§ Mr. ASQUITHHas the Prime Minister any information to give to the House as to the situation in the coal strike?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George)In accordance with the statement which I made to the House last night, I invited the Executive of the Miners' Federation to meet my colleagues and myself this morning, in order to clear up what I supposed to be a misunderstanding with regard to the conditions upon which the Government would call together the coalowners and the miners for the purpose of resuming negotiations. I had, as the House will remember, laid down, in language not dissimilar to that used earlier in the Debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), as one of the conditions upon which the Government would use its good offices for the purpose of bringing the parties together, that the Miners' Federation should take action to preserve the mines.
This morning I put it to the Executive of the Miners' Federation that, even if they had been under a misapprehension as to this matter, I hoped they would agree that, upon the merits of the case, it was impossible for negotiations to be conducted while mines were being destroyed through lack of pumping; and I appealed to them to follow the course which they had pursued during every national coal strike hitherto, and to arrange for the necessary facilities being given in order that, when work should be resumed, as many mines as possible might be intact and in a position to afford a livelihood to the miners themselves.
I regret to inform the House that I failed to obtain the consent of the Miners' Federation to this action. It was explained to me that the decision to withdraw the pumpmen had been taken deliberately, and that to allow them to return would be to throw away a weapon upon which they relied to bring the Government and the coalowners to a speedy capitulation, and it was announced to me by the Acting President and the Secretary of the Federation that, not only had the Federation decided to 490 refuse to enter upon negotiations under any such conditions as we have laid down, but it had been decided by the Federation that the pumpmen would not be allowed to go back to work until two fundamental principles had been conceded—a national wage system and a national pool.
I thereupon stated to the miners' representatives that this was an ultimatum setting up, on the part of the miners, a preliminary condition which the Government had already announced its decision not to impose upon the industry, namely, a resumption of control and perhaps even of subsidy; and that Parliament had already decided that control should cease. It was impossible under these circumstances for the Government to ask the parties to meet together with any hope of settlement.
It is apparent from this announcement that the issue raised is much wider than the question of the wages which ought to be paid in the industry. Upon the question of wages the Government has always kept an open mind and was prepared to use its good offices in arriving at a solution.
I regret extremely that the Miners' Federation should have taken so grave a decision, involving injury and misery to their fellow-citizens throughout the country as well as to themselves. But since it has been made clear that the miners will not consider any settlement except one which concedes their full demand, and will not except upon that condition even help to save from destruction the mines upon which their livelihood depends, the Government, relying upon the assistance of the great mass of the people, must take every means in its power to meet the situation which has arisen.
§ Mr. CLYNESIt occurs to me to put a question to the Prime Minister which will have in it three points. Is it not a fact that the pumpmen received, like every mine-worker, notice from the mine-owners of a reduction in their wages and that these notices were the cause of the pumpmen automatically discontinuing their work? Is it not a fact that this morning at the Conference the miners' leaders intimated their willingness to go into conference without any conditions whatever, and, therefore, would it not be in the national interest that the Prime 491 Minister should not put forward any obstacle to considering, without any conditions whatever, the larger issues which are really the cause of the trouble?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe questions put by my right hon. Friend do not really accurately state the position. I can hardly say that the miners stated their intention to go into conference without any conditions, because, although they were perfectly prepared, it is true, to enter the room and meet the owners in conference, they did so with the condition that, unless the owners accepted these two fundamental conditions, the pumpmen would not resume work. I can hardly say, under these circumstances, that they were prepared to negotiate unconditionally. In fact, these conditions have fundamentally altered the whole position. With regard to the first question, it is perfectly true that, in order to raise the whole question of wages, notice was given to all those employed in the mines, but it has been made quite clear repeatedly that, pending the negotiations, the pumpmen would resume work under the old conditions. That has been usual in every strike, without prejudice to the issues that are involved. The same thing would apply here, but it was necessary, in order to raise the whole of the issue of the recasting of the wages, that notice should be given to all those in the mines.
§ Mr. CLYNESThe last question which I put was whether the Prime Minister does not think it would be best, in the national interest, that the larger issues of substance should be the subject of a conference, without any conditions being laid down.
§ The PRIME MINISTERMy right hon. Friend has had a good deal of experience in negotiations and so have I, and he must have come to the same conclusion as I did, that it is idle to enter into negotiations as long as the Miners' Federation adhere rigidly to the position they have taken this morning, that they must have the acceptance of two fundamental principles before they will agree to allow men to resume pumping in the mines. That is not negotiation. That is imposing as a preliminary condition the acceptance of practically the whole of the issues which are involved.
§ Mr. CLYNESIf I may say so, my experience of conferences is that obstacles put forward in the way of conditions usually have to be removed by those who erect them before the conference. I now want to repeat a question from which the House will see that no obstacle to the conference has been erected by the Miners' Federation. My question is this. Is there a shorthand record of the undertaking or statements of the 'miners' representatives indicating their willingness to go into conference without any condition whatever?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere is a full shorthand report.
