Clause 1. — (Reduction of Hours of Employment Below Ground.)

Orders of the Day — Coal Mines Bill – in the House of Commons at on 7 August 1919.

Alert me about debates like this

The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, in its application to mines in which coal is worked shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

  1. (a) as from the sixteenth day of July, nine teen hundred and nineteen, this Act shall have effect as if in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section one thereof for "eight hours" there were substituted "seven hours," and as if in proviso (a) to Sub-section (7) of Section one thereof for "nine hours and a half" there were substituted "eight hours"; and
  2. (b) if, after the end of the year nineteen hundred and twenty, a Resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament that the economic position of the coal industry is such as to allow a further reduction of working hours, then, as from the thirteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twentyone, the Act shall have effect as if in Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section one thereof for "eight hours" there were substituted "six hours" and as if in proviso (a) to Sub-section (7) of Section one thereof for "nine hours and a half" there were substituted "seven hours"; and
  3. (c) in proviso (a) to Sub-section (7) of Section one thereof the word "onsetter" shall be omitted.

Provided that the Secretary of State may, in the case of persons employed on work which requires to be carried on continuously by day and night, allow them to be employed below ground for not more than eight hours during any consecutive twenty-four hours.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

I beg to move, to leave out the words, "in its application to mines in which coal is worked."

The object of this Amendment is to bring within the provisions of this amending Bill the workmen employed in certain mines who have not up to the present had the benefit of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, these mines being ironstone, shale, and fireclay mines. The miners employed in them naturally are anxious to have conferred also upon them the benefits which this amending Bill confers upon coal-miners. I do not see any reason why the miners employed in the class of mints I have named should be denied these benefits. The only reason which was given in Committee for not including them was that they had not been included in the Commission of Inquiry presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey. But although they were not included, these miners, at least in the case of the stratified ironstone and clay mines, have been paid the 2s. increase of wages awarded by the Sankey Commission, and in a number of cases they have, by agreement with the employers, had the benefit of the shorter working day conferred upon them. The only class of mines where the men have not received either the increase in wages or the redaction in working hours is the shale mines in the Lothians. These shale miners up to the present time have had the same working conditions as have been enjoyed by the coal-miners. So anxious are they to have the benefits of the same conditions as apply to coal mines that they have sent a deputation to London to interview the Home Secretary with a view to being included in those benefits. Amongst other things that they pointed out was that the employers had always said, when they were asking for benefits which were not being obtained by the coal-miners during times when the shale-mining industry was in a more prosperous condition than the coal-mining industry, that they could not have conferred upon them benefits which were not enjoyed by the coal-miners, and consequently all their working arrangements have been in line with the working arrangements in the coal mines. Unless these men are included there will be a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst them. They are not a large body. I do not think it is a good thing for the Government, in introducing a measure of this kind, to exclude here and there small bodies of men who hitherto had conferred upon them all the benefits which were enjoyed by the larger body of miners in the coal mines. We moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and it was only defeat d by the casting vote of the Chairman. I hope it will have better luck to-night and that the Undersecretary will see his way to accept it.

Photo of Mr James Lowther Mr James Lowther , Penrith and Cockermouth

I am a little doubtful about this Amendment. The Bill before us proposes to amend the Coal Mines Acts, 1887 to 1914. I am not aware whether ironstone miners and shale miners come within the terms of any of those Acts. I have been looking up the Act of 1908, and they do not come within that Act.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

That was a matter which was discussed in Committee, and after careful consideration the Chairman decided that the Amendment was in order. I may say that, in addition to the Coal Mines Act, 1908, there is the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act, 1911. I omitted to bring those two Acts with me. The Chairman of the Committee decided that the Amendment was in order.

Photo of Mr James Lowther Mr James Lowther , Penrith and Cockermouth

Yes; but I do not know on what ground. If the Coal Mines Acts, 1887 to 1914, do deal with ironstone miners, then I think the Amendment would be in order, but if they are not included within those Acts, it would clearly go beyond the decision the House took upon the Second Reading.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

Stratified ironstone, shale, and fireclay mines are included.

