§ 29. Mr. D. GRENFELL(for Mr. JOHN) asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the attitude of the Warwickshire coal- 18 owners who are refusing to agree to continue existing minimum wages now being paid under the district wages agreement; and whether the Warwickshire coalowners were consulted prior to his writing the letter to the secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain?
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown)I satisfied myself that in Warwickshire, as in all other districts, the position after 8th July would be as stated in my letter to the secretary of the Miners' Federation. The difficulty in that district is not a new one, and is that the minimum wage guaranteed under the provisions of the 1931 Act, and since continued by other forms of guarantee, has been a matter of argument. In practice, the point has been of no importance as the ascertained results have, for the last two years, been sufficiently good to determine the wage rates. We may hope that this happy state of affairs will continue, and the point raised in the question will remain of academic interest only.
§ Mr. GRENFELLIf it is not going to make any difference in practice, why are the coalowners pressing for a reduction in the minimum percentage?
§ Mr. BROWNIf the hon. Gentleman reads the answer carefully, he will see that the point is dealt with. It always has been since 1931 a matter of argument in that district, but it has not arisen practically, and I see no reason to believe that it will.
§ Mr. GRENFELLCan the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that in the event of an ascertainment showing reduced proceeds, the reduction in wages would not take place?
§ Mr. BROWNThat is a hypothetical point. The original question raised an issue which has been the subject of argument in an academic sense since 1931.
§ Mr. GRENFELLIf the fall in wages took place, there would be no argument about that.