Lords Sitting of 11 December 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROTHESAY CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY rose to call attention to the low wages paid in the coal mining industry and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to deal with the mine workers' demand for an additional two shillings per shift; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think no apology is needed for bringing this Motion before your Lordships because we are facing once again a very grave position in the coal mining industry, which may well in the next fortnight result in one of those economic catastrophes which have devasted this industry so frequently in past years, and which it ought to be the responsibility of everyone in this country to do all in his power to avoid. So nothing I shall say this afternoon will make more difficult the position, but my object will be to try to provide a means by which both sides may get out of an intolerable impasse with advantage in the end not only to both sides but to the whole country.
We are faced with the fact that the mine workers have by a 90 per cent. majority of those who voted—the vast majority of the members of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain—decided that they feel so deeply on the subject of the need of their members for even a bare living wage that they are prepared to take action to attempt to enforce that very natural desire on their part. And one cannot forget the fact that the coal miners represent about one-tenth of the whole population of our country. There are 939,000 registered coal miners to-day, of whom unfortunately over 200,000 are unemployed, and with their families they represent a very large proportion of the inhabitants of this country. The Government clearly were aware of the difficulties and dangers of the situation, for there was included in the King's Speech a reference to this problem of securing improved conditions in the coal mining industry, and that is receiving the consideration of the Ministry. I feel that here is a case in which perhaps above all Parliament may intervene to try to take an impartial point of view, and perhaps to attempt to aid in the securing of a settlement. That would be a very fine position for your Lordships to take up, if we can secure common agreement in this attempt.
In the first place I want to remind the House that wages in the coal mining industry are very low indeed. It is a fact that the average wage of all those engaged in the industry is only just over 44s. a week, or £115 a year. That figure includes not only those engaged on the face and at the surface, but certain ethers who earn considerably higher amounts than that—namely, deputies, firemen and certain other better paid groups in the industry. That wage also is calculated before deductions are made from the miner's wage for explosives, tools, and certain other things. I noticed that the Mining Association, which is the owners' association, in an article in The Times a few days ago said that the average wage gained by those working at the face was 62s. But we have to remember that if any large proportion of the mine workers get 62s. and if the average is just over 44s. then there must be many below the average to make up for those who are gaining wages above that amount. In point of fact I have a number of pay sheets which show cases in which men work five or six days and

171
only take home for themselves and their wives and their families sums far below that. I have one case here of a man who for five days' work took home £18s. 5½d. He happens to be a man with three children. I have another case of a, man who took home for six days' work £1 13s.; and there are tens of thousands of cases in which the actual wage taken home is much less than the average wage of 44s. 5d. which is the average throughout the industry.
It is worth while to analyse how these wages are calculated, and I venture to think that members of your Lordships' House who may not have taken a detailed interest in this subject would be very well advised to obtain from the Printed Paper Office from time to time the annual and the quarterly statistical summaries of the coal mining industry. It is issued by the Mines Department at the price of a penny, and it gives an extremely interesting analysis of the economic position of the coal mining industry. In the calculation of the price received for coal it is a fact that the mine workers have no access to the figures upon which these prices are based, and that for years has been a bone of contention. The miners' wages are based on a minimum rate plus a certain percentage—for example, 22½per cent. in South Wales, and then they have added to that a percentage, which varies in the districts, of the difference between the cost of production and the ascertained price of the coal produced and sold from the pit head. It is true that the mine workers get something like 83, 85 or 87 per cent. of that difference, and the mine owners get anything from 13 or 15 to 17 per cent.; but in the calculation of that total sum, the profits of which are divided up in the percentages I have mentioned, the mine workers have no access to the figures upon which the sums available are based, and have constantly complained that they are not in a position to know whether in fact there are unfairnesses, inaccuracies, or malpractices in the calculation of those figures.
Take an example. We find that the costs of stores and timber, management, salaries, insurances, repairs, office and general expenses, depreciation and so on, vary in different districts, and the whole country is divided into nine different districts for the purpose of these figures. In one district there
172
is a total per ton of 4s. 9¼d., in another district only 3s. 2¾. I mention farthings because even farthings are of vital importance; they make a difference of tens of thousands of pounds in the amounts of wages available for distribution. For example, in these costs of production, stores, and timber we know, but it has to be brought out by proof, and we are not in a position to prove the details, that there are cases in which pit-props are, or may be, sold to producing undertakings at a higher price than the actual reasonable price for these pit-props in order to reduce the amount of money available for distribution.
We have cases in South Wales where there are companies who import pit-props from France, and by an agreement with France there is an arrangement by which, for every two thousand tons of pit-props imported into this country, the importer has the right to export three thousand tons of British coal. He has a quota of three thousand tons of exports to France, and not being himself a producer of coal he sells that right at an average price of 2s. or 3s. per ton of coal to companies, or to factors who buy from companies, and who must therefore include the 2s. or 3s. per ton which they have paid for the right to export in the eventually ascertained pit-head price received for the coal so exported. In other words, were it not for that 2s. or 3s.—I came across a case where 3s. 9d. per ton was paid for the right to export—there would be that much more money available in the calculation of the pit-head price received for the coal, and therefore that amount of money more available for distribution in additional wages to the workers in the industry.
We have another case which I venture to mention in passing. In the costs of production we have the contributions to the Miners' Welfare Fund which your Lordships will remember were reduced from 1d. to ½d. per ton about three years ago. That is a perfectly legitimate cost of production, but one effect of that reduction is that there is so much less comfort for the miners, so much less instruction in safety arrangements for them, particularly for the young miners, and therefore that reduction of:½d. actually contributes so much to the number of accidents that take place in the industry. This is only ½d., and

173
½d. does not seem much; but 1d. per ton is approximately £1,000,000 in Great Britain, and therefore ½d. represents £500,000 taken away from the additional comfort, welfare and safety instruction of the miners. Then, of course, we have the question of royalties, representing something like 5d. and 6d. per ton; and we are very glad that the Government are going to socialise the royalties in this country in the same way, broadly, as the oil reserves were to be nationally owned. This we welcome. I do not say that in any offensive way. I do not want to "pull the leg" of the Government about these things in the very least. We do welcome that honestly and sincerely, and I need say no more about it.
Now we come to the actual total proceeds per ton of commercially disposable coal. Here we come across a very difficult position, because once again, wish to emphasise, the mine workers have no access to the calculations upon which these proceeds are based. We know, for example, that there are ancillary companies connected with the coal mining industry under which, by interlocking directorships or by means of shareholdings in subsidiary companies or by other means, coal can be transferred to a subsidiary company at a cost at or below the cost of production, so showing in the books of the colliery undertakings no profit on that particular sale. There is no means of checking this. We may have interlocking directorships under which directors may get no profits from the coal mines on the right hand, because they have sold coal at or below cost to iron and steel undertakings on their left hand, but they may secure a large and unreasonable profit from these undertakings; and by showing a loss on coal on the one side they are able to depress the industry and show a loss in that particular district or in the industry as a whole.
The reply of the Mining Association—and I venture to think tile Mining Association does rather less than justice to many of the mine owners who would not desire to be associated with the less reputable arguments of the Mining Association in this matter—claims, as it did a few days ago in a letter in The Times, that because independent accountants appointed by the mine workers can look at the final figures and the books, therefore there is no possibility of the mine
174
workers being cheated. The Mining Association asked: What better safeguard could be provided? Our answer to that is that when this matter came before the Royal Commission in 1925, and the same argument was produced, the accountants admitted that a correct estimation of the quality of the coal transferred to other concerns was very difficult for the accountants to deal with. I quote from the Report of the Commission:
"We have to rely upon the description in the books and upon information given us by the colliery officials."
And the Royal Commission itself, after dealing with the assertion that abuses occurred under this head, said that
"it is impossible for us, as the result of our inquiry, to give the miners a definite assurance that it does not and cannot happen."
Therefore the mine owners are relying on a claim which the Royal Commission has said cannot be upheld when they say that the mine workers have full access to information and are fully protected.
Let us take another aspect of this selling price. Let me discuss for one instant the question of the big public utility undertakings, gas and electricity undertakings, in this country. If we transfer coal at a very low price to these undertakings we are able to depress the wages paid to the miners and recoup ourselves for the losses in the industry by obtaining high profits from the public utility undertakings. I do not profess to be an expert in public utility undertakings, but f noticed a paragraph in the Financial News of December 3 in which it was stated that the reports of over forty gas and electric light undertakings showed profits amounting to £15,000,000. Why that is almost enough to pay the whole of the demand of the mine workers for 2s. a clay increase in pay, which would only cost a total of £18,000,000. Those profits alone in forty companies are enough to meet that demand. Now there are hundreds of those companies in this country and, as they are statutory companies, few if any of them can ever make anything but a profit, and therefore it would seem that here is not an unreasonable source of an additional amount available in the industry for extra wages.
Again, I saw a suggestion in the newspapers that it had been proposed that

