Miss LEEI beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "the appointed day," and to insert instead thereof the words
thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty.I am asking the Committee to support this Amendment because we believe that the miner is at least entitled to any reduction there may be given to him in the length of his working day without a corresponding reduction in his wages, 1936 and we see that, if the Bill stands in its present form, the miner himself will be called upon to pay for the reduction in time which he is getting in many parts of the country. Those of us who come from Scotland are particularly concerned because, unless the Amendment I now move is accepted in Scotland, where wages are already low, further sacrifices are going to be forced on the miners In Wales, there were reductions of wages in November. The men felt that they were being unjustly treated. They held out for a certain period, but felt that it was useless to go on, and that they would have a truce until July, when they would be fighting a common battle with the whole of the minefields of the country. But I am certain that the miners of South Wales never expected, and never desired, that the legislation in this House should be so unable to protect them, that we should leave them fixed after the reduction imposed upon them.The Miners' Federation of Great Britain has been in negotiation with the mine owners on wages, trying to come to a common agreement in order to avoid strikes, lock-outs and stoppages in this difficulty. None of us wants a stoppage. All of us, particularly those in mining areas, know the calamity that that brings about, and also know that miners have been in the firing line since 1920. We also know that in their repeated stoppages and troubles their funds and their membership have been depleted, and they are not able at the present moment to force their maximum demands, unless the political strength of our movement is added to the trade union strength of our movement in stating their case and asking that their demands should be met. Can any of us expect that the miners can get in this Measure the maximum which the industry should give them? If anyone believed that this was the best possible thing to be got for the miners with 100 per cent. trade union movement, there would be very little cause for us in this House urging additional demands. But the men's forces have been weakened, and, because of that, they have been compelled to accept less than the industry should give them.
I am now hoping that the House of Commons is going to be generous—perhaps "generous" is the wrong word—I 1937 hope that, at any rate, this House is going to be just, and is not once more going to ask the miner to pay for every fault, for every failing and for every loss inside the mining industry. Last year some of us in this House sought to get an Amendment accepted, the object of which was identical with the object we are now trying to further, that is, that in any alteration of hours, if we cannot improve the wage position of the miner, at least we should see that it should not be worsened. On that occasion, a year ago, we were assured that there was no reason for anxiety, that there was no ease for pressing our Amendment, because if we would only leave those factors to the industry, to the forces at work inside the industry, we should soon find the coal mines again working in such a way that it would be possible for the miner to get the reduction of working time without any threat to his wages. But now we have the Secretary for Mines deploring in the House of Commons the fact that the coal owners have not made as much use of the facilities presented to them in the Coal Mines Act as they might, and because they have not done so, because they have neglected many of their opportunities and many of their responsibilities, we find the industry in greater difficulty than it ought to be.
I hope that I am not in any way twisting the statement of the Secretary for Mines, but, as I understood him, he rebuked a Conservative Member of this House, who spoke on the assumption that a reduction in hours must mean a reduction in wages. The Secretary for Mines led me, at least, to understand that that did not inevitably follow. I also understand that the whole weight of the trade union case has been that, even with the shortcomings of the mine-owners, they could get better terms than are in this Bill. I hope that a temporary phase of weakness in a body of men, to whom the country owes so much, will not be taken as a reason for further attacks on their standard of life. In any case, how could we justify an attack on their standard of life from any point of view? Anyone associated with the mining industry is well aware that since 1920 the miners of this country have had their wages practically halved. They have had a reduction of 49 per cent. in 1938 their wages. Every time an attack is made on his wages, he is told that if only he will concede this further demand, the industry will be put on a proper economic basis. Not only has the miner had his wages halved, but the output per man per shift has increased 40 per cent. What more can the miner do? He has already accepted lower wages and increased his output. It is unnecessary in this discussion to remind the House that, from 1920 onwards, besides reduction in wages and increase in output, there have been in the mining industry 1,743,086 men injured and 11,452 men killed in the pits during that period.
It is not only a disagreeable, and an underpaid, but it is a dangerous occupation, and the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) paid a tribute to the miners yesterday when he said that during the War there was no more gallant body of men to be found than the miners who went into the trenches and gave of their very best to the country, and now, in 1931, the hon. and gallant Member himself said the reason for the Amendment which preceded my own was that he wanted to find some means of avoiding a reduction in wages. If that is the case, I am infinitely encouraged, because I hope that it will mean that I am going to have support from all quarters of this Committee that the miners must not be again attacked, and that we have no right to give them this supposed advantage of a reduction of hours, and then make them pay for it. When the hon. and gallant Member talks about the gallantry of the miners I would ask him to remember that those same men are now being forced into the front line industrial trenches, and they are not going in the lighthearted way in which they went into the other trenches, because it is the women and children in their homes who are being exposed at the present time.
I do not think even hon. Members opposite can say that we in this country have sunk so low, that our resources have become so entirely exhausted, that there is no way of meeting this difficulty save by once again attacking the miners. If the Secretary for Mines and the miners' trade union representatives believe there is no economic reason why the miners should not get their reduction in hours without a reduction in wages—and I take it that 1939 is the case on which the negotiations have been based—I hope they will have the support of the whole House. It was the coalowners who during the last year refused to take the maximum advantage of the Coal Mines Act; there are things the coalowners ought to have done and have not done. I see in yesterday's paper that the best coal in Lanarkshire is priced at 15s. per ton f.o.b. in Glasgow, and yet that same coal is selling in Glasgow at more than twice that price. Surely that indicates that, apart from the production of coal, things have been left undone which ought to have been done in the marketing of coal and in various other aspects of this industry. It is the responsibility of this House to see that we get the maximum organisation and the maximum efficiency into our mining industry, and that, above all, the last thing to be attacked, and not the first, should be the conditions of the miners. I notice that in 1925, when the Conservative party were in a dilemma rather similar to ours at the moment, when they saw all the complications of the mining problem and were not exactly definite as to what——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is going far beyond the scope of her Amendment, which is to put back the appointed day for a year.
