§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George)By leave, I trust, the House will permit me to make a statement with reference to the coal dispute.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. Do I understand that the Adjournment of the House has been moved? Unless the Adjournment of the House has been moved, no one can speak except the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman move the Adjournment of the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have had notice from one or two hon. Members already that they wish to say something after the announcement of the Prime Minister, so that I think the best way would be to move the Adjournment of the House.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."
I wish to make a statement as to the conclusion of the negotiations which have taken place between the Miners' Executive and the Mineowners' Association and the Government. I am very glad to be able to say that an agreement has been arrived at. The Miners' Executive have decided to recommend the terms to their constituents, and to ask the miners to return to work on Monday, if, as they are hopeful, the terms be accepted. The demand for the pool has been definitely abandoned—
§ Mr. CLYNESWill they recommend it to the men?
§ The PRIME MINISTERTo the men? I believe so. I believe they are going down to recommend it straight to the men, and to invite them to resume work. The demand, for the pool has been definitely abandoned, with all the consequences that entails in the fixation of the wages in the various districts. As the House knows very well, there were two main difficulties, one of them more important, naturally, of a permanent character—the basis upon which the wages in the various coalfields should be permanently fixed. After that had been disposed of, however, we always realised that there was a temporary period which would require very special arrangements, in order to bridge over diffi- 2060 culties of a peculiar character which had arisen out of the special conditions of the industry during the War period and during the control period which followed the War.
Owing to those special circumstances, and to the sacrifices involved, more particularly by the export business, the Government have always informed the House of Commons that, in their judgment, it was necessary for the Treasury to assist the industry during this temporary period to bridge these special difficulties. But we have always made it quite clear that we could not recommend that the House of Commons should vote any money for this purpose unless there were a definite, clear arrangement for a permanent settlement that would ensure a long period of peace in the coalfields of this country. That we have always made a condition.
I am very glad indeed to say now, not only that an arrangement has been made which I think will ensure peace for a very long period—I do not like to use the word "permanent"—but for a very long period in the coalfields, and not only will it ensure peace, but I think it will ensure peace on a very satisfactory basis.
The main feature of the permanent settlement is that it fixes a new system for remuneration of the wage earner—a system by which the workman shares with the employer the proceeds of the industry. He thus obtains a direct, and not merely an indirect, interest in the productivity of the industry, and a direct, individual incentive to effort. I believe that no such large and scientific application of the theory of profit-sharing has ever before taken place in the history of any industry in any country, certainly not in this country.
The main features of the scheme are briefly these: Wages will form a first charge on the industry, and a standard is to be set up below which wages will not fall. That standard, which is 20 per cent. above the pre-War rate of earnings, and which was the subject of much controversy, has now been agreed between the parties as a result of the negotiations of the last two days. The standard wage and the other costs of the industry being satisfied, the owner takes a certain portion of the proceeds.
It has now been agreed between the parties, as a result of the conversations which took place yesterday and to-day, 2061 that for every £100 which the workman receives in respect of his standard wage, the owner shall take £17. If there be further proceeds to be divided, the mine-owner and the workmen take them in the proportion of £83 to the workmen, and £17 to the owner. This system is worked out according to the production of the several districts in the coalfields. These districts have also now been agreed upon between the parties after considerable difficulty, the last obstacle in this respect being removed only about an hour ago.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think it would be better if I were to leave these very minute details. It is rather important that the House should get a picture of the settlement as a whole. The actual document will be distributed later on.
§ Mr. S. WALSHAs a Parliamentary Paper?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes. The next point to which attention should be directed is that the parties are agreed that this settlement shall last until the 30th September, 1922, three months' notice to be given by either party if they wish then to determine it. That brings it up to December, 1922, before it can be terminated. One of the difficulties in connection with the last ballot was that the guarantee of this standard was given only down to 30th June. Now, that guarantee is prolonged as long as the arrangement lasts, and, therefore, ensures us practically 18 months of peace in the coalfields. But I believe that when the workmen see the benefits which they themselves will derive from this arrangement, and when the owners on their part come to understand the advantages of taking the workmen into partnership, we shall attain a condition of harmony which has never before prevailed in the coal industry.
