HL Deb 05 December 1950 vol 169 cc718-29

2.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD KERSHAW:

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a short Bill designed mainly to remove certain anomalies which have arisen in connection with the operation of the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942. It has been prepared in the light of advice given by the National Joint Advisory Council, and its objects have the support of the British Employers' Federation, the Trades Union Congress and the nationalised industries which are represented on that Council. It might perhaps be convenient to the House if I gave two examples of the trade practices dealt with under this Act. The first was the long-established recognition that certain trades and operations were exclusively the province of men. Women were admitted especially in engineering and transport, and in other industries as well. Another example is that of what was termed "dilution of labour." Unskilled and semi-skilled men were allowed to work on what had always been regarded as skilled jobs. It is to the credit of the unions concerned that they have taken no steps to return to their pre-war conditions and practices.

The Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942, imposed certain obligations upon employers to restore within two months of the end of the war period and to maintain for eighteen months from the end of that period trade practices which obtained before the war period but which were departed from during that time. The Act also provides that these obligations may be waived or modified by means of a written agreement between the employers and the appropriate trade unions. This provision for waiver or modification remains unaffected by the present Bill. For the purposes of the Act, the war period was defined as the period beginning with September 3, 1939, and ending with such date as the Minister of Labour might appoint, not being later than the date on which the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, expired. In fact, no date for the end of the war period has so far been appointed, because of the abnormal circumstances of the post-war period, which, in the view of the Government, have made it necessary in the economic interest of the community to postpone a return to pre-war trade practices departed from during the war.

I ought to emphasise that with the agreement of both sides of industry, steps have therefore been taken each year since the war, under emergency legislation, to extend the end of the war period for the purpose of the Act for a further year, the present date for the end of the war period being the tenth of this month. There are a number of disadvantages in this procedure. In the first place, the continued postponement of the appointed date year by year through emergency legislation is not a satisfactory method of dealing with the statutory responsibilities imposed by the Act. It is much better that any action which may be taken in regard to an Act carrying such important implications for both sides of industry should rest on a more satisfactory basis than that of temporary legislation. This is a view which commands the full support of the National Joint Advisory Council. There is, however, a still weightier objection to the practice of extending by emergency legislation the war period for the purposes of the Act. The effect of the action taken year by year is not only to postpone the coming into operation of the obligation to restore pre-war trade practices departed from during the period of hostilities, but also to apply the Act to departures from pre-war practices which, have occurred since the close of actual hostilities. This is, of course, because the war period for the purposes of the Act is being continually extended by the annual use of emergency legislation. This was never the intention of the Act, which was meant to deal only with departures taking place during the actual period of hostilities, and it is not a position which commends itself to either side of industry.

In the light of this situation, the National Joint Advisory Council was consulted. They unanimously recommended that two things should be done. In the first place, the Council suggested that steps should be taken to empower the Government to fix, at an appropriate time in the future, the date when the obligation to restore pre-war trade practices should come into operation. This would mean that instead of there being, as at present, a dead line date before which the Minister of Labour must fix the appointed day, it could be fixed at any appropriate time. This would obviate the present necessity of relying on periodical emergency measures to extend the period within which the appointed day shall be fixed. It goes without saying that the appointed day would be fixed only after full consultation with both sides of industry. It should be noted in passing that only one appointed day will be fixed for the whole range of industry—that is to say, there is no possibility of there being different appointed days for individual industries.

In the second place, the Council advised the Minister to take powers to exclude from the operation of the 1942 Act all departures from pre-war trade practices which have occurred since the end of actual hostilities, thereby, in effect, confining the application of the Act to departures which took place before August 15, 1945. This would avoid the anomalous position arising from the artificial extension of the war period for the purposes of the Act beyond August, 1945. Careful consideration was given to the Council's advice, as the measures which they proposed seem to offer a practical and acceptable solution of the difficulties which are arising in connection with the Act. The Government, accordingly, decided to introduce the present Bill which is designed to give effect to these proposals by making certain amendments to the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942.

