HL Deb 26 February 1919 vol 33 cc339-47

Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, I have now to ask your Lordships to pass this Bill through all its stages to-day in order that it may receive the Royal assent at the earliest possible moment, and so authorise the effective inception of the Commission which the Bill seeks power to establish. Your Lordships are, I am sure, familiar with the situation. What has passed recently in another place has, I think, made it more than ever urgent that despatch should be shown by this House. I accordingly make the Motion which is on the Paper.

Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI. and XXXIX. be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting so that the Coal Industry Commission Bill may have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that it may be passed through all its stages.—(The Earl of Crawford.)

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I need not say that I do not rise in any way to oppose the Motion which the noble Earl has made, or indeed to complain of the action of His Majesty's Government in bringing it forward. The national position, as we all know, is far too grave for us to take any thought of our own amour propre in this matter, or even of the amour propre of your Lordships' House. But I do think that it is necessary to point out on this occasion that the effect of the Motion made by the noble Earl is practically to reduce to a nullity the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I think it may be assumed that when we reach the Committee stage the noble Earl will point out to us that it is practically impossible for us to send the Bill back with any material Amendments, or even drafting Amendments, to another place, in view of the necessity of its being submitted to the Royal Commission this evening. That may be a necessity—I do not dispute it—and I am quite sure that it is deplored by nobody more than the noble Earl opposite. But, of course, it does reduce the position to this—that although, I suppose, some speeches will be made by your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, for all the effect they will have they might just as well be made at the Oxford Union. It will hardly be supposed that the newspapers will even go to the trouble of reporting a debate of that kind which can have no conceivable effect upon the position in this House or out of it. That being so, I can only express—what I believe is shared by many of your Lordships' House—a feeling of profound regret that His Majesty's Government have found it necessary to take this course. But the urgency cannot possibly be disputed; not merely days but even hours are valuable in this particular instance. The noble Earl, therefore, has an irrefragable case; but it is, I think, a most deplorable necessity.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I beg leave to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships have been discussing the general labour situation for two or three days, and that debate will be resumed next week. I therefore think that it is probably unnecessary to go into the broad aspects of the particular difficulty in the coal-mining industry, and I suggest that I should confine my remarks to a brief outline of the clauses of this Bill.

I may remind the House that the demands put forward by the coal miners consisted of a demand for a six-hours day, for a 30 per cent. increase in wages, for nationalisation of the mines or something of that character, and for special demobilisation terms for men engaged in working in and about coal mines. This demand reached the Coal Controller, and through him the Government, a very short time ago, and an offer was made to increase the wages by 1s. a day upon the existing war wage to meet increased cost of living; and furthermore that an immediate Inquiry should take place in order to investigate other problems which were raised by these demands.

I imagine that everybody is familiar with the subsequent course of the controversy. This Bill is presented in pursuance of the decision of the Government to make the investigation to which I have referred. An Act of Parliament is necessary in order to invest the Inquiry with statutory powers, to give it full powers to conduct its investigations in the completest possible manner. The second clause of the Bill confers upon the Commission practically all the rights, privileges, and powers which are vested in the High Court of Justice. The Commission therefore has power to order the production of papers and documents, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of any evidence it may desire; and there is a penal clause under which any person who infringes these instructions can be committed for contempt of Court. At one time, I understand, it was contemplated that the names of the Commissioners should be inserted in the Bill. That has not been carried out in practice, though it has been announced that Mr. Justice Sankey will act as Chairman of the Commission. But the personnel of the Inquiry is largely dependent upon the decision taken by the miners who, I understand, are to-day discussing their attitude on the subject.

I readily acknowledge the justice of what was just said by Lord Crewe. I deplore, as sincerely as he does, the fact that a Bill of this magnitude and complexity—not the Bill itself because that is a simple thing, but the issue governed by the Bill—should have to be pressed forward at such short notice. But I am afraid we are almost helpless in the matter. The fifth clause gives the Commissioners the power to make Interim Reports, and instructs them as soon as practicable to make an Interim Report on the questions of wages and hours of work of the colliery workers. That does not specify in legal terms the actual date on which these gentlemen are expected to finish their Report upon that aspect of the question; but the Prime Minister has promised that the first part of the Report—namely, that relating to wages and hours—should be submitted on March 20. General questions—those, for instance, dealing with the organisation of the industry as a whole—can be dealt with under less pressure and at a subsequent date. Any Reports which are prepared by the Commission will in due course be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

