HC Deb 11 June 1936 vol 313 cc501-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Southby.]

9.27 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS

In accordance with notice given some time ago I desire to raise for the information and sympathy of the House the case of miners in Beamish Mary Pit, County Durham. These men are suffering very great injustices. They have been disallowed unemployment benefit amounting to the sum of about £7,000. The dispute in question, in the judgment of the umpire, is due to a strike. The workers, on the contrary, emphatically deny this contention and declare that they were locked out and that ended a particular agreement which affected their special employment. The particular case is that of a certain seam known as the Brock-well Seam. It is a most difficult seam. The coal was originally worked by means of a coal cutter, but in December, 1934, the colliery management met the men and asked whether they would agree that this coal should be worked by means of the pneumatic pick. That is virtually hand labour, to be worked by the miners, and such an agreement was drawn up. Clause 1 states that the work should be done by workmen who should volunteer to do such work and should, if considered suitable for this particular class of machine mining, be ultimately subject to selection by the management of the colliery. It is important for the House to note this particular agreement.

Why should there be a Clause of this description? The reason for it is that this seam is one of the most difficult to work. In the judgment of ordinary people, human beings ought not to be asked to work it under the conditions that have been drawn up and with the result that a sufficiency of men have never been obtainable to work this coal with the pneumatic pick. The House should remember that it was originally worked by means of a coal cutter. The burden of the work was taken by the machine, but the management felt that coal was not as marketable obtained in that way and, therefore, they have endeavoured to have it worked by the pneumatic pick—by the miners themselves in effect. The seam is only from 18 to 21 inches in height. The floor is known as a wet floor, continually wet. The roof is wet and is continually dripping. In order to work the coal the miner slides in on his side and has to cut the coal by holding a pneumatic pick, from 18 to 28 lbs. in weight, worked by compressed air. This is held in his arms. The machine vibrates at a very great speed and dense fumes of blinding dust are exuded. Nerves and muscles are racked, and I have myself seen at the inquiry held across the road men with swollen wrists and shoulders as a result of a short experience in this seam. The seam is further worse than an ordinary seam, because in about 12 inches of the coal there is stone and foreign matter which makes it extremely difficult to get the pneumatic pick working. Even the coal cutter could not work sufficiently effectively against this material. Medical testimony after men had worked a short time was produced as to the injuries inflicted on the older and weaker men, but the determination of the management was quite definite that all and sundry as ordered, not as volunteers, should enter this seam and work the coal.

This is the result. The agreement was made on 28th December, 1934, but an insufficiency of men volunteered for the work. In July, 1935, a considerable number of men, hewers, putters and stone-men, the latter not having been used at all to the pneumatic pick, were dismissed by the management, but before their 14 days' notices terminated they were offered work in this Brockwell low seam. The men refused to undertake the work, as many of them were old fellows. They replied that they wanted to return to their own work and they applied for unemployment benefit, which was allowed them. The same thing occurred in the August of last year, but again unemployment benefit was allowed them.

On 14th September of last year, as there was still an insufficiency of men to work this coal, the whole of the colliery, with the exception of 30 men who had volunteered and were carrying out the work, were dismissed. The case which I am bringing before the House is that these men were dismissed from their employment, were charged with being on strike and unemployment benefit was disallowed them. They applied for benefit, the management advised that this was a strike and no benefit was allowed. The men applied to the court of referees. With some sense of justice they agreed that of the dismissed men, the 135 hewers were alone involved, out of the total of 405. It must have been a very unfortunate court of referees, inasmuch as of the three persons who constituted it the workmen's representative happened to be a transport worker and not a miner. They contended that the phrase "volunteers shall be asked for" did not mean what it stated, that the men were asked and that there was a dispute as to the suitability of the pneumatic pick in that seam. That could not have been an accurate description of the position, because 30 men were engaged with the pneumatic pick in that low seam and, by the agreement of the Durham Miners' Association with the management, any man who could at any time volunteer for the work was entitled to do so. I will mention the types of labour which were asked to undertake the work and were declared to be on strike: hewers, day hands, shifters, putters, stonemen, cutters, drivers, engine lads, surface hands and checkweighmen. With the exception of the hewers, not one of those classes was concerned with the dispute, but even boys of from 14 to 18 years of age were brought in and declared to be on strike.