There is, however, a period immediately in front of us—and so now I come to the temporary arrangement—during which the operation of this arrangement would create very great difficulty in certain important districts of the coalfields. The exporting districts have been very hard hit during the last six months by the almost complete collapse of the export trade; and, in respect of the great contribution which these districts have made to the interests of the country during the 2062 War and since they deserve, in our view, special consideration, and we have repeatedly said so in this House. It is sufficient for me to state that if the economic conditions were allowed at once to have full play before the industry had had time to recover, the reduction which would be necessary in South Wales would be 9s. 6d. a day, in Northumberland 6s. 3d., in Cumberland 8s. 7d., in Scotland and Lancashire somewhere about 5s, and in North Wales 6s. 6d. It was accordingly urged by both the owners' and the miners' representatives—the owners taking the lead in bringing pressure to bear on the Government in this respect—that it was necessary to give some assistance in these districts if the pits were to be enabled to start work again.
I have no doubt that hon. and right hon. Members of this House have read in the papers this morning, and in the papers last night, the appeal that was made to us late last night—in the first place by the owners and afterwards by the miners—that substantial assistance was absolutely necessary if the coal trade was to be started again under present conditions, notably in two or three of the most important coalfields of the country. They represented to us that it was impossible in some of the pits to expect the workmen to resume work unless temporary assistance were granted. We had, as the House knows, a week ago withdrawn our offer of £10,000,000. We had deemed it necessary to give notice that if the miners rejected our terms, the subsidy must be treated as withdrawn. When the parties approached us later with a view to a settlement, the Government had a perfectly free hand in that respect. When negotiations were resumed, we made it quite clear it must not be assumed that the £10,000,000 was available, but that it must be a matter for negotiation and discussion among us.
I have to state to the House that the facts impressed upon us last night, both by the owners and by the miners, absolutely convinced us that, without Government aid, there could only be a very partial resumption of work in the coalfields at the present time. We accordingly considered the best form in which assistance could be given. We were clearly of opinion that it could not be afforded on the same principles as those on which we had previously made our offer, when we 2063 agreed to make a grant of £10,000,000, to be distributed as the miners thought fit for the purpose of assisting the workers in the various districts.
After considerable discussion, partly last night and again this morning, we arrived at an arrangement whereby we decided that the first reduction in wages should take place in July and should not exceed. 2s. per shift; the next in August, 2s. 6d.; and in September 3s. per shift. Beyond that period the permanent arrangement comes into full operation, and the Government subsidy has no concern with that. We have fixed as the limit of any contribution the sum of £10,000,000. Of course, we shall only pay up to that amount under the deductions which I have- described. In any district in which Government aid is necessary, the owners as a body have agreed to forego for three months the amount of the aggregate profit which would accrue to that district under the profit-sharing scheme which, as the House probably understands, involves the striking of a profit and loss account for that district as a whole. Further, in any district in which a reduction of wages takes place under this settlement, any surplus profits will be foregone during the same period by the owners. In this way there is required less outside assistance than would otherwise be the case.
Finally, upon these terms I ought to state that a National Board is to be set up, consisting of equal numbers of representatives of the mineowners and miners, and also District Boards of a like character, to which all matters of controversy between the parties will be referred. Both the District Boards and the National Board will have independent Chairmen to be called in, if the parties cannot agree. It is hoped in this way to obtain a settlement of questions which might not otherwise be accomplished. The coalowners accepted these terms. The Executive of the Miners' Federation propose to leave at once for the coalfields, and to recommend these terms to the men.
I am anxious to say nothing which will add to a very difficult task—how difficult it is the recent ballot will make clear—beyond that the whole success of this scheme depends on the spirit in which it is worked; and that constitutes an additional reason why nothing should be said 2064 which will tend to exasperate, irritate or embarrass any of the parties. The settlement is a very great experiment, and I think a very promising one. No such principles have ever before been applied on so great a scale to a great industry.