There are only two really effective clauses in the Bill, and I will just refer shortly to them. The main part of the Bill has been drafted in the form of a re-enactment with modifications of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1942. This method, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is clearer and less confusing than the alternative of presenting a number of minor amendments which might make it difficult to follow what the Bill really does. The essence of the Bill is contained in Clause 1 (1) which re-enacts with modifications the provisions of Section 1 (1) of the 1942 Act. The effect of these modifications is to do two things. First, they provide that the date to which the obligations under the 1942 Act as amended will be related will be a date appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Minister by an Order in Council. The draft of this Order will have to be laid before Parliament. It had originally been intended that the draft Order should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. Following the de-bate in Committee in another place, how-ever, my right honourable friend has agreed to an Opposition proposal that it should be subject to affirmative Resolution. It is also intended that the National Joint Advisory Council shall be consulted before any such recommendation is made by the Minister.

Secondly, the subsection as amended will confine the obligation to restore pre-war trade practices to cases where the pre-war trade practice has been departed from during the period from September 3, 1939, to August 15, 1945. In a limited number of cases affecting munition factories operating before the outbreak of the war, the 1942 Act provides that the war period for the purposes of the Act commences on April 30, 1939. This provision will remain unchanged by the amending Bill. Thus, subsection (1) of Clause 1 deals with both points agreed by the National Joint Advisory Council. The effect of this amendment then will be that a firm which was in operation before the war and which during the period of hostilities departed from its pre-war trade practice will, within two months of a date to be appointed by His Majesty, have to revert to its pre-war trade practice unless a written agreement to the contrary is made with the appropriate trade union under Section 2 of the 1942 Act, which is unaffected by this Bill. This obligation will remain even though some further change in the firm's practice has been made since August 15, 1945. If, how-ever, the firm did not depart from its pre-war trade practice for the first time until after August 15, 1945, there is no obligation under the Act.

The points covered by subsection (2) of Clause 1 are corollaries of the steps taken in subsection (1) of that clause. Subsection (1) deals with firms which were in existence before the war. Subsection (2) is concerned with firms which were set up after September 3, 1939. There are two cases here. The first, that of firms which were set up after August 15, 1945, presents no great difficulty. The purpose of the amendments is to limit the operation of the Act to events occur-ring during the period of hostilities. Subsection (2), therefore, removes from the scope of the Act undertakings or branches of undertakings which began to be carried on after August 15, 1945. There remain to be dealt with in sub-section (2) those undertakings which began to be carried on between September 3, 1939, and August 15, 1945-that is, during the period of hostilities. The 1942 Act provided that these undertakings should be under an obligation within two months of the end of the war period to introduce, or permit the introduction of, such trade practices as obtained before the war in undertakings or in branches of undertakings which were carried on in circumstances most nearly analagous to those of the undertaking set up during the war. The Bill does not modify that principle. All it docs Is to provide, as a matter of consistency, that if the analagous firms departed from their pre-war trade practices only for the first time after August 15, 1945, and by virtue of subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill are therefore under no obligation to restore the pre-war trade practice, then the war-time firm will similarly not be under an obligation to adopt pre-war practice. This puts the war-time firm as nearly as possible in the same position as the analogous firms and seems the fairest and most sensible way of dealing with the matter.

The rest of the Bill deals with the position in Northern Ireland and provides conditions analogous to those we have in respect of England, except that the Order will not be an Order in Council. Finally, may I be permitted to express the thanks of His Majesty's Government, in which I feel sure your Lordships would like to be associated, to the National Joint Advisory Council for their advice and assistance in this important matter? Your Lordships may like to record your appreciation of the statesmanlike approach to the solution of the problem by the trade unions concerned. In opening, I described the Bill as a short Bill. When one studies the Bill, its tremendous and far-reaching implications begin to be realised. By this single short Bill the employers and the trade unions have demonstrated in a typically British way, quietly and unostentatiously, the determination of British industry to allow nothing to interrupt the efforts to strengthen our peaceful economic development, and if, unhappily, further demands upon industry are imposed by external circumstances, this Bill is a simple but courteous indication to the world that the nation will respond to those demands with the same unity and determination as were manifested in the difficult and dark days of a decade ago. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Kershaw.)