Miss LEEI do not want to go beyond your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, but I am very anxious that the Committee should understand that those of us who are working to protect at least the present standard of living of the miners, if we cannot do better than that, should not turn away saying, "This is a nice sentimental appeal, and if it were possible we would gladly grant it, but the economic circumstances are impossible." I have been striving to show that there are other practical approaches to this problem which ought to be tried. I wanted to show, and I do not think it would be altogether out of order, that in 1925 a subsidy of £23,000,000 was given to the owners in order that they should carry on during the interim period until a final solution could be made. We are told that we are patching up only a temporary truce, and I am asking the Government that we should not confine ourselves to the resources within the industry, but be prepared to go beyond 1940 that, that we should be prepared to come, if need be, to the Exchequer, although I do not think that course will be necessary if we use properly the industry's own resources. At any rate, the one thing we should not do is to ask the miners to accept reductions in wages, or ask the miners who have had reductions in wages since October to accept those reductions as permanent.
A few weeks ago I was staying in the home of a miner in Cumberland, another of the areas where the men are threatened with a further reduction. This miner did not smoke, did not drink, was not spending money on gambling or in any other way which we could possibly criticise. Every penny of his earnings was going into his home in the attempt to maintain a clean, comfortable home, and to give proper nourishment to his family. I stayed in that house overnight. I waited for my host to come home on Saturday, expecting that he was going to accompany me to a conference in a neighbouring town, but I found that my miner friend, after he had been working underground all the week, had to come home on Saturday afternoon, wash his face and hands, but not properly change himself, and then get a bag on his back and go down to the foreshore in order to pick up scraps of coal to keep his own fire burning. I do not think any incident could put in a more concrete form the state of poverty to which the miners in this country are reduced. It is not their fault. They have made their sacrifices, they have done their best and are doing their best.
I believe that if the trade unions were strong enough they could force this protection of wages, and I am asking the Committee not to take advantage of this body of men, who have been weakened through successive attacks, attacks which they have resisted not only in defence of themselves, but in defence of the whole of the working class, but to use the collective wisdom of Parliament to devise other means of assisting them. I have already suggested other means, and further suggestions can be made from other quarters of the House. I am not tied to the wording of this Amendment. It may be possible to prove that for some reason or other the wording is inadequate for the purpose. I am only concerned that the Committee should 1941 understand that the Scottish miners are living in dread just now, that they have been kicked now that they are prostrate. If we allow a reduction in wages we are allowing prostrate men to be kicked. When we are needing their help they are the very first men to be praised for their gallantry, for their courage, and for all the other fine qualities which we know they possess. In moving my Amendment I do so with the hope that in no quarter of this Committee will there be an attempt to shelter behind what are called economic facts. The economic facts are on the side of the miner and not of the mineowner. The blame is on the side of the mineowner and not the miner. Why we should expect the miner to have to suffer for sins of which he is not guilty I do not understand. I believe it is the function of the political representatives in this House to join hands with the trade union representatives, not merely to accept the bargain which the miners have been forced to make, but to accept it only as a basis for further discussion in Parliament, We ought to put forward as a settlement, not what the miners have been forced to accept at the point of the bayonet, but the absolutely irreducible minimum which they are entitled to get.
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell)With the substance of the speech of the hon. Lady I am in complete agreement. In the negotiations of the past few weeks the Government gave to this question what consideration they could, but they discovered that the existence of agreements in many of the districts made it impossible to provide this means of adjusting wage rates. The object of the Amendment, as I understand it, is to provide that the minimum percentage on basis rates and subsistence wages should be similar to the rates paid in October of last year.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe scheme of this Bill recognises the existence of agreements in the districts, and clearly it is impossible for the Government to ride roughshod over those agreements, which were reached as a result of negotiations between the parties concerned, and have been honourably maintained since they were come to. But it must not be 1942 assumed that all the districts are affected by the provisions of this Bill with regard to wages on the appointed day. It is true that the rates in operation on the appointed day are, under the terms of this Bill, to be guaranteed for 12 months, but many districts—I shall specify them in a moment—have had no reduction whatever since October of last year, and clearly they would not be affected. Those districts are: Lancashire and Cheshire—a very large district—Somerset, Forest of Dean, Shropshire, Durham and Northumberland, Yorkshire, Notts, North Derbyshire and Kent. The majority of the districts, certainly the districts with a preponderating number of men employed, are not affected by the terms of this Amendment. I should not like it to go forth that all the districts have been the subject of reductions in wages since the operation of the Coal Mines Act—at all events as regards the hours' provisions of that legislation. The districts likely to be affected by this Amendment are South Wales, Bristol, North Staffordshire, South Derbyshire, South Staffordshire, Leicester, Cannock Chase and Warwick; but in every one of those districts, since October of last year, agreements have been reached either as the result of the normal conciliation proceedings in the district, that is to say, by the conciliation machinery long established and long recognised, or as the result of new machinery superimposed since October of last year. In the opinion of the Government it would be grossly improper—and certainly no claim has been made by the Miners' Federation in this regard—to scrap the whole of these agreements and thus set at nought the whole of the conciliation machinery which is part of the normal method of negotiations as between the miners on the one hand and the mineowners on the other.