§ Mr. S. WALSHOn any scale.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not sure. There may be a few small industries, but I am perfectly certain that in no country has a great industry attempted an experiment of this kind, which involves such complete co-operation between employers and workmen, such complete participation in the profits by the men, and such complete participation in the prosperity which they themselves create. I am very hopeful that it may create new relations between Capital and Labour, not merely in this industry, but in all industries. It is necessary in this industry above all, and one reason is that we have had more trouble probably in this industry in recent years than in almost any other industry. There have been two strikes; there have been several threats of strikes.
§ Mr. G. BARKERLock-outs.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWell, there have been stoppages. There have been two actual stoppages, one of them very prolonged, and the other a serious one, quite recently. There have been several threats of stoppages. So that it is very essential there should be an arrangement which will produce a new spirit in the whole industry. The other reason is that this is the basic industry for almost all industries in the Kingdom, and when anything goes wrong here, it dislocates and disturbs every industry throughout the country. The output per man has been reduced to an alarming extent. All concerned in this industry have their share of responsibility for this, and it is essential that there should be some means, or some new spirit, introduced that shall have the effect of increasing the output. I do not know of a better way of doing it than by interesting all those who are engaged in this great industry in the profits of their own labour and their own investment, whether it be an investment of capital or an investment of toil. In 1914 the wage cost per ton was 6s. 11d.; in March last it was 27s. 9d.—
§ Mr. HARTSHORNDoes that include unemployment charges?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf my hon. Friend will take any other month, he will find that it was an enormous increase. There is no one who has done more to call attention to it than he has, and I am sure there will be no disagreement between us on that point. It is essential, in order to enable the workman to get a good wage; it is essential in order to enable the owner to get a fair profit; it is, above all, essential in order to enable the industries of this country to carry on, to be able to sell coal abroad, to be able to produce the goods which they have to take into the markets of the world to meet other competitors—it is essential that that condition of things should be remedied. I feel very hopeful that that will be the result of an arrangement by which all the parties feel that they are co-partners in this industry, that they have a direct interest in improving the condition of things, that if they do not improve it their wages must be necessarily cut down, that if they do improve it, their wages will go up, but that their wages, as well as the profits of the owners, depend upon improving the condition of things when the output has been reduced to a point where, instead of its costing 6s. 11d. per ton in respect of wages, it cost anything from 25s. to 27s. 9d. in February and March. That is the new element which has been introduced, and, although this conflict has been a very costly one and a very destructive one, and threatened to be a very devastating one to our trade, I believe that, if this new system be worked in a spirit of goodwill, it will more than repay the nation for all the damage which has been inflicted. I believe it will open a new era of co-operation in this industry. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding, there has been a good deal of working at cross-purposes. The industry has suffered, and the nation has suffered. I hope that that now has come definitely to an end. This nation, above all the nations of the world, feels that it is an essential condition of its existence—not merely its prosperity—that there should be peace throughout the world, and, above all, peace in all our industries.
§ Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAYI should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether the effect of the House adjourning as a result of the Prime Minister's Motion would be that the House 2066 would agree to the grant of £10,000,000 without further Debate.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIt is necessary, if the proposal to grant £10,000,000, or up to a maximum of £10,000,000, as described by my right hon. Friend, is challenged, that it should be challenged now, because the miners, who are to proceed to their districts, must know whether the House approves of this policy or not. The only way in which we can indicate that is by taking a vote on the Motion for Adjournment. If it is not challenged, the Motion will be negatived without a Division. If the payment of a sum not exceeding £10,000,000 be challenged, those who are against it must vote in favour of the Motion for the Adjournment, and those who support the proposal of the Government will vote against the Motion for the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SPEAKERMay I explain? What usually happens in these cases is that, after the Debate has gone a certain distance, the Government ask leave to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment. If there be objection, even by a single Member, that withdrawal is not allowed. Thereupon the Motion ceases to be a Government Motion, and those Members who do not support the Government will then vote for the Adjournment, while those who support the Government will vote against the Adjournment.