The matter came before the Umpire and I attended and heard the evidence given on the men's side and on the masters' side. I think that any dispassionate person would have felt that there was an overwhelming case in favour of the men. The Umpire decided otherwise. I have the record of his statement, giving his judgment. He says that the court of referees were unanimous in holding that the stoppage of work which began in the Beamish Colliery, Mary pit, on 14th September, 1935, was due to a trade dispute. How can it be due to a trade dispute when 14 days' notice was handed to the men and, before the notice terminated, the men were offered work in this low seam, work which some of them undertook but others declined to do and were dismissed? Then the Umpire stated that the management and the men concerned have all along been in disagreement as to the meaning of the words in Clause 1 of the agreement 'volunteers shall be asked for,' and as to the purpose and the effect of the agreement. Obviously there has been a dispute if the owners of the colliery are determined that, although an agreement exists, they will force men to labour in this particular section of the mine. The Umpire goes on to say: The results of the agreement, however, show how determined and general was the opposition on the part of the men to accepting the use of the pneumatic pick as a condition of work in the Brockwell seam, because the number of men who voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions of the agreement were quite negligible. Certainly they were negligible, because the conditions were inhuman. There was an abundance of medical evidence submitted to show that the men who had attempted for two or three days to do the work, were shaking as though they had the ague, that their sight was affected, and that their general condition indicated that this was not work fit under modern conditions for human beings to undertake. It was only by my asking a question in this House in December that the men could get a decision from the Umpire—whether he was too busy or what was happening I do not know—and it was only at the end of December that the hearing was given by the Umpire, with the result which I have indicated.

When the verdict was given, the men had reached the stage of starvation. They were starved and beaten. I have seen the sheet in which they collected small sums of money from colleagues, from friends and from neighours, in order to maintain themselves and their families. During the period of the dispute, from the end of September until January, no public assistance was allowed to the families, except to the wives and children, on loan, so that many of the men were in a relatively famished con- dition. They were beaten in January of this year into submission. They went in a body to the management and said, "We will abrogate the agreement; we will work in this seam." They did so, and the result was to bear out the very contention which the men had made all along that the only person who should be asked to go down and work under those conditions were the young men who could best stand the inhuman strain. I have a letter from the management indicating the position. It is addressed to R. Jarman, Secretary, Mary Pit Lodge: With reference to the new men who started with the pneumatic pick in Brock-well seam for pay 3, ending 18th January, I beg to draw your attention to the fact that, with the average actual earnings for the month at 3s. 7d. per shift, the amount of money necessary to bring these men up to the minimum wage is £43 18s., practically equivalent to what they have earned. It goes on to say: There are many men who have started in the Brockwell seam who are totally unfitted for the work.…Kindly let me know when it will be convenient for you to send a deputation. On 6th February there was this further letter: With further reference to your letter, and my reply of February 4th. concerning men who have been cavilled to the Brock-well seam for pneumatic pick work, and whom we have found unsuitable for this class of work, I … regret that the members of your Lodge cannot agree with my suggestion that these men should be exchanged into the Busty seam for men now working at the Busty who would be possibly more suitable for the Brockwell seam. Then he says: As I have already pointed out to you, the position which has been created in the Brockwell seam owing to these men being unable to get reasonable results with the pneumatic picks is an impossible one. I am obliged, therefore, to dispense with these men. I trust that your Lodge may reconsider their previous decision on this matter, in order that we may continue to keep these men in employment at the colliery, as, in my opinion, their inability to get satisfactory results at present is mainly due to their being unsuited to the conditions. I may add "— and this is a very vital matter— that a number of these men have already left the colliery rather than continue this work. The ages of many of the men who were driven down by starvation to undertake this work were 40, 45, and so on. The manager of this colliery got a verdict in favour of the colliery owner. If this had occurred in any of our shipyards, what would have been thought of such a situation? What would have been thought of a manager going into a shipyard, dismissing all the men, and, at the end of 14 days, saying, "If some of you will undertake work in which you may injure your health, your eyesight, your hearing, your nerves, you can have it"? The whole of the North-East Coast would have been up in arms. If this had taken place in any other walk of industry than mining, where professional slavery is carried out and is the order of the day, the most tyrannous type of manager being employed to exploit the maximum out of the men, the whole nation would have been aroused by it. In this case the unemployment Authorities agreed that the boys could not be involved in this matter and granted them unemployment benefit for the period of the dispute. I received an application, which I sent to the Minister of Labour, to consider the very hard cases of three lamp men, men who had each lost a leg in the Great War and who cleaned and repaired the safety lamps for their colleagues underground. I was asked to use my influence with the Minister on behalf of these poor fellows, who have large families, who have been robbed of their employment, and who were anxious to go back to their lamp work but not permitted to do so because they were alleged to be on strike.

