HC Deb 23 February 1943 vol 387 cc122-38

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

On Tuesday last I gave notice that I would raise on the Adjournment a serious matter affecting the miners in Bowhill Pit. The trouble there arose out of the fixing of a ton rate. It is necessary that Members of this House should understand that Bowhill Pit is recognised as a highly paid pit. There is no question of miners getting extravagant wages, but Bowhill is recognised as a highly paid pit for the district. Negotiations took place between trade union officials and employers on the question of a ton rate, but a satisfactory arrangement could not be arrived at, and with the endorsement of the men the matter in dispute went before a neutral chairman. This chairman, after hearing the assessors on either side, gave a decision with which the men were completely dissatisfied. They engaged in what was known as a "ca'canny" or "go slow" strike. It may be said by the Minister or Members that the men acted wrongly in showing their dissatisfaction in this way, and while I would not support such action, and told the men that I would not support their line, I can understand and justify their dissatisfaction with the neutral chairman and the way affairs were conducted.

What was the position? The company offered 1s. 5d. per ton for stripping the coal in the affected section. The union was standing for 1s. 9d. In the negotiations that went on the company raised the price to 1s. 6d. The men were not prepared to accept that, and so, as I have said, the question went before a neutral chairman. Of course, when a question goes before a neutral chairman all offers are off, but the men were not conscious of this. They honestly believed that what was going before the chairman was 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d. a ton and that the chairman would decide as between the two, or something in between the two. The union officials put forward 1s. 9d. a ton to the neutral chairman, but the Fife Coal Company, utterly unscrupulous, not concerned with the new spirit of co-operation in industry and in the pits, offered 1s. 2d. Even the Minister was astonished when he knew of that. What the neutral chairman had to decide was not as between 1s. 6d. and 1s. 9d. but as between 1s. 2d. and 1s. 9d. The chairman, a legal gentleman from Lanarkshire, gave a Solomon-like judgment. He said, "One and ninepence is too high, and 1s. 2d. is too low. I propose 1s. 5d." This was a penny less than the employers had offered, in negotiation, and the men felt that they had been tricked, and that was the reason they put on a "ca'canny."

This went on for two weeks, then a meeting was held by trade union officials, but it was not successful, the men decided to go on with the strike. The following day 42 strippers were dismissed. This was on a Monday. On the Tuesday, the preparatory men were asked to strip the coal. They refused, and they were sent out of the pit. This led to a progressive worsening of the situation and the possibility of a complete stoppage at the pit. On that Tuesday night, following the dismissal of the preparatory men, I was in the area addressing a meeting of a Cooperative Women's Guild. The men asked me to go and speak to them at a mass meeting that was being held. I spoke to them, and I spoke very strongly on the need of maintaining production. As a result of my efforts, I got a decision that the preparatory men who had refused to strip would go down the pit next day and strip. That decision made the situation easier. I got in touch next day with the labour officer, and he put me in touch with the managing director of the company, and I got an arrangement that the 42 strippers would be allowed to go back to work on condition that they signed an agreement not to pursue ca'canny any more. I got a deputation of the men to visit the office of the trade union and discuss the matter with the trade union officials and come to an amicable understanding with them as to how the matter should be developed. As a result of this, the men returned to work, each of them signing an agreement not to carry on the ca'canny policy any more.

Two weeks later I got a telegram from the miners at Bowhill Pit telling me that five of the strippers had been dismissed and asking me to come to Bowhill. I saw the Minister and asked him to arrange for one of his representatives to meet me the following day at Bowhill so that we could have a talk with the men. The Ministry got in touch with Edinburgh and their representative met me there, and we met the strippers and discussed the situation. Those five men had a very low output, but each of them gave to the representative of the Ministry the reasons their particular output was low. In the case of the remainder of the 42 men, there was no question but that their output was good. Arising out of this meeting, I wrote a letter to Lord Traprain, and I received in reply a letter in which Lord Traprain informed me on the functions of a trade union. Not only did he inform me what the functions of a trade union are, but the Minister lined up with Lord Traprain and also informed me what the functions of a trade union are. I have been a member of my trade union and participated in all kinds of trade union activity for the last 30 or 40 years. I would like the Minister to tell me how long he and Lord Traprain have been in a trade union.