May I direct attention to a further point of substance? It has been assumed that Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the stabilisation of certain wage rates. That is not so. No stabilisation is intended. All the Clause proposes is to put a bottom into wages. There is nothing in the Clause which prevents the miners in any district, under the terms of present agreements, from asking for increases in wages—for an increase in the minimum percentage on basis rates and 1943 subsistence wages. No stabilisation is intended, and therefore I ask the Committee not to assume for a moment that there is anything in the Bill which interferes with the normal right of the miners to ask for increases in wages. If an improvement is manifest in the industry in the course of the next few months, certainly in the next 12 months, we assume that the miners can, through the ordinary conciliation machinery, present their claim for increase in wage rates.
What is the position as regards the special cases of Scotland, North Wales and Cumberland, which are neither in the first category of districts, nor in the second? So far as Scotland and North Wales are concerned, they are affected by the change over from the spread-over arrangement to the 7½-hour basis, and in the case of Cumberland by a recommendation, which was described yesterday as an award but which, strictly speaking, is only a recommendation of the National Industrial Board in regard to wages. Let me take the position of Scotland and North Wales. It is true that the employers in both districts, when the question of changing over from the spread-over method to the 7½-hour day was discussed some months ago, did lay it down that there must inevitably follow a reduction in wages. But as the hon. Lady properly said, a wage reduction is not inevitable. There is nothing in the Clause now under review which lays it down that a reduction in wages must inevitably follow from the operation of the 7½-hour day. What does follow is expressly provided for in Clause 2 of the Bill, for wages are fixed, not under the provisions of the Bill, but as a result of the normal conciliation machinery in each of the districts concerned.
In Scotland, North Wales and Cumberland, where no agreement at present exists, the provisions of this Bill as regards wages can only apply if and when such agreements are reached. When Scotland reaches an agreement, as a result of the normal operation of the conciliation machinery of that country—and we have nothing whatever to do with that agreement any more than we have anything to do with the agreements in other districts—the wage rates agreed upon are safeguarded for a period of 12 months, precisely in the same fashion 1944 as in other districts where agreements have been reached; also in regard to North Wales. Perhaps I ought to say that the period might not be 12 months, because we cannot say when an agreement will be reached in Scotland and in North Wales. It might take a week or two, but, as from the day of the agreement, there will be a safeguarding of the minimum percentage on the basic rates and subsistence wages until July, 1932.
§ Major COLVILLEMay I ask the hon. Gentleman if the spread-over may be worked and the present rates of wages maintained until that agreement is reached?
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe hon. and gallant Gentleman knows full well that that is really impossible. The spread-over is distinctly excluded from the provisions of the Bill. We are not now considering the fixing of wage rates. That is not the intention. The wage rates are fixed in the majority of the districts. They are being fixed, it is presumed, in three of the districts, in the course of the next few days, certainly within the next few weeks. This Bill provides that, where agreements exist, no change, at all events in a downward direction, can take place for a period of 12 months. That is the only object of Clause 2.
I have only to say this before sitting down: Every hon. and right hon. Member on this side, and I daresay on the other side, is anxious not only to maintain existing rates in the mining industry, but to improve them. I do not require to be told about the appalling wage conditions in the industry; they are a constant source of anxiety to the Mines Department, to the Government, and to myself personally; but it is not within the power of the Government, if I may be forgiven for this observation, within the present economic limits of the industry, to improve the wage position, much as we desire to do so. I am not ashamed to say, in the presence of hon. Members who have postulated claims for higher wages for miners, and rightly so, that we have had to consider the information in our possession, most impressive information and we regret it and deplore it. We are confronted with facts in regard to the falling off of our export trade and of the closing down of mines, and it is impossible for us to go beyond the provisions of this Bill.
1945 As to who must accept the blame for this position of things, I shall say no more than this: The time for recrimination has gone, and we must concentrate on some constructive solution of the problem that confronts us. I honestly say to the Committee that, in the terms of the existing coal mines legislation, while there do not exist all the elements of a complete solution, there is the possibility of at least a partial solution, which may help to tide us over existing difficulties. Lastly, we have had to consider, in face of the exceptional unemployment in the coal mining industry, whether this is the time to impose wage conditions on that industry. Whatever our opinions may be as to the moral and social advantage of such imposition, we have had to consider whether this is a time to throw more mines out of production.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must remind the hon. Gentleman that the point raised in the Amendment is a very narrow one, namely, as to whether, instead of "the appointed day" we shall substitute the day mentioned in the Amendment. If we go outside that, we may raise a discussion over the entire mining industry.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI accept your Ruling. I am sorry that I was led away, quite naturally, by one of the observations of the hon. Lady. I wanted to say that, much as we desire to improve the wage position of the miners, the economic conditions and the implications involved stand in our way. I content myself with the brief explanation that I have given. I can assure my hon. Friends that all these matters have been taken fully into consideration, and I am unable therefore, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYThe Minister has not really made a very adequate answer to the argument that was put by the hon. Lady. He says that he told us there was nothing in the Bill which would cause the wages of the Scottish miner to be reduced, and of course there is nothing in the Bill which would cause those wages to be reduced; but there is a great deal in the existing economic situation, as the Secretary for Mines knows very well. The hon. Lady made a speech which I think sincerely impressed the Committee. With her argument we must all be in the 1946 very greatest sympathy. In one passage she appealed to the Minister not to plead the economic facts of the situation. "Do not," she said to the Minister, "ride off by pleading the economic facts of the situation as an excuse for still further reducing the wages of Scottish miners."