That is my case. I think I have demonstrated that, on the showing of the management of the colliery themselves, there is fresh evidence to be considered. We say that these men are suffering from a double hardship and injustice, which ought not to be tolerated by this House; that they have had a verdict against them entirely out of harmony with the evidence submitted, and, secondly, the refusal of the Umpire, in spite of the appeals of myself, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and possibly of the Minister of Labour himself, to re-open the case, to hear fresh evidence. What injustice would the reopening of the case be to any human being. It would not cost money—if it did, the miners would be willing to bear the cost—and it would reveal the fact, which other people do not know, but which I have revealed to-night, that the management themselves say that the question of suitability must be considered. The Umpire was completely oblivious to all questions of suitability and said that this was a dispute because the workmen did not want to work a pneumatic pick in this low and dangerous seam, when, from the time the agreement was made till the present moment, there have been members of the Durham Miners Association, young, sturdy men who are willing to risk their lives—because there is increased danger of roof falls—working in this seam. Therefore, I ask the House and I ask the Minister of Labour—these miners are friends and colleagues of my own—to use whatever influence they can to secure that the Umpire should give a rehearing in this phenomenally harsh case.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

I am sure the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, by the concise way in which he has put his case, and by the facts which he has so calmly and yet vividly stated, has not only commanded the attention, respect, and sympathy of the House, but has also put a case which really must have reconsideration from the Ministry of Labour. I was not surprised when this case arose, although I was surprised that it arose at this particular colliery. It is nearly two years since I spoke to the Secretary for Mines, long before this type of case arose, and pointed out to him that it was almost inevitable that when these pneumatic picks began to be applied in mines there would be very great difficulty, and that if the matter was not watched there would be very grave need for anticipating many cases for compensation, through nerves. Hon. Member's will have seen men using pneumatic drills on the roads, and they will have wondered, as they saw the machines vibrating, what the effect was upon the men using them, even though they were working with them in the open air and in the light of day.

Mr. HARDIE

And standing up straight.

Mr. LAWSON

And standing up. It may be said that these machines used in the pit are not so large, but they are certainly very heavy. Let me tell the House what happens. I know this particular seam. It is no higher than the seats in this House. The seats here are from 18 to 20 inches high. The men are working in a seam of 21 inches and are lying on their sides with these machines against their shoulders, vibrating against them all the time, in a narrow space of some yards, and with a height of only 21 inches. A man came to see me from this colliery, before the dispute arose. He told me that he had worked several years, I think he said about 10 years, on the long wall face with a machine cutter, and that generally speaking he liked that class of work, but he was all shaking. He said that he had been put on to this pneumatic pick work, and I shall never forget seeing him as he stood before me, trembling, asking what we were going to do about it and whether we were going to do something in Parliament about it. I have known that district for 25 years. The colliery is in my hon. Friend's division but it is on the edge of my own division. In the whole of the 25 years I have never known any local colliery dispute among these men. They are the most reasonable, quiet body of men I have ever known.

Mr. HARDIE

They must be.

Mr. LAWSON

They certainly are. That is why I say that I was surprised to find trouble coming from that colliery, because as a rule the men have been so patient. I know this particular seam. In the pit next to it, in regard to the same sort of seam I had on one occasion to arbitrate on the men's behalf in order to fix prices. I wish that I could describe to the House the sensation that I experienced in crawling sideways into the seam. I should like to be able to convey to the House what it means working in this class of pit, with vibration affecting the nerves of the men and generally putting them into a very difficult position. My hon. Friend reminds me that there are times when these men have to lie in water and to lie on their sides and work these pneumatic machines.