§ Mr. WATERSONIs it verbatim?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, verbatim. [Interruptions.] If hon. Members will allow me. There is an official shorthand note taken of everything said by the miners' representatives as well as by the representatives of the Government. That will be revised by Mr. Hodges on behalf of the Miners' Federation and by some official on behalf of the Mining Department. It will be agreed whether it is accurate or not, and communicated to the Press.
§ Mr. HODGEIs it not a fact that the owners themselves stated that they would not enter into negotiations unless the miners accepted as a preliminary the replacing of the safety men?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI ought to correct one misstatement. I believe the report has been sent out without revision. It is a full, accurate and verbatim report which has been sent.
§ Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMWas it an agreed report.
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo. I have not seen it. The hon. Member will remember that Mr. Hodges said if it were a summary, it must be an agreed report, but if it were a verbatim report it should be sent to the Press. That was the statement made.
§ Mr. CLYNESI need not say there is general disappointment in the House at the failure, so far, of any steps that have been taken by either of the parties to negotiate a settlement of this dispute. I am not putting these questions with the object of merely trying to score any point, 493 or with the purpose of increasing the difficulties. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, seeing that this point as to the miners' attitude is so much in dispute, if he will take some early steps to furnish us with an official record of what actually the miners' representatives did say on the question of going unconditionally into the conference.
§ The PRIME MINISTEREvery word of what was said at the conference will be sent to the Press. If the Press do not publish the whole of the proceedings, and if there is a real desire in the House for it, we can publish the report as a White Paper. I quite agree that everything that has been said on both sides ought to be fully and impartially published. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see I was so taken aback by the statement made by Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Hodges, that the Miners' Federation had already taken the decision that, in order to make it clear, I repeated it, and I repeated it not once but twice, hoping to get a contradiction, and hoping they would say: "You have misinterpreted and misunderstood what we meant." I am sorry to say they did not. My right hon. Friend had better wait until he sees the full report. He will see it is a much graver attitude which they have taken up than I ever apprehended, and I think he will say so himself.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. A. HENDERSONWithin the last hour I have spoken to Mr. Hodges, and he intimated to me that his Executive conveyed to the Prime Minister the willingness of the Federation to go into immediate conference with the owners without any conditions whatever. He did not deny that the statement that the Prime Minister has read took place in the conversations which followed. May I point out that the condition was first laid down by the Government and by the owners that the miners should allow the pumpmen to return to work before ever the conference was entered upon. In the opinion of some of us who have been doing our best to try to get the parties together this was the initial blunder. If that was the initial blunder, and if the Miners' Federation have erred by stating that when they got into conference they would have to discuss the question and that they would adhere to that position, then it seems to me that both sides may 494 have blundered in this respect; and in the interests of the community as a whole, and in view of the danger to which the community will be exposed within a few hours possibly, is it not wise—and the Prime Minister to my knowledge has done this more than once in grave disputes and it has resulted in a settlement—to say to both these parties, "Leave your conditions on one side." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen who cry "No" to-day will be of a different opinion if this thing unfortunately goes on. Is it not wise that the Prime Minister should say to these parties, "Let us come face to face." I remember the difficulties in which we were during the last railway strike. I remember what took place when we first met the Prime Minister. I know all the difficulties. We had to hammer at it for four or five days, but we got a settlement on the Sunday, and I do not believe anyone would go back upon the final settlement that resulted. I believe in this case the Prime Minister should have acted upon the conciliatory spirit of the Debate the other day and have gone into conference without conditions. I am not going to disguise from the House that there would have been considerable difficulties, but I do not believe that they would have been insurmountable. It is one thing to present a condition as an obstacle to getting into conference; it is another thing to raise that very issue once, you have come face to face. Had that been done with regard to the pumpmen, I believe that the result would have been absolutely different, and, as one having nothing to do directly with this miners' case, but as one who for many years has done all he could to assist him to get through these national difficulties, I appeal to the Prime Minister once again to ask these two parties to come face to face with himself, I hope, in the chair. I believe, if that were done, even if it broke down, it would be well worth the effort.
