HC Deb 08 May 1929 vol 227 cc2287-98

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Resolutions.

Sixty-fourth to Eighty-fifth Resolutions, inclusive, agreed to.

Eighty-sixth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. BATEY

On this Vote I desire to raise a question which affects a large number of men. It is the case of the Dawdon Colliery in the county of Durham belonging to Lord Londonderry, which employs over 2,000 men. For the last 10 weeks Lord Londonderry has had these men locked out, and we are anxious that something should be done to get him to withdraw the notices he has served so that work may be started again. An inspired statement by Lord Londonderry appears in the Press this morning, in which he says that the situation at this colliery is in the hands of the Communists. I am sorry he has made that statement, because it is far from the truth. The Communists have not captured the situation, nor are they in control. Only two or three days ago the miners' lodge issued a statement repudiating the Communists and all their activities, and made it perfectly clear that they had no connection whatever with the dispute. It is no use Lord Londonderry attempting to mislead public opinion into thinking that this dispute is owing to Communist activity. This dispute arises because our people object to three things which Lord Londonderry is seeking. In the first place, he wants a local reduction in wages; in the second place, an alteration in an agreement for what we call cutting the bottom coal, and, also, an alteration in an agreement for what we call pitches and rules.

The men have a strong objection to Lord Londonderry using his power to break agreements which have been in existence for several years. They object that with an iron hand and at will he should smash these agreements and say how they shall be altered. That is not the way in which agreements are altered in the county of Durham. We have a different method altogether. We have never submitted to a colliery owner simply saying that an agreement must be altered and altered in the way which he suggests. Lord Londonderry ought to have known the Durham miners better than try and ride the high horse over them like this. That is not the way to get our people to alter agreements. Naturally they have a strong objection to local reductions in wages. I received this morning a statement from the miners' secretary at the lodge, and I call the attention of the Secretary for Mines to the fact that the opinion of the miners' secretary represents the opinion of the local miners' leaders. He says: We believe that there is not the slightest need for these reductions, and the men are convinced that they are simply being robbed of their local agreements which have taken 12 to 20 years to build up. We had a large local reduction in wages on 3rd July, 1927, which meant over 3s. per day on the colliery average. Now another deep cut is wanted. That is the reason the men are objecting to any settlement of this dispute. They contend that these two local agreements, which have taken so long to build up, should not be smashed simply because Lord Londonderry has come to the decision that they ought to be smashed; and the fact that they suffered a local reduction in wages of over 3s. per ton in 1927 makes them feel that they are not called upon to suffer another local reduction now. Efforts have been made to settle the dispute and one is glad for everything that has been done in this direction, but so far the rank and file of the miners have felt so strongly against the action of Lord Londonderry in pressing for these reductions that in the two or three ballots which have been taken they have by a large majority balloted against any acceptance of any of the terms which have been suggested. Unless there is a settlement this dispute can end in only one way. Lord Londonderry can sit down quietly and he will not starve; but he knows that the time will come when he will starve these 2,000 men and their wives and children into submission. If that is his policy it is not a noble or a manly policy. He knows that he will not starve himself; he can quietly wait until he starves these thousands of men into submission.

I want the Secretary for Mines to do everything he can to get a settlement of this dispute. The men are not striking; they are locked out. One of the things about which they feel keenly is this. They are asked to accept reductions and to break these agreements, which means further reductions, and they are not clear in their own minds that the colliery is not paying. No evidence has been put before them that the colliery is not paying or that Lord Londonderry is losing money. He has said that all he is asking for is a reduction of £200 per week. That may not be much to Lord Londonderry, but it is an enormous amount to our people, and before he presses for these reductions he should at least produce some evidence that the colliery is not paying and that it is losing money. The first intimation the men had that Lord Londonderry wanted reductions in wages was in the beginning of this year, in January. Some months have rolled away since then and we are now told that the coal industry is looking up, that the prospects are much brighter. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in the House on Monday, painted a very rosy picture of the coal industry and led the public to believe that it was prosperous and happy. He said: Export prices hare tended quite definitely to harden, and in January and February the whole industry, for the first time for a considerable period, was working at a profit, of 7d. per ton in January and 9d. in February."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1929; col. 1971, Vol. 227.] If things are really getting better, if prices are hardening, if the Government de-rating relief scheme means anything—in some of our county divisions hon. Members opposite are preaching that it means an immense deal to the coal industry—then there is no need for Lord Londonderry to press for these local reductions in wages or attempt to smash these local agreements which the men value so much. If they are lost it is not very easy to get them back again. If there was, in fact, any need for Lord Londonderry to ask for these local reductions at the beginning of the year there can be no need for him to do so to-day, otherwise everything we have been told in regard to the prospects of the coal industry goes for nothing.