When the manager wanted to work this seam with the pneumatic pick, and the prices were fixed, it was considered reasonable that there should be a clause put in the agreement saying that he must not compel the men to do this class of work, but that he must rely upon volunteers. There is no denying that that clause is in the agreement. The manager did not get his volunteers, and I do not wonder that he failed to get them. The most experienced miner in the varied classes of seams, the men who can adapt themselves to different classes of work, would be well entitled to refuse that class of work, particularly as that particular clause is in the agreement. However, when the manager did not get a sufficient number of volunteers, he proceeded to try and interpret that clause in the agreement, or to whittle it down, in order to make out that it did not necessarily mean that he had to wait for men to volunteer. When he gave the men their notices because they would not volunteer we claimed that they were entitled to unemployment benefit. The manager went before the court of referees and the umpire and claimed that the clause had another meaning.

Our point is that here is a new class of work which ought to receive the serious consideration of the Safety Commission now sitting. Is it the business of the court of referees and the umpires not only to accept the manager's interpretation of the Clause, which undoubtedly provides that he must rely upon volunteers, but that they should take a step which compels men to do work, when the most experienced pit man considers that the manager would have been much more humane and wise if he had not forced it upon the men? There is an amazing thing in connection with this decision. There is no reference whatever to suitability for this class of work. In the unemployment insurance legislation there is very clear provision made that suitability should be one of the matters to be; considered in a case of this kind. But throughout the whole of that decision there is not a single reference to the question of suitability, nor is there anything to lead one to believe that the umpire and the court generally took it into consideration.

I want to emphasise a further point to which my hon. Friend drew attention. To have lived in the midst of a community of that kind, with a very fine type of men, and to have seen the havoc and tragedy caused by a decision of this kind, is a very painful experience, and we have waited long and patiently to express ourselves upon something on which we have felt very strongly for some months. When the men were forced back to work and actually went into the seam, every man that could possibly offer himself for that seam did so after the decision. They said that they would do their best to work it, but, after doing so, the manager himself had to say that the men were unsuitable for it. All that we ask, and all that we have asked, is, not that the umpire should decide in favour of the men, because he has decided the matter, but that he should consider this new evidence, that he should consider the new facts and the complete unsuitability, on the manager's own admission, of the men for this class of work.

Although this is the case of a single colliery, it is so big with meaning from the point of view of safety and of proper working conditions that it would have been well if it could have been discussed earlier and in a fuller House, but the Minister must not overlook the fact that, if nothing is done in this case, not only will the men be forced to work under conditions which are clearly injurious to their health, and under which they ought not to be asked to work, but the Ministry of Labour will be deciding in advance that men ought to be called upon to work under conditions which the Safety Commission is now considering, and upon which there is very grave doubt indeed in the minds of all who are familiar with this work as to whether men ought to be called upon to undertake it.

The Parliamentary Secretary may not have the same powers as the Minister, and I dare say the matter will receive proper consideration in the Department, but I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going to give us simply an official reply to the effect that it is hopeless and useless to go into the case. I know that the Umpire has said that he would consider whether there is a dispute or not, and that he has made certain suggestions, but, unless this case can be reopened and considered as a whole, and all the new relevant facts brought under a survey, there is no real value in going into some pin-point of the law. My view is that, while the law ought to be observed, in this case not only has the law been, as I think, overridden, but the most patent human facts, which ought to have been used to balance justice with mercy and with human decency, have been altogether overlooked. I hope that the Minister is going to give us a favourable reply on this matter.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. RITSON

This very harrowing tale ought to affect every Member of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has said, anyone looking at the streets which are being cut up now in London will see that the men are standing on something on which they can rest the tools which they are driving, but in this case the man is in a space only 21 inches high, lying on, his side. I would ask any hon. Member to try to visualise what it means, without any vibration at all, to hold a weight of from 21 to 28 lbs., lying on the side and running across the top again and again, before reaching the main part of the coal. We find that there are complaints, not only in the case of very thin seams of this sort, but even in the case of thicker seams, where considerable numbers of men have had to change to this method of operation. I myself came across a man who used to work with me six and a-half years ago, who was known to be one of the best hewers on the North East Coast, but who, when he had to change from the hand pick to this machine, was knocked all to pieces after about three months, although he was a man who would not lose a shift on any consideration if he could crawl to the pit at all. He was working in a five-foot seam. What, therefore, is going to be the result when the seam is only 21 inches thick I Some time ago I myself was sent to examine a seam 23 inches high, and, after creeping along the face, without using a pick at all, I came back absolutely exhausted.