Photo of Mr John Baird Mr John Baird , Rugby

These mines are included in the Act of 1911. I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment, which has been proposed in such a conciliatory manner by the right hon. Gentleman. The reasons are very simple and clear. The right hon. Gentleman referred a little too briefly to the origin of this Bill. The Bill is for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations of the Sankey Commission, which, by its terms of reference, was clearly confined to investigating the conditions in the coal industry. The Sankey Commission did not take any evidence with regard to these other forms of mining. Without going thoroughly and carefully into the economic conditions of those industries, and without agreement on the part of those concerned in those industries, we do not feel it is possible to include them in this Bill. I trust that the House will not expect me to enter into the matter at great length. The position is perfectly clear. These mines were not included in the terms of reference to the Sankey Commission, therefore we do not feel justified in including them in the Bill, which seeks to give effect to the conclusions of that Commission.

Photo of Mr Thomas Cape Mr Thomas Cape , Workington

Ironstone miners always come within the provisions of the Act of 1911 so far as hours of work are concerned. I would remind the Under-Secretary that the miners in this particular locality are receiving one part of the Sankey award, namely, the 2s. a day granted to the coal-miners. I think I am right in stating that the ironstone mine-owners agreed with the ironstone miners in Cleveland that they would come under the reduction. of hours, and that on the 16th July they gave effect to those proposals. The Under-Secretary to the Home Office might inform the House whether or not some of the Government Departments have stepped in and prevented that arrangement from being carried out. I believe I am right in saying that for some days they worked those shorter hours by agreement with the employers. They are included in the Mines Act of 1911, and have always been looked upon as coming under the mines Acts. Seeing that they have received the Sankey award in regard to wages, and that the employers were prepared to agree with them in regard to the hours, the Home Office ought to be prepared to accept the Amendment. They have come under the previous Acts, and there is no reason way they should not come under this new Act. The Act ought to be carried out in the letter and in the spirit, and all who come within the purview of the miners' Federation ought on this occasion to be included.

Mr. T. WILSON:

I would appeal to the Under-Secretary to consider more fully the Amendment. In a Bill of this kind you ought not to split hairs, and if it is possible to avoid industrial unrest in any trade by bringing men within the Bill let us do so. Do not let us give any opportunity for the men to say "the Government could have brought us in if they had cared, but they did not care; therefore, we will decide on certain lines of action." I am certain that, under the provisions of the Bill and under the title, some of these men can be brought in. If the Home Office cannot promise to do that now, let them give us a pledge that they will go more fully into the question, and if they find that the arguments in favour of the Amendment are sound, they will introduce Amendments in the Bill in another place.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

It is quite impossible to bring within the provisions of this Bill to-night the men who work in the ironstone and shale mines.

Mr. WILSON:

The shale miners.

11.0 P.M.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

The ironstone miners have just as good a claim as the shale miners. They are included within the 1908 Act. It is not a question of the Home Office not desiring to do it. It is a question of this being a Bill which is intended to carry out the recommendations of a certain Commission. Within the recommendations of that Commission these particular men are not included. Therefore, they are not really within the provisions of this Bill. That does not mean that the Home Office are not desirous to bring them within its provisions. They are. But their case not having been considered, and no evidence having been taken with regard to them, they cannot possibly be brought within the terms of this Bill.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

I regret very much the attitude of the Government on this Amendment. It is not sufficient to say merely that the Sankey Report does not deal with these men. From the commencement the Miners' Federation of Great Britain made demands on behalf of these men, in precisely the same way as we put forward proposals all through the War. When we made application for a war wage allowance we made it on behalf of all members of the Federation, The same thing occurred in connection with these proposals, and when the Bill setting up the Commission was before the House it was with a view to having the miners' demands investigated—a six hours' day for these men as well as for the others. The Sankey award has been issued, and that part of the award relating to wages had to be applied to these men.

Mr. SHORTT dissented.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

It has been applied.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

That is what I am trying to put. The war wage that was awarded by the late Controller did not apply to these men under his award simply because they did not come under the coal control, but the Government said, "It is true you made an application for these men, and we shall now have to go to the Ministry of Munitions to get them to adopt the same award." In the same way our demand was made for these men in this case, and we understood, when the Commission was set up, that they were included, and there was no suggestion, until this Bill came on for discussion that they were excluded. We were then told by the Home Secretary that we ought to have raised the question on the terms of reference of the Commission. I suppose that we should have had a lawyer to advise us as to the language of the terms of reference. We certainly overlooked the wording of it. That is the only excuse we can offer for not expressing it. But, having regard to all that has taken place in our relations with these men, I do not think it possible for them to be left out of this measure and still have something like peace in the industry. I hope sincerely that the Home Secretary will undertake to give further consideration to this proposal with a view to seeing if he can deal with it at a later stage.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

The Act which was passed on 26th February this year dealt with the coal industry and the coal industry only.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

We understood all along that the Commission was set up to inquire into our demands. [An Hon. Member: "Demands?"]. I am not going to quibble about words—proposals if you like. We made our proposals. The Ministry of Labour agreed to set up a Commission of Inquiry. There was never any suggestion that these men were to be excluded from the terms of the Inquiry. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well, because we have met him as a deputation from the National Executive since, that that is the view we have taken all along. Of course, if he had said the same at any time in the past, in relation to the war wage or the Sankey Award, there would have been some justification. But no one has suggested that.