§ Mr. ASQUITHIt is obviously impossible that the House should discuss the details of the arrangement which the Prime Minister has announced, until we have before us the White Paper which contains them in full, and I think it would be at this moment extremely inexpedient to run the risk of saying anything which might hinder the accomplishment of the settlement which we all desire. I rise, therefore, simply to say, in the first place, that I am sure it is a source of profound relief, and, indeed, of heartfelt gratification, to the House, as it will be to the country, to see that we are at any rate, as we may hope, within a measurable distance of the speedy termination of this disastrous national dispute. I think, further, without prejudice to any criticisms that may have to be made upon specific points in the temporary arrangement, that 2067 we shall hail with satisfaction, as I certainly do, the fact that the owners and the men, as we hope, are going to come to a permanent settlement of their future relations on the basis of profit-sharing. If that were once established as the modus operandi in this, which is the greatest and most fundamental of all our industries, there is no reason why it should not be extended to other departments of production. Many of us have long since thought, and some have said, that in that way will be found the best avenue of escape from the perpetual embroilments which conflicts of labour and capital, so-called, entail. I will only add, as regards the immediate purpose of this Motion, that I think the House will take upon itself a very great responsibility if it refuses the Government the authority they ask to incur expenditure which, I understand, is not in the whole to exceed, though it may not necessarily reach, £10,000,000.
§ Mr. CLYNESI rise to offer a few observations on the announcement of the Prime Minister, and incidentally to express the hope that the recommendation of the miners' leaders—the leaders who have had the responsibility of negotiating this arrangement—will be accepted by the men as the best settlement obtainable in the circumstances which have been reached. The terms cannot be discussed in this House, even when we may get in the White Paper their full details. The members of the Executive of the Miners' Federation will have to explain those terms, and will have to defend, probably, their action in consenting to them. I think that those of us who are associated with mine-workers' interests, and with the interests of organised Labour in this country, might strengthen the appeal of the Miners' Federation Executive by declaring that in our view it will be advisable for the rank and file of the miners to accept them; but I cannot say a word upon the question without expressing my own profound disappointment at the manner in which this subject has been handled by the Government from the very beginning. If, in March of this year, the Government could have—
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have studiously avoided making any comment upon the conduct of this controversy by others, because I did not want to add to any difficulties; but I must warn my right 2068 hon. Friend that, if he really is going to attack the Government upon this subject, we are bound in self-defence to reply.
§ Mr. CLYNESI shall not shrink from meeting any reply that the Prime Minister may think it advisable to make.
§ The PRIME MINISTERDoes that help?
§ Mr. CLYNESI cannot accept the description which the Prime Minister has applied to what I have said. I thought I was stating the merest commonplace, and I wanted to say seriously what I believe is patent, that if the events of the last three months—
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI would ask my right hon. Friend to remember that I have promised to put the Vote down for Friday, when there will be an opportunity for discussion.
§ Lord R. CECILMay I ask whether it is quite clear—I hope it is—that in accepting this suggestion of the Government we do not in any way preclude ourselves from any criticism that any of us may desire to make on the conduct of the Government in reference to this dispute? I do not want to say a word about it at this moment, but I do want to be quite clear that we are not going to shut ourselves out from any future criticism?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNothing that takes place in the House to-day can in any way derogate from the rights of the Committee of Supply—the Committee of the Whole House which deals with Supply and money—in that respect primarily a superior body to the House itself. The purpose of the present discussion, I understand, is to enable the Government to gather the general sense of the House, so that, if that sense be favourable, they may feel themselves authorised to proceed. But that does not take away the perfect right of the Committee of Supply, on Friday or any other day, to cover the whole of the ground of criticism.
§ Colonel ASHLEYDo I understand that if this goes through this evening the House gives formal sanction to the Vote of £10,000,000, or do we have a Debate again on Friday to discuss it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere must be a separate Debate in Committee of Supply for that purpose, but it is customary for the 2069 Government to ascertain the general sense of the House, so that they may feel that they have adequate support for the proposal.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDIt is absurd. We cannot hold over the miners the offer of the £10,000,000 to get them over their difficulties and vote for that, and then some day later challenge the whole thing again. You have to take your courage in your hands now. If you want the strike to go on it is quite easy. If you want it settled it is quite easy, too.
