HC Deb 22 March 1912 vol 35 cc2404-17

(1) In this Act—

The expression "coal mine" includes a mine of stratified ironstone.

The expression "workman" means any person employed in a mine below ground who is not a person employed solely in surveying or measuring, or an official of the mine.

(2) If it is thought fit by any persons when appointing a Chairman for the purposes of this Act, or by the Board of Trade when so appointing a Chairman, the office of Chairman may be committed to three persons, and in that case those three persons acting by a majority shall be deemed to be the Chairman for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "the expression 'coal mine' includes a mine of stratified ironstone."

I move this Amendment for two reasons. I think the Committee will recognise that it is not an unreasonable desire to have a word of explanation from the Government as to why mines of stratified ironstone are included in a Coal Mines Bill. I asked a question yesterday in the course of the Second Reading Debate and the Secretary of State, who replied, did not answer me on the point. I make no complaint of that. His speech was not directed to my speech at all. He was addressing a different question of the House, and it would have been inconvenient for him to interfere with his argument, and turn aside to answer my question. I think it was perfectly natural under the circumstances that it should not be answered, but I do think that we ought to have some statement from the Government as to why this provision appears in the Bill before we assent to it, and pass it into law. I admit at once my information on the subject is not of a very complete kind. As far as it goes it is to this effect that in the Cleveland district of Yorkshire the workers in the stratified ironstone mines are included in the Miners' Federation in that area, and are involved in this strike.

As far as they and any other district, if there be any other district where the same circumstances prevail are concerned, there is the prima facie reason for including those mines in the Bill. But my information—and I am subject to correction—is that there are many mines, I do not say very big ones, in other parts of the country, and notably in Scotland, of stratified ironstone, which are not affected by the present strike, where there is no disagreement between masters and men, where neither side has pursued the differences which prevail in the coal trade, and where there is no reason whatever for Parliament to step in and interfere with arrangements which are the result of mutual agreement between employers and employed, and are working satisfactorily, uninterrupted by the strike which prevails in the coal trade. That is the information as to the facts as far as I possess it. I think at any rate it justifies me in prima facie asking the Government for some explanation of why they have included the whole of the stratified ironstone mines of the United Kingdom in the Bill, and whether they have considered this diversity of circumstances which prevail in that trade. I am told different rates of wages prevail in those two classes of mines because the circumstances of the work are different, and that the regularity of work in the case of ironstone mines is greater than in the case of the coal mines.

12.0 M.

That is my first consideration, and now I come to the second. It will be, with the recollection of the Committee, that just at the close of the proceedings last night a point of order was raised as to these words. Mr. Speaker was in some doubt as to the facts of the case upon which his ruling would necessarily be based, and he applied to the Government for information as to the facts in order that he might give a ruling. Nothing could be further from my thought than to question the ruling of Mr. Speaker, or to suggest at this stage that that ruling could be revised. But I desire to question the Attorney-General as to the statement of fact supplied to Mr. Speaker by the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker inquired of the Government why these words were included. Prima facie. they were outside or beyond the scope of the title of the Bill. The answer of the Government was that they were restrictive words, that but for them the title of the Bill, which named only coal mines, must necessarily, in consequence of previous legislation, include not only stratified iron mines, but shale mines, and, I think, fire clay works. The Attorney - General said that the previous Acts dealing with the subject included these under the title of coal mines. The latest legislation on the subject is the Consolidation Act of 1911. What is the case of the Government? That the Coal Mines Act, and the title of that Act, is made to include these other mines, and that therefore the title "coal mines" in this Bill must include them also unless such words as these are put in. Let the House listen to the title and the first section of that Act, and judge of the merits of that contention. The title is "An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to coal mines and certain other mines." That is to say, if it had stopped at coal mines, it would have meant coal mines; but, because it meant other mines besides, it said other mines, and the first section of the Act, which the Prime Minister did not read, states that "Mines to which this Act applies are mines of coal, mines of stratified ironstone, mines of shale, and mines of fire-clay, and in this Act the expression 'mines,' unless the context otherwise requires, means the mines to which this Act applies." That does not bear out the contention of the Government.