Who is this Lord Traprain? He is a director of three steel companies and the chairman of one steel company, a man who is intensely interested in cheap coal and in cheap labour in the coal industry. Associated with him, as Coal Controller in Scotland, is the Chairman of the Coal Production Committee. And who is the Chairman of the Coal Production Committee? Mr. Carlow Reid, managing director of the Fife Coal Company, who, when he went as Chairman of the Coal Production Committee, nominated his son as managing director of the company in his place. Sitting side by side with Lord Traprain is the leader of the Fife Coal Company, one of the ablest of the mine-owner's representatives in Scotland, and obviously capable of directing all that Lord Traprain is doing. I put a Question to the Minister on Tuesday. He suggested that I was putting a wrong interpretation on the letter. I will read it, in a moment and hon. Members can judge whether the Minister is concerned with protecting a Member of Parliament or with protecting this Scottish coalowner. I asked, following the Minister's reply to my Question: Is the Minister not aware that these strippers are being deliberately victimised arising out of the policy of the Fife Coal Company? Will he read the first paragraph of the letter from Lord Traprain if he says my interpretation is not correct? I meant him to read it to the House. He did not read it. The Fife Coal Company has a large number of pits in the Cowdenbeath area of my constituency, and the Wemyss Coal Company has a number of very important pits in the Buckhaven side of my constituency. Why is it that there is continual trouble with the Fife Coal Company and we never hear of any with the Wemyss Coal Company? I insist that it is because the Fife Coal Company are determined to bring the wages down to the lowest minimum of the district, and they have been pursuing this policy in the Bowhill Pit for several years. The Minister, in reply to my Supplementary Question, said: I not only will read it but I have read it. I would also recommend the hon. Member to read the last paragraph, with which I heartily agree, which says that it is not his business or that of the Ministry to interfere with the existing machinery. What machinery? Has not this House the right to approach the Minister, and has not the Minister the right to approach Lord Traprain? I asked: Am I to understand that Parliament, which guaranteed to protect the miners and other workers when their trade union rights were taken away, has no right to interfere? How dearly beloved the trade unions have become now. Ministers are anxious to leave everything to them, when they have not the power that they had to protect the men. The Minister answered: I never said anything of the sort. Mr. GALLACHER: The Minister referred me to the last paragraph. Major LLOYD GEORGE: I simply said, and it is important that the hon. Member should understand it, that there is machinery in existence between employers and men for negotiating wages, and it is not the purpose of this Ministry to interfere with that machinery. It is for the trade union concerned to ask for the assistance of my Ministry, in which case it will be forthcoming. Mr. SLOANE: Is it a matter for the Minister to intervene when 300 tons of coal per day are being lost?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1943; col. 1580, Vol. 386.] I should like hon. Members to pay attention to what I said in my letter to Lord Traprain arising out of that meeting held with representatives of the Ministry present, and I should like the Minister to pay particular attention to it. I do not like a non-unionist like the Minister or Lord Traprain instructing me in trade union matters.

