HC Deb 27 July 1926 vol 198 cc1987-91
Mr. LEE

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

This Clause was not in the Bill when it was originally before the House. We have been told that the royalty owners are acknowledging the moral obligation that there is upon them to do something for the mining industry, and are willing to pay at least their 1s., although the last two Amendments have been moved with the object of reducing that amount. While, however, they are prepared to do that, this Clause has been put into the Bill with the idea of giving them representation on the already formed Miners' Welfare Committee. I personally am not going to argue against the principle of representation where there is taxation, but my complaint with regard to this Clause is that it brings in representation in connection with a part of the Committee's work in which taxation is not involved. The whole of this money has been earmarked for pit-head baths, and, if the royalty owners are brought into an already formed committee which deals with other matters, they are brought in in connection with other work for which they do not find the money, and in connection with which I suggest they have no right to any representation. The whole balance of the Miners' Welfare Committee as it is now constituted will be changed if this Clause is allowed to stand

The whole theory of the representation on these Committees, national, district and local, has been that there shall be equal numbers of owners' representatives and of miners' representatives. That principle is carried out right through the National Board and the district and local committees. If a royalty owner is put on the National Board, it upsets the balance, and for that reason alone I say that this Clause ought not to be included in the Bill. If they were going to deal only with the £250,000 that they are going to contribute. I should not complain, but should say that they were entitled to such representation as that sum would involve, but they are being brought into a Committee which is dealing, not with £250,000, but with £1,250,000, which is to be applied to many objects for which the royalty owners have done nothing in the past and in which they have never shown any interest at all. Therefore, I think they have no right to come on to the National Board and have a voice in what shall be done with the £1,000,000 also. The present Committee consists of two representatives nominated by the Mining Association and two nominated by the Miners' Federation. The Government themselves have difficulty with regard to the representation of the royalty owners. They have no association—

Sir G. WHELER

I beg the hon. Member's pardon; there is an association of royalty owners.

Mr. LEE

Evidently, the Government do not know what it is called. They say in the Bill that the royalty owners' representative shall be appointed by the Board of Trade, after consultation with such associations or bodies as may appear to the Board to represent persons"— and so on. They do not know what the name of the association is, and have put it in a very vague way. A certain gentleman's name has been mentioned in these Debates. I do nut like to bring in personalities, but the most prominent name in the royalty world to-day—I do not want what I am saying to be misunderstood—is that of the Duke of Northumberland. I am moving this Amendment with more than one object in view. The Government say they want to get peace in the mining industry. I do not know whether to bring the Duke of Northumberland into a committee with Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith would be likely to bring peace to the mining industry, but I, at any rate, think it would be well to keep them as far apart as possible.

Mr. WHITELEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

We feel that there is no real necessity for such a Clause as this, even though this levy has been put on the royalty owners and they are going to make a contribution of £250,000 a year. If the Government are sincere in the statements that have been made, during the discussion of this Bill, that they are anxious to allay suspicion, and if at the same time they are not prepared to agree to the deletion of this Clause, why not ask the other side of the industry also to appoint a representative in order to make the balance equal again? We cannot see why these people, because they have to make some little contribution for a specific purpose, ought to have the advantage of having representation in dealing with the Welfare Fund, which is very largely contributed by the efforts of the workers themselves. The Welfare Fund is raised by a levy of 1d. per ton on output, and we say that that Fund is in the interests of the welfare of the miners and of the community at large in our mining districts, and that the people who ought to have the administration of it, and the power to see that it is carried on in a proper way for the advantage of everyone concerned, are the persons who are directly interested, and that, even if you go so far as to say that because these people are taxed they ought to have representation, at least it ought to be fair, and there should be equal representation, so that our people may have the opportunity of adding their voice as to the kind of welfare that is essential in our colliery districts, and particularly, as regards pithead baths, to hurry them up as rapidly as possible, so that the men and women in our districts may have the full advantage of them.

7.0 P. M.

Colonel LANE FOX

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that this will affect the district committees. That is an error. It will affect only the Central Committee and not the district committees at all. I am sure the House will agree that an in-and-out system is never a workable one and never has satisfactory results. You never get any man who is worth having to spare the time to take part in a system of that sort. You would have to have those particular representatives going away for one item and coming back for another. I hope that this representative, which the House agrees they are entitled to, will have a considerable knowledge of the district and will be able to give assistance to the Committee.

Mr. SPENCER

I think we should consider giving another representative to the workers to keep them equal. If you do that, we could possibly accept, and there would be no difference of opinion. I do not think the Central Committee have had any trouble, and there never has been much division between them. Why should you not keep the balance equal now?

Colonel LANE FOX

Because this is a different proposal.

Mr. LEE

That would meet my objection.

Colonel LANE FOX

It is not quite the same thing as the balancing of the existing Committee. That was a balance between coalowners and those they employed. This is a different thing. It is a small matter, but if it is going to secure justice in representation to the royalty owners I think the Government could have no objection.

Mr. MARDY JONES

I understood from the Secretary of State for War, when he quoted the Report, that this 5 per cent. on royalties, calculated to yield £250,000 a year, is meant specifically to encourage the construction of new pit-head baths. That is what I understood was the purpose of this 5 per cent. Is that so or not?

Colonel LANE FOX

We are on a different Clause.

Mr. JONES

But it affects the whole question. The existing Central Committee dealing with the Miners' Welfare Fund deals with one penny per ton on the sale of coal. This is a specific tax now upon the rental values of mineral royalties, I understand, and it is intended, according to the Commission's recommendations, that it should be specifically spent for one purpose, and that is the construction and use of pit-head baths. That has been the general impression.

Colonel LANE FOX

What the Royal Commission say is that pit-head baths should be provided out of the Fund to which the royalties will contribute.

Mr. LEE

I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he was going to meet my objection about the balancing of the National Committee. On that understanding I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir G. WHELER

Before it is withdrawn, may I say a word or two. I know a considerable number of colliery owners who have been put on at the request of the men. I regret a tone is taken up which seems to endeavour to make the mineral owners appear as hostile as possible. You simply take the idea that one mineral owner and two colliery proprietors would be against the men. I venture to say in a great part of England that feeling does not exist.

Mr. SPENCER

May I move an Amendment now, in page 11, line 26. after the word "levy," to insert the words "and one by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain"? That would make the thing balance.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I think it is much safer to put it in another place later.

Mr. SPENCER

As long as we get a definite promise.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.