I go back to the previous Act—the Act of 1887. That is also a consolidating and amending Act of the Coal Mines Act, but it does not stop there. Its title is "An Act to consolidate with amendments the Coal Mines Acts of 1872 and 1886, and the Stratified Ironstone Mines (Gunpowder) Act, 1881." In both those cases, in order to include stratified ironstone mines, the title is expressly defined. In one case those mines are specifically mentioned, and in the other case coal mines and certain other mines are mentioned. There is a similar section in the latter Act, but I will not trouble the House by reading it. Therefore both those consolidating and amending Acts referring to coal mines specifically mention other mines besides coal mines in their title in order to include stratified ironstone mines amongst others. If those Acts had been presented to Mr. Speaker by the Government when Mr. Speaker appealed to the Government for the facts of the case, there is but one ruling that would have been possible under the rules of this House. The Government Bill has been drafted in such haste and so carelessly, that it is out of order, and had the facts been properly presented, Mr. Speaker would have been obliged to declare that if the objection were persisted in the Bill would have to be withdrawn and re-presented. I am quite sure my hon. Friend, and all my hon. Friends on this side, would not have desired, under the special circumstances of the case, to press such an objection. The Attorney-General asks me: Why then did we raise it? I think we have not only the right to raise it, but I think we have a duty to raise it. Then because of their slovenly action, and now in order to cover their slovenly action, they give careless and false information. I think it is right that the attention of the Committee should be called to these matters, and I think the Government should take some steps in consequence.

What explanation the Attorney-General has to offer I do not know, and I am wait- ing to hear it, but I venture to say that, as a matter of order and regularity of our business, one of two courses is really necessary. If this provision for stratified ironstone is not required, the words can be struck out. If it is required for the purpose of the Bill, then the title of the Bill ought to be amended in accordance with the title of the other bills dealing with the regulation of coal and similar mines. Whatever the Mines (Eight Hours) Act says has no bearing on this point. It is not incorporated in this Act, and no lawyer would venture to say, after reflection, that a definition in a particular Act for the purpose of that Act is binding on another Act, in spite of the common use of language and statutory use of language in many Acts of Parliament, unless that definition is incorporated in the Bill by a special reference. I have stated my case, and I should be glad to hear what the Attorney-General has to say.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

The first point which I desire to make in answer to the right hon. Gentleman is us to the inclusion of the stratified ironstone in the definition of coal mines. As I gather from his observations, the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that, at least as regards the Cleveland District, the stratified ironstone mine stands very much in the same category as the coal mine. It is no doubt perfectly true that it is worked in the same way. The miners belong to the same Federation; and, indeed, I understand, one of the representatives of the ironstone miners is on the executive which has waited on the Government. Except that they are smaller in numbers, they are as interested in this question as the coal-miners. The right hon. Gentleman said there were some stratified ironstone mines in Scotland not included in the dispute. I am not aware of it, but will inquire to see if that is the case. I will take steps to see that if they are not included in the dispute they shall not be included by way of definition.

I now approach the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made with so much emphasis, and which, I gather, he regards as the most important, in the Bill. My experience of the law as a rule has been that when a layman wants to make a point which is based on technicality he has recourse to a lawyer, but in this particular case the right hon. Gentleman has discovered by himself, or with the assistance of a distinguished lawyer—he is quite capable, however, of discovering it for himself—that this Bill is entirely out of order, and that if only the Speaker had known what we now know this Bill would have been ruled out of order, and, I suppose, the strike would go on. I quite fail to understand the point of the objection taken last night, unless it was to get this Bill ruled out of order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me when I say that I am not at all certain that it is not the junior Member for the City of London who is entitled to the credit of the point. If our attention had been called to this particular point more than just half-a-minute before the question was put by the Speaker, of course it would have been easy to have replied. But this question was kept quite dark. I am not complaining, I want to say that whatever the Prime Minister said last night was said very hurriedly, because he had no time to consider the matter, and what was said was said entirely upon my suggestion. Therefore, whatever blame there is, is due to me, and not to the Prime Minister.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not want to dispute anything the Attorney-General has said so far, but I do want to relieve him of one misapprehension. He seems to think that we had become aware that there was this point of order a long time in advance and had kept it deliberately in the dark. That is not so. We had only just become aware of it. My hon. Friend gave notice to Mr. Speaker of his intention to raise it the moment he became aware of it.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