2.55 p.m.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

My Lords, this is a short Bill, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has said, it is an extremely important Bill. I have no hesitation in saying that it has the wholehearted support of this side of the House. The noble Lord explained its main provisions. My own feeling about the Bill is that it is better not to try to explain too much: the more one attempts to explain the provisions, the more obscure they become! What is certain is that the Bill carries out the intention and desire of us all. This desire and intention is not properly re-presented by the title "Restoration of Pre-war Trade Practices Bill." The purpose of the Bill is rather to validate the non-restoration of pre-war trade practices, and, as we hope, to arrange conditions in industry which will help to ensure that these practices are never restored.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, that the appreciation and thanks of Parliament are due to the trade unions, to the employers' organisations and to the National Joint Advisory Council for the part they have played in the introduction of this Bill and for making it a measure agreed by all sides of industry. It was right that the Government should seek the best way of honouring the pledge which Parliament gave to industry when the 1942 Act was introduced, and I am sure there will be general agreement that the Government have found the best way of doing so on the advice of all parties concerned. This Bill was completely agreed by all Parties in another place, and there will certainly be no controversy about it here.

Your Lordships will all agree that the nation's gratitude to the trade unions, and to all concerned should be deep, not only for making this Bill possible, but also for the manner in which they collaborated in setting aside pre-war trade practices during the emergency of the war. It was a remarkable example of what the British people will do when they are stirred by danger at their gates. The sacrifice involved was very real: it was the sacrifice of rights built up over three and four generations, and deeply treasured by those who had either fought for, or inherited, those rights. In the case of the engineering unions, these trade practices were abandoned before the war, in 1937. That was of immense value to the nation, when peril darkened and deepened, and the gratitude of this House and of Parliament is due to those who made that patriotic sacrifice. I think your Lordships will agree that it is a heartening record to remember, now that the menace of war is once again overshadowing us and when new demands may have to be made upon our industries. It shows that the British people may be trusted to manifest their good sense, their public spirit and their unity when common danger threatens us all.

There is one important Amendment to be made to the Bill at a later stage, and that also has been agreed. It is the substitution of the affirmative Resolution for the negative Resolution procedure when an Order in Council is laid before Parliament. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, that that pledge which was given in another place is to be honoured in this House, and I presume the Amendment will be moved in Committee.

LORD KERSHAW

Yes.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

I am sure that that will be an improvement, and that the Amendment will be welcomed in all parts of the House.

The debate in another place showed that the main feeling aroused by this Bill was the hope that it might never be required and would never be invoked. We in this House certainly share that hope to the full. If I may be allowed to comment on that aspect of the Bill for one moment, I think we should ask ourselves this question: What can the political and Parliamentary groups in this country, as apart from the industrial groups, do to contribute to the realisation of the hopes which are enshrined in this Bill? Our main hope must, I think, depend on the development of the theme on which the noble Marquess, my leader, has often spoken to this House—namely, closer collaboration between both sides of industry and, if possible, better representation of the working man in the conduct of industry. I agree with that idea, and I absolutely share his views upon that matter. I hope that we shall get closer and closer to a realisation of those views.

Apart from that collaboration, there are other things which we can do our best to secure. Those of your Lordships who have lived closer to industry and the trade unions than I ever have will probably agree that restrictive practices have been due, in the main, to two motives. One is the protection of craftsmanship, the desire that the quality of craftsman-ship and the status of the crafts should not deteriorate; and the other, of course, is fear of unemployment. In regard to the protection of craftsmanship, the motives and practices, as in all human arrangements, are no doubt mixed; some are good, and some are less good. Those that are good are truly concerned with the quality of craftsmanship and the status of the crafts, and those, I suggest, we should do our utmost to honour and endorse. I say that because I believe it is vital at the present time, when the principle has to some extent been questioned, to sup-port the principle of the wage differential for craftsmanship.

Appeals have been made—which I deprecate—that in an emergency the unskilled man should be allowed to raise his wage almost to the level of the skilled man, in order that the total level of wages should not rise. I hope that that loss of differentiation will not be developed in this country, because it seems to me that the status of craftsmanship is absolutely vital to that national quality in industry which is an asset oil immense value to our exports to the world. If the wage differential were to be ironed out, then I believe that the effect on craftsmanship, more particularly on the young entrants —and, therefore, ultimately on our national reputation for quality—would be very deleterious. The challenge to the status of the value of craftsmanship would in any case be bound to revive the feeling that restrictive practices must be resorted to once again. Therefore, I hope that the wage differential as a principle will not be challenged in this difficult industrial period which we are about to enter. On that principle, I say with conviction that my sympathies are wholeheartedly with the craft unions, and I devoutly trust that Governments and Oppositions, and the whole of the political world, will do nothing to undermine their case.