175
these public utility companies, in the crisis with which the nation as a whole finds itself faced, might contribute to a peaceful solution by being prepared to cancel their very long-term contracts and renew those contracts at a slightly better price paid for the coal they use. After all, coal is the source from which we all draw light and heat and power. Whether we draw it from benzol, whether we draw it from gas, whether we draw it from coke, coalite, electricity, coal is the original source of all these things, and we feel that it is unfair that the profits should be drained away from the pit head and given to industries like electricity and gas, leaving the actual producers of the coal in a position of not being able to get a living wage out of the coal they produce. That was brought out in a speech made in the House of Commons a few days ago by a young miners' Member in a maiden speech in which he said:
"We have selling agencies and subsidiary companies that are now taking very substantial sums of the money that is ultimately obtained for coal. Indeed there are some very large colliery companies who transfer the coal from the pit tops at a certain fixed price—a price fixed artificially by a committee of coalowners. They transfer that coal to themselves as subsidiary companies, and then transfer it again from their subsidiary to another subsidiary in France, or Genoa or the Argentine, and many other parts of the world, and the profits that are made upon the transference of coal from one subsidiary to another never enter into the pit-head price which determines the workmen's wages."
It is an extraordinary thing that when we examine the figures of the colliery companies they may show not inconsiderable profits, but when those figures become translated into the official figures issued by the Mines Department, they tell a different tale. For example, I notice that in the South Wales ascertainment for 1934 there is a loss shown of £173,000 or 1⅓d. per ton, but when we examine the balance sheets of the colliery companies operating in South Wales we find quite a different result. We find, for example, that three quarters of the coal produced in South Wales is making a profit of well over £1,000,000 a year, and the remaining quarter is showing a loss of under £500,000, leaving at least—and those figures are difficult to counter—a profit of somewhere about £600,000 or £700,000 as against the loss claimed in
176
the official figures of £173,000; and those profits are obtained after deductions which I do not think are entirely justifiable.
Let me give your Lordships one example. There has been an increasing practice in the coal mining industry of turning ordinary share-holding into debenture share-holding. The great insurance companies and the banks hold large blocks of debentures in the colliery companies which have taken the place of the old ordinary holdings, with the result that whereas dividends on the ordinary holdings will be calculated as profits of the companies, debenture interest is a liability on the companies; and is paid before any profits are calculated. Therefore you would be able, if the whole of the interest was debenture interest, to show no profits earned by the colliery company. And the percentage which has been transferred from ordinary to debenture holdings is increasing every year, and is, therefore, being used to depress the apparent profits and make them nit appear in the figures submitted in the balance sheets of the companies. That is very serious. It is perfectly legal, but it means in the first place that the whole of a wage agreement based on an ordinary share policy becomes year by year deliberately vitiated by the adoption of a debenture policy—a policy the effect of which the mine workers have no means of calculating, have no means of knowing to what extent it is affecting the ascertainments upon which their wages are based.
There is no one here who would wish to tolerate a system which is so manifestly unfair, if I am right in my claim, and which is affecting the standard of life of one of the most deserving bodies of men in this country. There is no one in this House who would be unfair like that. I would say that perhaps, in so far as we are aware of conditions, the outstanding characteristic of this House would be a desire for fairness. Here is a chance of showing that fairness by ensuring that we are able to find out what is the position in this industry and not leave it to a question of mine owners' information only, with a suspicion on the part of the mine workers, which has been growing into certainty over the last ten or fifteen years, that all is not well, that there is something to hide. Why should the economic side of

177
this industry be all the time on the basis of secrecy? Even at committees in the coalfields, where the mine workers attend as members of those committees, figures dealing with the economic side of the industry handed to those miners are taken away from them after the meeting in order that there may be no possibility of the figures ever being made public. Why this secrecy? Directly we get all this secrecy in an industry we begin to think there must be something wrong in that industry.
If we examine in all the districts the wages paid we find there are immense variations. There are groups in which the wages are reaching an average, with allowances, of neatly 11s. a ton, whereas in other districts the wages paid on an average are down to 8s.6d. or 8s. 9d. a ton. Why these differences? The miners claim that this is a national industry and that if we were to realise that it is a national industry we should be able to secure far better organisation of the whole industry so that it could pay a better wage. Let me point out that in the calculation of their allowances the mine workers have no voice and have no access to the books. If a mine owner says that the value of the miners' allowances in coal is equal to 5½d. a ton the mine workers have to accept that. That is not fair. From time immemorial in the mining industry there has been this suspicion, so much so that for almost a century I suppose the mine workers have appointed their own representatives, checkweighmen, to watch the weighing of the coal produced to see that they are not cheated. There may not necessarily be deliberate cheating, but if there is even a suspicion of that no one interested in peace in the coal industry and in the prosperity of the country ought to stand in the way of removing that suspicion if it exists—and it does exist.
The districts show enormous variations in profits and losses. Last year the highest loss in one district was nearly 3d. a ton whereas in another district the highest profit was nearly 1s. 4d. You expect variations in different quarters of the year because in the summer quarter there is less demand for coal. In the first quarter of this year the average profit was 8d. a ton and in the second quarter the average profit was just over ½d—66 pence per ton. One does not know
178
whether the third quarter may not show a loss. The effect of these calculations of the minutiae of profit and loss is that the mine owners, if they are to maintain their position and show even the smallest profit, must watch carefully every possible leakage of expenditure in production. The result is that you get—in fact you cannot help getting—less expenditure on safety arrangements. Every year a great many of the accidents which happen are directly traceable, and are so reported by the inspectors, to failure to carry out the law because this costs money.
Let me give one example. There has just been issued an interesting report of a Departmental Committee on over-winding in mines. The Committee examined the causes of accidents over the last few years and in case after case they point out that the control of the winding was ineffective because it costs money. There was an accident three years ago in which nineteen men were killed, and the Committee report that the shaft control was only effective about 100 yards from the bottom whereas the regulations say that it should be effective throughout. One finds case after case of that kind. In the report of the Secretary for Mines for 1934 it is pointed out that in that year rather over 400 men were killed and about 60,000 injured by falls of ground. He says that again and again in his report he has pointed out that most of these accidents from falls of the face could be prevented, and he quotes the Inspector for the Forest of Dean who says he has had little or no support from the industry in the provision of proper means of preventing these falls because—these are the words of his report—
"unfortunately, the question of price list and extra payment has obtruded itself and held up, only for the moment, I believe, the adoption of the idea."
How can we blame the industry in respect of accidents which take place because an inadequate amount of money is spent, when minute calculations of profit and loss, in an industry producing 230,000,000 tons of coal a year, show in the last quarter a profit of only 66 pence per ton? Of course the position is entirely wrong.
It sounds ridiculous, but up to a few days ago—I do not know what the position is now—the Mining Association, which represents the mine owners, and

179
the Miners' Federation, could not meet one another. The Mining Association representatives have an interview with the Minister for Mines and then he goes away and tells the representatives of the Miners' Federation what the Mining Association says. They have even got down to public insults, because I came across an article in The Times on December 6 in which it was said that the mine owners claimed that the Mine Workers' Federation paid little or no respect to contractual obligations and that they had induced district miners' associations to dishonour their signatures in district agreements and so on. It is disastrous to allow such a misunderstanding to bring us nearer to the risk of a national stoppage in the most vital industry in this country. Here is a task for the Government. By showing themselves impartial, by devising means by which this wage demand can be met, by securing the abolition of suspicion on the part of the mine workers and the abolition of an intransigeant attitude on the part of the mine owners, they have the possibility of bringing the two sides together.
What is the difficulty about a national wage settlement? The coal industry is a national industry. Surely to goodness, we can induce the mine owners to accept what the mine workers have worked for, for years and years, a national settlement? I beg the Government to realise the tremendous responsibility they have in this matter and to try to help to avoid a stoppage. We need a national Outlook in this matter. A suggestion has been made for a payment on account from the profits which it is hoped will be realised by the central selling agencies, but central selling agreements will not help the exporting districts. We must help those districts by some method of securing the treatment of the coal industry as a national industry considered as a national industry and producing coal on a national basis for national use. Why should the miners not benefit from better prices when they occur Why should they not benefit immediately from better prices?
I was reading the Lloyds Bank Review for December of this year; I just glanced, for the purposes of this debate, through the report of the various coal
180
industries. Let me tell your Lordships what it says:
"Hull—Collieries are very busy. Prices for all descriptions are very firm.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.—The demand for coal of every description is strong…and prices show an appreciable advance.
Sheffield.—…Supplies are hard to obtain. Prices tend to harden.
Cardiff.—The South Wales market has shown a marked improvement. The shipment position is much better, and collieries are working more regularly. In same cases collieries are asking a premium on minimum prices, particularly for sized coals which are still exceedingly firm and scarce."
Newport was 77,000 tons up in October on exports.
"Swansea.—Best quality anthracites continue to find a very good inquiry, and prices are very firmly maintained.''
And so on all over the country. But the mine workers get nothing from these better prices. Surely this is a line of advance that the Government might explore. They are good at exploring; let them explore this line of advance and see whether it is a line on which 2s. could be made.
Then what about the difference in price between the price received at the pit head and the price that consumers pay? It is a fact that the cost of distribution of coal in London is mare than the actual price received at the pit head. The coal price received at the pit head for last year was 13s. 4½d. per ton. I received a price list last week from one of the biggest distributors in London—Charringtons—showing a price of between 48s. and 53s. a ton. If the coal owner can say that he only receives a price of 13s. or 14s. and yet you and I are paying for our domestic coal in London 98s. to 53s., where is the leakage? Surely this is a case that might be explored. Why can we not get, from a difference representing something like 40s. per ton for distribution charges, enough to give the miners 2s. extra? I cannot help thinking that this is possible. Because we persist in district ascertainments, we have the various districts competing with one another in lowering prices. The result is that you get this minute calculation of farthings and halfpennies under which the miners suffer so seriously.
I read a letter in The Times a few days ago from a member of your Lordships' House—Lord Davies; I do not