I think it is exactly what I have stated. But really what point is it we are discussing. Here we are at this moment discussing as important a Bill as has ever been before the House of Commons. We have been engaged the whole day in fighting this Bill and in attempting to pass it through Committee, and the question raised now by the right hon. Gentleman with so much emphasis and passion, and on which he lays so much stress, is that we said last night that stratified ironstone has been dealt with in other Bills dealing with coal mines. It is included in the Act of 1911, and the Act of 1887. The whole point is that in these Acts stratified ironstone, shale, and fire clay, were all dealt with along with coal mines. We are quite entitled to say it deals with coal mines and other mines. That is the whole point. The whole point is, that in the title, instead of confining it to coal mines, it says coal mines and other mines. The whole question arises through dealing with coal mines and other mines.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

What the Prime Minister told me was that in a former Act was included shale mines, stratified iron, and something else—fire clay. That is not the fact.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

Really, if that is the point that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester and the hon. Baronet are making, I make them a present of it. So far as I am concerned, in my view it is not worth another moment's discussion. The whole point is that in this Bill we intended, by calling it the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill, that it should apply not only to coal mines, but to stratified ironstone. The whole contention of right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they are able to say that the Bill has been badly drafted.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY

The point to which my right hon. Friend has called attention to is very much more important than any question of the drafting of the Bill. The question is not whether the Bill is well or ill-drafted. The question is whether, when the Speaker appealed to the Prime Minister for information, the Prime Minister gave correct or incorrect information. I may relieve my hon. and learned Friend from any idea that there was any intention to keep back information from him. I never heard of this point until the junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) rose to take the point of order and the Speaker then appealed to the Prime Minister on the point. The Prime Minister in reply said distinctly, "These words are not words of extension; they are words of limitation"—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—and he gave this reason—"There is in a previous Act of Parliament a definition of coal mines which includes shale, ironstone, and fire-clay." That was the information which was given to the Speaker and, on that information, the Speaker very naturally gave the ruling which he gave. It turns out that that has really no foundation. There is no such definition. There is a definition of mines." [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]

The CHAIRMAN

I must ask hon. Members to give the hon. and learned Member a hearing. It is true we have had a late sitting, but that is not a reason why we should not carry on our proceedings with the same order as we have done all day.

Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS

On a point of Order. May I ask is what happened yesterday in order upon this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment proposed to the Committee is to leave out those two lines in Clause 5. I think it is in order to refer to what occurred in the proceedings yesterday as one of the reasons for moving the Amendment. Of course there is a ruling, and in Committee we cannot reopen matters of Order which have been already dealt with in the House.

Sir ROBERT FINLAY

There is no definition such as the Prime Minister stated did exist. There is no Clause, no definition in either Act, the Act of 1887 or the Act of 1911, as stated by the Prime Minister. The definition is that mines include coal mines, stratified ironstone mines, shale mines, and fire-clay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman at least appreciates the difference? Is it possible that he does not appreciate the effect of that statement? The statement was that these words were words of limitation, and not of extension, because if they had not been introduced the expression "coal mines" would have included shale, fireclay, and other mines. The statement was distinctly made, and we have had no withdrawal of that statement. I think the matter is one of extreme importance. When the Speaker calls for assistance from the Treasury Bench, statements should not be made unless some pains have been taken to ascertain the facts. I will only say in conclusion, that now that the Government have found out their mistake they will, if they desire to retain this Clause in the Bill, find it necessary to amend the title of the Bill.

Mr. ADAMSON

I hope the Attorney-General will not agree to the ironstone miners of Scotland being excluded from the Bill. These men are engaged in similar work to those who work in the coal mines; they are paid by the same method; and they are also engaged in this effort to secure a minimum wage, the same as the miners employed in the coal mines.