I want the Secretary of Mines to hold an inquiry or send one of his officials to see if something can be done. I want him to use his influence with Lord Londonderry to withdraw these notices. Lord Londonderry is a prominent member of the Government, and in the county of Durham we shall judge the Government by the actions of one of its prominent members. At a time like this, the Conservative party might bring a little pressure or influence to bear on Lord Londonderry to withdraw these notices and allow our people to get back to work. Any alterations that may have to be made can be made when the men are working. As it is, Lord Londonderry is now using the iron hand in order to enforce these alterations. We believe that the coalowners have been put in this position by the action of the Government in 1926. Even Lord Londonderry would not have taken action like this before 1926. None of our coalowners would have dreamt of using the mailed fist in this way before 1926. In a month's time the position will be altogether different; we shall be in the saddle, and it will be for us to bring them to their senses if they have not learned wisdom before then. I urge the Secretary for Mines to use any influence he has with Lord Londonderry to withdraw these notices. If not, then I urge him to use all the powers which his Department has to effect a settlement and not allow matters to drift.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY

The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has contradicted one part of the statement issued by Lord Londonderry, but he did not, I think, deal with the other part of the statement, which went on to say that an agreement had been reached with the responsible officials of the miners in that colliery, and that the acceptance of the terms offered had been urged on the miners, but that that advice had been turned down by the miners on a ballot. The statement also said that the refusal of the terms recommended by the miners' own officials was due to Communist influence in the district. Can the hon. Member tell the House whether that is a fact or not, and whether it is the case that the acceptance of these terms was advised by the miners' own officials?

Mr. BATEY

I did not deal with the other part of the statement in which Lord Londonderry said that there was no dispute between him and the local miners' leaders or the comity miners' leaders, and in which he referred to the fact that he had met both the county and the local leaders, and that terms had been suggested which had been submitted to the men and refused. It is perfectly true that the local leaders met Lord Londonderry and discussed the matter, and that the terms were submitted to the men and that the men, by a big majority, refused the terms.

Mr. STANLEY

Refused their leaders' advice?

Mr. BATEY

Yes, and it is nothing new to some of us who have had years of experience in trade union leadership to find that advice is turned down. But I do not think that Lord Londonderry was wise, when the men by ballot refused to accept these terms, to say that their decision was due to Communist activity. In my opinion it was due to the deep-seated hatred of the men to further local reductions in wages, and against the smashing of agreements which it has taken so long to build up.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King)

The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has been reminding me of a good many things, and has raised the question of my powers with regard to district disputes. As far as the powers of the Mines Department are concerned, I would remind him that this is a question of contract between employer and employed, and that I have no power to intervene, unless invited to do so by both parties to the dispute. That is the position since 1926. May I also remind the hon. Member that, during the stoppage in 1926, the Prime Minister repeatedly offered to set up a national wages tribunal which would go into the question of whether local district agreements were proper, and whether they were being carried out? Those offers were refused. The last offer was refused by the Secretary of the Miners' Federation as late as 10th November, 1926, and the hon. Member cannot blame this Government for the fact that there is no power on the part of the Government to interfere in such a dispute. I wish to cavil at the terms which the hon. Member has been using towards the management of the mine, in speaking of "the iron hand," and of these terms being forced on the miners. Some weeks—indeed I think months—before the notices were to expire, the management, so I am informed, made repeated efforts to get the men and their leaders to consult with them on the new terms. Though I have no power in the matter, I take a deep interest in everything connected with the mining industry, and I have kept myself closely in touch with what has been going on at this colliery. It is not disputed, even by the local leaders, that the management endeavoured to get a discussion on the new terms before the notices expired but it was not until the notices had expired that any real discussion took place.

