first step towards the accomplishment of this worthy aim—namely, the recognition of the Guild by the banks—has not been granted. I earnestly suggest to your Lordships that it is the duty of this House and of His Majesty's Government to do all that is in their power to persuade the banks that it is in the interests of all that such a powerful industry as the banking industry should lead the way.

I notice from the remarks made by the various Chairmen of the banks in their annual speeches to their shareholders that they express the fervent hope that peace may come this year. Let them lead the way. I am, of course, aware that the suggestion may possibly be met with the answer that in their own particular banks associations have been set up whereby employees may ventilate their grievances, but with due respect I suggest that this is only begging the question. Industrial peace will never be secured by a sectional organisation of employees and a national organisation of employers. On the face of it the scales are weighted against the employees. The bankers have a powerful organisation of directors, the British Bankers Association, and, if they are really in earnest on this question, they will give frank recognition to the national association of employees in banks.

The bank clerk, as we all know, is a reasonable, sane and, for the most part, a naturally conservative person, and his association is a reflex of that spirit. The Bank Officers Guild has cultural as well as economic aims, and its vision may be gauged by the fact that during the deplorable industrial strike of last year it brought to the attention of the Prime Minister definite and constructive proposals for the establishment of industrial peace. On all these grounds I would suggest most earnestly that the great banks should give recognition to the employees' national association and demonstrate in practice to the industrial world the true relationship that exists, or should exist, between enlightened employers and their staffs. This need is emphasised by the fact that in the House of Commons in 1917 it was declared by a very large majority that organisations of professional workers ought to be recognised by their employers, and time and again the Bank Officers Guild was cited as an argument in favour of this recognition.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down commenced his speech by saying that the Bank Officers Guild should be legally recognised. I do not know exactly what he means by legal recognition, or how the banks can do anything to bring in a Bill for legally recognising a particular trade union. This Guild is a trade union managed by paid officials. I do not propose to say anything either for or against such an organisation. The clerks have a perfect right, if they like to organise themselves into any body that they may choose, and the bankers have a perfect right to do the same. But there is one thing which certainly ought not to be done, and that is for the Government to interfere. It has nothing to do with the Government. This is a matter between employers and employed. What would the noble Lord say if I came down and asked the Government to represent to the Bank Officers Guild that the best thing that they could do would be to dissolve? If the noble Lord would object to that, what right has he to come down and ask that the Government should take sides in the question and say to the employers: "We order you, or we suggest to you, to do this and that"?

The noble Lord, judging from his Question, seems to think that the recognition of the Bank Officers Guild would have a great effect on peace in industry. What have the banks to do with industry? They are financial undertakings. There are in London five great banks. Assuming for the sake of argument that they were to recognise the Guild, what effect would that have upon the coal mines in Wales or in Scotland, or upon any other great industry? It would have no effect at all. Has the intervention of the Government, which, I am sorry to say, has taken place on one or two occasions, ever had any good results? I was present in 1907 when Mr. Lloyd George, to whom we owe most of our calamities, asked the Railway Chairmen to meet him. For some reason known to himself he included me—I was then a railway director, but not a chairman—amongst the Railway Chairmen. We had a meeting at which Mr. Lloyd George told us that we were all very fine fellows, that before he had become President of the Board of Trade he had held a very different view but that since occupying that office he had been converted to thinking that there were no more competent or more honest or more efficient people than the Railway Chairmen. Naturally those Railway Chairmen who did not know Mr. Lloyd George were extremely pleased.