This is my letter following that meeting: DEAR SIR, When the dismissed strippers at Bowhill returned to work they gave me a pledge quite voluntarily that if at any time trouble developed at the pit they would not stop work but would immediately communicate with me. This is a decision which the strippers took apart from signing an agreement with the firm. They took it on their own accord: When therefore a week ago four strippers were dismissed they wrote me about it without delay. Unfortunately through some mischance the letter did not reach me. Getting no reply, they sent a wire on Thursday urging me to go to Bowhill. I spoke to the Minister and asked him to get in touch with your office and ask for the services of Mr. Barbour. I am very pleased that he did so and that you found it possible to send Mr. Barbour and Mr. Heron to Bowhill. I cannot speak too highly of their conduct and of their handling of the situation. The strippers felt right away that they were men who fully understood their work and the difficulties arising out of it. Mr. Barbour spoke to them as though he had been down in the section sharing their toil. Mr. Heron put in a shrewd question here and there which always succeeded in clearing up points which were confused. I am sure the meeting with the frank exchange of views had the best possible effect on the men. Their grievances I will place before you and suggest for your consideration what might prove to be the remedy. The question of ton rate I will leave aside"— that is the question of wages— That is a matter for the union and I am sure it is being effectively handled. Is that clear enough for the Minister to understand? They do not have to tell me that the union deals with wages. I know it. The letter continues: The other matters in so far as they affect production are within your province. (1) Bowhill has always been a well paid pit. This because of the efforts and organisations of the men. For several years there has been a deliberate policy of trying to break the wages at Bowhill. The present manager is alleged to have said, 'I am here to break wages.' This policy which has caused trouble in a number of sections during the past several years must be stopped. (2) The manager is exceptionally offensive towards the men and many of the remarks attributed to him are sarcastic and insulting. One man in the presence of several others said to me, 'I am sometimes afraid to go into the pit. I am afraid I'll lose control of myself and find myself in jail.' You should send for the manager and have a serious talk with him. He must be made to understand the importance of co-operation between the management and the men if the best results are to be obtained. (3) The manager has no real authority or responsibility for running the pit. The pit is run by 'remote control.' Over the manager is an agent. Over the agent is the managing director, Doctor William Reid. Before the manager can decide any important issue he has to get the endorsement of the agent and of the even more 'remote control' at Cowdenbeath. This means that the manager or alleged manager must often suffer from frustration, and this would explain his cynical attitude towards the men. It is possible that what he meant in the phrase referred to in paragraph (2) is, 'I am not here to manage the pit. I am here to break wages.' Possibly something like that was in his mind, I consider it an impossible way to run an industry. I suggest that the manager be given full control of the running of the pit, and that authority to interfere, except through you, be taken away from the agent and from the managing director at Cowdenbeath. I am certain if the manager is given power and made responsible to you for production the trouble at Bowhill will come to an end and that it will surpass all other pits for production. That is the letter I sent to Lord Traprain on the question of what was holding up production, suggesting steps that could solve the problem and difficulties and increase production. As for the wages, that was a matter for the union. The Minister may say that the dispute secretary of the union, Mr. Peter Henderson, objected to my interfering in this affair. Of course he did. I do not know whether any of the other miners' unions have a dispute secretary, but in Fife there is a dispute secretary, and he is so harsh in his attitude that he will not let another official of the union interfere in any dispute. I am 100 per cent. for the union, but I do not want the argument brought up here that the dispute secretary was opposed to my taking part in any of these discussions, or in any pit discussions, without this being considered, because, as I have said, it is notorious that he objects even to the other officials of the union interfering when there is any dispute. It is his province and must be retained as his province, and nobody else dare cross the chalk line or take any part.

Lord Traprain sent me a reply to this letter. I invite the Minister to read to the House the first paragraph of that letter, because the Minister said that I misinterpreted Lord Traprain. I want him to get up and repeat that after I have read out the first paragraph. The Bowhill Pit is a high-paid pit. I have said that on two or three occasions, because this must be understood if we are to understand what the Fife Coal Company are doing, what Lord Traprain is conniving at, and what the Minister is conniving at. This is the letter: DEAR MR. GALLACHER, I have received your letter of the 3rd instant. I am somewhat surprised at the suggestion that the management at Bowhill is 'out to break wages.' I believe it is true to say that the Fife Coal Company have not broken a rate for the last 20 years. I suspect that the truth of this matter is that the company, while not wishing to break any existing rate, felt that future rates which had to be negotiated should be on the basis of those current in the district and should not be higher simply because the colliery happened to be Bowhill. Is not that clear enough to anyone, as clear as clear can be? We have been given the most wonderful promises about the future. A new world: security, better times than we have ever known before. We have been given the most attractive promises. If only the miners would work hard, if only the engineers and transport workers would work hard, oh what a square deal they would get in the future. Now the Fife mineowners, backed up by Lord Traprain and backed up by the Minister, inform us that, instead of better conditions for the future, the Fife miners are to have worse conditions for the future. In negotiations that affect the future the Bowhill Pit has to be brought down to the lower rate that applies in the district as a whole. It is there in the first paragraph. I challenge the Minister to repeat in this House the suggestion that I have misinterpreted Lord Traprain's letter. He is endorsing the policy of the Fife Coal Company, which is responsible for the trouble at Bowhill and is now responsible for trouble at another colliery, Valleyfield, where there is a strike on now. The letter went on: With regard to men's alleged complaint about the attitude of the manager, this should, in my opinion, be referred to the trade union and I do not propose to intervene. The attention of the Scottish Regional Controller is drawn to something which is of a very serious nature, as it affects production, by a Member of Parliament but he does not propose to take any notice of it. The Minister is anxious somehow or another to protect the trade unions.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Mr. Gallacher