181
know if he is here—in which he recommended the possibility of an impartial tribunal. The mine workers have urged an impartial tribunal for years and years in this matter, but they do not want an impartial tribunal inquiring over two or three years to delay the immediate demand which they make, and which surely is a matter of elementary justice, for their 2s. extra But we welcome an impartial tribunal, provided that that impartial tribunal will take evidence on oath, will have access to the books, and will be assisted by assessors appointed by the Mine Workers' Federation. Such an impartial tribunal might well be set up by the Government. I hope that the Minister who is going to reply will consider that point, not as a means of putting off the mine workers' demand, but as a means of proving that that demand is justified and can be met.
My Lords, I hope that I have established the justice of my ease. I hope that have not said anything which can make more difficult the dangerous and difficult situation which has developed, and I hope that we in this House will arise to the realisation of our responsibilities in this matter and do something to assist the Government in coming to a just solution. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I had not anticipated venturing to address your Lordships so early in the new Session, but I feel that I should be wanting in my duty if, when a question of this description is raised with which I am so closely connected, I did not make some contribution to the debate in the hope of solving tine problem which faces this country at the present moment. Moreover, think perhaps I might have deserved an indictment from your Lordships if, when I have had the benefit of contributing to the Press, I did not use the platform which your Lordships allow me in your Lordships' House for putting forward the views which I have in my mind. I am sure that I cannot quarrel on the principles which underlay the speech that has been delivered by the noble Lord, who will understand that, speaking as I do as an isolated coal owner, a private coal owner, or perhaps—if I might use a phrase which he might not like—an individual coal owner, I have not come down to your Lordships' House equipped with the replies to those questions which he put forward, if I may say
182
so, in a very temperate manner. I should like to testify to my gratification at the manner in which he addressed himself to this important question, because one does feel that on both sides of the controversy there are people who are doing their utmost to avoid so calamitous a happening as a general stoppage.
A similar discussion is now occurring in another place, and naturally, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I have no desire, nor have I any intention, of saying anything which would exacerbate the feeling at the present moment. I am glad that the noble Lord has raised this question in your Lordships' House, because it is possible—and more possible and more likely in your Lordships' House—that we can obtain a dispassionate consideration of a very important matter. I do most sincerely hope that we shall hear from your Lordships in the course of the debate some opinions which will make a useful contribution to the difficulty in which we find ourselves. The history of the coal trade is interwoven with the history of the country, and I think that I am right in saying that we can attribute the whole of the prosperity of the last century, and the prosperity which continued into the opening years of this century, to the coal industry and the manner in which the coal industry was operated in this country. But it is very strange that, notwithstanding the history of the coal trade, there is very little known throughout the country of the industry itself. The general public as a whose has no idea of how the industry is conducted nor of the intricacies of that problem which is so closely associated with so many of us who belong to the industry. The question has come periodically before Parliament. It has been subject to many Royal Commissions; many inquiries have been set up, and yet the same questions recur and there appears to be no finality whatsoever to the problem.
I may appear to be an optimist, but I am certain that this is a most favourable moment in which, if I may use the expression, to begin a new chapter in the history of the coal industry of this country. It is quite true that the difficulties with which we are surrounded, and the problems which we have to solve, both national and international, are greater in their volume and in their complexity than they have ever been before.

183
This is the order of life: it is the process of evolution to which we are becoming accustomed; but I am Rot venturing to discuss these problems to-day. I am addressing myself to the coal problem, to the great source of power which exists in this country, and it does seem to me that by examining its simple fundamental facts we should be able to arrive at a satisfactory solution and a real settlement of this old controversy.
I should certainly be trespassing on the indulgence and consideration of your Lordships if I were to traverse too much old history, but I think you will agree with me when I say that this industry, more than any other industry, has been bound up with what may be called the development of our social reform. Where conditions were accepted in the past by our forefathers, those conditions are totally unacceptable now. The hard nature of the industry continues, and its dangers are only mitigated by the advance of scientific knowledge. The whole nature of the miner's avocation calls for the sympathy of those whose duties and employment lie in other directions. I need hardly say that I personally sympathise with this attitude of mind. I understand it, and I share it, and I am always only too glad to have an opportunity of testifying to the great qualities of courage and loyalty of those who are engaged in the industry of coal mining.
It is true that at this moment the miners occupy what I might call the centre of the stage, and with a wealth of propaganda issuing from all sides, it is not surprising that the public finds itself in a state of complete bewilderment. I should like to have the power to reduce the temperature of this propaganda which is issuing from all sides. I see a crescendo of it, unfortunately, which seems to err on the side of exaggeration and lurid exposition, so that it can be of interest to what I might call an easygoing public, brought up on headlines and up-to-date journalism. I do not want, like the noble Lord, to see this controversy pressed on to a stage when the leaders may find themselves in the desperate position of having to choose between an advance to a general stoppage or a retreat from the position which they have taken up.
My object to-night is briefly to point out with great diffidence what I believe
184
to be the essentials of the problem. I have no right, in what I have to say, to attach blame to any individuals or to any section. I feel that we are all the victims of a vast evolutionary movement all over the world, and in contemplation of this movement I feel that the sooner we scrap antiquated methods, and adjust ourselves to that movement, the sooner we shall achieve the object which we have in view, which is to achieve for our people a higher spiritual and material well-being throughout the country. Standing as I do, certainly, in a position of responsibility, but having no official connection with the central organisation—I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Gainford is present, and I am sure he will be able to give the answers to those questions which the noble Lord has put forward, I repeat it, in so temperate a fashion—I can only say that the views which I am venturing to put before your Lordships this evening are entirely my own personal views.
I would say at the outset that this question is viewed in what I might call an entirely wrong perspective. There is no quarrel between owners and men. The relations which exist between owners and men in the districts are of the friendliest possible description, and I know that I am not speaking only for myself as I am not unique; but I value the friendly relations which exist between myself and those whom I have the honour of employing. One does feel that, if it only depended on those friendly relations, we ought definitely and forcibly to resent any interference from an outside quarter; but I know quite well that the problem is of such widespread importance that it must pass into the political arena, and that all those who are considering other problems, and how they correlate to each other, feel they must take some part in settling those differences of opinion that are put forward in this industry. Therefore I am not quarrelling, as a whole, with those who approach the question from a political standpoint, but I venture to say at the same time that I hope to see the question put in its proper perspective, and this great industry not sacrificed entirely to what I might call political exigencies.
The owners have pursued a certain policy from the beginning. By reason of vast expenditure of money I think they

185
may claim to have produced in the industry a remarkable state of technical efficiency, and also, until lately, of commercial success. The policy which they have pursued, I would say, has had its purpose. We had the enterprising pioneer, who in the hope of success was prepared to accept the failure which might be his lot—and if we study the history of the coal trade there are many such failures which are entirely forgotten at the moment, although their contribution to the industry has been of no mean order—but I would say that at this moment the era of the individual playing a lone hand in industry is passed. He must link up with his friends, and his policy must be one of co-operation, a policy in which organised labour, for obvious reasons, has led the way. That is what I want to bring about. I want to see an organisation amongst owners which corresponds with the organisation existing amongst the miners. I am not suggesting this organisation for the purpose of the owners' organisation. waging war upon the miners' organisation. I want to see the two sides united and co-operating to establish the proper economic prices for the sale of the commodity.
Hitherto there has been what I might call an internecine struggle between owners with a very definite and practical object in view. Each owner was desirous of obtaining markets. If he took the markets from his colleague he was not always averse from that activity, but he did it with one main object in his mind, and a very important object, and that was to ensure the continuous working of his pits; because we know quite well that for lower costs of production we have to rely on continuous working throughout the industry. When demand exceeded supply that policy could be successfully pursued, but the fact that Durham County has presented coal to the consumer at a loss of the best part of £2,000,000 in the last five years shows that that policy requires reconsideration.
Your Lordships may feel that I am suggesting a policy, to use modern phraseology, of "ringing" the consumer, in other words of creating a monopoly value for the exploitation of the users of coal. I am suggesting nothing of the kind, and I would not subscribe to any policy of that description. I am calling upon the
186
consumers—the actual users, the great companies, the distributors to whom the noble Lord had made reference—to play their part in gaining for the miner the living and adequate wage to which he is justly entitled. Your Lordships will agree, I know, that the exporting districts present a different problem, but I am quite sure that if this organisation and co-operation is set on foot we shall be in a much better position for negotiating with foreign countries, and we shall do it from a much more favourable standpoint. I should certainly like to see this readjustment—and it is a very large readjustment—brought about without the interference of Parliament. I am sorry to think that the distance which separates me from the noble Lord across the floor of your Lordships' House is but a small scale map of the gulf which politically divides us and which represents the difference between us as to how these things should be controlled. The noble Lord is in favour of the dead hand of officialdom. I know quite well that all those difficulties which he has enumerated would be multiplied and amplified if once we gave up the element of individualism by accepting the doctrine which he has in mind.
What is it, then, that we require? First of all, we require the elimination of competition which exists between pits and between districts, but we still want to maintain that remarkable technical efficiency which exists now. Secondly, we require a price for coal which will ensure a just return to the owner and a proper wage to the worker, and I shall hope that these two great fundamental principles can be rapidly brought about by the industry itself without the interference of Parliament. Central selling, to be set up forthwith, goes a long way in the direction that I have indicated. I can assure the noble Lord from my knowledge and from my own activities that there will be no delay in bringing about that new policy, which I believe will introduce a very refreshing and useful feature into the conduct of the coal industry.
Let none of us deceive ourselves as to the full significance of my suggestions. The adjustments which I have suggested will create tremendous changes throughout the industry and throughout the country. Certainly amalgamations will ensue which will be an extension of a