Photo of Mr Samuel Finney Mr Samuel Finney , Stoke-on-Trent Burslem

In the district I have come from, all the years I have been associated with it, whatever has been done for the coal miners has been done for the stone miners as well, so we have got into the habit of thinking that anything in the form of legislation or wages award affected concurrently and equally the stone mines and the coal mines. I rather think that that may be some reason why we were rather led astray, or did not think at the time that it was possible for them to be excluded under the terms of reference. I have perfect faith in the good intentions of the Government, but unless good intentions are translated into concrete shape, the people who are immediately affected in the districts will not understand the reason that is put forward for their exclusion. I should feel somewhat reluctant to adjourn to-night and to go back to my district without feeling sure that this matter was going to be attended to. We have trouble enough in the districts already without having this small matter brought forward as an excuse for the exclusion of these workers from this particular measure. We are reasonable men, all of us, and we want to get through these difficult times with advantage not only to our own people, but to the country as a whole. This is a very serious matter. I hope we shall not adjourn to-night without an assurance from the Government that it will be attended to.

Photo of Mr Robert McLaren Mr Robert McLaren , Lanarkshire Northern

I think the whole cause of this difficulty has been due to the excessive hurry in connection with the Coal Commission. It is the fact that when the question of coal was raised the shale people felt so strongly on the matter that they laid the case before the Royal Commission, and sent up a deputation of managers and other officials to London, but they were never asked to attend. They were of opinion that while it was quite true that the Act of 1908 included shale mines and other mines, that they ought not to be included in connection with the Coal Commission. I think they would have been able to show, if they had the chance, that if the seven hours were adopted they would have a grievance. It must be understood that they stand in a different position from the coal mines. Coal has been raised 6s. per ton, but the shale-miners get no benefit from that and, in fact, have got to pay that 6s., and they find that

burden so great that there is a likelihood that those mines will suffer. While it is true that hitherto the mines came under the various Acts, I think it is quite clear that in this case it was entirely for the coal mines. I quite endorse what was said by the Home Secretary, and I do not think it could very well extend beyond the coal collieries. I hope, therefore, that the Government will stick to their decision unless they can bring the men in without injuring industry to the extent of stopping it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 37.

Division No. 88.]AYES.[11.14 p.m.
Adair, Rear-AdmiralGreame, Major P. LloydNewman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. ChristopherGreen, A. (Derby)O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.Green, J. F. (Leicester)Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Atkey, A. R.Gregory, HolmanParker, James
Baird, John LawrenceGretton, Col. JohnParry, Major Thomas Henry
Baldwin, StanleyGriggs, Sir PeterPerkins, Walter Frank
Balfour, George (Hampstead)Gritten, W. G. HowardPerring, William George
Barker, Major R.Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)
Barnett, Captain Richard W.Hailwood, A.Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Barnston, Major HarryHamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)Pratt, John William
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)Pulley, Charles Thornton
Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)Hennessy, Major G.Purchase, H. G.
Bennett, T. J.Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Birchall, Major J. D.Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir GordonRoberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Blades, Sir George R.Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)
Borwick, Major G. O.Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith.Hood, JosephRutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Brackenbury, Col. H. L.Hopkins, J.W.W.Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Buchanan. Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.Honkinson, Austin (Mossley)Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.Home, Sir Robert (Hill head)Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Campion, Colonel W. R.Howard, Major S. G.Seager, Sir William
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.Hudson, R. M.Seddon, J. A.
Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Colfox, Major W. P.Inskip, T. W. H.Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Conway, Sir W. MartinJameson, Major J. G.Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)Jesson, C.Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Courthope, Major George LoydJodrell, N. P.Stephenson, Colonel H, K.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)Johnson, L. S.Stewart, Gershom
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)Johnstone, J.Sugden, W. H.
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)Sutherland, Sir William
Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)Kerr-Smiley, Major P.Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crews)King, Commander DouglasTerrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)Law, A. J. (Rochdale)Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Dawes, J. A.Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)Townley, Maximilan G.
Doyle, N. GrattanLewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)Tryon, Major George Clement
Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)Lort-Willlams, J.Turton, Edmund Russborough
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)Loseby, Captain C. E.Vickers, D.
Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Eyres-Monsell, CommanderMalone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Farquharson, Major A. C.Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson
Forestier-Walker, L.Morden, Col. H. GrantWild, Sir Ernest Edward
Foxcroft, Captain C.Moreing, Captain Algernon H.Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Fraser, Major Sir KeithMosley, OswaldWills, Lt.-Col Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.Mount, William ArthurWood, Major S. Hill-(High Peak)
Goddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C (Aberdeen)Younger, Sir George
Gibbs, Colonel George AbrahamMurray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John.Murray, William (Dumfries)TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.
Glyn, Major R.Nall, Major JosephF. Guest, and Lord E. Talbot.
Goft, Sir R. Park
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis DykeBowerman, Right Hon. C. W.Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamBroad, Thomas TuckerCape, Tom
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)Bromfield, W.Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Casey, T. W.Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)MacVeagh, JeremiahSwan, J. E. C.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)Richardson, R. (Houghton)Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Finney, SamuelRoberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
Hartshorn, V.Sexton, JamesWilliams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)
Holmes, J. S.Shaw, Tom (Preston)Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)Short, A. (Wednesbury)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-CommanderSitch, C. H.TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Lunn, WilliamSmith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)T. Wilson and Mr. Griffiths.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave oat the word "in" ["and as if in proviso"].