As to the fear of unemployment it is certainly the most rooted and most widespread of the causes of restrictive practices—the blocking of entry to apprenticeship, "go-slow" methods, and so on. It is vital to assuage that fear. It is very difficult to assuage that fear at this moment, when one of the main factors in Party controversy and Party propaganda is the allegation that one Party is not interested in employment and would welcome unemployment for its own sake. That is being said all over the country. It is not true. It is a profoundly dangerous and unpatriotic thing to say at the pre-sent moment, because it can lead only to fears and restrictions on the part of labour at a time when we want production to the greatest possible extent. I am refraining from making any kind of Party comment in this speech, but I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with me that this a point to be remembered at this time. If men of weight in the political world go about saying that of course unemployment is inevitable if one Party which holds almost the same number of seats as the other is by any chance returned to power, then the effect on industry at a very critical moment is bound to be most grave. I think we who are outside these hustings controversies are entitled to say that in this House. I will not dwell on that point any further.

I have said enough, I hope, to indicate the importance of patriotic Party moderation at this terribly critical moment in this all-important sphere. Indeed, I endorse wholeheartedly what the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, said in his concluding sentences about the Bill. He said that it was short but very important; that it enshrined the typical British way of dealing with these ancient practices, which may not be to the national interest; and he hoped that the Bill would never have to be invoked. We share that hope, and we are prepared to collaborate to the uttermost to see that it never is.

3.9 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches I would express my cordial support of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has said, the importance of this measure is far beyond the degree of public attention that it has evoked. It has evoked little public attention because it is a non-controversial Bill. This is a subject, however, that might have inspired the most bitter controversies, because it deals with a subject which in times past has aroused great interest and, indeed, passion. That it should not have done so now is due to the fact, as the noble Lord has said, that the Joint Advisory Council of employers and employed have gone into this matter very thoroughly and, while making some suggestions for amendment, have cordially endorsed the provisions of the Bill. I would join in what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has said as to the feeling of this House (as was the case in the other House) of gratitude to the Joint Advisory Council for their action, and, in particular, gratitude to the trade union side, because it is they who might have been adversely affected by legislation of this character. On this subject they have shown great responsibility and recognition of the need for restraint, and they have thereby rendered a service to the nation as a whole in time of economic difficulty and international stress.

In reading the reports of the Joint Committees of both sides of industry which have been investigating the conditions in the United States, we must all have noticed with great interest that again and again unanimous reports have made it clear that in the United States the practice which used to prevail so largely here, and which has also prevailed there, of having trade union restrictions in order to defend what appeared to be the interests of the workers, has largely disappeared. That is one of the main reasons why the productivity rate of the United States is so much higher in many trades than it is here. It has been made clear, also, that the abandonment of such restrictions in America has not had the effect of lowering the standards of living of the working people, . but has, indeed, been one of the factors that has enabled those standards of living, on the average, to surpass our own. In those circumstances, it has been the course of wisdom for labour in this country to agree not to require the precise restoration of whatever restrictions may have been in operation before the war but to recognise that the withdrawal of those restrictions may have been—perhaps un-expectedly to some people—a blessing to labour, as well as to the nation as a whole.

We also concur in the Amendment, which has been brought about at the in-stance of the Opposition in another place, requiring an affirmative Resolution for the sanction of Orders in Council rather than a negative Resolution for their rejection. That is quite in line with the plea that has been made from these Benches more than once, when we have been considering the liberties of the subject and the right Parliamentary methods to control what might be excesses on the part of the Executive. For that reason, as well as for others, we cordially support the passage of the Bill.

3.12 p.m.

LORD KERSHAW

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords who have spoken. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has been careful to point out, that the skilled workers made a great sacrifice in permitting some of these practices—I do not like to call them "restrictive" practices, because they are not all restrictive. The great anxiety of most skilled workers associated with this matter, as Lord Altrincham aptly said, is that they want to maintain the value and quality of their work. There were, and probably there are to-day, a great many anomalies resulting from this situation, all acting, as it were, against the skilled worker. Notwithstanding that, it is gratifying to know that they are prepared to carry on, at any rate so long as the country is in its present situation, with the condition of things as they are at the moment.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.