Miss LEEWill the hon. Member allow me to intervene? What I said, or what I meant to say, and I think this was the whole tenor of my remarks, was in relation to distortion of what is supposed to be the economic facts. Many things have been left undone. I even went to the length of suggesting that we might resort to a subsidy. What the Conservative Government did in 1925 was a very bad thing to do and quite a temporary thing, but it was a temporary safeguard.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI will not follow the hon. Lady into that very interesting topic. The fact remains that the position in the Scottish coal mining industry at the present time is very well known, and the Minister knows it as well as the hon. Lady. The miner gets an ascertained amount of the profits made; an agreed proportion. There is no industry about which the facts are more clearly known. There has been a great reluctance on the part of everybody concerned, miners, mine owners politicians and economists, to face up to the facts of the economic situation in general. It is no good blinking facts on this question, any more than it is upon any other question. The Secretary for Mines knows perfectly well, although he did not say so in so many words, that the agreement that is now about to be negotiated between the miners and the mineowners in Scotland as the result of this Bill will, in fact, involve a reduction in wages. He knows that the owners, on the existing facts of the situation, cannot possibly afford to abandon the spread-over and, at the same time, reduce the hours of work per day and maintain the present wages standard. He also knows that they have not the slightest intention of doing so. The result of this Bill is that reductions will be asked of the miners, and the hon. Lady was quite right in pointing that out. She said that the miners have been the subject of successive attacks in the last few years, and 1947 that their strength is weakened. It is not so much the miners as Scotland that has been weakened. The conditions of Scotland are fundamentally different from the conditions which prevail elsewhere; for example, from those which prevail in Yorkshire.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI would like to ask the hon. Member if he is aware that every man and boy who worked in the Scottish mines last year, and the same in the Yorkshire mines, received over £18 less per year in wages than on the previous year.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI do not see how that fact relates to the argument which I am endeavouring to address to the Committee, I am not comparing the wages of the Scottish miners with those of the Yorkshire miners. I was saying that conditions in Scotland are fundamentally different from those which prevail in Yorkshire. During last year the spread-over system was, on the whole, working satisfactorily in Scotland. The Minister admitted in his speech that as soon as the Bill is passed, the spread-over must stop at once. That is a most dangerous position, so far as Scotland is concerned. Our position is the one we have taken up all through, and which we take up now. It was expressed yesterday by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee). We do not want to see the wages of the miners of Scotland reduced. We think that they must be reduced as the result of this Bill, and we would much rather——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must remind hon. Members of the Committee again of the Amendment and the limits within which discussion may take place. The question is as between the appointed day named in this Bill and a day a year ago.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI bow to your Ruling, and with greater enthusiasm because I have managed to state my argument with regard to the spread-over. From the point of view of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) and our point of view, the Secretary for Mines has failed to make any substantial case in his reply. What we say is that this is yet another instance of the Government having let down Scotland and Scottish interests.
§ Mr. MAXTONI wish to support the Amendment. Here are we with certain views about what the miners' conditions ought to be and what kind of life the miners ought to be able to live, having regard to the danger of their trade and its essential nature. We have come to such a pass that although in this Amendment we make such a very modest request—a request that I am rather ashamed to make—the Committee proposes to reject that miserable Amendment. I am very sorry indeed that the Minister should be in the position of having to resist the Amendment. Indeed, I am very sorry that he is in the position of having to introduce the Bill. If he had taken my advice he would never have been there. Therefore, he will perhaps excuse me if I do not have complete and unlimited sympathy with him. For nine years I have been in this House, and every year mining questions have come up in some form or other. The House has never been clear of them, and it has always done exactly what it i3 doing to-day—adopted some collection of devices to keep itself out of the immediate situation. The first of these temporary devices was that of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin). At this point I must say that I wish the devices the right hon. Gentleman had adopted temporarily, of subsidising miners' wages, had been maintained permanently.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt would be in order to argue that on the Second Heading of the Bill, but not on this very narrow Amendment. My sympathy allowed the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) to go a little beyond what she ought to have gone on the Amendment she moved.
§ Mr. MAXTONI was not basing my expectation of liberty on the amount that the hon. Lady got, but rather on the Minister's attitude, and on the hope that he held out to us in the course of his speech that this Amendment is to be rendered unnecessary because if the coalmining industry improves in the months immediately ahead the miners themselves, through their ordinary conciliation channels will be able to get decent improvement of their wages by ordinary negotiation. Then in his peroration the Minister told us of the very depressing 1949 condition of things, which indicated to any intelligent person that the conditions are not going to be such as to enable the Scottish and other miners, with their internal resources and their own fighting strength, to make a better position for themselves or to make better agreements, and that what this Bill is offering quite definitely to the miners in Scotland and other districts is this: That when, arising out of the depressed condition of the industry, they have to submit to an agreement that is worse than the one they have to-day, the protection that they are getting under this Bill is, that that will be secured statutorily for 12 months. I ask the Minister, can either he or I, with the political philosophy that we hold, attempt to justify such a thing? I do not intend to attempt to justify it. Here are we unable, with the best brains in Britain, presumably, collected in this House, unable to prevent the continued deterioration of British industry, including the coal industry.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is really going far beyond where he is entitled to go on this Amendment. I called the Minister to order for the reason that he introduced matter not germane, to the Amendment.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am trying to argue that, having regard to the situation that we are likely to be facing six months hence——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the general situation. He is entitled only to discuss whether the wages to be paid should be those fixed on the appointed day mentioned in the Bill, or upon a day mentioned in the Amendment. That is the only issue before the Committee.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am arguing that 30th October last should be the date for the establishment of minimum wages. The Bill makes an agreement entered into after the passing of the Bill have statutory effect. The Minister hopes that such an agreement will be a better agreement. I say that in his general statement of the position and of the economic condition of the country, and from our experience of the economic condition of the country, the position is likely to be worse, and therefore I am arguing that we should take a date back- 1950 ward rather than a date forward; and I am surely entitled to adduce general arguments in support of that demand that the previous date should be taken rather than a future date. I take it, from your more benevolent expression, Mr. Dunnico that——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am glad the hon. Member now appreciates what is and what is not in order in this discussion.