This Amendment, although a small one, is one of a series of Amendments having for their object the securing for the firemen, pumpmen, deputies, and examiners the same hours as are secured for the other classes of underground workers in the terms of this amending Bill. The firemen, deputies, and examiners are a very responsible body of men. Frequently it has been stated—and I think with a great amount of truth—that the safety of the mines is in the hands of those men. Discharging responsible duties as they do, we strongly feel that these men should have as good conditions as any other section of the workmen who are provided for in the amending Bill under consideration. Personally; I see no good reason why they should not get the benefit of the shorter working day that has been conferred upon the others. More than half of these men already, under the existing law, enjoy the same working day as the other underground workers. Naturally the section of them that up till now have not had that benefit conferred on them are very much dissatisfied. The only reason I have heard adduced in the course of our discussions in the Committee stage, and in the course of the discussion we had during the consideration of a former Bill, has been that it was a wise arrangement for the firemen and deputies to be on duty during the whole period that the men on the particular shift were underground. I have had practical experience of nearly all classes of underground work, including the duties of firemen, and I have never been able to agree with that view. I have rather taken the view that the chief reason why the employers—because it is the employers largely who have put forward the plea that I have stated—have taken that attitude was that they might be able to use this argument for classes of work other than purely and simply the duties of looking after the safety of the men and the safety of the mine. I believe—and my colleagues who represent these men share my view—that they can do their important duties of examination within the hours that have been conferred on the other sections of underground workers, and that there is, therefore, no necessity whatever of imposing upon them longer hours than the others. If their duties are as important as I and others think they are, they ought to have the same conditions conferred upon them as any other section of the workmen. In Committee we were unsuccessful in convincing the Under-Secretary of the necessity of this Amendment. I hope we shall be more successful now. The section of the men affected feel very much the distinction that is being made.

Photo of Mr John Baird Mr John Baird , Rugby

The object of this Bill, I am afraid I must repeat, is to carry out the recommendations of the Sankey Commission. The Amendment would go contrary to the recommendation of that Commission. In the last sentence of the first four of the Committee's Report it is recommended that Certain adjustments must be made in the hours of the classes of the underground workers specifically mentioned in the Act. That is the Act of 1908. Surely if the Commission had decided that the hours of these classes of underground workers could be assimilated to the hours of the hewers covered by the seven hours' proposal, it is only fair to assume that the Commission would have said so, and there would have been no further difficulty. As a matter of fact there has been a great difficulty in making the adjustments which the Commission recommended. The men referred to in the Act of 1903 are firemen, examiners, deputies, on-setters, pump-winders, fanmen, and furnacemen. The 1908 Act provides that they shall be underground for not more than nine and a half hours, that is compared with the eight hours of the, hewers. That difference of an hour and a half has been due to the fact that the firemen and deputies have to arrive within a couple of hours before the shift commences work to examine the mine, and they have to supervise the shift while underground; consequently they have to be a longer time in the mine than the rest of the shift. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to numbers of firemen—to take only one class of the men affected—who work the same hours as the hewers. There may be certain exceptions, but surely the rule is that the deputies and firemen have to be down the pit before the men in the shift, and, although they do not work in many cases the nine and a half hours or anything like it—that is the maximum time provided in the Act of 1908 —I believe I am right in saying that in the vast majority of cases they do work for a longer period than the ordinary men in the shift.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

I stated that more than half the men, under the existing arrangement, are working exactly the same hours as the miners.