Moreover, there is the question of the noise caused by these machines. A man cannot hear whether there is likely to be a fall of stone, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street has said, they are working in a very narrow space, because the props must be there to keep the roof up, and many a time the machine has to be manipulated by a man lying on his side between props that are only about two feet apart. The interference with hearing is serious, because often the ears are more used than the eyes. Any well informed miner knows that it is not his eyes so much as his ears that he depends upon. Listen- ing is much more effective for safety than looking, because appearances are so deceptive. And yet we find that men over 40 are placed on this kind of work.

Why did not the manager of this pit get any volunteers? He may have offered them different prices, as is sometimes done, but I am convinced that, if hon. Members knew the men in that area as we know them, they would agree that they are rightly looked up to as being the steadiest set of men in the country. They never wanted to leave there, because their fathers had lived there before them and they were established in their co-operative societies and their chapels and churches. They are not men who are trying to evade work. I am pleased in one sense that there is dust there because, whatever its discomfort, it is not as bad as water, and these men often work lying in an inch or two of water.

The agreement may be this or that. I do not believe in standing always exactly to the letter of the law. Whatever law you make here is open to contradiction and to the application of common sense. When men who have worked 12 or 15 years with a hand pick are thrown on to this method of work, are they not justified in saying it is something for which the Act was never meant? However willing and anxious they may be to be at work, after a man has done two or three hours in that horrible position, lying on his side, is he not justified in saying, "Neither God nor man ever intended me to work under conditions like this"? We are not trying to patch up a case of a sensational kind. We are prepared to take anyone along to the mine at our own expense and give him a test with the machine, and I am convinced that he would not vote against us when he came back. Whatever the Minister may say about the agreement itself and however much he may think he is bound to carry it out, this is a time when the law and legal phraseology ought to give way to the sheer test of experience. When we see a man working in a sewer we pity him, but these men are working all the time in a sewer within a sewer, liable to take cold through working in damp places, with the risk of danger from water and gas. I hope the Minister will demand that a new trial be given to these fellows who are doing their best and find that their physique will not stand it. I hope he will look at it from a commonsense point of view.

10.18 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead)

I know that the two hon. Members who opened the discussion feel very keenly on this subject and have done a great deal themselves in the matter, and have been anxious for a very long time to ventilate it in the House. Therefore, I am glad that, now that the opportunity presents itself, they have been afforded plenty of time to put their case. They have put it very forcibly and with a considerable number of details about the particular pit and the particular method of working pneumatic picks. I am not concerned with what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) called a legal pin-point. I am concerned with the broad and definite statutory position of the Minister himself and of the independent and statutory authorities. The history of the dispute is, in effect, that in September last the Company decided that a certain seam of coal could no longer be worked profitably with hand picks, and that the use of pneumatic picks was called for. The men were asked to work with pneumatic picks and they refused. The company tried several times to persuade them to do the work, saying that unless the seam was worked with the pneumatic pick the colliery would have to close down.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS

The men have never refused to work with pneumatic picks in the seam. An agreement was made at the end of December, 1934, between themselves and the management that volunteers should be called for, and volunteers, young men, descended, but not in sufficient numbers.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

That is perhaps true, but certainly the colliery company, whether certain people volunteered or not, could not get people to work the pit in such a way that it would be profitable. Therefore, the notices were given and the colliery was closed.