§ Mr. MAXTONI was arguing that if it is the collective view of this House that conditions generally are going to be worse in the near future in this and other industries, and if no one in this Committee can bring forward immediately practical devices to prevent that taking place, at least the Committee ought to be honourable enough to say that this general depression shall not be borne on the backs of the miners, who already are bearing a big enough burden. Therefore, I urge that we at least use our power here to protect them to the miserable extent suggested in the Amendment, by giving them the conditions statutorily on the date mentioned in the Amendment.
§ Sir ROBERT HORNEIt appears to me that the Amendment has some considerable merits, but its value to the Committee is that it exposes the complete futility of the Government's legislation with regard to Scotland. The hon. Lady who moved the Amendment is quite right in pointing out the extraordinary differentiation between what is being done for England and Wales and what is being done for Scotland. In England and Wales the rate of wages as at present existing is to be stereotyped during the next 12 months by Act of Parliament, but the Scottish rate of wages is not to be so stereotyped, and the hon. Lady very naturally asks why it is that the Government are doing for England what they are not doing for Scotland; and she proposes an Amendment whereby there shall be done for Scotland what is being done for England and Wales. What is the answer of the Minister? It is that it cannot be done. Why cannot it he done? Because this Bill is taking away from Scotland the very conditions upon which Scotland is able to maintain its present wage scale. That is the whole point. 1951 The only answer that the Minister can give is that, while the spread-over has been in operation in Scotland during the last six months and has maintained this wage scale, this Bill destroys it.
The Scottish miners are no longer to be able to work on the spread-over principle, and while I am not, of course, entitled to discuss any view about the spread-over at this particular stage of the Debate, I say that the Government have proclaimed to Scotland this fact: "We know that your scale of wages can only be maintained by a system which you at present are working with complete harmony as between the miners and the employers. We know that you would prefer to have your wages kept at their present level rather than have any alteration, but nevertheless, against the will of the whole community in Scotland, we are going to enact a Measure which will destroy the basis upon which your wages are kept up, and we announce to you that we know your wages cannot possibly be kept up, and therefore in this Measure we shall differentiate between you and England; and while we are maintaining the wage scale for England because we believe that the conditions of trade will allow it to be done, we are sure in our minds that we dare not attempt by Act of Parliament to keep up your scale, because we are destroying the foundation on which it is built."
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMI am not surprised that there should be such an affinity of feeling between those on the Tory benches and some of my friends on this side of the Committee, for both of them appear to have the same object. It does not matter what agreement the Miners' Federation enters into; it meets with opposition from both sides. I am somewhat chary about entering into a discussion in which so many experts regarding mining conditions are taking part. We are asked to go back to October. The miners having discussed the matter among themselves came to the conclusion that the spread-over was a fraudulent proposal. As one who knows something about mining conditions and who represents a mining constituency, I say that if the miners were to get their will they would go back to the 7-hour day. The question of wages we will settle ourselves 1952 in time. But the miners of Scotland worked the spread-over illegally.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWe cannot discuss that question now. If the hon. Member makes statements on that subject, hon. Members on the other side will be entitled to controvert them, and I cannot admit it. The question before us is which shall be the appointed date for fixing the basis of wages.
§ Mr. GRAHAMI can surely make a reference to statements which you have already allowed. I am seeking to show that it is untrue to say that the miners in Scotland are in favour of the spread-over. They are not. There is not a single colliery and there is not a single district where they have not decided to accept this Bill. Anyone who attempts to amend the Bill with the object of destroying it is not helping the Scottish miner. The Amendment which has been moved would mean the abandonment of the Bill. The Secretary for Mines has already said that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. To-morrow is the day on which the law is to be changed. If the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment, there is no choice left but to abandon the Bill, and the position will be that we go back to the 7-hour day. If I were to consult my own personal opinion on the matter, I would be in favour of that, but I want to put to hon. Members on this side of the House that the abandonment of the Bill would put us in a very much worse position than we would be in if we had to go on for a week or two endeavouring to negotiate a settlement. The Bill does not say that wages are to remain stationary for 12 months. I agree with the Secretary for Mines that, if there should be an improvement in the coal trade and if prices should rise, the miners will be entitled under their conciliation machinery to get some advantage from the improvement.
I am not quite sure whether the miners in Scotland will be working to-morrow or not. It may be that a week or two will elapse before agreement is reached. That agreement may not be accepted by the Scottish miners, and they have a right to stop work. That will be a matter for the Scottish coalowners to face; that is their business, and I certainly will not 1953 object to the men stopping work if an attempt is made to reduce wages. But what I am anxious about at the moment is that the Government should get the full support of every member of the Labour party in passing this Bill as it stands. After all, hon. Members ought to have some sympathy, at least on this side of the House, with the Government and the Miners' Federation. For some time we have attempted to get an agreement that would be mutually satisfactory and avoid any necessity for a division of opinion inside this House on either side. Unfortunately, we have failed, and the Government have taken the only course that was open to them. To have relieved Scotland would have put the other districts in a very much worse position. After a full discussion, the conference came to the conclusion that, representing the miners, they would accept the proposals contained in the Bill. They did not do so with good will, but they did so with full knowledge of what it meant.