I must admit that the time available is very short for a subject of such magnitude, but a great deal of preliminary work on the one side and the other has already been accomplished. A good deal of valuable evidence is already in the hands of the various Government Departments, and between now and the third week of March probably a great deal of good work can be done to elucidate this problem of hours and wages. If there is any technical point in the clauses of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will no doubt reply on questions of practice and procedure. Meanwhile, on the main principle of the Bill, I commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)

THE EARL OF LINDSAY

My Lords, I should like to enter a protest against what I consider to be the utterly inadequate time that is going to be allotted to this Commission to make their inquiry regarding the advance of 30 per cent. in the men's wages and the reduction in the hours from eight to six. I understand that the Commission will assemble on March 3, that they will not commence to take evidence until March 5, and that their labours are to be concluded by March 20. That is, roughly speaking, a fortnight. I think we shall all agree that, considering the scope and magnitude of the Inquiry, this time is all too short. We all know and sympathise with the reason for cutting down the time allotted to the Commission; it is, if possible, to avert what would be nothing more or less than a. national calamity—a great strike. But when we come to consider the area covered by the coalfields of Great Britain and Ireland—I understand that Ireland is included—and when we further consider that there are some 3,000 to 4,000 collieries affected, it will be seen how utterly impossible in the time allotted it will be to get anything like as complete evidence as one would wish. Then you should further bear in mind that the conditions of working, wages, and many other things vary considerably in different districts, not only in regard to coalfields as widely separated as Northumberland and Somerset, but in places situated quite close together, where the conditions are entirely different. For instance, South and West Yorkshire have always claimed to be, and are, on an entirely different footing from one another with regard to wages, &c.

I view with grave suspicion this evident anxiety of the miners' leaders in the other House, and those who are evidently more interested in the nationalisation of mines, to divide the task of this Commission into portions. I do not think it is right; I believe that eventually it will work out disadvantageously to the scope of the whole finding. They ought to have been kept together, and then the Inquiry would have been of greater value. If, as the men's leaders say, their plans are based upon justice and they are certain they can be granted without any damage being done to existing interests, what harm is there in a little further delay? What difference will it make if this Inquiry lasts, say, another month or even six weeks, which, after all, is only a reasonable time? I do not think that the public or a great many of the members of either House of Parliament fully grasp the meaning of these demands. I am pretty well acquainted with the workings in one portion of the coalfields of England, and I do not believe that these demands are put forward by the men themselves. They are put forward by a group of leaders and men who desire to put the owners in an impossible position. It is not the case of holding a revolver to one's head, but a "75." They know perfectly well that their demands cannot possibly be acceded to.

If I may be allowed to refer to it, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his speech yesterday made a statement which I think might give grounds for misapprehension, though I am sure he did so un- intentionally. He stated that what excited a great amount of distrust and suspicion amongst the men was that on previous occasions, whenever demands of this or a similar kind had been made, they had always been put off by the owners of the industries affected saying their demands were likely to jeopardise, if not to ruin, the industries concerned. He went on to say that these prognostications had never been fulfilled, though the men had always had their requests acceded to. With all due respect to the noble Earl, I entirely disagree with him. I agree to this extent, that their demands have always been acceded to, but at whose expense? It has always been at the expense of the public, who have to pay in the long run.

I will give your Lordships a recent instance. Some of you may be aware that the last two advances to the miners of 2s. each, totalling 4s., were agreed to in order to meet the increased cost of living. What happened? The owners were obliged to go to the Controller, the late Sir Guy Calthrop, whose early demise we all so deeply deplore and whose advice at this juncture would have been of immense value. He was obliged to accede to the owners' request and allow them to add an additional 4s. to the selling price. This sum was ear-marked specifically for the men's wages, and any sum not used up as such had to be returned to the Controller. That is an exact example of what will happen in this case. I do not know whether your Lordships have any idea of what this modest request will mean to you and to the country, but it has been computed, and I think very modestly, that on the average it will mean an additional cost of at least 8s. per ton. Your Lordships can very easily work out what that will amount to, and what the public will have to pay.

The real reason why I have risen is that. I have always regarded this House as the guardian of the public and the public interest, and I think it will be very wrong if, having regard to what will be the after effects of this Inquiry, a protest is not made at this juncture, and if I do not point out that the time allotted to this Commission in which to take evidence on this very important subject, is in my opinion far too short.