There have been various discussions since that time, but when the hon. Member speaks of this "drastic cut," and of the very harsh treatment of the miners by the management, I would remind him that the rates that were being paid at that colliery before the notices expired were in some of the seams as much as 78 per cent. above the county average. They varied from 25 per cent. to 78 per cent. above the county average. The hon. Member can hardly refer to this is a lockout. It is merely a question of a certain rate of wages being offered, and not being accepted by the men, and therefore work is not going on. But the rates in existence for hewers in that pit before the stoppage were as I have indicated. Surely it was not such very harsh treatment, that the management, in the times through which we have been passing, should seek to obtain some settlement on a lower basis. The hon. Member quoted the statement that in some cases there would be a reduction of 3s. per shift. I also have those figures from the men's point of view, but in some of the seams even a reduction of 3s. per shift would still, on their own showing, leave them over 40 per cent. above the county average. He can hardly describe that as a starvation wage. In any case I am not arguing that point one way or the other. All I wish to say is that after the first ballot, the management and the men's representatives met and discussed terms, and some of the terms to which the men's representatives objected were adjusted and they agreed to those adjustments and advised the men to accept the terms. As the hon. Member has admitted, the men refused to accept their leaders' advice. I am surprised that the hon. Member—the leaders of his organisation having given good advice as it must have been—should now ask the owners to go behind that advice and give way to terms which even the men's leaders considered would be unfair.

Mr. BATEY

I do not say that. What I feel is that as they made an effort for settlement, and as that effort failed, I think they ought to make another effort.

Commodore KING

I think the hon. Member's friends in that part of the world will assure him that the management have only been too willing to meet the men, and their leaders, as has been shown by the various adjustments which have been made. At present it is simply a case of the men having refused to accept the advice of their own leaders. It is not a quarrel between them and the management. The hon. Member knows more about the trade union rules in that part of the country than I do, but I understand that the miners' leaders themselves have the power to order the men to go back if there is not a two-thirds majority against the owners' terms, and there is not a two-thirds majority in this case. If the hon. Member wants a settlement, instead of seeking to go behind the advice which his executive has given, I suggest that the way to end this stoppage—which we would all like to see ended—is to enforce that advice by ordering the men to go back to work, because they have not a sufficient majority against the terms offered. It is a disastrous thing for the men themselves, and for the whole industry, that this stoppage should occur after a time of depression, just at a time when that particular class of coal is in such demand that the demand can hardly be met, and that production should be stopped, at this juncture, because the men down there are so undisciplined—I can only presume that—that they will not accept the advice of their own leaders. I have no power whatever, but I hope that the hon. Member, when his time of freedom comes in a few days, will go down there and add his good advice to the advice already given to the men by their leaders.

Mr. RITSON

I wish to protest against the figures which have been given by the Secretary for Mines in regard to this colliery. The figures which we have here from the Durham lodges, as far back as 5th January, show that the average then was 11s. 4.1d. and down to 9s. 6d. and 10s. 8d. on 10th January. I do not know where the hon. and gallant Member has got the figures which he has given us to-day. We have always been guided by the colliery average in these matters, and not by the district average, and it would be interesting also to know what is the output per man in the cases for which he has given us this high rate of wages. What we are up against is this. We are trying to get the Secretary for Mines to use the same influence with Lord Londonderry as he would use if any of our people were taking drastic action. This is a question of a lock-out. It is not a question of our people giving notice. Had our people given notice we would have had the Department giving all their support to trying to settle the matter. In regard to Lord Londonderry the reason why our executive in Durham, after having taken a ballot, gave certain advice was that they knew the power of Lord Londonderry, and his action in the past, and that the Government to-day, as in 1926, was behind him. They naturally said to the men to try to make the best of a bad job.

They knew that Lord Londonderry had new collieries, virgin seams opening out next door to this, and that he could get all the trade he wanted and keep the men starving for weeks, and therefore the Executive said: "While we cannot agree with these heavy reductions, we would, against our better judgment, advise our people, for the moment, to give way." But that does not mean that our agents agree with the huge reductions for which Lord Londonderry is asking, particularly when we have the political organ-grinder standing at that Box, every now and again, and telling us that the coal trade is looking up and that everything in the garden is lovely. I wish he could attend the colliery offices with some of us when we are speaking against reductions of wages. There is not a manager in the coalfields who will not tell you that he is losing money right and left, and yet we have speeches being made such as we had from the President of the Board of Trade the other day. If anybody can pay wages, it ought to be Lord Londonderry with his collieries right on the seaboard and with virgin seams two and three feet higher than those of any other colliery owner in the country. He has this outlet and he has his own ships, and we know the possibilities of the collieries in that area.