I hope my hon. Friends will leave us to endeavour to negotiate as fair and as reasonable a settlement as we can with the districts that are particularly affected without creating in the ranks of our men the dissention that must arise in their minds if there is an attempt to force a Division on this question. I believe in giving fair trial to the Bill and allowing the Scottish miners to work according to the law. I have a feeling that the Scottish miners were blacklegs against the other districts when they worked the spread-over against them, and, if the Government had been sufficiently strong, their duty would have been to put the coal masters in prison; but the spread-over has gone, and the Scottish miners are not willing to go back to the spread-over system. I hope my hon. Friends, having expressed their point of view, will in the interests of the miners withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. BEAUMONTI venture to intervene to say a word or two about England in what has hitherto been an entirely Scottish Debate. There is an entirely valid argument from the point of view of England as to why this Amendment should not be passed. The date selected is a date when the full effects of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, are being felt by the 1954 coal industry. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) made a passionate appeal against the reduction of living of the miners—an appeal which received sympathy from every section of this House—but, nevertheless, when the Coal Mines Bill, 1930, was being discussed here she went into Division after Division to vote for it. That Act has done more than anything else to lower the standards of the miners. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] It is absolutely true.
§ Mr. McSHANEIs it in Order on this Amendment for the hon. Gentleman opposite to discuss the Divisions that took place on the Coal Mines Act, 1930?
§ Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTERIf an hon. Member on either side moves an Amendment, is it not perfectly in order for any other Member to show that his or her course of action is inconsistent with the course of action which he or she has taken in the past?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think it is quite in order, but I will follow the hon. Member's argument more closely.
§ Mr. BEAUMONTI hope I have not transgressed the Rules of Order, but I cannot accept the contention that my statements were either out of order or inaccurate, subject always, of course, to your Ruling. The standard of living of the minors has been altered and altered for the worse by the Coal Mines Act of 1930. We have to take that into consideration when we are considering this Bill. The Amendment moved by the hon. Lady does not take these things into account. The Bill as it stands does so, and for that reason alone I submit the Amendment will be an impossible one to work.
§ Mr. CAPEIf there is one hon. Member in this House who should favour the Amendment it is myself. I represent that area in Cumberland where the miners are on the street resisting reduction of wages. If I had not known and had not been satisfied that those who are responsible for negotiation for the Miners' Federation had tried every means pos- 1955 sible to get the percentage settled from November last, I would have been in favour of the Amendment. I have to put confidence, and I did put confidence in the officials of the Miners' Federation who had been carrying on negotiations. I was keeping in touch with them, and I found out that they were not only pressing the coalowners, but pressing from every angle to get their minimum wage stabilised from November.
Furthermore, my district, at the conference on Friday last, voted against these proposals, largely on the point raised by this Amendment, and, therefore, if anyone should have put down an Amendment of this kind, I was the man who should have done it. Why did I not do it? For the simple reason that, as I have already stated, these officials negotiated as far as was humanly possible to get this position secured for my men and for the Scottish miners; and, in the second place, the district which I represent being a unit in the Miners' Federation, to be honourable to the federation and all the other miners of this country we must, although we voted against the provisions of this Bill, bow to the vote of the majority. I want to tighten the bonds between ourselves and our friends rather than loosen them. Hon. Members opposite would certainly go as far as my hon. Friends on this side if they thought they could do anything that would make the position worse for the miners than it is to-day.
Why shall we go into the Lobby against this Amendment if it is pressed to a Division? Not because we would not like to obtain all that is in the Amendment; indeed, we would like to obtain vastly more, and we want more before we can be satisfied. But we have to realise that, as things are, we must be satisfied with the largest amount we can get. If hon. Members opposite—I do not think they would do so—went into the Lobby with our Friends on this side and defeated the Government on this Amendment, what would be the alternative? The alternative would be that the Bill would have to be abandoned, and we should have to face a 7-hour day, which I am quite prepared to face, because I have a mandate from my men to do so. [Interruption.] I am all 1956 right as far as I am personally concerned; I can be a hero any day if I want to be. I can make a speech here to-day, and go into every mining district in this country and condemn every miners' Member of Parliament. But I am not going to do that; I am going to face the situation as it is.
This Amendment appeals to me in every direction, but I am not going to lose the Bill by voting for it, and I am not so sure that my hon. Friends want to do that either. I believe that they are as scared as I am, and probably more so, lest the Government should be defeated. Let us face the realities of the case. The Mover of the Amendment was led—I do not complain of it—to launch out into a speech with regard to the miners' conditions with which every miners' Member on this side is quite in sympathy. We could tell even more pitiable stories than she told. With your permission, Mr. Dunnico, she alluded to a certain incident in Cumberland, which is the county from which, fortunately or unfortunately for me, I myself come. When my hon. Friend referred to that case, I made it my business to make full inquiries into it, and I can assure my hon. Friend and this Committee that, while that man's wages were low—and, unfortunately, there are many in Cumberland whose wages are considerably lower—it is a common custom in that part of the county for men to go on the beach to gather coal. I put it to the hon. Lady that she was a guest in that house, and that she is not prepared to say that it was a poverty-stricken house.
Miss LEEIf the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, I have never been in a miner's home in my life, including my own, which I did not consider to be a poverty-stricken house. The very fact that the people in that house, which was not by any means of the worst type, went down on the beach to pick coal, shows that to be the case, for no one is going to say that a miner goes down on the beach to pick coal for the fun of it.