Then Mr. Lloyd George suggested that we should go to luncheon, and after luncheon he suggested that we should appoint from our body six Chairmen to consult with him. The result was, unfortunately, than these six Chairmen, having been threatened by Mr. Lloyd George with legislation, agreed to the appointment of a certain Chairman who would discuss the question of wages with the men. This was supposed to be a great triumph that would lead to peace in industry. What did it do? It led to a strike. We had a strike in 1911, and then Mr. Lloyd George gave way again, I suppose with the idea of leading to peace in industry. What happened then? If the War had not broken out there would have been a strike, and the moment the War was over there was a strike, in 1919. Hardly two years ago we had evidence of what happened when the Government interfered. At the threat of a strike in the coal industry the Government interfered. They spent £23,000,000, and what happened? Was there industrial peace? Not at all. There was a disastrous strike, and any interference by the Government, either on one side or the other, is sure to lead to trouble. The duty of the Government, and I hope my noble friend Lord Peel will kindly represent this to the Cabinet at its next meeting, is to maintain law and order, and do nothing else—not to interfere in any kind of way between employer and employed—not to take the side of the employer, and not to take the side of the employed, but to leave them to fight out their own battle. That is the only way in which peace in industry will be secured, and the only way in which, perhaps, if we are lucky, we may eventually regain that prosperity which we enjoyed before the War.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, we know the ability and vigour of the noble Lord opposite when he brings forward what has always been known as the policy of administrative nihilism. I thought it had disappeared, and that it had come to be admitted that the policy of administrative nihilism was an impossibility in these days. But I understand him to say that in his view there should be no public interference by the Government in any industry whatever. The noble Lord was Chairman, and a very well-known Chairman, of a railway company. Railway companies are subject to every sort of official control, and are subject to very minute statutory regulations, which are entirely out of accord with what the noble Lord said as regards his doctrine of administrative nihilism.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Not at all.

LORD PARMOOR

But the fact is so.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. Is he referring to the regulations of the Board of Trade as to signals and points, and a variety of things of that sort? They are totally different. My point is that there should be no interference between employer and employed.

LORD PARMOOR

In my opinion you cannot separate the two. For instance, to give another illustration, I should like to ask the noble Lord, whose opinion is valuable upon these matters, to take the case of ships. There is the Plimsoll load-line for the protection of sailors, which has had an enormous influence in protecting them and giving them greater safety. Would he say that is an interference by the Government which no civilised person ought to permit? You are obliged in these matters to interfere. What Herbert Spencer once called administrative nihilism is absolutely impossible nowadays. The period for it has gone by, and in no industry is it more absolutely impossible than in the banking industry, which has come into the hands of a few people, and which really affects the whole industrial position and credit of this country.

I do not know whether the noble Lord has turned his mind to the actual words of the Question before the House. It only suggests Government interference in this sense, that it asks that the Government should suggest to the organisers and heads of banks recognition of this Guild. That is all that is needed, and all that is said. There is no suggestion whatever of Government interference in the ordinary everyday business of the bank, but it simply asks whether the Government will suggest to the heads of these great institutions that they should recognise a national association of the employees in their own profession. Does the noble Lord regard that as an illegitimate suggestion?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

It is no business of the Government. It is nothing to do with the Government.

LORD PARMOOR

I would suggest two authorities, to which I think the noble Lord will pay considerable attention. The first is Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who says of this association: My best wishes for the success of your organisation. From what I know of it I believe it is working on sound lines for an admirable object. Let us take again what was said by the Speaker of the House of Commons: I have noticed with much interest the progress of the movement amongst bank officers to build up an organisation which may enable them to join with the bank directors in the establishment of a joint council for the banking profession. The movement seems to be inspired by the true spirit of constructive co-operation, and if this is maintained, I anticipate much good for the profession and all those engaged in it, as well as for the national service. I trust that the directors will look at it in the same light.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Is that the present Speaker?

LORD PARMOOR

Yes, I think so. The date is November 13, 1919. Is it in the opinion of the noble Lord a disadvantage that this national association of employees should be constituted in connection with the banking business? That is the real fundamental proposition which one has to decide one way or another. I am entirely in accord with what was said by the noble Lord who asked the Question. We constantly hear talk, and quite rightly, of the enormous importance of friendly association between employers and employed. I believe that that is the very first necessity in anything like industrial progress or industrial stability. Why should it not be encouraged? I put on one side what has been said about Government suggestion. Let us come to the real thing: ought we to encourage the formation of a national association of employees? I think it is of the utmost importance that it should be done, and I am certainly prepared to support the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strathspey, in every possible way. There are many noble Lords who have spoken from the Front Bench opposite, and elsewhere in the House, almost in the same words as those which I am using.