But he does not seem to be concerned to protect the rights of Members of Parliament. I ask hon. Members, If we see in any district something happening which is holding back production, have we not the right to draw attention to it? Here is a man in Edinburgh, Lord Traprain, who is responsible, through the Minister, to Parliament. He is not responsible to the Trades Union Congress. Does the Minister want to suggest that?—but Lord Traprain says, "I am not prepared to recognise Parliament." He says that to a Member of Parliament, and the Minister endorses it. The Prime Minister has said, "I am a House of Commons man." But the Minister of Fuel and Power does not seem much interested in House of Commons men. He seems to be anxious to strip the House of Commons of any responsibility. Lord Traprain goes on: I feel bound to tell you, however, that Mr. Barbour does not share the views on the manager which you express in your letter and did not feel that the men made a very good case in this connection. There was another representative there who had been a manager himself in many pits, and he was sitting beside me taking notes. He agreed with me, I am certain, that, as a manager, he had never heard anything like what he had been hearing at that meeting. Why is he not mentioned? The letter goes on: With regard to your third point that you felt the manager suffered from too much interference from other officials of the company, I can say quite frankly that I should not feel justified in questioning the company's domestic policy on this sort of point unless I had good reason to believe that it was causing inefficiency. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to suggest that the Fife Coal Company is inefficiently run. I would like to ask the Minister how often the Fife Coal Company's pits have been closed or partially closed—sections stopped. That means something inefficient. If the manager at the Bowhill Pit was responsible to Lord Traprain for production, there would be a far better state of affairs than there is at present. The manager now cannot make a decision about anything, because he has to see the agent, and the agent cannot make a decision of importance because he has to see the managing director. Give the manager responsibility for the pit and make him responsible to Lord Traprain. Lord Traprain goes on: May I say in conclusion that I feel quite certain that your intervention in this matter is prompted by interest in increasing production? Very nice and patronising of Lord Traprain. I cannot say the same for him. His interest is not for increasing production but for getting down wages. He goes on: But the trade union exists to investigate grievances which the workers may have and to try and get them put right, if they are satisfied as to their substance, and the trade union officials in Fife would justifiably resent any interference on my, part where grievances are concerned unless such intervention came at their invitation. So please close down Parliament and leave Lord Traprain to attend to what is going on outside. Time and time again I have brought questions affecting industry before various Ministers, and I have received on different occasions letters from Ministers thanking me for having brought their attention to the various matters. As a consequence of having done so, changes have been brought about, and new conditions have been introduced that have been of the greatest value to production. For a man who is responsible to Parliament to dare to say that Members of Parliament have no right to take an interest in production, whether it is in a pit, an engineering shop, a railway or whatever it is, and to draw attention to wrongs they think should be righted, is intolerable and should not be allowed by this House. The 42 men, with the exception of five, continued working, and then a week ago the whole of them were dismissed again, and the managing director of the Fife Coal Company made a statement in the Press that the men had broken their word and were carrying on ca'canny again. The whole of the Scottish Press published what he said, and maybe some of the English Press also. There is not a word of truth in that. The impression was given that the men were working the way they were before they signed the agreement. I have the figures here in my possession, but I cannot deal with them just now. But the men showed me their pay lines from the Fife Coal Company, and there is the tonnage they were producing, and the tonnage they were producing proves that they were not pursuing a policy of "ca'canny," that they were doing their best to give production, but because of the determination to break the men and maybe because I had the audacity, as a Member of Parliament, to interfere, the men are dismissed, and before their appeal is decided—their appeal against dismissal—I get this letter: You will have received my further letter regarding developments at Bowhill about leaving the district. This has been cancelled by the National Service Officer in favour of a stricter measure. We have all or mostly all received notice to attend on Tuesday at Kirkcaldy for medical examination for the Armed Forces. There is such a demand for coal and strippers, they are so valuable, you cannot get them, and here you have a steel master, Lord Traprain, a director of three steel companies interested in cheap coal and cheap mining labour, conspiring with the Fife Coal Company to break the wages, and, because the men have resisted, to drive them out of the pit and break the spirit of the pit. There is some talk now, because there is a terrific ferment going on in Scotland about this, about making an inquiry. I want to know from the Minister whether there is to be an inquiry into the conduct of the Fife Coal Company in connection with this pit and the Valleyfield Pit, in order to ensure that the men who are employed by that company get full satisfaction, that they will get every opportunity for expressing their grievances and getting them remedied by a responsible manager at the pit. Give them that, and I am certain that from these pits you will get as high a production as, if not higher production than, from any other pits in the country.