§ Earl WINTERTONIt has nothing to do with the ethics of the case. It is a question of the constitution of the House. You cannot alter the constitution of the House. Everyone is perfectly entitled on Friday to object to the Estimate.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think I have made the position clear. If the Government ask leave to withdraw their Motion for the Adjournment, and it be refused, the House may proceed to a Division, and those who challenge the Government policy can vote. They would still have a further opportunity on the Vote itself for detailed discussion, if they so desire.
§ Mr. CLYNESWhat we have heard as to a further opportunity for discussing the matter must alter the character of any discussion we may have to-day. I was about to say in regard to the general conduct of the dispute by the Government that I recognise that this is not the moment at which to debate at length the various stages, but I thought I was entitled to express the view which provoked such resentment in some quarters of the House. I put it to the House that the very stubbornness of the fight and the manner in which the miners have starved and suffered is a proof at least of their sense of the justice of their cause. I put further the view that this House has shown itself to be mistaken, and so has the country, on the merits of the dispute by the clamour which was set up and sustained to let the men settle it themselves by ballot, the view being that it was the leaders who were the cause of the stoppage and the cause of its being prolonged, and that if the men had an opportunity to vote they would have accepted the terms that were offered them long ago. Hon. Members really must remember what they say during the course of the dispute when towards the end of it we remind them of what they have 2070 said. I have said and repeated in this House that a ballot of the rank and file of the workmen, no matter in what trade, has never yet ended a dispute which would not otherwise have been ended, but on the contrary ballots have very often been the cause of disputes being prolonged. There are certain elementary but really important facts in relation to these disputes which it would be well for hon. Members to fix in their minds. I hope no Member of this House will try to put difficulties in the way of the Government in relation to the real substance of the announcement which has been made as to the £10,000,000. But really it was a clumsy manœuvre at least for the Government to withdraw it at the time and in the manner they did. It would have been more in harmony with the dignity of the Government not to have tried to exert pressure by that proceeding upon the two parties, and particularly upon the men. I shall be interested to hear, when the time comes, really what were the reasons which prompted the Government, at a time of the very direst suffering on the part of the men and women it was known that the leaders were anxious for a settlement and were endeavouring to procure one, to withdraw the £10,000,000.
I cannot sit down without offering an observation on what is to me an extremely interesting section of the announcement. The settlement has assumed a character which may have a very important bearing—that is, assuming the men accept it and that it succeeds—upon the whole future history and arrangement of terms as between employers and employed. I do not claim to be speaking for all my hon. Friends behind me, but I cannot refrain from expressing at least a personal opinion. I have long held the view that, after terms are settled between employers and employed as to rates of pay and conditions of service, it never could be a bad thing for workmen to make a further bargain by which they would get a share in additional profits, or the margin of profits, which might remain in the industry. The acceptance of that principle and arrangement will never tend to undermine the trade union spirit of the workmen or lessen their sense of solidarity. It is, in my judgment, no barrier at all to the continued advocacy of any general principles which we enter- 2071 tain in relation to whatever may be the existing economic order. But I believe, given the spread and establishment generally of that principle of sharing the additional margin of profits, you would have a tendency to greater peace, greater efficiency, and a greater sense of satisfaction as to the right and just thing being done between employers and employed, and I am hopeful to see a development towards that goal of real partnership and a fair sharing of the profits of industry as between employers and employed.