187
movement which has been continuously going on; pits will be closed, districts will become derelict, and the Government will be faced with the problem of unemployment in the coal trade in a manner which they have never had to face before. All these will be the natural consequences of applying the principle of correlating supplies with demand; but I venture to put forward my humble opinion, for what it may be worth, that in this age of organisation we cannot afford to follow any haphazard line of policy, or we shall fail in the mission which Great Britain has to fulfil as the leader in the world of progressive development.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I think we shall all be grateful to the noble Marquess for having intervened to-day in a non-controversial spirit. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that in vacating the position which he previously held in your Lordships' House he has at any rate enabled us in the County of Durham to appoint him a colleague on the Durham executive of our Mining Association, and after the speech which we have listened to to-day I think his services on that body will be very useful. I have no exception to take to the action of my noble friend Lord Marley in raising this debate. He has not indulged in any of those attacks on the coal owners which in recent years have become very fashionable. It has been unfortunate that in another place we have had no one to speak for us who is directly associated with the day-to-day conduct of the industry in any area, or with the Central Council under the Mines Act, or the Central Committee of the Mining Association. We have often felt that we did not want controversy, we wanted friendly relations. As coal owners we are no less human than other employers, or than the workmen. We have no delight in underpaying our men, and we dislike the charges that we pay "starvation wages." We are just as much in sympathy with the poor as anybody else.
Some people have said that we are only looking after the interests of our shareholders. Well, we have secured a very poor result from our efforts in that direction. In the firm of which I am a director there are 7,788 shareholders. Their average holding, owing to our losses and reconstruction, has been reduced to £75 each. That is not an indication that the shareholders are very
188
rich men. Many of them are our own workpeople. They are all more or less people with but small savings, which they have invested, and they have had nothing since the general strike in 1926. My sympathy is naturally extended to them. My sympathy goes out to the agricultural labourer who is working at a much smaller wage in my own district than the unskilled men who are working on the surface or in the mines on the subsistence wage of 6s. 8½d a day with allowances. Their wages at any rate average something like 35s. or 36s. a week.
I grant the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Marley, that it is a comparatively poor wage, but the agricultural labourer alongside the miner in my district is only getting 33s. He is a skilled man and he works in inclement conditions all the year round, often at night as well as during the day. He has to be content with that, and there is very little said about the "starvation wages" he is receiving. My sympathies are very much with the agricultural labourer in these days when the general desire is to increase the standard of living. I am also surrounded by an enormous number of men out of employment who formerly were engaged in the pits and are now living on the "dole." My sympathy is with them, and so is the sympathy of all coal owners who want something more done for them. I know attempts are being made to try to find new industries and to get them back to work.
But, after all, the men who are employed in the colleries do not all work as well as they might. Agricultural labourers and most men in other industries work regularly, but the coal miner always takes a little bit of liberty. He gets off every Saturday afternoon, and in our district he gets off the whole Saturday once a fortnight. In addition to that he takes liberty away from his work on an average about one day in fourteen. That is liberty for his own recreation. I am not against individuals taking recreation—I believe in it, it is very good for people—but in the last return which I have got for men working underground who absented themselves in my county the percentage is 7.49, and the percentage of men and boys on the surface was 6.80. Even if there was a certain amount of illness and

189
domestic bereavement and things of that nature, it could not amount to anything like one day in fourteen. These things have to be taken into account when we are charged with paying starvation wages.
With regard to allowances, I desire to say this. We coal owners do not like allowances. We think they are a survival of the feudal system of paying in kind, and over and over again we have asked our men, instead of giving them free houses and free coals, to permit the allowances to be calculated at a proper value and to be paid them in money. They love their allowances to such an extent and they think they are so moderate and so fair that they will not change them for money. That is the answer to the statement about suspicion and allegations in regard to allowances. Allowances in my county amount on an average to £11 13s. 4d. per year, and when we talk this matter over with the men they never take exception to the figure we place on these allowances, which the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has criticised. They are accepted by both sides as a fair estimate of what these allowances should be put at, and so far as I know the men have not demurred; but if they want to demur let us change it and put a fair value on the allowances and pay them in wages, and we shall be content.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, alluded to one or two extreme cases of men earning less than 30s. a week. I know they are extremes, but there are extremes also on the other side. When people say that the men are on starvation wages, you must either take an average or you must take extremes and see whether you cannot do something to make the extremes meet. I wrote to a certain number of firms in my county a few weeks ago, and asked if they could tell me the earnings of their best men. One firm replied that 231 men were idle on the Thursday and 90 men were absent on the Friday, and they added, with regard to the 231 men idle on the Thursday, that they were mostly piece-workers who were satisfied with their earnings for three clays a week and then applied and secured unemployment pay for the other three days. In one case I was informed that a hewer averaged £7 3s. a week. That £7 3s. was equivalent, with allowances, to £375 per annum. I do not
190
think that is a starvation wage. There are a great number of men earning and bringing into their families, with their sons, between £400 and £450 per annum. These are not the sort of men we want to reduce. We have no desire to reduce them. They are our best workers; they produce the most coal for the time they are underground. At the same time if you are going to quote one or two cases on one side, you ought to realise that there are men earning very considerable sums of money on the other, and many of them could earn more if they wanted to do so. The wage fund, if the men had a little more sympathy one with another, would be quite sufficient to give a better average wage to the lower paid men than they are now getting.
I am not against an increase in wages if it is possible to give an increased wage. I recognise the public demand that the miners should receive more. We are only too anxious, if we can put up the price of our coal, to share that improved price with the men. We are only too glad to be able to help the situation in any way we can. There is a figure quoted this morning, which is an official figure, given by Mr. Lee, Secretary of the Mining Association. He says that in 1934 the weekly earnings of all adults employed underground was £2 12s. 2d. per week in money and £2 13s. 11d. with allowances. The figure for all persons employed at the coal face, including youths, was £2 16s. 1d. These are averages. I do not like averages because they do not meet hard cases, and it is the hard cases, I think, that we ought to meet in the immediate future if it is possible so to do. The Commissioner for the Special Areas in his report in connection with the district of Durham, which I know best, says there are many adverse factors which have contributed to its being impossible to find new markets fast enough to replace the old ones: "It is the Nemesis which sooner or later overtakes every mining venture."
I am not pessimistic in regard to the coal trade. I believe the coal trade has a big future before it in the conversion of coal into oil. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has already spoken in your Lordships' House on this subject, with a view to more money being spent on the production of oil from coal. One hundred million pounds would enable us,