§ Mr. CAPELet me assure the hon. Lady that sometimes detestable customs will remain. As far back as 30 or 35 years ago, I tried to break down that 1957 custom, and failed, and it has persisted from long before my time up to the present. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is unfortunate, but it is a custom that has been carried on in that locality, and it might be on account of his wages that the man she mentioned went there, or it might not. The hon. Lady has put a good case, and I congratulate her on having done so. It is a case with which everyone of us, and myself particularly, can agree. If we are forced to go into the Lobby against this Amendment, I want to assure my hon. Friends that it is not because we do not believe in the Amendment, but because we believe that we shall be getting the best that we can from the Government at the present time.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI have listened to the greater part of the discussion on this Amendment, and it seems to me extraordinary that hardly anyone on the other side seems to have taken the slightest care to explain to the Committee which of the two dates that we are discussing is the best for either the miner, the owner, the industry, or the country as a whole. I myself, not having full knowledge of the details of miners' wages, am only able to decide on this question from such points as may be raised by hon. Members opposite. Apparently, according to the point of view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), under the earlier date, taking the basis of 12 months ago, the position of the miners would be improved. Since then we have had the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), who tells us likewise that the position of the miners would be improved if they could have the earlier date, but that, if that earlier date were taken, and the Government were defeated on it——
§ Mr. D. GRAHAMYou are just a wee bit mixed up.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe hon. Member wishes to inform the House that he is a wee bit mixed up—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are!"] Apparently, it is agreed by both hon. Members that with the earlier date the position of the miners as regards their basic wages would be better, but, as I understand the hon. Member for Hamilton, the Government 1958 cannot accept that, because they say that the whole agreement under the present Bill would break down. I am not urging hon. Members opposite to break down the agreement which exists under this Bill, but I do say that it is still the final right of Parliament, whether on an Amendment of this kind or on a larger Amendment, to make these laws. We have a perfect and simple right at the present time, whether it be expedient or not, to make this Amendment if we wish to do so, and every hon. Member opposite has a perfect right to vote in favour of or against it. But it seems to me that the only argument I have heard which is really relevant as to what the date should be is that the whole conditions of world trade have changed during that period of 12 months; and, further, there has been an additional blow to the industry in the shape of the Government's Coal Bill. All these things make it impossible to go back to the earlier date; and, recognising that the earlier date is impossible, though it might conceivably be better for the miners from a narrow point of view, and recognising the impossibility of a subsidy—it would be arguable that you might have an earlier date if you chose to pay a subsidy, but I do not intend to go into that question—I most certainly cannot vote against the Government on this particular Amendment.
§ Mr. BROCKWAYI need not tell the Committee that I am not a miner, but I make no apology for intervening in this discussion, because even those of us who are not miners are living on the work of miners, and those of us who are returned to the House of Commons as public representatives have a duty here, in view of the services which the miners are giving to the nation, to see that those miners are guaranteed by the nation in return decent human living conditions. For that reason I think it is the duty of Members of the House of Commons, whether they are miners or not, to seek to do their utmost to secure an improvement of the miners' conditions. The simple object of this Amendment is to secure that the reduction in hours which has taken place, and the reduction in hours which will take place under this Bill in Scotland, shall not be accompanied by a reduction in wages.
1959 We have been asked why we have taken the date October, 1930. We have done so because it preceded the reductions in wages in a number of coalfields following the reduction in hours, and we have done so because we fear that, if the appointed day remains in the Bill, in Scotland and in other mining areas, further reductions of wages will take place. In our view the House of Commons, if it does not lift the terrible wages of miners which now exist, and does not prevent a reduction of the wages of miners in Scotland, will be failing to do its duty, as representing the public, to the men by whose work every one of us lives. We cannot eat our food, it would be impossible for us to have the clothing that we wear, it would be impossible for us to have any of the essentials of life, but for the work of the miner. It is the duty of the community, which is dependent on the miner in that way, to see that the miner receives a living wage in return for his labour.
When one turns to the actual reductions which have taken place in South Wales as a result of the reduced hours, none of us can be aware of those figures without shame. In South Wales now, the single man is receiving a minimum wage of 35s. a week for a 5-day week; the married man with no children is receiving as low a wage as 36s. 3d.; and a married man with children is receiving a wage of 37s. 6d. When the House has mining legislation before it, it has the duty to see that these scandalously low wages are ended and that a reasonable addition is made to them. I regret more than I can say that the Government is not prepared to accept the Amendment. If they had accepted it, the strike which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) fears may occur in Scotland would not occur. I believe if we had a free vote the Amendment would be carried. It is extraordinarily difficult for us, holding the convictions that we do, even to respond to the appeals which have been made by the hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) but, in this situation, even if we went to a Division there is no hope of the Amendment being carried. We have no desire to weaken the miners in the industrial field or to divide them in any way in the struggle in which they are engaged. If I ask my 1960 hon. Friend to withdraw her Amendment, it is not because we are satisfied with the Government's reply or with their conduct throughout the whole situation. It is only because we do not desire to put the miners in a false position or to weaken their industrial situation. For these reasons alone I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her Amendment.