Any one of us in close touch with the working of the trade union machine in these days in relation to these big disputes can see how defective and how out of date that machine is for the purpose which it seeks to serve. The worst body of men very often, or the men least capable of forming a true judgment of their own interests, are the masses of the workmen themselves, and I would plead for the great masses of the workmen, not merely to have greater faith in their appointed leaders, but to place in their hands the exercise of greater authority and power. [Interruption.] I trust no Member of the House is so satisfied with the events of the last three months that he can now regard this chapter as closed, with the certainty that if no change is advocated in the conditions which have contributed to produce it we will return to such a condition of things perhaps before very long. My effort, such as it is, is a contribution towards the reform and re-arrangement of that machinery of the trade union movement which has so much to do with the settlement of these disputes, and this House might well give a few minutes of its time, when it has the opportunity, probably to save weeks of time spent in the prolongation of disputes or spent sometimes in causing them where otherwise they could be prevented. What I mean is this: Take these miners' leaders—the members of the Executive; they are men who have had no power and no authority; they have not even been able to negotiate, in the sense of discussing in detail terms with the mineowners. It is only within the last day or two that that has been done, and it has been done because they have dared to assume a power not properly conferred upon them. I am glad they have done it.
§ Mr. HARTSHORNI am sorry.
§ Mr. CLYNESAnd under the pressure of the dire circumstances and conditions in the industry, if they had not assumed this power, the dispute would be drifting on and on, week after week, month after month, until no one would know where it would end. I am glad they have assumed this power, and it will be a good thing for British industry if trusted and competent leaders, who in the nature of things come up closest to the real merits of the difference, and to the real facts in dispute, could be vested with greater authority, instead of being merely told to go and listen to what the employers have to say and then carry a message to some larger body, knowing even less than the members of the executive, and the larger body in turn delegating the question to the masses of men, who know least of all what has happened in connection with these discussions. That is not a very serviceable line for the trade union movement to continue on. Leadership after all is tested by results. We learn by experience. The experience of this dispute has proved that it would be better for the masses of men to vest their trusted leaders, when they have chosen them, with authority to act for them as wisely as they can, and I hope, in addition, to the terms of this settlement, knowing the bearing and effect which the Prime Minister has described, tending to establish and spread a new spirit and principle, the spirit of co-partnership in industry, it will tend also to teach the whole trade union and Labour movement the lesson of the follies of the methods they have pursued, and accordingly increase the authority of the trusted leaders, who have to assume enormous responsibility in the earlier stages, and even in the later stages of these disputes.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI regard the grant of a £10,000,000 subsidy with the very gravest suspicion. It is very easy, of course, to vote public money for the purpose of settling an industrial dispute, and a dispute such as this has created untold havoc in the trade of the country. But I feel as a humble Back Bench Member that when the Government, on their responsibility, ask the House to endorse their policy, we knowing very little of the facts, of which they are fully seised, this House would incur a very grave responsibility if it did not back up this settlement and endeavour 2073 to look forward to a happier future in the coal industry and other industries. I think the Government, although it may be necessary, have set a very dangerous-precedent indeed, and other industries may well come to the House in the near future and say, "We are decontrolled. Why should not we have a subsidy the same as the miners?" And when they do come it will be very difficult, in logic, at any rate, for the Government to refuse to give it them.
§ Lieut.-Colonel NALLI do not wane to raise any point or cause any difficulty, but I want to ask two questions which I think are important. The first is, Does the temporary change involve any continuation of control?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo.
§ Lieut.-Colonel NALLIf that is not so, does the arrangement, either the temporary one or the proposed permanent one, involve any immediate increase or decrease in the price of coal? Will the Government in their reply say if the proposed temporary figure involves any possible increase or decrease in the price of coal, and whether it is anticipated that a permanent settlement will be arrived at without an increase in the price of coal?
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe temporary arrangement does not involve control at all. I think the answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's first question is also the answer to the second. As to what the price of coal will be, the Government have nothing whatever to say. There is no control. It is left to the play of the market. Whether it will come down and to what extent it will come down depends entirely on the market at home and the markets of the world, and production will have a good deal of say in the matter. But we have no say in the matter, and we do not propose to interfere in that respect. The only further observation I would make is this: when we ask the House of Commons to grant up to £10,000,000 of money, any criticism that may be passed upon the Government we shall be very delighted to meet. We are not in the habit of running away from criticism, either of my right hon. Friend or of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil). If he has anything to say, I hope he will be here to say it.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIn spite of that admonitory—
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt is defensive.