Photo of Mr John Baird Mr John Baird , Rugby

That point, no doubt, was put to the Sankey Commission. They went very exhaustively into this question, and there is their Report, which does not say that the hours should be the same. It retains these distinctions and leaves the hours to be fixed by adjustment. With a view to arriving at an adjustment, because the Act of 1908 provided for nine and a half hours and some difference had to be made in view of the reduction to seven hours for the hewers, we endeavoured to reach an agreement between the mine-owners and the miners; but it proved to be impossible to come to an agreement. We, therefore, had to have recourse to the technical experts of the Home Office, who are of opinion that eight hours is the period which will enable these special categories of men to carry out their very responsible duties of securing the safety of the mine and of the miners, and, at the same time, provide a considerable reduction in the number of hours previously worked—a reduction, indeed, larger than the reduction which the hewers will enjoy, because it is a reduction from nine and a half to eight, as compared with a reduction from eight to seven. It is a very difficult and technical question. In the position in which we found ourselves we felt the only thing to do was to refer the matter to experts, who could not possibly be supposed to take one side or the other, either that of the mine-owners or that of the Miners, but whose sole interest obviously is to ensure that the arrangements shall be such as to secure the safety of the men at work. The categories of men are very important and responsible. Their work is equally important, and I hope that the House will agree with the arrangement proposed in the Bill, which has the sanction of the technical experts of the Home Office, as being a wise one.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

I do not quite understand what the Under-Secretary means when he says that the technical experts at the Home Office agree in regard to this point. The chief technical expert in mining at the Home Office was prepared to agree when we tried to negotiate in regard to seven hours and one winding, which is very different to the terms of this Bill. Any number of hon. Members on all sorts of occasions are ready to declare that nothing stands between this country and revolution, but the moral authority of this House, that labour questions must be settled, and that direct action must be destroyed, but nothing goes through this House by argument or reason. We should not have had this Bill at all but for the threat of a direct strike. There is nothing creates unrest and discontent so much among the workers as the existence of anomalies, and wherever you have an anomaly, wherever you have amongst a large body of men even a small section of them who do not enjoy the advantages that apply to the majority that is always a running sore. In this case you have a small number of men and there is no earthly reason why they should not receive precisely the same conditions as all the other workmen. [An Hon. MEMBER: "What about the safety of the mines!"] That question does not come in at all here.

As my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) has already stated, more than half the examiners are already working the same hours as the miners, and they will continue to do so. The same thing is true of the pump-men and the fan-men. They are already working the same hours and will continue to do so even if this Bill does not provide for it. The Federation will say, "Very well, you ask for those hours and we will back you." Why should we be called upon to settle the matter in that way when no reason can be assigned why they should be treated differently to the others. I should be pleased to see this House do something towards settling paltry differences of this sort without forcing us to the old method of direct action. This policy is simply making the miners believe that it is useless coming to this House at all because unless they have numbers large enough in the Division Lobby they are helpless. I do not know whether it is any use making an appeal to the Government upon this point.

Photo of Mr Thomas Casey Mr Thomas Casey , Sheffield, Attercliffe

I should like to appeal to the Under-Secretary to the Home Office to reconsider this matter. I was very much surprised to hear him state that the deputies, firemen, and pump men worked longer than one shift. So far as Yorkshire is concerned, deputies and firemen work the same number of hours as the miners. You have, to remember that the majority of the coal-miners in this country work in two or three shifts. There are very few men in this country who only work a single shift. There are two or three daily, and one shift relieves the other; therefore, there is no necessity for the deputy or the fireman to go on duty two or three hours before the shift commences. It is simply because of their arduous undertaking and of the dangerous character of their work which everybody recognises that this reduction of hours is conceded as a matter of common justice. It is looked upon as absolutely essential. The considerations in this regard, so far as the ordinary miners are concerned, apply equally and with just as much force to the deputies and firemen, whose labours are equally as arduous, dangerous, and responsible. During the whole of his shift he will have to travel a number of miles to examine the coal face, visiting the men in their stalls and working places, and going from place to place in a crouched attitude, and surely therefore the deputy or the fireman is entitled to a reduction of hours just as much as any other mine-worker.