Question, "That the words the expression "coal mine" includes a mine of stratified ironstone' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

I beg to move, after the word "person" ["The expression 'workman' means any person employed"] to insert the words "ordinarily or regularly."

I desire to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Col. Hickman), and I hope the Government will consider whether they cannot see their way to accept it. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the Bill shall apply only to persons regularly engaged underground in coal mines. I think the Attorney-General will see my point which is certainly of some importance. There are individuals employed usually on the surface, but on certain specific occasions they are employed underground, such as a mechanic who goes underground to repair machinery, or an electrical engineer who goes below ground to see about the electrical apparatus in connection with the electric installation. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that as the Bill stands at the present moment such persons will come in under its provisions. I propose that these individuals who are only occasionally employed underground should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. If they are already exempted of course there is no need to press the Amendment.

Mr. BUXTON

The Act is intended to apply to those who are employed underground in the ordinary course of their work—underground workers. I do not think the persons referred to by the Noble Lord would come under that definition. It would not include men who only go down the mine occasionally for a special purpose. I am advised that there is no necessity for such an Amendment, and perhaps this statement will relieve the fears of the Noble Lord. I quite agree with him that, if it were necessary, words should be introduced exempting these particular men.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

In the circumstances, and after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS

I beg to move to leave out the words "an official" ["or an official"] and to insert instead thereof the words "a manager or under-manager."

Mr. BUXTON

The speech of my hon. Friend was so remarkably short that I am unable to understand fully the particular reasons which have induced him to move this Amendment. If he will be good enough to give me a reason or two for the proposal I shall be glad to consider it, but I must confess I should have thought the words of the Bill covered all he wanted.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

The explanation is very simple. The point is that we do not understand what is meant by "an official," and we wish to have the matter clearly defined in the Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the point is one of some importance, because there are now many classes of workmen in the mines to whom the term "official" may apply, and who at the same time are simply day-wage men. For that reason we want to limit the application of the words in the Bill strictly to persons who are really managers or under-managers. For example, the shot-firer might easily be included in the term "an official." So might the timber man, and certainly so would the fireman. Therefore we desire that the definition here laid down shall apply specifically to the manager and under-manager, to whom it is probably intended to apply, and leave the rest of the workmen to receive the benefits of the Bill, from which they may be excluded unless this change is effected.

Sir A. MARKHAM

May I point out that in Grand Committee on the Coal Mines Bill last year we had a very long discussion on this point. It was pointed out in the evidence before the Royal Commission of Mines that in Scotland firemen were paid in some cases as little as 4s. 9d. a day, and yet there are officials, having important and responsible duties to discharge in the mine. Many officials in Scotland are paid lower rates of wages than are day men in England. It would be particularly unfair, therefore, to place outside the operation of the Bill these low paid wage-men, who are given the names of officials but are doing the drudgery of the mine at starvation wages.

Mr. BUXTON

It is not intended, as the Committee will readily understand, to include in this term any one who in the ordinary course is a day-wage man, that is to say, an ordinary person who is under control. The expression is intended, of course, to refer to the officials in the real sense—those in authority in the mine. I understand that it is the usual term used in Mines Acts for such persons, and is understood in the way I have described. I am bound to say that what the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield has said seems to show that in some cases the conditions in Scotland are different from those which prevail in England. I can assure the Committee that this paragraph has been very carefully considered, and there is no intention of excluding from the operation of the Bill anyone who is a day labourer or a day workman. As far as my knowledge goes the term employed would not result in the exclusion of any of those workmen to whom reference has been made, but, of course, the matter is a somewhat technical one.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

Shot-firers must be excluded.