§ Lord R. CECILDefensive or offensive? Or both? But apart from that, I suppose the terms will be published in to-morrow's papers, or will they be distributed, because it will be convenient for us to have them in our hands?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI hope the Prime Minister will be here on Friday to listen to some of the criticisms, especially from some of his own faithful supporters below the Gangway. If he could hear some of the things that are said outside the House, inside the Chamber they would do him a world of good.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDKnowing something of trade union organisation, I am wondering whether Friday is long enough ahead for such a criticism as is suggested. It is a moral certainty it would be fatal to the ratification of the agreement if an acrimonious discussion as to the attitude of the Government or the attitude of the leaders of the miners or the attitude of the men themselves took place before a final decision is come to. I would venture to suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should make Friday tentative only upon the understanding that the decision is then final for acceptance or rejection, for I can see quite clearly from what has taken place already that we shall be attempting to make an agreement on the one hand, leaving it to the executive of the miners to fight their case as best they can, while we, on the other hand, are doing a positive injury to the success of that settlement.
§ Commander BELLAIRSThere is sure to be a real feeling of anxiety on the part of the public as to whether this large subsidy to the mining industry will form a precedent. There is a strike threatened in the engineering trade at the present moment, and I think we should get some declaration that the circumstances under which this subsidy is paid are absolutely exceptional.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am very glad my hon. and gallant Friend has put that question. Perhaps I should have dwelt more upon that aspect of the case. It is because of the very special circumstances of this case that we felt there was a justification for responding to the plea of the masters and the men. Circumstances are very exceptional because of the conditions of the export trade. Huge prices were realised in the export trade, but that sum of money, instead of inuring to the benefit of the particular district where the coal was raised, was distributed throughout the whole industry and had an effect upon the price of coal. We took it into account and reduced the price of home coal in consequence of the profits made. That is a condition of things that we do not find anything corresponding to in any other industry, and I cannot conceive how it can be made a ground for pleading for a subsidy in any other connection. With regard to the other point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward), there is, first of all, the difficulty of time. We must get the money as soon as possible, and I think Friday is the latest day on which we can produce the Estimate. I am not inviting provocative-speeches. If they come, then they have got to be dealt with, but I trust that the very pertinent observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend will have an influence upon those who are taking part in that discussion. It is true that Friday is a critical day—
§ Mr. G. PARKERBlack Friday!
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, I hope it will be a White Friday. I ask my hon. Friend to take a brighter view than that. As a rule, he is a fairly cheerful soul. It is a time when the miners' leaders will be, I will not say wrestling with their men, but putting the case to their men, and anything which is said in this House may have a very disastrous effect. I shall certainly bear that in mind in any observations I make, and I trust everybody else will have the same sense of responsibility.
§ Mr. G. BARNESOn a point of Order. If Friday be included in what you put to-day, will the whole day of Friday be taken up with this matter? I speak as one interested in another matter down for Friday.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid that is a matter beyond my control.
§ Mr. BARNESIf Friday be a Supply Day, can anything else be taken?
§ Lord R. CECILNo.
§ Mr. BARNESIf not, can we have another day?
§ Major-General SEELYBefore the Government replies, may I respectfully point out to the Prime Minister that, as I am told on these Benches, it is the fact that the decision will be probably come to in many districts on the Saturday and Sunday, and would it not be a most extraordinarily injurious thing to have our Debate on that day when there are very divergent views on the subject although we may be all agreed that a settlement should be made? There may very likely be some bitter things said, and in those circumstances it would surely be much better to have the Debate on Monday. Surely the forms of the House can be stretched to enable us to do that?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe position is, we must get the money in order to be able to implement the agreement. In the second place, I came under an obligation to the House, at the request of the House, that this Vote should be put down on the earliest opportunity we had. For those two reasons, I think the Vote must be taken on Friday. But there is a great danger, if we have a discussion on Friday, of things being said that may prejudice the settlement outside, and what I would suggest, if that meets with the approval of the House, would be that the Vote should be taken without discussion on Friday, if hon. Members would agree to that, with a Division if any Member wishes to challenge it, and we can then put down the Vote of the President of the Board of Trade or the Vote of the Secretary for Mines on the Thursday following
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYA Supply day?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINFriday will not be a Supply Day, but we can put down a Supply Vote to enable the discussion to be taken on the following Thursday.