Let me mention another fact in regard to the pumpmen and the fanmen. The right hon. Gentleman said just now it was time that an end was put to those anomalies in the coal industry. Here you have under this Bill the mechanic, the engineer, the electrician, and the coal getter given a seven-hour shift, but the man in charge of the pumping, the man with the heavier responsibility, is to be compelled to work eight hours. He may be working alongside a haulage-engine, the size of which may be comparatively small and of less horse-power than his own engine; his work entails greater responsibility, requires greater skill, and more technical knowledge, yet because he pumps or fans he is to be compelled under this Bill to work eight hours. I say that that difference ought not to exist; there ought not to be this differentiation between these men. We have not a single man on the surface who is working more than eight hours to a shift—who is working more than forty-six and a half hours per week—and that is on the Sankey award. Here, under this Bill, where a man is working underground, where the atmosphere cannot possibly be like it is on the surface, where there is danger and risk to life and limb, you are going to compel him to work longer hours than the man who is working on the surface. Is that reasonable? On the surface under the Sankey award we have obtained the forty-six and a half hours week—the pump man and the fan man get it—and yet we are told under the Bill a man following the same occupation underground is compelled to work a forty-eight hours week. That is not quite fair. One of the difficulties we are up against is that we cannot possibly get the Government to recognise that this question affects one particular and large industry. The whole of the men working in the same industry should be treated on a national basis. We have got it on the surface under the Sankey award. We have the surface labour treated on a national basis. Every colliery in England, Scotland, and Wales will come under the forty-six and a half hours week, yet under this Bill we are simply going not to have a national basis. It is said the pump men work nine and a half hours under the Act of 1908. What was the evidence given before that Act was introduced? The evidence of the employers was that they could not work the pits successfully, they could not keep them secure and safe unless these men worked nine and a half hours. Nevertheless, for a number of years we have been able by negotiation to get their hours brought down to eight, and surely if the Sankey award states, as it does, that there should be some adjustment in regard to the hours of these men, where does the adjustment come in if they are working eight hours now, before the application of the Bill, and to compel them to work eight hours, where does the arrangement come in at all? Therefore, in justice to these men, to do away altogether with the anomalies that exist, it is only reasonable, fair, and proper that we should ask the Government to reconsider the matter, because it will simply create further irritation, and we shall simply have futher trouble. Surely we ought to let the men feel that the Government wants to treat them fairly and honestly, and without any differentiation whatever, and I hope the Government will reconsider the matter. Under the munitions award a small section of men were given an increase of 12½ per cent., and immediately that was done all the other grades of the industry clamoured for the same rights, and you had no satisfaction until every man in the engineering industry was conceded that 12½ per cent. The same will obtain here. The men will feel that they have not been treated rightly unless they are given under the terms of the Bill the same treatment as the miners and the rest of the underground men, and I hope the Government will review the matter and see whether it is not possible to meet their case.

Mr. HOPKINSON:

I wish to contest what has just been said by the hon. Member. It is perfectly ludicrous for hon. Members to seek to take advantage of the ignorance of this House in regard to mining matters and as to the nature especially of the work of the pumping men and the fan men. Of course, the vast majority of hon. Members have never been down a pit. It is not fair to compare a pump man or a fan man with a hauling-engine man. The haulage man, in many cases, is very hard-worked, and he is just as much entitled to the benefit of shorter hours as the hewer. I hope the House will not be led away by things of this sort. Anybody who has been in a pit half a dozen times has had enough experience to know how ridiculous it is to compare the labour of the pump man and the fan man with that of the haulage man. I hope the Undersecretary will continue to resist the Amendment. I have been very much impressed with the attitude of some of my hon. Friends. They seem to be under the impression that the Government have no idea but to carry out the recommendations of the Sankey Commission. The truth of the matter is this. Both the Government and the country are realising that we have got into a dreadful mess by interfering with things we do not understand; but we are committed to certain things and we must carry out the promise to give effect to the Sankey award. But we are certainly not going to land ourselves in further difficulties by agreeing to other alterations. I am convinced that the Government has taken the right line in adhering to the terms of the Sankey award, and it would be impolitic and unfair to the men themselves to go outside the agreement.