Mr. Sloan (Ayrshire, South)

I do not want to take up the time of the Minister, who has to reply, except to say that I hope that in the course of his reply he will tell the House whether he is going to do anything in this dispute. The matter is becoming very serious. Calling up these men for medical-examinations is tantamount to saying, "If you do not accept the conditions the employers offer you it is you for the Army." They directed some of these men to work as far away as Northumberland, and because they refused to go to Northumberland they are now called for medical examination.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George)

I am sure the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will not mind my saying that he has taken a larger field for the remarks he has made than I thought he would have done in view of the Question last Tuesday. I am not complaining, but I am sure he will not expect me to cover the same wide field. As far as I can gather, he has charged me with trying to teach him his business as a trade unionist, of which I fail to find any evidence in anything that I have said or written; also, he has made a vicious personal attack on the Controller for Scotland, which is entirely without justification, in support of which he has produced no evidence whatsoever; and I absolutely deny everything that he has said about him. I stand by my answer last Tuesday, that the implication that the hon. Gentleman drew from that letter is not the right inference. I have read it several times since, and I still think so. He suggested that I am making an attack on the rights of Members of Parliament. Where on earth does he get any support for that contention?

Mr. Gallacher

When Lord Traprain says, and you support him in saying, that he is not prepared to listen to a Member of Parliament drawing attention to something that is holding up production, or that a Member of Parliament considers is holding up production, is not that sufficient?

Major Lloyd George

Not only did he not say it, but I have never said it. May I go further? On the only occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has come to me to ask whether he could get assistance from my regional controller in order that he might use his influence with his constituents, who are miners at Bowhill, I went out of my way to send a telephone message to my office in Scotland asking that every facility should be put at the hon. Gentleman's disposal—and may I say, in passing, that I got into serious trouble with the union in Fife for doing it?

Mr. Gallacher

There you are.

Major Lloyd George

The hon. Gentleman did not disclose to me at the time that he was going up in connection with this particular dispute, but he said that he would be able to use his influence with those men who were doing this "ca'canny." I was very grateful, and went out of my way to help him, because I thought he had the same object in mind as I had.

Mr. Gallacher

I showed the Minister the telegram I got from the Bowhill miners, saying that five had been dismissed and that the situation was very serious. I said that I was going up on the night train, and would he arrange for his representatives to come and meet me? I know that after that an objection was made by the disputes secretary of the union. He wrote to Lord Traprain and objected, and as a result of that objection I got the letter from Lord Traprain which I have read, refusing to recognise a Member of Parliament.