Miss LEEI wish to make a personal explanation regarding the remark of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). There is no need whatever that he should immediately assume, if a date is fixed in the Amendment to which he does not agree, that that date is not there after due and proper consideration. The 31st October is a date that precedes the reduction of wages in Wales and elsewhere. It was inserted because we had this in mind, and the date suggested would have guarded the wage situation both in Wales and in Scotland. Furthermore, my intentions were clear. Anyone who knew the technical details better was invited to give an alternative. Although that is my personal view, I am going to accept the statement of the miners' Members that it is in the best interests of the miners that the Bill should be allowed to stand as it is. I only hope I am doing right, not only by the Miners' Federation but by the rank and file members, in taking that line.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the words "underground in a coal mine," and to insert instead thereof the words:
whose wages are determined by reference thereto.The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that all workers employed in and around coal mines whose remuneration is affected by the minimum percentage addition to basis rates and subsistence wages should be brought within the scope of the Bill. Throughout the negotiations that preceded the introduction of this Bill, it was clearly understood that all these workers were to be included. It was, however, feared that, although it was well known what were the intentions of the owners as a whole in this regard and that the wages of surface workers move correspondingly with changes in rates of wages of underground workers, isolated coalowners might be disposed to take advantage of 1961 the provisions of the Bill to bring about reductions in the wages of the surface workers. In order to prevent that happening, this Amendment is submitted. The provision now put forward makes it clear that the surface workers will be included in the safeguarding provisions with regard to wages.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSIt was obvious from the Prime Minister's speech yesterday that we should have to have an Amendment of this kind. It is equally obvious that there will be no Division unless there is some purely technical or legal point in connection with it. The reason I wish to comment on the Amendment is this. Not only are we asked by the Government to pass the Bill in two days, but they cannot even frame a short Bill of about three pages without putting in ridiculous words such as these, which it must have been evident to anyone used to reading Bills must make the Bill absolutely impossible to work. It has to be altered, but it is treating the House of Commons rather roughly when the Government, with its legal Department and its enormous power of organisation, particularly when you have a Minister of Mines to do these things, bring in a Bill worded as loosely as this, which might conceivably leave a whole section of the men out of the agreement. That would have meant that the whole position was upset. I regret that the Government were so hasty in their drawing up of the Bill that they could not have spent an extra five minutes in reading it through to see what was an obvious mistake to almost anyone.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI take it that the Amendment is in accordance with what I may perhaps fallaciously call the agreement. What took place over these negotiations was that both sides agreed that certain wages should be continued. There were other conditions attached to it. There was not, in fact, an agreement but, assuming that the other conditions have been fulfilled, I understand from what the Prime Minister said that the contingent agreement that was arrived at was definitely intended by both parties to cover wages above ground and under ground. On that understanding there is no objection to the word being inserted.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1962§ Mr. SHINWELLI beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the words "by a district agreement."
This and the following Amendment are purely drafting. The intention is to make it clear that, in the case of a few districts where there are no district agreements at present, the workers should not be prejudiced. There are districts, for example, like Somerset, Kent, South Staffordshire, the Forest of Dean and Shropshire, where in some cases until recently there was no district association and no district agreement. Clearly the intention of the Bill is that all workers should be brought under its scope. The Amendments are intended to cover all categories of workers affected by the minimum percentage addition to basis rates and subsistence wages.
§ Mr. BATEYDoes that mean that it only applies where there is a district agreement? We have one or two small collieries where there is a district agreement for the whole of Durham, but those small collieries since 1926 have not been working under district agreements. Are we to understand that where there is a district agreement operating it will apply there?
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe intention is that, where a colliery is not covered by a district agreement, the workers in the colliery shall be included in the scope of the Bill and shall not have their present wage rates reduced.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERDo I understand the position really to be that this will only apply where a district agreement does not exist at all, that at present operations in those districts are covered by agreements, but they are not agreements made between district organisations on one side or the other, but there are what one might call pit agreements or group pit agreements and it would stabilise the offer of the statutory period whatever are the pit or grouped pit arrangements.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThat is precisely the meaning.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 24, at the end, insert the words:
so, however, that in relation to any coal mine or group of coal mines for which wages were not on that day regulated by a district
1963
agreement this Act shall have effect as if for references to a district there were therein substituted references to that coal mine or group of coal mines."—[Mr. Shinwell.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BATEYI should like to ask the Secretary for Mines to explain the need for the insertion of the word "minimum" in the second line of the Clause. I can understand the basis rates of wages and the percentage additions to basis rates, but I cannot understand minimum percentage additions.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI should have thought that way hon. Friend would have found it unnecessary to put the point, seeing that he is an experienced miner and a miners' official. Those are the words which were produced by the Miners' Federation, and, with their concurrence, we accepted them.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThat may be an answer which satisfies the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), but what the Secretary for Mines was invited to explain to the Committee was, not the genesis of those words, but what the words mean. I think the Committee will be very glad to have an explanation from him.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSAfter all, what does the word "minimum" mean? I believe "minimum" means the lowest. Clearly the hon. Gentleman opposite did not understand it. The Government have cowed their followers to such an extent that they will accept almost any mortal thing as far as the Bill is concerned. We are entitled to a full explanation of this matter, and I see no reason why we should not have such an explanation.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERAre we not going to have an explanation? I really ask that an explanation be given.
§ Mr. SHINWELLThe position, as I understand it, is that there exists in the mining industry basis rates, that is to say, rates for day workers of all kinds and for piece-workers of all kinds which are fixed as a result of local negotiations. Those are the basis rates, and they fluctuate from time to time, up and down, and so on and so forth. Superimposed upon these basis rates are minimum percentages and those are de- 1964 scribed by the mining industry itself as minimum percentage additions. It certainly would appear that those percentages, being described as minimum percentages, are the lowest percentages that can be superimposed upon the basis rates. The latter may vary as from pit to pit in some districts, as the previous discussion showed, and they certainly vary as from district to district. I hope that the explanation will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.