Mr. ADAMS

I am sorry to interrupt again, but that is a complete misapprehension. The colliery was not closed. Men continued to work in that seam with the pneumatic pick—30 in number—throughout the whole of the dispute.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

That is the information which I possess, and on the strength of that the men claimed unemployment benefit, but the insurance officer disallowed benefit on the ground that they had lost employment owing to an industrial dispute. The court of referees gave the ease a very long hearing and eventually upheld this particular decision. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) complained really of the composition of that particular court of referees, but whether it was to his liking or not, the fact remains that there was a fair opportunity for an appeal to the Umpire. The appeal was made in this case to the Deputy-Umpire, and he upheld the decision of the court of referees, and in this case the decision of the Deputy-Umpire is for all purposes equivalent to the decision of the Umpire himself. Since the Deputy-Umpire gave his decision on 1st January of this year the Durham Miners' Association have tried several times to get the Umpire to re-open the question. The hon. Member for Consett and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) have also tried to persuade him, both by writing directly to him and also by asking the Minister of Labour, to intervene. Questions have also been asked, I think, in all, on four occasions, in Parliament. There are two points upon which the Umpire has been pressed to reconsider his decision. The first is that in giving his decision he should have had regard to the merits of the dispute.

Mr. LAWSON

Our contention is that was no dispute.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

I accept that, but taking the line that there was a dispute, he was bound to take some note of the fact that a dispute had taken place. I agree that neither the hon. Member for Consett nor the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street have admitted that there was a dispute. The second ground—and that is the ground which they press to-night—is that there were new facts and that therefore a re-hearing is justified. The new facts which they contend—and I think that I am interpreting them aright —were, first of all, that the company subsequently admitted that they were wrong in asking the men to use pneumatic picks and, secondly, that some of the men were unsuitable for pneumatic pick work. The deputy-umpire dealt with these two points in a letter which he wrote to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street on 21st April. While I readily recognise that hon. Members opposite have never admitted that there was a dispute, nevertheless, the deputy-umpire said that he had no power to consider the merits of any dispute. That answer is definite and final. As to the second point, the deputy-umpire adheres to the principle laid down in the Act, that once he has given his decision he can only reconsider the matter when new relevant facts come to light which in his opinion would justify a re-hearing. In this case he found that no new facts had come to light. That is tantamount to saying that even if he had known that this particular information was put forward by hon. Members as a new fact—namely, the unsuitability of the men—it would not have altered the decision which he actually gave. He has, therefore, found that no new facts have come to light and has refused to reconsider his decision on those grounds.

All claims for benefit and all questions which arise in connection with such claims are decided by the independent statutory authority, the insurance officer, the court of referees and the umpire. The umpire has a final decision on all questions and, therefore, he is the final authority on the question as to whether he should or should not reconsider one of his decisions. That has been expressly provided for in the Act of 1935. The Minister's position is that he has no legal power to influence or alter the umpire's decision, and although that may seem a very bald explanation to hon. Members opposite, who I know feel keenly on the matter, the fact remains that it is the legal and statutory explanation and I fear is the only one I can give them to-night.

Mr. LAWSON

Under the 1935 Act it has always been part of the general procedure that when an offer of work is considered by the umpire he must also consider the question of the suitability of the work offered. In this case there has been no consideration of suitability. It does not find a place in the award at all. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say something on that point? Is it not one which should be put to the umpire?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

The Miners' Association and hon. Members in their correspondence no doubt put that point to the deputy-umpire. Therefore, it is a point which has been considered by the umpire within his discretion, but it must be remembered that the original decision was referred to the court of referees and that on an appeal by the court of referees to the umpire, the umpire upheld the decision. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street admits that this particular point has been put to the umpire already and consequently one can only draw the deduction that the umpire did consider it. I come back to the fact that the umpire has given his decision and that the Minister has no legal power, whatever his views may be, to alter or to influence the umpire's decision.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. BATEY

I agree that the Umpire's decision is final and that the Minister has no power to alter it, but what hon. Members on this; side are asking is that the Minister shall use his influence to get a re-hearing of this case. I think that is not too much to ask, and it is something which has been done by former Ministers of Labour again and again. We believe this is a case in which there ought to be a re-hearing. We hope that although the Minister cannot alter the decision, he will promise to make an effort to get a re-hearing.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS

There is one question I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. If the verdict of the Umpire was final and a statutory verdict which could not be challenged, why is it that the 50 boys he disallowed were allowed unemployment benefit three week ago?