191
if spent on the production of oil, to obviate the necessity of importing any-oil at all. The coal owners have no such fund behind them, but I am glad that the Government are contributing to the solution of this problem by helping Imperial Chemical Industries, whose experimental plant is already proving a great success. We have done other things to try to secure markets for our coal. We have appointed a Coal Utilisation Council on which distributors and merchants as well as coal owners sit. We have been able already to induce a great number of public bodies, such as hospitals and others, to convert their heating apparatus so that instead of using foreign oil they now burn coal, and it has proved a great success. But I believe a good deal more can be done in that direction.
I want to say at once that there is a. limitation to our ability to improve prices in order to raise anything like the figure of £20,000,000 which is required by the men's demand if they are to get a fiat rate of 2s. per shift all round. The difficulty that we have been up against has been the fall in prices throughout the world. In 1920 the price of coal averaged 37s. 4¾d., in 1935 it is averaging 13s. 4d. The output per man has increased from 14½cwt. in 1920 to 23 cwt. now, showing at any rate that we have done our best to help by good management, and we have also introduced a great deal of mechanisation such as coal-cutting machinery in order to increase the output per man employed. Then we have done a great deal of reorganisation of the industry. We have reduced the danger of our operations underground, thereby increasing the safety of the men, and it is our proud boast that we have the safest coal mines in the whole world.
But these things have meant a reduction in the number of men employed, because simultaneously the demand for coal has gone down. The Fuel Research Board in its Report the other day pointed out that the electricity companies, the gas companies and the iron and steel companies, by the economies which they have introduced in the production of electricity, gas, oil and metals, have reduced their demand for coal to the extent of 31,500,000 tons a year as compared with fifteen years ago. We should
192
have been supplying 31,000,000 tons more than we are to-day to those three industries if it had not been for the economies which have been introduced. Moreover, our foreign trade has fallen off. We export no coal to Russia. If we exported any coal to Italy we should not get paid for it. As to Germany, France and Belgium we have been handicapped by the fact that we were only allowed to introduce coal into those countries under a system of licences. I am obliged to the Government for their efforts in having helped the industry in Scandinavia by trying to secure agreements by which a certain proportion of coal consumed in those countries may be obtained from this country. But all these reductions in the demand for coal have meant a tendency to increase our costs.
When you reduce the output of a colliery by an Act such as that of 1931, in which a standard tonnage has to be fixed for everybody and only a quota is allowed to be produced from each coalfield, you increase the overhead charges which have to be met in some form or another. The legislation, in my judgment, if it was wise at all, did not go far enough. The difficulty in connection with royalties has now become apparent, and I welcome the proposal that royalties should be dealt with in some fair way so as to secure uniformity in the working of coal. The other day in the County of Durham the coal owner let a new piece of coal to a group of miners, and at once the group of miners came to us and asked for a standard tonnage for a new colliery. Under the Mines Act we were compelled to give that new body a standard tonnage, and the effect was at once to reduce other people's standard quotas. And the tendency is also to reduce prices. This kind of thing wants remedial attention, and I think it is for the Government to take such matters into consideration. The new corners into the industry have depressed prices and prevented that increase which, I believe, would have otherwise been secured. We were steadily losing money in the County of Durham until the month of October; we have now just turned the corner and are practically on an even balance. It would be deplorable if at this time of day the miners are going to force a

193
stoppage because they want national settlements on a basis which cannot be found in the industry.
There is another point which I think I ought to mention. Undoubtedly there has been a great deal of suspicion in regard to accounts. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, dwelt upon it. We are on such friendly terms with our workmen, and we know them in each area so well, that we are quite frank with one another, and if suspicions are entertained as to whether accountants' certificates are accurate or not we have the matter thrashed out and remove the suspicions of the leaders of the men. Somehow or other these suspicions still seem to exist, but the idea that when the miners have not access to our figures they have justification for suspicion really is not well founded. As coal owners we have no right to see the figures of each other. We appoint accountants to look through all our books and the men appoint accountants. They may change them from day to day if they like and appoint those who can be trusted to go through all our books. Figures can be tested and verified.
In the Commissioner's Report to which Lord Marley referred, it was stated by the accountants that it was one of the fundamental things that the men were instructed to examine the books relating to transfers, and the staffs were directed to give special attention to see that the transfer figures were accurate. It is now suggested that where one concern sends fuel to its own associated works it is going to try and eco the men clown by some underhand method, by, for instance, charging a different price to that which is a, fail price. The accountants deal with this matter in a common-sense way. They ascertain what are the prices of the coal which is transferred by the concern, and they take the quality of the coal and see to what class it belongs. Under the Mines Act all classes of coal must have a definite fixed minimum price, and no lower price than that minimum price can be taken or a very severe penalty is imposed. Therefore the accountants have to cheek the figure so that there is absolute accuracy in the certificates which they give. If they have not got from a particular firm returns which are satisfactory to them as to the value of the coal, they go to other concerns who have the same class of coal,
194
and they charge the price which is being obtained in the open market for that particular quality of coal. The transfer prices are absolutely fair and I wish it to be thoroughly understood that there is no disposition, and never has been any disposition, to try to pass coal to an associated concern at anything but a fair market price.
Then it is suggested that there are hidden profits. Of course there are hidden profits in this sense, that a colliery concern may have put down a lot of money in brick works, it may produce sanitary goods, it may possess private railways, it may possess a lot of private wagons which it lets out. It may make profits on those concerns, but they have nothing to do with the raising of coal. Although these profits may be hidden they have nothing to do with the raising of coal. It is also suggested that in certain cases—they do not exist in my part of the world—there are organisations for selling coal apart from an individual firm. There may be a group of collieries which try to secure collectively a higher price than an individual colliery could secure. Wherever that occurs there is a definite regulation that the profits of any such concern must be taken into account in the certificates given in connection with the ascertainment. Really there is no justification for the suspicion that a lot of profits are concealed from the men.
Now I come to the point, what can be done to meet the present situation? I think the Government must help us in some form or other. We are in great difficulty as to how to deal with the exporting districts. Take, for instance, the County of Durham, from which over 40 per cent. of the coal is sold for export. We do our best to raise prices and we have already raised our price by 2s. to all utility companies and 1s. to all other concerns. We are asking all those who have made contracts to accept a similar increase on the coal which they have contracted to buy ahead. Therefore we are doing what we can to raise the price of coal; but in our district it only applies to 60 per cent. of the output. Can anybody expect-the exporting districts to meet the men's demand by contributing the same amount to an increase in their remuneration as the areas which supply the home markets?
In some exporting districts half the output, and in the case of Wales more

195
than half the output, is for export and prices can only be increased on the home demand. Areas which are supplying home coal can undoubtedly secure a greater increase in their prices than can be secured by the exporting districts. It is necessary, I think, for the Government to come in and help us to see that a fair contribution is secured from the inland areas who can get the whole of their prices raised, because it is quite impossible for us to increase prices in the immediate future in the case of coal for export. We are doing our utmost by international arrangement to try to secure an increase in prices throughout the world. I think Germany is prepared to entertain that, and Poland, we hope, is prepared to entertain it. If we can get an international arrangement the price of export coal may be raised as well as the price of coal in the home market.
The Government have made two or three appeals to us to do something. We have done that readily because we want to secure a higher price if we can, but we also want consumers of coal to recognise that the public as well as the miners demand some attention to their requests. We feel that we meet the men in our local districts so much better than we can nationally. We did meet nationally from 1922 to 1927 after we came out of Government control. It was the owners who proposed it to the Miners' Federation, and the miners accepted it. But it did not work. It brought about a political controversy which is now being resuscitated by a demand by the Miners' Federation for a national settlement. We work amicably with the men in our districts. We know the men and we know their conditions. The coal industry is not a national industry like any other. Every coal field differs from other coal fields and every seam differs from other seams.
I would like to take as an illustration the purposes for which Durham coal is used. I do not know the purposes for which coal from other districts is used and therefore I cannot debate with a national body how the men are to be remunerated in an industry which is carried on under very different circumstances in different districts. Cargo and bunker coal from Durham accounts for 25.7 per cent. of our output. We send
196
abroad 40.3 per cent. We send to the railways for locomotive coal 82 per cent. Utility concerns take 2.55 per cent., coal for domestic purposes accounts for only 3.58 per cent., and coal for the iron and steel industry 26.96 per cent. There is no other district similar to ours. No other district has similar underground conditions. No other district has the same variety of coal as we have, and no other district leas the same customs, which the men will not give up. We cannot settle a basis of wages nationally when all the customs differ, when the quality of coal varies and when conditions vary as they do between coal field and coal field.
We have done all we can in arranging central selling arrangements which will undoubtedly reduce the cost of selling and may improve the price in that way. We have met the Government by asking our men in our districts to meet us to talk over the question, urging them to carry out the agreements which they have already made with us in order to settle wages. We have in the County of Durham an arrangement with the men that in any matter of dispute about wages we can appeal to a tribunal. That tribunal has been appointed and is ready to sit in the event of any difference arising between us and the men. There is no difficulty in settling wages locally, there is enormous difficulty in settling them nationally. I hope the Government will do their best to bring about peace in the industry and prevent a deplorable stoppage of operations by the men giving notice in connection with the present unfortunate position.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, anybody who has sat in this House for six years with only one day's absence and has listened to nearly every debate must have arrived at one conclusion at any rate, and that conclusion is this: that no matter what subject for discussion arises in this House, whether from at home or abroad, there are always some members of your Lordships' House who have had experience of it. We have great landlords here, who have much experience of local government; politicians who have served for years in the House of Commons. Many of your Lordships have entered into this House through the gateway of industry, and we have here men who have ruled over our overseas Possessions and been Ambassadors to foreign