VISCOUNT WIMBORNE

My Lords, I only wish to ask a question, and that is whether the date March 20, which I understand is not in the Bill, is conditional upon the miners' representatives taking their place upon the Commission of Inquiry. I should be glad if the point could be cleared up, because the advantage of getting the miners to take part in the Inquiry is clear, and I understood from the debate in another place yesterday that there was a sort of understanding that the date had been modified to attract them to come and take a hand in the Inquiry.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I do not think that I did as a matter of fact say what the noble Lord opposite ascribes to me, as to the capitalist saying he would be ruined by each advance and yet surviving, but I have not much hesitation in associating myself with the sentiment. I do think that we cannot discuss this Bill usefully this afternoon—we have not time and shall not have the opportunity—and it is a most unfortunate thing that the Inquiry itself should be so rushed. To that extent I should be quite prepared to associate myself with the noble Lord opposite, in saying that into an industry so large and so complex you cannot have anything like a reasonable Inquiry in what is practically a fortnight's working time. I raised a point yesterday as to nationalisation, as to which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said nothing, and I suggested then, what I think was rather borne out afterwards by the remarks of the most rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of York, that an announcement on that subject would possibly stave off immediate proceedings on the part of the men. I rather gather, if I am correctly informed by the journals this morning, that they have agreed or are likely to agree to postpone the actual strike, on the understanding that this Report will be ready by March 20, and, if so, the immediate object is gained. I think it is the Government, and the Government alone, who are to blame for the hurried nature of the Inquiry. These matters ought to have been taken in hand months ago, and it has been known for months that the situation was acute. In the circumstances we can say nothing useful, but must simply let the Commission be set up and hope for the best from an Inquiry which is clearly not an Inquiry in the sort of atmosphere in which one would consider the matter with a reasonable chance of arriving at an honest solution as between the parties.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I only rose to concur entirely with what has fallen from the noble Earl who has just spoken, but I submit to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that if a Minister of Cabinet rank makes such a pronouncement as was made more than three months ago, surely it should be possible on another occasion for the Government to take the matter into sufficient consideration to avoid such a most unfortunate state of facts as has how arisen. After all, there are many men in this House with great acquaintance with the coal trade, but it does not need great acquaintance with the trade to know that there is a vast difference between different classes of mines, and that it would be absolutely impossible for one body of men, many of whom have had no previous acquaintance with the subject, to arrive at a proper solution, dealing with the whole trade, in the time suggested. For any of us to attempt to debate the Bill this afternoon would be lending ourselves to a farce, and we can only accept the situation which has arisen and trust that the noble Earl will do his best to prevent our being placed in a similar position should other difficulties of a like kind arise in connection with other trades.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, I think Lord Russell is wrong in saving that these demands were made months ago. Certainly one of the most difficult of the demands to accede to was that dealing with demobilisation, which has only reached the authorities within a very few weeks from to-day.

EARL RUSSELL

The one as to demobilised men receiving pay?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Yes. Some of the demands are in effect quite new. I am afraid I have to express my agreement with much of the criticism that has fallen from your Lordships. I would demur, as an admirer and advocate of this House, to the view taken very strongly by Lord Crewe, that because it is not in the power of this House to amend a Bill discussion is therefore fruitless. I do not accept that view, and I do not think that the value of discussions in this House is to be measured by the number of Amendments which we put into Bills. If your Lordships think it is farcical to present this Bill to Parliament, I can only express my regret. Lord Wimborne asked me as to the actual date of the Report. The Bill states that the Report shall be made as soon as practicable. I am informed that, if the miners join the Inquiry, March 20 is the date by which the Report can be expected.

VISCOUNT WIMBORNE

It is conditional then?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

If they do not join the Inquiry, it is contemplated that it will not be finished by the 20th. But there is a material point which I think has not received enough notice in this brief conversation℄namely, that these Reports will be Interim Reports, not Final Reports. Everybody admits that the time is short and the subject is large. There are wide variations in conditions and practice of coal-mining, not merely from one end of the country to another, but from one corner of a county to another. Everybody knows that and acknowledges it. If your Lordships will read the terms of Clause 5 you will see that the Commissioners shall make as soon as practicable an Interim Report on the questions of wages and hours. That, I think, puts a different complexion on what was stated by my noble friend Lord Midleton. I can only add that Mr. Justice Sankey, the Chairman, has been consulted on this question, and, though I dare say he would like a longer interval of time, he has said that it would be possible to issue the first general review of the position by that date in an interim fashion, assuming that he can get the help of the miners.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read 3a, and passed.

Forward to