10.33 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND

I happen to be a Member who has been casually listening to this Debate without any knowledge of the technicalities of the matter, and like other Members who are not experts, I have been impressed by the very great difficulties of this case on both sides. It is as though an irresistible force of argument by my hon. Friends on this side had come up against an immovable mass, namely, the Act of Parliament, as rightly represented by the Minister. Yet it is extraordinarily diffi- cult to avoid the feeling that there must be some way out. Laws are made, of course, to be kept rather than to be broken, but could not the Minister allow some reasonable and friendly individual such as any of the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate to-night to come to his office or private house with the Deputy Umpire and talk over both sides of the matter with a view to seeing whether some way does not occur to them whereby the difficulty could be overcome? It is an extraordinarily moving case from the point of view of the men and it is an extraordinarily difficult position from the point of view of the Minister, but I hope that before the Minister puts it out of his mind—and it must be difficult to put a grievous case such as this out of his mind—he will see whether, by allowing both parties to talk the matter over in a friendly and non-contentious way, he cannot find some means of doing something.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY

I join in the appeal which has been made to the Minister. Speaking without any feeling towards the Minister or anyone who disagrees with me on political and social matters, I cannot help thinking that if the law, operating through the decision of a judge, interfered with the rights of property in a much less degree than this decision interferes with the lives of the men concerned, some way round the difficulty would be found. I have never heard the story as we have heard it to-night of this feature of the miner's work and it only goes to prove how little any of us know of the circumstances who are not directly acquainted with the industry. I have sat here with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) listening to the speeches of my hon. Friends on this subject and we have both been shocked by the state of things described. My hon. and learned Friend knew but I did not know, and I confess my ignorance, that men working under the conditions described—a description which the Minister does not challenge—used these pneumatic picks. I had no conception that such a state of things existed.

I do not believe that if the House were full to-night, the Minister would be allowed to get away with saying what he has said. I know this House and I be- lieve that had a fuller attendance listened to this story, the mass of Members would have compelled some action by the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) has made a suggestion which I think the Minister ought to take up promptly, or else find some other way of meeting the case. An Umpire or a Deputy-Umpire is just a human being and may make a mistake. Often when an official makes a mistake it is very hard to convince him that he is wrong. Before the Minister replies, we knew what his answer would be but he also is only a human being and I ask him to remember that he is not there merely to administer the letter of the law. If the law is being operated by the Umpire or the Deputy-Umpire, in what seems to us to be a perfectly inhuman way, I think this House, even though there are only a few of us here to-night, has a right to insist that this is something which must be dealt with as a matter affecting flesh and blood and not as a matter of letters on a piece of parchment. I think the suggestion as to bringing together representatives of the men, with the Minister and the Umpire, ought to be carried out and if that fails it is up to the Minister to take some other action. Umpires are not irremovable and are not infallible.

The Minister may remind his chief that a decision was given in the East End of London a little while ago, which all the authorities on the spot assured me could not be changed. I had the most definite statement that what had been decided could not be undone. I did not make much fuss about it, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Labour, and within a few days that case was re-heard and the previous decision, which had been spoken about very much as the Minister has spoken about this decision, was reversed. I am glad of this chance of paying my tribute to the Minister of Labour for the prompt manner in which that grossly unjust decision was reversed. I am certain that if these facts were put up to the Minister of Labour he would find some way of dealing with the matter. We are all enjoying light here. We all get heat and power, and we have heard to-night how some of it comes to us. The least we can do is to see that those who provide us with these things get some modicum of justice and fairplay. I ask the Minister not to allow himself to be tied by this red tape business in a case of this kind, but to rise above it and make a supreme endeavour to get the decision re-heard and something effective done to deal with what everyone in the House considers is a disgrace to our administration and to the whole system under which these men are employed.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. F. ANDERSON

I apologise for detaining the House for a. few minutes, but I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary as far back as Easter that I would raise the matter—

Mr. LAWSON

Let the Minister reply to the other point.

Mr. ANDERSON

I do not want to stand in the way of any reply that may be made to the previous subject, and I am prepared to give way to any reply the Minister may want to give.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Parliamentary Secretary has replied once, and he can only speak again by the leave of the House.

