§ 36. Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the fact that, notwithstanding the benefit given to the South Wales coal-owners under the Government scheme of railway rates relief, they are asking the miners to concede reductions in their wages; and will the Government make the benefit payable to the coal-owners under the scheme conditional upon the present rate of wages being paid to the miners?
§ 40. Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary for Mines if he proposes that any portion of the amount of the money to be given in relief of freights and rates will be earmarked to give an increase in wages to miners in view of the fact that up to the present sacrifices in wages and 2796 hours have been made by them to keep the present markets and to secure others?
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King)The policy of the Government was directed to the same end as the sacrifices mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, namely, a reduction in costs of production and delivery of coal for the benefit of the coal mining industry. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, stated on 12th December that the Government did not think it desirable or practicable to attempt to control the ultimate distribution of the benefit of the railway rates relief between the producers and the consumers. The division of the proceeds of the mining industry is settled by district wages agreements.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIf the coalowners, in addition to the relief which the Government provides for them, are demanding reductions in wages from the miners, will the Government do nothing to prevent it?
§ Commodore KINGThe division of the proceeds in the mining industry is, as I have said, supplied by the District Wages agreements.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThen what is the purpose of your scheme so far as the miners are concerned?
§ Commodore KINGThe object is to try and revive the industry for the benefit of the miners and the coalowners.
§ Mr. PALINGIs the hon. and gallant Member aware that in some districts the coalowners avoid breaking the district agreements by attacking the base rates and so lower the wages of the miners. If this benefit is given in this way, why cannot the miners be assured that they are having their share?
§ Commodore KINGIf there is a breach of any agreement, there is the independent chairman appointed to deal with it.
§ Mr. PALINGI do not say that there is a breach of the agreement, but that the coalowners are avoiding a breach of the agreement by attacking the base rates which are outside the agreement. They are not only taking this amount from the miners, but also reducing the wages they already receive.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONIs the Secretary for Mines aware that many men who are working five days a week are in a worse position than those who are unemployed altogether, and that, if there is to be no advantage to these men from this relief, they will have to remain where they are? It would be of no help to them at all. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWill the hon. Member shorten his question?
§ Mr. RICHARDSONIs the hon. and gallant Member aware that the amount given by way of relief of railway rates will not meet the losses, and that consequently the men will get nothing at all?
§ Commodore KINGNo, Sir, the relief given is for the benefit of the whole industry and with the idea of reducing losses.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONBut the men will get none of it.
§ Mr. POTTSIs the hon. and gallant Member aware that, as far as the local base rates are concerned, the independent chairman of whom he spoke has no jurisdiction whatever?
§ 50. Mr. PALINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant to water-borne export and bunker coal conveyed on the canals of this country the accelerated de-rating benefits as applied to railways from the 1st instant?
§ 56. Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that water-export and bunker coal is the only form of coal conveyance which does not benefit by anticipation of rate relief, he will reconsider his refusal to give equal treatment to this form of transport?
§ Colonel ASHLEYI have been asked to reply to these questions. The Government do not see their way to anticipate the relief from local rates which will accrue to the canal authorities under the Local Government Bill as from the 1st October next.
§ Mr. PALINGHas the right hon. and gallant Gentleman received any representations from any of these canal companies and from a particular canal company in Yorkshire on which several collieries depend for the carriage of their 2798 coal. If they are to be put to this disadvantage as compared with the railway companies, it is going to affect deleteriously these collieries?
§ Colonel ASHLEYI have received representations arid they were considered by the Government when they dealt with the proposal as to whether canals should be brought in.
§ Mr. HANNONDoes the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise what it Means to a canal carrying coal down to a port in competition with a railway when the railway company has an advantage of 9d. per ton in the carriage of that; Coal?.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSMay I ask whether the Aire and Calder Canal Company does not convey much more coal for export and bunker than the railway company in that particular area; and should they not he considered?
§ Colonel ASHLEYThat aspect of the de-rating proposal has been before the House, and it has been decided by the House. I do not think the case of one particular canal company can he singled out.
§ Mr. PALINGWas not the purpose of de-rating, almost exclusively, to encourage the export of coal; and is not all the coal carried on this canal ex-elusively for export?
§ Colonel ASHLEYYes, and 99¾ per cent, of such coal does get the benefit.
§ Mr. PALINGIf it is possible to give this relief to 99¾ per cent., why leave out this small company?
§ Colonel ASHLEYEverything possible has been done to reduce freights on the public railways, and if you included one canal, you would probably have to include all, and the machinery would be very complicated.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNIn view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply and his treatment of shipping and canals, should not the Ministry of Transport be renamed "Railway House"?