HC Deb 13 February 1922 vol 150 cc608-9
78. Mr. LAWSON

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that 250 men and boys at Washington Glebe Colliery, County Durham, received notice to terminate their employment in December last because the coal owner refused to pay 2s. 10d. per ton royalty rent; whether he can give the final terms of settlement of the dispute between the coal owners and royalty owner; and whether he proposes to promote legislation to deal with such cases?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

According to my information, notice was given to the workpeople in conseqence of the colliery company being unwilling to continue payment of royalties on the scale reserved in their lease, but at the time when this notice was given the amount of the royalty under negotiation was very considerably less than 2s. 10d. per ton. I am not aware of the terms upon which the matter was ultimately adjusted, but terms were agreed and the colliery has continued to work. I cannot at present make any statement about the introduction of legislation that would cover such cases.

Mr. LAWSON

Is it not the fact that the management of the colliery informed the men who had received their notices that the royalty owner was practically closing down the seam because they were demanding 2s. 6d. per ton; and that after the men had worked their notices they had them held over their heads for a few days; and is not this case typical of many other instances? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech, speech!"] This is a serious matter for the men, Mr. Speaker—is it not a fact that this case is typical of many; and is the right. hon. Gentleman not prepared to say that the Government will take in hand a matter of this kind?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to occupy time in repeating his question, seeing that other hon. Members have questions down.

Mr. LAWSON

But, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. May I point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—may I make this complaint, that I gave notice of this question last Tuesday to the Secretary for Mines, and now to-day, Monday, this question is 78 on the Order Paper?