197
parts. The Church, the Navy, the Army, have all of them given of their best to our deliberations. Now it may well be that most of us here have arrived at an age where our opinions are more or less settled but experience is everything. We have been told by one of our greatest orators that it is "the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other."
I had not contemplated ever addressing your Lordships again, but I am here this afternoon for two reasons. My first reason is this: that I desire to do everything I can to get justice for the miners. Secondly, I conceive it to be the duty of any member her of your Lordships' House who has had experience of the matter wider discussion to attend here and to give your Lordships the benefit, if any, of his experience. I must leave your Lordships to judge of the help my experience may prove to be, but I can indicate it, with your permission, in a sentence. As Counsel, as Judge, as President of the Railway and Canal Commission Court when it was entrusted with the jurisdiction of the Mining Acts, and in this House itself, I have had up to forty years' experience of the problems of the mining industry. I do not desire to arrogate to myself any infallibility of opinion, nor in what I am about to say do I wish to refer to any individual. No individuals are in my mind at all. Naturally I have the honour of knowing many men on both sides of the industry; I have friends among the miners, friends among the coal owners. Of course there are extremists on both sides; there are reckless reformers and there are rusty reactionaries. But my experience is that even the extremists are only animated by one consideration, and that is to do what they think is best and proper for the industry.
It is not too much to say that our national prosperity has been built up on coal in the past. It will continue, perhaps not so directly, mainly to be built up on coal in the future. Therefore everybody who wishes well to his country—and we all do wish well to our country—must, above all things, desire peace and prosperity in the coal trade. If a stranger to our shores were to visit Great Britain and to make a survey of our industrial organisation, he would find himself, after a brief examination only, asking several questions. He would ask
198
why we are always having this trouble in the coal trade; why the miners are always complaining that they get inadequate wages; why the owners are always complaining that they get inadequate profits; why it is that we are always having this menace of industrial unrest hanging over our head in the mining industry. There are four great industries in this kingdom each of which employs a million or upwards of men. Agriculture employs 1,100,000; the textile industry employs 870,000; the transport industry, which includes the railway workers, employs nearly 1,500,000; and the mining industry, as we have been told, has about 1,000,000 men registered as miners but employs about 800,000.
Now it is true that in the first three of these industries we have from time to time local trouble, and we occasionally have trouble over a wider area, but we do not have this menace hanging over our heads that we have in the coal industry. We do not get that discontent and that disgruntlement in the other three industries. Take agriculture: we do not get the same trouble in agriculture that we get in milling. Fortunately in agriculture the personal touch between employer and employed has not yet been entirely lost, a loss which some of us think is one of the contributing causes to the unrest in the mining industry. There are exceptions. Agriculture is not run by limited companies with a registered address in Leadenhall Street and an absentee board of directors. Somebody will say, "But the miners are a very highly organised body with advanced political opinions." That argument will not hold water. To begin with, our countrymen are a very independent lot of people and form their own opinions. Yet at the present moment the overwhelming majority of men engaged in the mining industry are in favour of drastic action.
Besides, the miners are not the only great body of men who are highly organised. Take the textile workers; they are organised into trade unions, many of them with most advanced opinions. Take the railway workers, the transport workers: they are even more highly organised than the miners, they are men with advanced opinions, and yet we do not get the trouble there that we get in the mining industry. Let us examine for a moment the parties on both sides of the present controversy. Take the

199
men. Everybody acknowledges that they earn their living under very hard and very difficult conditions, and, in spite of all the inventions of modern science, considerable risk attaches to their work. Everybody acknowledges that they are a fine body of men. Twenty years ago, in a crisis in their country's history, they were found to be amongst the most patriotic of our fellow-citizens. Many of them are highly educated, thanks to their own industry and their own efforts. I think that most of us agree that their wages are too low and that if possible—I will deal with that later on—they should be increased. Take the owners, individually the most generous of men, equally anxious with the miners to do the best they can for the country. It is obvious that the owners feel a heavy responsibility when they reflect that the happiness and welfare of millions of their fellow-countrymen depend upon the successful conduct of the industry.
Now why is it that, when the great majority of men on both sides of this controversy are good Britishers, we always have this menace of industrial unrest in the coal mining industry? The stranger to our shores, when he ponders on these things and when he asks what is wrong with the industry, might be tempted to say that the system is wrong. It may well be that both owners and men are caught in a system—in a machine, as it were—which prevents them giving of their best to the country. When a system has been in force for many years it attracts to itself, as it were, a tradition. Traditions undoubtedly are useful, but they must not be pushed too far or they will blind you to the present position of affairs. "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen," will not fit in with modern industrial conditions. When there is a difference between the owners and the men, as is naturally to be expected, it is usually a difference with regard to wages. Sometimes it is a difference with regard to safety, but very seldom. The owning side of the industry is divided into three main divisions. There is the division which deals with colliery finance. There is the division which deals with the marketing of coal. There is the division which deals with the safety of the workers. In respect of the first two of those divisions there is at the present
200
moment considerable controversy. With regard to the third division, the safety of the worker, there is some anxiety.
A question of wages has to do with colliery finance, and here, unfortunately, a tradition has arisen amongst the owners which some of us think is the root cause of the present unrest. As soon as a question arises of co-ordination, as soon as a question arises of a joint effort, as soon as a question arises of unification, as soon as a question arises of a national settlement of wages, tradition at once steps in. We are fatigued day after day by appeals to, or a repetition of, old shibboleths. First of all there is an appeal to geology. "Why!the seams are so different, and therefore you must have district settlements." Then there is an appeal to. "Oh!the districts are so different, and therefore you must have district settlements." Then there is the familiar letter to the Press from "An Impartial Observer," precedent No. 3 out of pigeon hole No. 4: "You cannot get more out of an industry than you put into it"—one of those misleading maxims which contain half a truth. You get a good deal more out of the ground than the seed you put into it; and the stranger on our shores when considering these arguments may well come to the conclusion that some of them will not stand consideration.
"You cannot get more out of an industry than you put into it!" Colliery finance. Are we quite so sure that during the last twenty-five to thirty years colliery finance has been so sound? Is it true that these limited companies have heavily watered capital? Is it true that on recent amalgamations there has been reckless finance, large sums, excessive sums, beyond all their value, paid to a colliery to induce it to come into a combine? Is it a fact that it is because of considerations like these that you do not get the dividends that you got, shall I say, in the good old days? Someone will say to me: "Oh!but that is a question of the distribution of profits, and has nothing to do with the question of wages." Has it not? A moment's reflection will show any one who says that, that profits and wages have very much to do with one another.
Let us resume our examination. Of course I accept what the noble Lord has said with regard to Durham. Let me

201
leave out Durham. Is it a fact that colliery companies, owing to interlocking directorates, are connected with steel companies and other companies which consume coal, and that profits are made in those other companies to the detriment of the colliery owners? because I am not speaking on one side or another but on behalf of the whole industry. Is it a fact that in connection with some collieries there are subsidiary companies which produce by-products, and that profits are made there to the detriment of, and with injustice to, the colliery owner? Is it a fact—I am going to give a notional figure, so as not to weary your Lordships—that coal which, say for the sake of argument, in Derbyshire costs £1 per ton at the pit head, costs on delivery in your cellar in Bel-grave Square 54s. per ton, and that profits are made in the interval which the colliery owner never gets and which do not get through to the men? Is it a fact that colliery owners have to pay excessive sums in wayleaves, out of all proportion to their value? How about the unfortunate colliery owner there? Is it a fact that there are antiquated collieries, with antiquated machinery, which can never hope to make a profit and never dream of paying proper wages, and which drag down their colleagues'? One last word. Whatever we may think of the finances of these limited companies, whatever we may think as to the way they have handled their finances, are we quite sure that these limited companies have handled their men properly?
So far with regard to colliery finance Now let me deal with the next question, the marketing of coal. Are we quite, sure that coal at the present moment is marketed to the best advantage? Is the colliery owner getting the best price he can for the coal? Is he getting the price he is entitled to get for the coal? Is it the fact that between the time when that coal leaves the colliery, and the time it reaches the ultimate consumer commission after commission is paid which the colliery owner does not get and which therefore the men do not get? The noble Lord talked about his sympathy with agricultural workers. Forgive me for saying so, but my sympathy goes out to all people connected with the coal trade. Another question: Are you satisfied that there is no cut-throat competition between
202
the collieries themselves? And, the most important question of all: Are you satisfied that there is no cut-throat competition between districts?
So far with regard to the marketing of coal. Now with regard to safety. For a moment I would like to desert argument and give evidence. It has fallen to my lot to read over and over again every rule and every regulation made for safety in Great Britain. Once I knew them all by heart. I have also read, I should think, every rule and regulation made all over the world for safety, and here and now I say without fear of contradiction that there is no place where precautions for safety are better, or more observed, or more scientific than they are in Great Britain. But at the present time there is a little anxiety about safety. There is a haunting fear that, with our efforts for economy and with our efforts for speeding up, there may have crept—I am not going to say that there has crept—some carelessness into the safety gate, and it is welcome news that the Government intend to have an inquiry into that matter. May I in passing make a reference to one of the things which our present speeding up has brought about in the collieries? I am not going to decry modern machinery; it has come, it will increase, it will stay. But thirty years ago a colliery was not such a bad place to work in. Nowadays, with coal conveyors going all day and with coal cutting machines going all day underneath, the noise and the vibration must make the collier's lot almost unbearable.
If the questions is, What is wrong with the coal industry? my answer is, the system is wrong. Forgive me a momentary digression. Personally, I have no doubt what the remedy is—nationalisation of the mines. It is on the way. It is nearer than you think; it is bound to come. I sometimes hope that the present Government may turn a favourable eye to the question. They have taken the first step. They are going to nationalise the royalties. They have screwed up their courage to do that; and, when they find that that benefits the industry and does not bring cur Empire to an untimely end, I hope they will consider the advisability of taking the further and final step, which means prosperity for the industry. The cancer in the coalfields—for it is a cancer—is not a case for the