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs my right hon. Friend knows, there is no one more eager to secure a possible solution of this, trouble than I am, but we did enter into a Conference. The Conference to which, he refers was one between the railway-men, the trade unions, and the Government. It was not a Conference between the railway executive and the railway leaders. They were not present. They 495 were simply interviews between myself and one or two miners and the railway-men. That is exactly the kind of Conference which I invited this morning. I insisted upon no preliminary conditions for the Conference with the Government. The Conference took place this morning, and at that Conference between the representatives of the Government and the miners' representatives these two conditions were laid down. My right hon. Friend indicates that it might be possible to withdraw certain conditions. He has greater influence with the Miners' Federation than I have, and, if he and those associated with him can persuade the Miners' Federation not to insist upon these preliminary conditions, because they are too vital preliminary conditions of which I had not heard, nor had any Member of this House heard, as preliminary conditions until we entered this morning, I shall be delighted. I did my best to induce the Miners' Federation to withdraw them, but there is nothing worse than to have an abortive conference between the miners' leaders and the mineowners, and, if a condition of this kind were repeated, and the Miners' Federation insisted upon it, it would simply be a second abortive conference. Therefore, speaking with some experience, I think it would be a great mistake until the Miners' Federation realise that they are insisting upon preliminary conditions which make a Conference impossible.
§ Mr. HARTSHORNI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what happened between the reading of the two letters yesterday afternoon and the announcement that was made last night. We heard the Prime Minister read a letter from the coalowners and another from the Miners' Executive, and in neither was any sort of difficulty or objection raised. Both expressed a readiness to meet the other side and to come into conference, and the House at that time thought that there was some chance of negotiations being proceeded with, and we were all hopeful that good would result. What happened between the receipt of those letters by the Government and the announcement made last night? Did the Prime Minister, on receipt of those letters, make some further communication to the Miners' Federation which raised difficulties and objections that caused this deadlock? 496 Was that what happened? I cannot for the life of me understand why, when the two sides were prepared to meet without any conditions, which seems to harmonise with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson) has said, there should come this deadlock between then and 8 o'clock last night.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere is no mystery about it at all. A statement had been made by me in the course of the Debate that it was essential that there should be a resumption of work by the pumpmen. The reply given to me by Mr. Hodges did not give an answer on that question. The letter which I wrote to Mr. Hodges was a letter inviting him on the two conditions which I made in the speech the night before, and to which I called his attention, and he simply sent an acceptance, but he did not state that he accepted the conditions. I then wrote and asked whether the conditions which I had laid down had been accepted. He placed it before the Executive of the Miners' Federation, and the Executive said that they could not accept those conditions.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYMay I ask whether, in view of the grave crisis which has arisen, the Prime Minister will really consider giving this House itself an opportunity of declaring the terms upon which, in its judgment, this dispute should be settled with a view to embodying that decision in a special Act of Parliament, fortified with which the Government could insist upon its enforcement against both masters and men? May I have an answer to that question?
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMIf the Prime Minister cares to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT for last night or the night before last, he will find it stated: "Our Executive is prepared to meet the owners unconditionally." That is the position taken up to-day. You convened the Conference not to discuss our conditions at all. This morning the Executive was convened for the purpose of discussing the bar that had been put up by the employers, and our object in meeting you to-day was to intimate to you that if you are prepared to organise a meeting with the owners unconditionally we are prepared to meet them; and we are prepared to discuss the 497 questions on which you are putting so much stress now with the employers in your presence. I am sorry that there should be anything in the nature of a misunderstanding. If you had gone away from the Conference to-day, or if the right hon. Gentlemen who represented the Government left our meeting to-day with the understanding that we were not prepared to meet the employers unless they conceded these terms, you have gone away clearly on a misunderstanding. That is not the position of the Miners' Executive, and both my right hon. Friends have stated the position as decided by the Miners' Executive this afternoon.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not think the House ought to be left under any misunderstanding. It is a very serious situation, and I think it is very important that both the House and the country should understand clearly what it is about. The demand by the Miners' Federation was that before they permitted the pumpmen to return to save the mines these two conditions must be accepted. If there is any misunderstanding upon that, there is no man in the House who will be more delighted than I shall be, but I have not heard a word up to the present to show that I misunderstood them, and in order to make it clear I repeated it in the last speech that I made this morning, hoping that I had misunderstood it. Then having restated it, as I have stated it now, I invited them to give an answer. They said that they had nothing to say. Mr. Herbert Smith or Mr. Frank Hodges could have replied, and I waited some time, but they said that they had nothing to say. Perhaps the House will do me the honour to look at what was said by Mr. Smith and Mr. Hodges, and what I said afterwards, and at my invitation to them to correct me if I was wrong. I should like to be corrected now. I should be only too delighted if through some mistake I had misunderstood them, because it is not a question whether I am wrong or whether any body else is right. It is a question what is the real position. If in the course of the afternoon anyone with authority, if my right hon. Friend who represents the Miners' Federation, or anyone speaking officially on behalf of the Miners' Federation—
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYAt the Bar of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf anyone rising in his place is prepared to state that these are not the two conditions upon which the Miners' Federation are prepared to resume the pumping, then I shall be very glad.