It is of the utmost importance that there should be a co-operative understanding and although you may not be able to get the position of partnership you may get a very long way towards having a national association of employees, which may lead to understanding and co-operation between employer and employed. Unfortunately it is certain that there will be difficulties in the future in these industrial matters. We have to consider the best way of ensuring, first of all, that if possible they shall be avoided, and secondly, if they do arise, that they shall be met and dealt with in the most friendly possible spirit? I do not think that the noble Viscount will dispute either of those propositions. If that is so, how can you promote a friendly spirit better than by having constituted a national association of this kind? Putting out of sight altogether the question of Government interference, the fundamental decision here is whether such an association ought to be encouraged. I am glad to see the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) enter the House, for on several occasions he has in admirable language expressed the advantage of a thorough understanding between employers and employed, in order to get rid of trouble. I have always entirely agreed with him and it is in that direction that this association will, in my belief, have a beneficial influence. For that reason I strongly support what the noble Lord who asked the Question has said.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My Lords, I think it is a very interesting example of the great ingenuity of my noble friend behind me and of the magnificent laxity of our Rules that on a simple Question of some Bank Officers Guild my noble friend should be able to raise the vast question of the interference of Government in industry. I would suggest, if he wants to test his proposition that the Government should do nothing but preserve law and order and keep its hands entirely off industry, that he should put down a Resolution on the Paper, and thus test the feeling of your Lordships, because that would strengthen my hands considerably if I were to follow his invitation and to raise the whole question of whether the Government should have anything to do with industry or not. But I really should not like to do it on my own responsibility.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I should be delighted to help you.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Thank you, but not if you were in a minority of one. This Question, I am afraid, has been misunderstood by the noble Lord opposite. He gave us two interesting quotations, one from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and the other from the Speaker of the House of Commons, but they do not bear at all on the Question that I am asked. It is not at all a question of whether it is a good or a bad thing that these leagues should be formed, and I dare say many of your Lordships have written admirable letters, couched in even more enthusiastic language than that which we have listened to this afternoon, about the benefit of these associations for producing peace in industry. But the question is quite a different one. The question is whether in this particular case the Government shall intervene as a Government, and shall say to these persons, both employees and employers, that they shall or shall not recognise some particular union.

That is the only proposition that I need refer to this afternoon. And I may say that it is a matter of interest, I think, that as far as that Guild is concerned, it certainly, at least recently, has not approached the Ministry of Labour with the idea of forming any joint industrial council; nor have the bankers themselves invited the interference of the Government in this question. From neither side, therefore, has this request been put forward to the Ministry of Labour. No doubt my noble friend's proposal is a very interesting one; but it is worth noticing that it is not supported either by the bankers or their employees.

I am not quite certain, considering the nature of the banking business and particularly the distribution of the employees in the banks, whether it would be very easy to set up so universal an association as has been suggested. I am not quite sure, either, whether it would be very valuable from another point of view. The banking business is very largely concentrated in the hands of five big banks, and persons not conversant with the action of the banks have often complained that there is not enough competition between them, and that the public in that way suffer. Indeed, it has been said, very ignorantly, that they are not sufficiently kind as regards agricultural properties, and to farmers, and so on. But, as a matter of fact, as I know from personal experience, having been a member of one of them for some years, there is the very keenest competition between these great banks in every part of the country, and if, in a particular locality where these branches of the different banks are situated, you had all the officials gathered together in one association, meeting together constantly, I am not at all sure whether it would really conduce to a keener and more active competition than exists at the present time Of course, I do not say that any exception can be taken to this particular institution or its aims, but I ought to point out that it does not include half of the banking officials. My noble friend, I think, gave the number as 23,000. The figures I was given are rather larger—about 27,000—but the total number of banking officials is about 55,000. But it would be a very great mistake to suppose that there are no other associations than this particular one in the banking world. On the contrary, most of these big banks have associations—I do not call them Whitley Councils, or anything of that kind, but anyhow they have committees of officials, who meet the directors constantly, and discuss with them all questions connected with the position of the employees. That is very satisfactory both to the employees and to the bankers very often. And therefore there does not seem any reason why the Government should go to these banks, and say: "Oh, you must not have these particular associations of your own banks, you must do all that you can to persuade your officials to go into this particular Guild." The Government does not feel that that is its duty. It has not been asked to do it, and it is a matter on which the Government ought to allow employees and bankers to manage their own affairs in their own way.

There is another distinction between some industrial companies and banks—namely, that the bank clerks are nearly all well educated and intelligent men and women, and extremely capable of putting their own case to their directors and managers. They really do not need to go to outside associations for the purpose of getting a spokesman. That may be necessary in some businesses, but I think it is less so in the banking world than in almost any other. I should like to refer to the hope expressed by the noble Lord that the recognition of such an association might be an example which would have a great effect in the cause of peace in industry. I am bound to say I think he is very sanguine if he thinks that the recognition, brought about by the Government, of this particular association of bank officials would really have a very great influence in putting an end to disputes in some of the great industries of the country.