Mr. GARRO JONES

The House is expecting to hear the Minister again on the question of miners' conditions, and I am sure that the House will readily give its assent to his speaking again on that point. I should be glad to know whether he intends to give a reply on that point, for I do not feel that the last has been said on the matter.

10.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

I was about to rise and ask for the leave of the House to answer the various points that have been put, but the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Anderson), who has held himself in patience for a long time, got up so promptly that I did not care to stand in his way. If the House will give me leave, I will reply to the various points that have been put. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) raised the question of boys receiving their unemployment benefit. That is another matter which I do not think the hon. Member will expect me to answer off-hand. I will deal with the specific case of the people who have been refused benefit, the decision in which case has been upheld by the umpire.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS

Included among whom are those boys.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

It is clear that there are some people remaining about whom the hon. Member is not satisfied, and it is to that position that I am directing my remarks. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) asked whether something could not be done by the Minister to influence the decision of the umpire, and that was very forcibly supported by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). In my final remarks I purposely put in that the Minister had no legal power to influence or to alter an umpire's decision. Of course, anybody can always talk to anybody else with the object of trying to influence him, but I am quite certain that the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley did not really mean to suggest, when he said that had this been a case concerning property instead of miners some means would have been found to get round the position, that Ministers on this side or any side would attempt to influence the judiciary. Certainly, if ever they had attempted to influence the judiciary, they would have got what they deserved, and it is quite possible that the Minister, if he tried to influence the judiciary in this case, would get the same thing.

Mr. LANSBURY

What I really meant was that if necessary a little Bill could be brought in to help us out of the difficulty. I am really suggesting another way round.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

The question of amending legislation is, of course, something else, and, anyhow. I do not think the hon. Member for Spennymoor suggested that. It is no real kindness for one to try to gain a little favour by suggesting that one will try to influence somebody when, in point of fact, one has no legal power to influence him. It is quite easy to say one will try to influence somebody, but it is not fair or honest to say it when one has no legal power to do it, because if when we set up judges or statutory authorities we are to try to influence their decision on one point we shall go on to try the same thing in regard to other matters, and there will be no end to the thing. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) said that this was a very difficult question. It is precisely because these difficult questions do occur that the law has been framed, and I think rightly framed, to put certain statutory authorities in an independent position where their decisions cannot be challenged or influenced, or altered legally by the Minister. Therefore, after having listened to these additional points which hon. and right hon. Members opposite have raised, I do not see any reason to depart from the original answer I gave.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

Do I understand that the hon. Member is not going to use— what it is undoubtedly possible for the Minister of Labour to use—his good offices in order to get a re-hearing of this case? The suggestion that the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) made might lead to a possible settlement or a re-hearing. Why is it that Members of this House like the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) and myself cannot meet the Umpire himself? That is a very small thing to ask. It is true that the Deputy-Umpire will meet us to discuss a very microscopic point. That is no use. Why cannot we meet the Umpire, in which case we might find a way to get a proper re-hearing of this case? Has the hon. Gentleman no answer to make to the points put forward by the right hon. Members for North Cornwall and Bow and Bromley?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD

The question of who meets the deputy-umpire is a question for the deputy-umpire himself.

Mr. LANSBURY

You could ask him. What rubbish it is.

Mr. GARRO JONES

rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has already spoken in this Debate.

Mr. GARRO JONES

On a point of Order. I rose to ask the Minister whether he proposed to reply to the observations that had been made.

Mr. SPEAKER

I cannot have hon. Members rising to ask something and then making a speech.

Mr. GARRO JONES

I submit it is a well established tradition of this House that a Member who rises to ask a question is not thereby disqualified from speaking in the Debate. I did not utter more than two or three sentences and every one was interrogatory.

Mr. SPEAKER

The length of a speech is no criterion of whether it is a speech or not.

Mr. GARRO JONES

rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

I am not going to argue with the hon. Member.

Mr. GARRO JONES

With respect, I submit that my speech was of an interrogatory character and that it should not disqualify me from speaking in the Debate. That is a well established tradition, but if you insist on refusing to allow me to speak I shall accept your ruling under protest.

Mr. SPEAKER

I have given a great deal of latitude in this Debate. Several hon. Members have spoken two or three times, and if I were to continue in that way the Debates in this House would become out of order. I do not propose to continue in that way.