Mr. BUXTON

These matters, as I was saying, are somewhat technical, and I have not the knowledge in regard to the terms which some of my hon. Friends possess, but I think the words are all right. I will promise, however, to look into them, and if I find that any of these men are excluded I will undertake to set the matter right. I hope the Committee will allow the words to remain as they are for the time being on that understanding.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I do not think this is quite satisfactory. The point is this: These men are officials working on day wages and their wages are much lower than the actual hewers of coal are receiving. Are these men to be within the scope of the Bill or not? May I point cut to my right hon. Friend that these men work longer hours than others. This is where the trouble arises. We have no Department of Mines. The conduct of mines rests with the Home Office, and here for the first time we get the Board of Trade coming in. This is liable to create great confusion, and the matter ought to be in the control of one department. There is not a single man in the Board of Trade who knows anything about mines or has ever been down a mine. Yet they are to have charge of this matter. This is a very important point. We discussed it for days upstairs in Committee last year. What I want to get at is whether these wage officials, particularly in Scotland, where they are paid four shillings and ninepence a day, as was given in evidence before the Royal Commission, are going to come within the scope of the Bill. Many of these officials in small mines do work as labourers, and they are fully entitled to get all the benefits this Bill may confer. I contend that everyone except managers and under-managers ought to come within the scope of the measure. I hope my hon. Friend will not withdraw the Amendment unless he gets a more satisfactory reply from the Government.

Sir GEORGE YOUNGER

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to accept too readily the statements made about Scotland by the hon. Baronet opposite. The hon Baronet has an obession on this question as those of us know who sat on the Coal Mines Bill Committee last year. Nothing is bad enough to be said by him about Scotland so far as the owners and miners are concerned. I am only putting in a word of warning to the right hon. Gentleman to be sure of his facts before he takes without a grain of salt what the hon. Baronet says on this subject.

Mr. BUXTON

I say that I have no technical knowledge in regard to this matter. I agree with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Mansfield, that in these matters the Home Office is the expert department rather than the Board of Trade. But as I have said I will look into it, and will endeavour to ascertain between now and the Report stage as to whether an official is not an official.

Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS

Upon the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir GEORGE YOUNGER

I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "it is thought fit by any persons when appointing," and to insert instead thereof the words, "prior to the appointment of."

This Amendment and the two others in my name which follow it hang together. The Sub-section gives the appointment of Chairman to the Board of Trade and provides that the Board may appoint either one or three persons to act in that capacity. My Amendment is to the effect that if the representatives of the employers or workmen so desire three persons shall be appointed. The subject is one of great importance, because of the responsibility that will rest on the Chairman, and in certain circumstances it would be very desirable that there should be a panel of three. I do not propose to adduce any arguments in support of my proposal, as I think it must be evident to everybody that no precautions are provided in the Bill in that connection, and it is most neces- sary and desirable that the Tight of demanding the appointment of three persons to serve in the capacity of Chairman should rest with either party.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Mr. BUXTON

I rather gather from the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman that he desires to leave the question whether there should be three Chairmen or one Chairman to the Committees themselves; or does he desire that in every case it should be compulsory on the Board of Trade to appoint three Chairmen?

Sir G. YOUNGER

I had better read the Clause as it will run when amended: (2) If prior to the appointment of a Chairman for the purposes of this Act the representatives of the workmen or employers concerned so desire, the office of Chairman shall be committed to three persons, and in that case those three persons acting by a majority shall be deemed to be the Chairman for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. BUXTON

I do not think I can accept the Amendment. In many cases it may be necessary or advisable to have three chairmen, but I do not think the Committee should say that the Board of Trade ought to have no discretion. If one side desires three, chairmen and the other side only desires one, there must be some reason on which the difference of opinion is based, and I think in that case the Board of Trade ought to have a deciding voice in reference to the matter.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

There are really two points involved in this Amendment. As the Clause stands, at present the matter is left entirely to the initiative of the persons appointing the Chairman or the Board of Trade. The Amendment of my hon. Friend, in the first place, gives the initiative to the workmen or the employers. Then my hon. Friend desires, in the second place, to make that initiative compulsory on the Board of Trade. The two-points are altogether distinct. It seems to me that it would be desirable to give the initiative to the employers or the workmen. I understand that it is impossible to expect any departmental chief to assent to his department being actually overruled. That, I suppose, has never happened in the history of Parliament. But I do think he might leave the initiative in these matters at any rate to the employers and workmen, and not require the initiative as well as the control to be left entirely in the hands of the department.

Sir C. CORY

Would the hon. Member be willing to make it three instead of one, which is very much better?

Amendment negatived.