Photo of Mr Robert Richardson Mr Robert Richardson , Houghton-le-Spring

The idea in some quarters seems to be that we are asking the Government to agree to something that is unfair. May I give the experience in my own county of Durham. There the men do not work for more than seven and a half hours in any shift, yet under this Bill certain classes are now to be asked to put in eight-hour shifts. In my county we have three shifts a day in actual practice, so that no one works more than eight hours, and yet the work is carried on in perfect safety. No one will declare that Durham has been worse managed than any other part of the coalfield. The Durham production per man, as revealed by the much-reviled Sankey Report, is more than in any other part of the coalfield, and yet these deputies only work the same hours as the hewers. In my early experience the coal-hewer actuaally worked in the pit an hour per day more than the deputy.

The effect of what you are proposing would in our part of the country mean an increase in the working hours of the deputies of from half an hour to three quarters of an hour. Under the present arrangement of equal working hours no mishap has occurred in Durham, and it has been proved that it is as well managed as any other part of the coal field, and what is done in Durham can be done in other parts of the country. I do not see any reason for the proposal in this Bill. The deputy is the responsible man, and if you want an output of coal commensurate with the country's needs you will consider the claims of these men. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do the conditions, having had them placed before him so often, in my own county, and he must know that what has been done in Durham can be done elsewhere. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

There is a great deal of misapprehension. The provision of the Bill is that the hours which were originally fixed, as a maximum and not as a minimum, nine and a half hours, should be reduced to eight hours. Let me at once clear up what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hartshorn). It is very unsatisfactory to mention names of officials who advise Members of the Government; but as Sir Richard Redmayne's name was mentioned, let me say that the hon. Member is quite mistaken in supposing that the provision in this Bill is not that which Sir Richard Redmayne thinks is correct. He is quite mistaken in supposing that Sir Richard Redmayne ever suggested that it should be a seven hours winding.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

Is it not a fact that Sir Richard Redmayne, when it was put to him that if the owners had agreed to seven hours in one winding, he said he would have regarded that as a satisfactory solution. Did he not agree to that in your presence, and because the owners did not agree you put eight hours in the Bill?

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

Nothing of the sort. What he did say was that seven hours in a winding, if both sides agreed upon it, could be done, but he never agreed for a moment that there should be a prohibition against any men where it was necessary to work more than seven hours at a winding. My hon. Friend put as one of his strongest arguments that at 50 per cent. of the pits in this country seven hours was all they were working. That involves this argument that 50 per cent. are working more.

12.0 M.

This provision does not say that everybody has to work eight hours. How my hon. Friend can have read the Bill in that way I cannot understand. My hon. Friend behind me said that every man was obliged to work eight hours. Nothing of the sort. What the Bill says is that whereas before he was allowed to work nine and a-half hours he now is not allowed to work more than eight, but it does not follow that he is bound to work eight. If in any particular mine they can arrange to work seven or seven and a-half hours, there is nothing to prevent them doing so. There is the provision that in those particular 50 per cent. of the cases to which my hon. Friend by inference referred, where seven hours and a winding will not do to restore the legal right, where it is necessary, to work the full eight.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

It is not right to say in those 50 per cent. collieries where they now work the same hours as the miners under this Bill they would be required to work an hour longer than the miners—that is to say, where the hours were reduced to eight before and remain eight.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

It is getting late, and I cannot go any further into this. There is no such provision. The fixing of a minimum by a law which says that you must not work more than eight or nine hours is not a provision that you must work the eight or nine hours. Surely my hon. Friend can understand the difference between fixing a maximum beyond which you must not go and fixing a minimum below which you must not go. There is no minimum fixed in this Bill. It is a maximum. All the Bill says is that you must not work more than eight hours. It nowhere says that you must work the eight hours. It is purely a matter of arrangement in each individual mine. May I remind my hon. Friends opposite that this is a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Sankey Commission. They are seeking to go behind those recommendations, to put into this Bill something which is not contained in the Sankey recommendations, and which is contrary to those recommendations. Do not let them forget that the time may come when the Government may have to do the same, and when that time does come we shall have to remind them that they cannot blame us for seeking to go behind the Sankey recommendations, as they have tried to do the same themselves.

