Rejection by Miners' Federation. (Hansard, 12 April 1921)

§ Mr. G. THORNE
Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement as to the position of the coal dispute.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home)
Before we separate, perhaps the House would like to know the position in connection with the dispute in the coal industry. This morning the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and myself met the coalowners, in accordance with an arrangement made yesterday, and, after discussion with them upon the position in which we found ourselves, a meeting was subsequently held with the coalminers. That meeting was then adjourned, and a subsequent discussion took place, with both bodies present, at the Board of Trade, at 4 o'clock this afternoon. As the result of that discussion, there were put before the coal-miners certain suggestions by the Government as to the basis upon which the trouble in the coal industry might be settled, and the House will bear with me while I read the particular proposals which have been made. They were as follows:
"The miners make a demand for a national pool of profits and a national 1071 settlement of wages. In the view of the Government one of these proposals may be practicable, the other is not.
"That a pooling arrangement, whereby the miners and mineowners in every mining area should be compelled to contribute to a common pool for the equalisation of wages in the industry, without regard to the capacity of the mines in any particular area, is not feasible without the resumption of complete and permanent control by the State of the mining industry.
"That a purely voluntary scheme would inevitably break down even if it could be effectively started, and that is doubtful.
"That such a strict control as is essential to a national pooling scheme would deprive those engaged in the industry whether miners or mineowners of the necessary incentive to production; that the productiveness of the mines would thus be depressed; that the cost of production would increase; that the industry would suffer in foreign markets and that the increased cost of coal would have the effect of so adding to the cost of production in our other industries as to handicap us seriously in our foreign trade. It would deprive multitudes in this country of their means of livelihood, while it would add to the cost of living for the rest."
Then we made the following proposals:
"That there shall be in each district a standard wage, which shall be the first charge on the proceeds of the industry in each district, and that no profits shall be payable until the standard wage is satisfied. The principle on which this standard wage shall be fixed for each district shall be determined nationally, and the amount to be settled for each district shall be the subject of discussion at the present conference. The method of adjustment of wages in each district in excess of the standard shall also be determined nationally, and any 1072 complaint as to the adjustment in any particular district shall be referred to a national committee, on which there shall be representatives of the coal-owners and the miners in equal numbers."
I pause to say that that would set up a national system of determining wages with varying application, according to the circumstances of each particular district.
"That in determining this standard wage, regard should be had not merely to the price of coal, but to the possibilities of improving wages by reducing the cost of production, by increased economy, efficiency and closer co-operation between miners and mineowners."
"That the question of the relation of the owners' standard profit to the miners' standard wage and the division of any surplus profits shall also be immediately examined by this conference with a view to determining what percentage the profits of the coal owners ought to bear to the wages paid in the industry."
Lastly, this is an important proposal.
"If and when an arrangement has been arrived at between the coal owners and the miners as to the rate of wages to be paid in the industry fixed upon an economic basis, the Government will be willing to give assistance either by loan or otherwise during a short period in order to mitigate the rapid reduction in wages in the districts most severely affected."
That last stipulation necessarily involved that there should be an arrangement putting the coal trade on an economic basis made at once and that the period should be determined, and that thereafter the Government should consider what would be necessary in order to mitigate the burden of the severe reductions in particular districts but only for a short period. The whole of that matter was carefully explained and discussed with the representatives of the miners, and again, after the discussion at which the owners put forward their case 1073 and the miners put forward their counter case. The final decision of the Government was given to the effect that any system for establishing a national pool of profits could not be assented to. The miners thereupon left the conference with the statement that they would communicate in writing their answer to the Government's proposals and only a short time ago the Prime Minister received this letter from Mr. Frank Hodges, the Secretary of the Miners' Federation:
"Dear Prime Minister,—We have fully considered the terms set forth in writing to us this morning by you. For reasons already stated to you in full conference, my Executive feel compelled to reject the terms proposed, as they offer no solution of the present dispute."

§ Mr. A. HENDERSON
I am certain all sections of the House will have heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with extreme regret. I think there was a general feeling that, once negotiations could be reopened, it might be possible for those negotiations to result in a speedy and honourable settlement. We are now face to face with another deadlock. I think it would not be wise to even occupy the remaining time in any discussion this evening, but I would ask the Leader of the House, if we desire to have a discussion early in the sitting of 1074 to-morrow, whether he would be prepared to respond to a request in that regard, and to give us an opportunity, and, if we do not make such a request, would it be the intention of the Government to place as the first Order on the Paper, the reply to the Message from His Majesty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House)
Yes, I have arranged that the first Order on the Paper to-morrow shall be the adjourned Debate on the reply to the Message from His Majesty. I hope that it will be as inexpedient to-morrow at the hour when we meet to take the discussion on that Motion as by common consent it would have been to-day, but I think the House ought to have before it the possibility of a discussion if it so desires. I have therefore arranged the business in that order. If discussion be generally desired, it can take place, and if it be not desired, we can proceed to the other Orders on the Paper.

§ Mr. HOGGE
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to the transport workers or the railwaymen, and their position in regard to this matter?

§ Sir R. HORNE
All I know—and I fancy the report is accurate, although I cannot entirely vouch for it—is that the transport workers and the railway-men met to-night at a quarter to 10 and have adjourned till 11 to-morrow morning.