§ Mr. HALLSMay I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that coal 2077 merchants, anticipating a settlement would be arrived at as the result of the recent ballot, sent out price lists in which, in a number of cases, the new price for coal was to be at least 6s. more than the previous price? What protection is the community going to get during the period when there is a huge demand for coal?
§ Mr. BARNESMay I be assured as to the point I raised? Am I right in assuming Friday will be clear?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINWe must put this Vote for the mines down as the first Order. I am very sorry, but that must be done. If, as has now apparently been arranged with the assent of those now in the House, the Vote is taken without discussion—
§ Major-General SEELYYes!
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy right hon. Friend sees the difficulty of making any arrangement. All I can say is, if the Vote finish before 5 o'clock, we shall proceed with the business in which he is interested, but that must depend on the progress made.
§ Mr. BARNESMay I be allowed to make a protest against any such arrangement. It might be, possibly will be, as far as I can gather from the ejaculations on the other side, that the discussion on this Vote will reach 4 o'clock. Are we only going to have one hour for discussing the important question of what the Government is going to do in regard to the Washington Conventions? If so, that is very unsatisfactory to me, and not only to me but to many more outside. I think it is due to the importance of this matter that we should have some assurance that we shall not be fobbed off with one hour, or perhaps two hours. If we cannot have a proper discussion on Friday, we should get another day.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI offered another day for the discussion of the Mines Vote, if the Vote be given us on Friday without discussion. If the House insist on its right to discuss the Vote on Friday, we cannot undertake to provide another day for a second edition of the same discussion. But if there be no discussion on 2078 Friday, then my right hon. Friend's subject will come on at once.
§ Major-General SEELYThe objection taken on this side is not to giving the Vote on Friday without discussion. As I understand it, it is to taking a Supply day for the discussion.
§ Captain W. BENNPerhaps I might ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that we only have a very limited number of opportunities to discuss important topics in Supply. If we find one of these days devoted to discussing this topic, it will deprive us of opportunities we have anticipated for discussing other matters. Will he correspondingly enlarge the period of Supply, so that we shall have an opportunity of discussing these other matters?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI cannot give an undertaking to do that, having regard to the general state of business. I do not say at this stage that I will give any more extra days than the one already promised. I am not refusing to do it, but I cannot see at this stage that I shall be able to do it. I cannot conceive any more important matter for which one of our Supply days could be used than the discussion which has been promised.
Dr. MURRAYIf the silly Anti-Dumping Bill were withdrawn we should get 10 days in which to discuss this and other matters.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThe Leader of the House does not help us. We do not want to take away the time given for the debate on the Motion of the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. G. Barnes), but we do object to Thursday of next week being fixed for this debate on the mines and that day being treated as a Supply day.
§ Mr. WATERSONWho are "we"?
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThe Section to which I have the honour to belong, and we have so far worked harmoniously with the hon. Member's party in regard to these matters of Supply. We object to being deprived of a day for discussing important matters on the Estimates. We feel that we are being jockeyed in this matter, although I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would do that purposely. I do not think that we, are being fairly dealt 2079 with. If we are to lose our Supply days we shall have no control over finance.
§ Mr. ACLANDI hope the Leader of the House will not close his mind on this question. He has expressed his opinion now and we cannot usefully carry on this discussion across the Floor of the House; but a constitutional point is involved. The choice of subjects for Supply days rests with the Opposition, and this seems to be a case of the Government fixing what should be taken on a Supply day. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks better of the matter, after consideration, he will give us another Supply day instead of next Thursday.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy difficulty is to get the controlling mind of the Opposition, if I may say so without offence. I thought it was the desire of both sections of the Opposition that no discussion should take place on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I understood that, and I offered next Thursday in place of it. That is what I have done. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.