Commodore KING

But may I ask the hon. Member whether he really contends that an average of 35 per cent. above the county average is a starvation wage?

Mr. RITSON

I say that even 35 per cent. above the county average may be a starvation wage. If the hon. and gallant Member has a philosophy which tells him that a county average is a spiritual standard, I do not know where he has got it. How much is the county average?

Commodore KING

It is 7s. 11d., including the district percentage per shift.

Mr. RITSON

We will take this holy standard of 7s. 11d. on an average of four days a week—which is all the men have been working for some time past—and apply it to a man with a family. Does he consider that that is not a starvation wage? Then we are going to have a heavy reduction. The reduction of 1927 is not the only local reduction that we have had since the national reduction. We are continually having these reductions which are bringing our people down to a minimum, in spite of the optimism of the President of the Board of Trade and we are still £7,000,000 in debt in the county of Durham. We object to reductions, particularly when they are combined with agreements by which we can never get back again what we lose. While we are as anxious as anyone to get out of a difficulty like this, we object to Lord Londonderry hiding behind the Communists as he is doing. There is such a thing as a legal side, and there are legal powers, I know, but the Secretary for Mines has also a power of moral suasion which is not limited, and in his own interests and in those of his party it is his duty to see the noble Marquess and get him to come to reason on this question. While we are being told that our only hope lies in the party now in office, we find this action being taken by the noble Marquess in dragooning our people below a level at which they can live.

It would be very interesting to know what is the output per man in the particular district quoted as receiving high wages, and if we had those figures, I think the general public would find that alongside the so called high wages was a very heavy output per man per shift. We ask the Department to use every influence it can at a time like this, when we are feeling the strain. Every attempt that we make to increase our output per man is followed by an attempt to reduce our wages in proportion. That has always been the way in Durham. In 1926, with the Government behind them, the owners began this competitive system again, and naturally we make this protest, believing that that system ought to be dead and done away with. We know the Minister is anxious to get the men back to work, as we are, but we do protest against Lord Londonderry hiding behind what he calls the Communist influence in a case of this kind. Our people have voted solidly against going back to work, and we ask that the Minister will take the same keen interest in seeing Lord Londonderry, with a view to bringing the parties together again and having arbitration, if you will, as he would have done had our people kicked over the traces, because on this occasion, believe me, it is a lock-out, not a strike, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON

As the hon. and gallant Member the Secretary for Mines will hear, I have left my voice behind me in Durham. I had some hand in this agreement that Lord Londonderry is trying to break. I admit it is a fair agreement, but may I remind the Minister that if the miners in the other collieries in Durham who get nothing above the average were coming out on strike, it would be a different question. Here Lord Londonderry comes along and says to our men, "You are getting more than other people are getting," but he forgets the fact, as has been pointed out already, that he is better able to pay than practically any other owner in the whole of the country. I think that ought always to be kept in mind. The Minister said that these men were getting 35 per cent. above the county rate. That would give them a weekly wage of something like £2 12s. for five days a week. Does the Minister consider that that wage is too high for a man to keep himself, his wife, and four or five children? I can tell him that plenty of these people are not getting food enough to do the work they are asked to do by the owners of the collieries.

I have in my possession information in regard to another colliery in the same county, which shows that a man worked four weeks and that his average earnings during that time came to 1s. 6d. a day. Put that against what Lord Londonderry is paying over, and that he can afford to pay. Are we all to come down to the very low level of the county rate or less? It has always been acknowledged in the county that where conditions were good men could earn more than the county rate. There are people in some of the other seams who are not making anything like the money which the Minister has mentioned, who would come under this agreement as well as the other people, and Lord Londonderry cannot have it all his own way. Surely, when a colliery is paying and an owner can afford to pay the men for producing the material that he disposes of, wages should have some claim on the profits of the owner; and if Lord Londonderry is in the happy position, as against his competitors in the county, to do what he can, surely he should be looked to to pay a bigger wage than is paid by the collieries that are not paying. I hope the Minister will take some action in this matter. He has told, us what the miners' leaders have tried to do, but can he not use his good influence with Lord Londonderry at once to withdraw these notices, and then try to settle the whole dispute? If there is a road to a settlement there, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can persuade the owners to do that, I feel sure that any privation and starvation of the women and children of Durham will soon end and that they will have a peaceful settlement.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

Back to