203
"Doctor's Mandate"; it is a case for the surgeon's knife.
Now we are getting a little tired of examinations into the system. The miners ask for bread: they are given an inquiry. They want something more tangible, rather more immediate—some increase in wages. Permit me therefore to come to the question of wages. In order to make my argument clear may I be permitted to divide it into two parts? First of all, allow me to try to give you a picture—because it is difficult—of the actual wage paid to the individual collier. I observed the other day that one district produced quite an unreliable formula, because it took one week in one district to ascertain the wage. That is quite impossible. But, on the other hand, there is another method of calculating which also has its drawbacks; it is the calculation of the whole of the people employed in the industry for the whole of the year. We know what that figure is, it is £115 a year for each individual in the trade. That works out at about 44s. a week.
The first criticism of that is this. It takes into consideration the highly placed officials and highly paid deputies. Will you forgive my putting an analogy? I know analogies are dangerous and I am not saying that this analogy is on all fours, but it is from my own profession. We all know, or suppose we know, that at the top of the Bar there are perhaps eight, ten or twelve very fashionable King's Counsel who make very large sums of money. I observe one of them told us the other day that he made fabulous sums. But at any rate there are a few men at the top who make—what shall we say?—£20,000 or £30,000 per year. But that does not give you a picture of the ordinary barrister. It is no consolation to the briefless barrister to know that Mr. So-and-so is making£30,000 a year. So let us apply our minds to this average figure of 44s.
LORD GAINFORD: That includes the boys.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: Perfectly right. I am much obliged. I think I said every man, but I mean every person employed in the industry. I am not going to say much about the man who gets 5s more than the average—49s. per week, which is
204
little enough. But I am going to say something about the man who gets 5s. less, the man who gets 39s. Those are the people I am thinking about, the men who get 39s., 39s., or 37s. Now consider. You have got to bring up a family, you have got to pay rent, you have got to keep a decent home for your wife and children. I am not going to say that ugly word that the noble Lord objected to, but I say that that is not an adequate age. It is not a proper wage to pay to the man who does that work.
Now let me come to the second part of my argument, the calculation of wages. Your Lordships know perfectly well how wages in the coal field are paid. May I, in case I should be speaking to a larger audience, just indicate the two items. There is a basic rate, which depends in the case of the hewer on the amount of coal he cuts, and you take into consideration in the "cutting price" as it is called—the price list—the difficulties of the seam and so forth. But the second element in the total wages is the percentage figure which is added to the basic rate and is separately ascertained in each district and adjusted periodically in accordance with the economic position of the district for which it is ascertained. It is there that the difficulty and the question we are now debating arise. The miners desire, in my opinion rightly desire, a national control because in their view the level of wages in any particular district is not the concern of that district only, but is the concern of other districts also, for the level of wages in one district vitally affects other districts. May I give an example? If one particular district lowers its general level of wages a reduction will immediately affect all other districts and these districts will also be compelled to reduce their wages or lose their share of the trade. That is precisely what happened between 1926 and 1930 when wages were determined entirely by districts. During that period the owners in particular districts admitted that the action of reducing wages in other districts had compelled a reduction of wages in their own districts. That vicious circle goes on and on, and as long as you have district settlements so long will you have these difficulties.
Will your Lordships permit me one quotation, and one quotation only? I am quoting from the Report of the Royal

205
Commission on the Coal Industry, 1925, at page 152. That Commission gave very close consideration to this question of the national control of the minimum level of wages, and this is how they reported:
"We do not see how such a wage, in a community so small and so closely united as Great Britain, can ultimately he fixed by other than national authorities. To give a free hand to each district to settle its own standards of living without consultation and without regard to any other, is to expose the standards of the more efficient and prosperous areas, on which the future of the country rests, to under-raining by the weaker areas. It opens the door to cut-throat competition between different districts at the expense of wages. We conclude accordingly that the minimum percentage for each district should be settled, or at least approved, by bodies representing all the employers and all the workpeople in the industry."
The question is: Where is the money to come from? My answer to that is this: It will come from the industry itself when that industry is properly coordinated and properly organised, mid not till then.
But one wishes to be helpful, After all, we are all Britishers, and we are all rowing in the same boat. What is to be done in the meanwhile? What are you to do to increase these inadequate wages? I do not use the word to which the noble Lord referred. Three suggestions have been put forward. One, a word which I observe that the noble Lord dislikes almost as much as the word nationalisation—it is not fashionable to refer to it—a. subsidy. We do not call it a subsidy now. Why not? If that subsidy is going to be administered as the subsidy was administered on the last occasion—never!If you administer that subsidy as you administered it on the last occasion, at the one end of the scale you are subsidising inefficiency, and at the other end you are making a present of money to a prosperous colliery which very often they are ashamed to take. But I am far from saying that, if some help judiciously applied could be given, I am not at one with the noble Lord.
The next thing that has been put forward is a loan. I have not sufficient data to express any opinion on the subject of a loan to the industry. I cannot say how it would be paid back, or when t would be paid back, or how it would be distributed. The only thing I say about that is that at the present moment
206
money does appear to be very cheap. There is the third alternative put forward, I think, by the noble Lord in one of his articles to the Press two or three days ago—that is, some help from the consumer. It would have to be from the inland consumer only. You can get no help from the export trade. But I should think—I do not know—that in an emergency even the inland consumers might be willing to give some help.
These are the three alternatives at present, but whichever it is, one thing is certain, the miners must have some more wage. This is not a time for smooth prophesying. You cannot feed your children on promises, and you cannot bring up a family on platitudes. If I were a miner I most certainly would not strike. To strike simply means misery and privation to thousands and thousands of your fellow countrymen, many of them young, many of them old. It dislocates the trade of the country, and you may lose foreign markets that you will never get back again. The miners are a patriotic body, and they do not want to do anything to bring about any such catastrophe as that. But if I were a miner I would never be a willing worker. Necessity might compel me, for a time, to accept that inadequate wage, but clay in and day out, week after week, month after month, year after year, by all lawful means I would protest and agitate against a condition of affairs in our coalfields which I believe to be unjust to the individual, injurious to my country, and a standing reproach to British business brains.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the debate to which your Lordships have listened this afternoon, and which has been initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, in what perhaps I may term a helpful spirit, has been followed by a contribution from my noble friend Lord Londonderry, whose knowledge of this industry is so comprehensive. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, also gave your Lordships his opinion as another owner, and we had the fortune to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, whom, I feel sure, your Lordships will be glad to see here again to-day. The noble Viscount will forgive me if I say I do not agree with a certain amount of that which was contained in his speech, and I hope he will also forgive me if I do

207
not go into a detailed criticism of it in view of the fact that negotiations are still continuing in the coal industry. The noble Lord who moved this Motion was good enough to advise me some days ago that he desired a statement from the Government on the position of subsidiary companies in the coal industry, and I have accordingly been able to ascertain the views of the Government on this question. I feel sure that the House will appreciate that while negotiations for a settlement are still continuing it would be indeed unwise and inopportune for me to say anything which might hamper the difficult task of negotiation and conciliation. I shall, however, endeavour in the course of my remarks to say something which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord.
Before I reply to his specific question I should like to remind the House of the position that has been reached to-day. Throughout the last few weeks, when the ballot in the coalfields was taken, my honourable friend the Secretary of the Mines Department acted as the Government intermediary, and he has conferred with both parties engaged in the dispute to find a basis of agreement whereby a final settlement could be drawn up between the Mine Workers' Federation and the Mining Association. It will be within the recollection of the House that only last week a statement was issued from the Department to the effect that the representatives of the mine workers had asked my honourable friend to continue his discussions with the coal owners and those discussions are continuing to-day.
Might I, with respect, ask the House to consider for a moment and to realise this point, that the Government came into this dispute through a Department whose primary responsibility is that of watching over the interests of the industry and offering its mediation when the relations between the two parties become strained or are reaching straining point. That, indeed, is precisely what my noble friend has been doing, and I feel sure that, while every good citizen throughout the land and every member of your Lordships' House would desire and hope for a final settlement, that settlement when it does come must be of an industrial and not of a political character. Furthermore, the efforts of each of us, as I think the noble Lord who
208
introduced the Motion himself said, can be used in our particular spheres of life to endeavour to avoid a conflict in the industry. It would surely be gross folly, at a time when things appear to be slowly but gradually improving, to allow this industry to rush headlong to disaster. We have witnessed such occurrences before, and we know, as the noble Viscount himself said, the misery and unhappiness that strikes and lock-outs bring with them. The repercussions of a stoppage must, of course, be felt throughout the industry and also in every home and among many business communities with little or no connection with the industry.
In the course of this afternoon's debate the noble Lord who introduced the Motion and the noble Viscount mentioned that there were suspicions that the money required for safety in mines was not available. While I have no desire to weary the House with many figures, I think it right to point out that the statistics issued by the Department which I have the honour to represent show that the fatal accidents this year, if we exclude the disaster at Gresford, are fewer than they were in 1933 and considerably fewer than they were in 1931. The figures of the non-fatal accidents show an increase over 1933 but a considerable decrease as compared with 1931. I mention those facts so that your Lordships will realise that safety in mines is one of the principal necessities of the industry. It was for that reason that His Majesty's Government thought another Royal Commission would be useful to study this question and they are, accordingly, setting up that Royal Commission to go into the whole matter.
I heard it suggested, and I have read the statement in newspapers and various periodicals, that colliery owners disposed of their coal to subsidiary companies in which they are shareholders at an un-remunerative price, and, furthermore, that the profits made by these subsidiary companies accrue to the colliery owners and are not used for the purpose of the wage ascertainments. I think my noble friend mentioned that in his speech. The prices at which coal is sold to subsidiary companies is closely scrutinised by auditors appointed by the workmen for the purpose of the wage ascertainments, and I think that this should provide a