Major Lloyd George

That is not so, and I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with it. If I may say so with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have as much love for Parliament as he has. I have always considered it the right of Members of Parliament to be given every facility to assist their constituents. We are all agreed on that. I go further, and say that it is the right of trade unions who represent organised labour in this country to conduct negotiations on behalf of the men they represent. I personally—and I think I can say this for any Minister, and I could say it for myself when a private Member—would not interfere with a dispute unless I was asked to do so by the union concerned. I repeat that in no single instance since my Ministry has been set up has anyone on my premises ever interfered with the existing machinery set up for this very purpose. As far as I am concerned, I should be very sorry to say that that had happened, because collective bargaining is a long recognised principle in this country, and I have had from this particular union the very greatest assistance with regard to the production of coal. I really cannot go into the merits of this dispute at the moment, because it is a matter which, as I say, must be left to the machinery which exists. All I would say is that the hon. Gentleman's accounts of the proceedings on the whole are accurate. But he talks about victimisation. Where I quarrel with him is that he charges the Controller for Scotland, wrongly, without any justification whatever, of being a party to a policy to cut the rates of that company. He has shown no tittle of evidence for that. In the first instance, the dispute, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, at the men's request went to arbitration.

Mr. Gallacher

At the request of or endorsed by.

Major Lloyd George

At the request of the men. What is to be the position, if, when an arbitration has decided against a party, that party will not accept it? What is to become of any bargaining at all if you say, "I accept arbitration," and you have a reservation in your own mind that you will only accept it if it goes your own way?

Mr. Gallacher

Do not misrepresent the men. The men were in favour of a neutral chairman deciding on the question of 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d., or anything between 1s. 6d. and 1s. 9d., and if that had been the issue, as the men understood it was to be, in going before a neutral chairman, there would have been no complaint.

Major Lloyd George

The hon. Gentleman himself in the course of his remarks stated that the owners' original offer was 1s. 6d.

Mr. Gallacher

1s. 5d. rising to 1s. 6d.

Major Lloyd George

Naturally when you go to arbitration all previous proposals are removed. He said so himself.

Mr. Gallacher

The men did not understand it.

Major Lloyd George

I am not suggesting that the men did not take that point of view. I am arguing the particular point of view of arbitration; whether it had been said that a neutral chairman was to arbitrate between 1s. 6d. and 1s. 9d. is another story. He was there to arbitrate about rates, and he came to the conclusion that 1s. 5d. was a fair rate. I am not asking whether it was or was not, but I am saying that that was the decision of the neutral chairman. It would be a deplorable state of affairs if you got into the state of mind, "If you do not like a decision, you do not accept it." You could not get anywhere, whether a trade union or an individual. He went on further to say that, as a resentment against this, the men followed a decision of ca'canny, and later they signed a statement that they would not use a policy of ca'canny, which, here again, rightly or wrongly, they were alleged to have pursued, and I must say the company dismissed them again. There is an appeal pending at the moment with regard to the men who have been dismissed a second time. I believe it is to be heard some time this week, and therefore I do not think it would be an advantage to pursue that point at the moment. They have taken advantage of the right given under the Order to appeal to the local appeal board, and that appeal will be heard, and they can put their side of the case, and the hon. Member knows that, if they make out their case, they are reinstated. Therefore I do not think it would be wise for us at this moment to discuss that any further.

Mr. Sloan

What about the medical examination?

Major Lloyd George

I had no notice about that; but I think it has been cancelled.

Mr. Gallacher

The men say that the order transferring them to another district is cancelled but that they have been ordered to report for a medical examination.

Major Lloyd George

As I have said, I had no notice that this point was to be raised, and it is a little difficult to reply offhand. My information is that the examination has been cancelled, but I will check it before I sit down.

Mr. Sloan

Thank you.