§ Mr. CLYNESMay I submit to the Prime Minister that this last statement to which I have just listened has no reference whatever to the point raised by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. D. Graham). Is it not a fact that the Miners' Federation announced their readiness immediately to go into conference without conditions? Is it not further a fact that they say that if conference be resumed they will not require the pumpmen to resume work until the principle of a National Board is conceded? Are not those the facts?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAnd pooling.
§ Mr. CLYNESAnd pooling.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is exactly what I said. I read the words, and I will read again exactly what I said:
It was announced to me by the Acting President and the Secretary of the Federation that not only had the Federation decided to refuse to enter upon negotiations under any such conditions as we nave laid down, but it had been decided by the Federation that the pumpmen would not be allowed to go back to work until two fundamental principles had been conceded—a national wage system and a national pool.
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMI am a member of the British Miners' Executive, and I am not stating my personal opinion, but the opinion of the British Miners' Executive, that they are prepared to go into a conference unconditionally. If a conference is held, the employers will be entitled to put forward their claim, we shall be entitled to put forward ours, and the result of the discussion—[An HON. MEMBER: "In the meantime the mines will be killed."] That interruption has no very great point, because the miners at least stated last night that they were prepared to meet the employers this morning on an unconditional arrangement. The Prime Minister, however, said "No." We could have met to-day and discussed the two points of difference between us, and I put it to the Prime Minister that if he is at 499 all anxious, and if the Government is anxious, to find a way out of the difficulty, they will be prepared to allow both parties to come face to face and discuss the matter. Surely it is not unreasonable for the miners to put forward their claim as against the employers' claim. The employers laid down certain conditions which we cannot accept without conference, and I am speaking the mind of the British Miners' Executive when I say that we are prepared to meet the employers to-night, to-morrow, or at any time the Government care to arrange a meeting, if there are no conditions attached.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe hon. Member has really not answered the point. [Interruption.] The Miners' Executive stated that they decided that the pumpmen would not be allowed to go back to work until two fundamental principles had first been conceded. If the miners and the mineowners had met this morning, that condition would have been put forward. The pumpmen would not have been allowed to resume until the two fundamental principles which are to be discussed had already been conceded. Under those conditions it is futile to have a conference.
§ Mr. HARTSHORNIs it not desirable that we should get back to where we were yesterday when those two letters were read? What earthly harm can be done, even if it does no good, by both sides coming together? I cannot understand the attitude of the Government in deliberately putting obstacles in the way of a meeting now. The Prime Minister says that that decision has been reached by the Executive, but other decisions have been reached by the coalowners. The coalowners have reached a decision that the Welsh miners can now go back at a 7s. per day reduction, but that decision would have to be discussed and to be, we expect, reversed in some respect if a settlement is to be effected. Whatever decisions have been reached, it is those decisions which separate the parties, and it is in some way or other a changing of the decisions that have been reached on both sides that must take place if a settlement is to be effected. Why not let these people meet this afternoon? Surely no harm can ensue. If there is a determination on the part of the Prime Minister to put this obstacle in the way 500 of that meeting—[Interruption]—I do not want to be offensive, and do not desire to import any friction into the discussion. I am simply referring to a fact. Yesterday afternoon, both sides were prepared to come together. The condition was to be imposed afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I asked a question, and the Prime Minister replied that, after he had received the two letters from the owners and the miners, he sent another letter, saying: "Although you have agreed to meet, before I am prepared to call a meeting you must sent me another letter intimating that you are prepared to accept certain conditions."
§ The PRIME MINISTERI wrote a letter to Mr. Hodges in the morning, and asked him to come along under the conditions mentioned in that letter. He wrote to say that he would accept the invitation, but he did not say a word about the conditions. I simply wrote and asked him whether he accepted the conditions; that is all.
§ Mr. HARTSHORNIt seems to me that that was the best evidence that could possibly be adduced of the desire on the part of the Executive to try to meet and get a settlement, as they said in their letter. They might have said, "No, we are not prepared to accept the terms or conditions," but they said, "We will disregard this; we will go into conference unconditionally without raising any obstacle. The conditions laid down by the Prime Minister may be very difficult or impossible of acceptance, but we will not raise that difficulty; we will go into conference." It seems to me that the proper thing, after that, would have been to let the parties meet, and I do hope that the Prime Minister at this stage will agree that a meeting of the parties shall be held this evening to see if it is not possible to reach a settlement.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI only rise to make a suggestion. I feel sure that the whole House is anxious to arrive at some solution, and that the best way of arriving at a solution is by free and open Parliamentary discussion. Accordingly I venture to ask whether the Government will not move the Adjournment of the House now—it is only they who can do that—so that we may have a discussion of this matter and clear up what, at any rate to a purely unprejudiced observer, appears 501 to be a misunderstanding. I hope that there is a misunderstanding, and the Prime Minister himself has said that he hopes that there is a misunderstanding. It may be that we shall be able to clear that up on the Motion for the Adjournment.