209
sufficient guarantee against the selling agencies making substantial or undue profits. It will be clear to the House that the auditors appointed by the workmen are in close consultation with the representatives of the owners and that they have access to the accounts of the colliery companies to ascertain the price at which the coal has been purchased by the subsidiary company.
It will be within the recollection of the House that last year a draft Order was submitted and passed setting up on July 1 a selling scheme for the Lancashire and Cheshire coal districts, and since that date all coal which has been produced in those two Counties has been sold by a central organisation. Although only five months lave elapsed since this organisation was set up I understand that already, despite existing contracts, the scheme has enabled the proceeds from the sale of coal to be slightly increased. It must give noble Lords on all sides of this House complete satisfaction to know that the results of the first of these measures which was introduced and passed by both Houses of Parliament has met reward and is realising a small sum for the increase of the miner's wages. An assurance was given a short time ago by the Chairman of the Central Council of Coal Owners that, not later than the 30th of June next these selling organisations would be provided in all the districts of this country. This was, as he stated, in order to effect reorganisation and so improve the industry's proceeds.
Yesterday there was a question in another place to which my honourable friend replied, and in case there should be any misunderstanding connected with his answer perhaps I may be allowed to deal for one moment with that question. When coal is transferred by a colliery company to an ancillary undertaking the transfer price for the purpose of the wage ascertainment is agreed between the accountants on both sides. In a limited number of eases in which it is alleged that sales to these companies are made at an unreasonably low figure, it is the intention of my honourable friend to secure in connection. with the reorganisation of the selling side of the industry that the collieries concerned are credited with the proper proceeds. I say that, my Lords, to give the House some indication of the action that my honourable friend
210
proposes to take in regard to the selling side of the industry where it is the basis for wage ascertainment.
I fear that coy remarks to your Lordships this afternoon have been very short, but that is merely because of my desire not to enter at the present time into any discussion of general matters connected with the industry which might tend accidentally to hamper discussions which are proceeding to-day. If my words are grave it is due to the gravity of the situation which the Government so readily recognise. We hope that the industrial peace which must be made if the industry is to progress and flourish will lay the foundation of a new spirit of co-operation between the parties. It is the intention of my honourable friend to continue to act as the Government intermediary between the parties until such time as he successfully gets them together for a. discussion upon the whole subject. Until that time the mine workers have invited my honourable friend to continue his discussions with the mine owners and those discussions he proposes to continue. I think there is nothing further I can add, but I hope my remarks concerning the selling side of the industry will satisfy the noble Lord and induce him to withdraw his Motion for Papers in the realisation that the Government are acting in this matter with a desire to keep peace in the coal fields.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I think we have had a very interesting and conciliatory debate, not conciliatory as regards a sort of war but conciliatory as an attempt to see both sides of the problem and find out whether we cannot hammer out some settlement. I should like to be allowed to say that I had a letter from the most reverend Primate saying that he bitterly regretted not being able to be here this afternoon to take part in the debate because he feels very deeply the position of the miners. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, made a very interesting contribution to the debate because, if I understood him aright, he was in favour of a national settlement. If so, I welcome that—but I may have misunderstood him. I think if he goes on the Durham Board that will go a long way to make possible a development which I believe would be the greatest single step towards a national settlement of wages for which the miners have so long pressed.

211
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, also dealt in a conciliatory way with the whole problem from the point of view of the owners. He said that some miners were getting three days' work and three days' unemployment benefit, but I would like to point out that that is illegal and that the man who does it is liable to prosecution, unless, of course, the man is dismissed. If there is an arrangement that the man should be dismissed three days of each week so that unemployment benefit is granted him as a sort of bonus on wages, that is, I believe, illegal. The noble Lord also said that there were eases of men earning £450 a year and he said that; such a man ought not to complain. But I would remind the noble Lord that for every man earning £450 a year there must be, taking an average of 44s. 5d., ten men who are only earning £80 a year or 30s. 4d. a week. For every man earning the larger sum there are ten men getting an utterly inadequate—I suppose I dare not say starvation—wage.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, seemed to think that the only thing to do was to raise prices to consumers. I do not agree. I think there are many other ways. We have not heard a word about an examination of the spread between pit-head prices and the prices paid by consumers. If we could cut out that spread I think it would be possible to lower prices to the consumers while, at the same time, giving a larger price at the pit head to the producer. I regret very much that the noble Earl who replied for the Government did not deal with that aspect of the matter. Of course we on these Benches believe with the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, that the only real remedy is nationalisation of the industry. But I did not press that to-day because I was dealing with the specific matter of wages.
The noble Earl's reply for the Government pointed out that the number of fatal accidents was going down. I know he did not mean to mislead the House, but if he will examine, not the number of fatal accidents in a year but the number of fatal accidents per thousand persons employed, which I think is the only fair comparison, he will arrive at a different conclusion. The number of people employed has fallen from 1,300,000 to about 800,000. Therefore you would expect a drop in the number of fatal
212
accidents. If, however, you take the death rate per thousand persons employed one has to remark with regret that the figure is not going down. There is hardly any reduction even since 1903, and this year, when the figures include the terrible Gresford disaster, the number is up to the equivalent of the pre-War figure and the figure of the latter part of the last century.
There is one other thing I want to say. We have heard a good deal about accounts, and the noble Earl said that because accountants could agree amongst themselves therefore there was nothing to be complained of as regards credited prices. That is not the opinion of the President of the Mining Association who, in February, 1933, used these words:
"We all know that instead of getting better prices than we did when we began to function under this Act we are really getting lower prices. This is clue to the fact that we have placed more coal on the market than there was a demand for, that we have not been able to co-ordinate the regulation of prices as between district and district, and that we have not been able to prevent in the districts the evasions of the provisions of the schemes which were designed for maintaining prices at a remunerative level."
In other words, this plan of understanding what is going on has been evaded in the districts, and it is that evasion that we are trying to check and with which I hope the noble Earl will deal.
My Lords, I do not know about Papers. I was extremely interested in the suggestion that collieries were to be credited with the price they ought to have charged in cases where they have charged too low a price. We ought perhaps to see the regulation. I think that Paper might be made available—the regulation under which that alteration will be made. I do not know if the noble Earl can do that, and I venture to think that, if the House rises on, say, the 19th or the 20th and we are then left with a gap of six weeks during which anything may happen without any control from this House, we ought to have some assurance from the Minister that somehow or other Members of Parliament will be kept informed of the progress of the negotiations otherwise than through the very often alarmist Press reports. I do not know how that could be done, but I cannot help thinking that there must be some means by which Members of Parliament can be kept informed of the actual

213
position without being dependent on the sometimes inaccurate reports in the Press, so that we may be in a position to press for such action as we, as members of Parliament, may contribute towards the solution of the problem. Would it be possible to have anything on those lines?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord's request aright, it is that, when Parliament is in recess, some means should be devised by which direct information should be purveyed to the public and by which, I also understood him to say, members of this House and of another place might exert such pressure as they thought appropriate. I am bound to admit that at first sight I do not understand by what effective method members could exert pressure, as I understood him to say, when Parliament is not sitting. In regard, however, to the purveying of information, which I entirely agree with him important, I should have supposed that, if these negotiations were still in progress and the matter was still under debate, when there was any communication of value to be imparted to the public it would be the business of the Secretary for Mines, acting on behalf of the Government, to see that the newspapers, and the public through them, were correctly informed by means of official communications issued whenever the times seemed to suggest the need for it. But if the noble Lord will be content, I will certainly convey that suggestion which he has made to the appropriate quarters and see that regard is had to it should that situation so develop.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount who leads the House. My idea was a sort of White Paper coming out while Parliament is in recess, giving us the progress of negotiations up to date if we come to a dangerous
214
position, so that we may be informed beforehand of what negotiations have actually taken place before we reach the time of the stoppage. But I think the suggestion he makes is excellent: that there should be accurate communications to the newspapers. If he would be good enough to convey that suggestion to the Department concerned, for my part I do not think that we could expect anything more. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REPRINTING) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AMENDMENT OF THE PIGS MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
Made under subsection (ii) of Section 1 and Part II of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, as amended by the Third Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, perhaps I might call your attention to the fact that the House will meet at half-past ten to-morrow for the preliminary proceedings in the trial of the Lord de Clifford, before the House is adjourned to the Royal Gallery, where the trial begins at eleven o'clock.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.