Major Lloyd George

It has just been confirmed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the order for medical examination has been cancelled. In any case the appeal has not been heard. I am most anxious to do all I possibly can to see that any ill-feeling is removed, but I am bound to say that it does no good to create the impression that the officers under my control—and in my judgment the one in question is an honourable, independent man—are doing something for some interests other than the interests of the State. It does not help the feeling we have in mind. I know the hon. Member for West Fife does his best to get the output up, and if the company had bludgeoned its way through the machinery for adjusting wages I think there would have been something to be said for it. But the fact is that an independent chairman was accepted by both sides. Having had the award, I think we are entitled to expect that it should be carried out. It is of the greatest importance at the present time, not only to see that no injustice is done, but also to see that every effort is made to produce the coal that is necessary for this country. In one way the hon. Gentleman has rendered a service, because he has enabled me to get up and say that although I recognise, as I always have, the right of Members of Parliament in regard to their constituents, still more is it the function of the machinery that exists to deal with wages and conditions of men without interference, unless by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Murray (Spennymoor)

Are the men now asking 1s. 5d. a ton? If they are, has the Minister any record of the wages that are being earned at this rate?

Major Lloyd George

I could not say without notice.

Mr. McLean Watson (Dunfermline)

There is one question arising out of this matter that will concern the mining Members of this House, and that is that part of the machinery that was set up when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman took office—the machinery dealing with pit production committees. We had pit production committees before, but a change was made, this new machinery was set up, and we were assured, and hoped, that the pit production committees would do something to keep the wheels running smoothly in the coal pits. But from what has been going on in my own area it does not seem that these committees are performing any useful function in that respect. Not only have they been brushed aside in this dispute, but it seems that the Miners' Union itself has been brushed aside——

Major Lloyd George

The hon. Member really has no right to say that the Miners' Union has been brushed aside. On the contrary, it has never been out of it.

Mr. Watson

I may not express myself clearly. I know that the Miners' Union had been in this. I should know, because I am the only Member of the House who is a member of the Fife Miners' Union.

Major Lloyd George

The hon. Member said it had been brushed aside.

Mr. Watson

The House heard what my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, that while the dispute secretary was handling this dispute at Bowhill, he objected even to his own colleagues in the union coming into the matter.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. I do not want the hon. Member to misrepresent what I said. I said that the dispute secretary had objected to my coming into this matter. I said that he objected when any other official came into it.

Mr. Watson

That is exactly what I said. My idea of what should happen when a dispute arises in a coalfield is that, first of all, whether it be a dispute affecting an individual, a section or a pit, it should go to the Miners' Union delegate, and from him to the miners' office, to be dealt with officially by the miners. I have been a Member of the House longer than my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife, and I have never sought to interfere in the affairs of the Fife Miners' Union. I have allowed them to manage their own affairs. My hon. Friend was quite entitled to do what he considered right; the colliery is in his constituency, and as far as I am concerned, he is entitled to do as he thinks right. I am trying to impress upon the House what has been and what ought to be the procedure for dealing with disputes.

There is this much to be kept in mind with regard to this matter, that if the Fife Coal Company have made up their mind to break wages in the County of Fife, or in the area covered by the company, they have more than Bowhill to deal with. That is not the only highly paid colliery under the Fife Coal Company; there are more. It may be true that they are trying it on Bowhill first before trying it on any of the other collieries. There is no trouble at the moment at the other highly paid collieries, nor has there been for a very considerable time. Therefore, it may not be simply because of the high wages earned at Bowhill colliery that this trouble has arisen. We have the pit production committees, whose sole object was to be to increase production. The question of dealing with absenteeism was taken out of their hands so that they could concentrate on production. Evidently they have taken no part in this matter, and while it is true the matter has been before the Fife Miners' Union, that does not exhaust the machinery at the disposal of the miners, because in addition to the Fife Miners' Union there is the National Union of Scottish Mineworkers to whom the dispute could have been referred. If they could not deal with it, in the last resort there was the British Miners' Federation. All that machinery was there to deal with the dispute. While it may be true that something had to be done right away on the spot, at the same time it will be deplorable if the situation at Bowhill is not cleared up. In addition, there are other collieries in the county where there has been trouble for a good long time, and it would be a blessing, not only for the industry, but for the pit production committees——

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.