Photo of Mr Stanley Holmes Mr Stanley Holmes , Derbyshire North Eastern

The finding of the Sankey Report was that the conditions under which miners work are different from those of other people, that they work in darkness the whole day, continuously with but a short rest for meals, and that they work amid dirt and dust, and in many cases exposed to the dangers of bad gases. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] That is agreed. The Government have accepted it. Surely we should be logical and say, as we have all agreed, that all the men who work underground should be treated in the same way, and should work for the same time. That is the point here—that the deputies and these other men in responsible positions are being asked to work longer than the miners. To say that it is a matter of danger to raise that question is to throw dust in the people's eyes. The mines will be attended to. The danger will be averted. It is purely a matter of convenience, and these deputies have the right to ask for the same hours as the miners, because the conditions under which they work are the same.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

I beg to move, to leave out the words Provided that the Secretary of State may, in the case of persons employed on work which requires to be carried on continuously by day and night, allow them to be employed below ground for not more than eight hours during any consecutive twenty-four hours. The provision contained in the words I seek to delete gives the Home Secretary powers which are not contained in any existing mining legislation. The Home Secretary twitted us with asking something in the last Amendment which was

Question put, "That the word 'in' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 127, Noes, 27.

Photo of Mr John Baird Mr John Baird , Rugby

The point made by the right hon. Gentleman has been very carefully examined since the Committee stage, namely, whether the existing provision of the Act of 1908 does not provide adequately for the point with which this proviso deals, and we are informed that it does not meet the point completely, because it might not be held that some of the cases contemplated come within the scope of emergencies. The House will recollect that the object of this proviso is to ensure that it is possible to have men working continuously by a system of eight-hour shifts in special cases. That would be impossible under the Bill as it stands, because no man is allowed to work more than seven hours at a time. The eases contemplated can be defined, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adamson) will consider we have met the point if we insert an Amendment which I shall now read. We agree that the proviso as it stands is perhaps wider than is necessary, and we want nothing more than is absolutely necessary to secure the point. Therefore, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider accepting these words: After the word "work" in the proviso sought to be deleted, to insert the words "of sinking a pit, driving a cross measure drift, or boring or driving against gas or water in old workings." That defines four distinct emergencies for which we desire to have the faculty of employing men for eight hours. The proviso already provides that the sanction of the Secretary of State is necessary, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that we have met the point that he has raised.

Photo of Mr William Lunn Mr William Lunn , Rothwell

Can the hon. Gentleman give any instance where men have even worked the same number of hours as the men on the face, never mind seeking to provide, as in your Amendment, that they should work longer hours? They always work shorter hours.

Photo of Mr John Baird Mr John Baird , Rugby

The Act of 1908 specifically provides that men may work two shifts of six hours each in the twenty-four hours instead of one shift of eight hours. It provides, therefore, for men working twelve hours in the twenty-four. We seek to provide that the same faculty as exists under the present Act of employing men for eight hours in the twenty-four in these special circumstances shall continue.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

I should like to know what the Home Secretary has to say now, after the sermon he gave us some time ago about sticking to the Sankey award. The Sankey recommendation is that seven hours be substituted for eight. Where, in the Sankey Award, does the right hon. Gentleman get any recommendation, or suggestion, that this shall be made into eight hours?

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

This does not substitute eight for seven It reduces twelve to eight.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

I know it does not, but does my right hon. Friend mean to suggest that men in sinking pits can work twelve hours a day?

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

They work six hours a day. I believe the Act, as it stands to-day, provides that men driving these cross-measures and headings can do that.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

The Act as it stands at present, the present law, allows that men may work in any twenty-four hours' two shifts of six hours; that is twelve hours. This Act provides for their working eight. If they would rather work twelve, we will withdraw this.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

If that is the sort of interpretation the Home Secretary desires to put upon, the Sankey award, all I can say is, that he cannot find it within the covers of the award. We are quite content with the law as it stands. We would rather have the Act as it stands. We do not want any amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to embody any such Amendment in this Bill if this Bill is merely carrying out the Sankey recommendations. I know it is useless talking here. I do not care whether you put it in or you keep it out; we simply will not work it. What I do mean to say to the Home Secretary is this—and I want the Home Secretary to realise what he is doing to-day—he is trying to get into the Act a provision under which men can work, eight, ten, or a dozen hours in the case of emergency. If we find that this attempt on the part of the Home Secretary to get those additional powers under this Bill, we shall simply give instructions to our men, and urge them not to work in any emergency at all more than seven hours. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is bringing us to. We will certainly carry it into effect if the House will not accept the advice of the miners representatives.

Photo of Mr Thomas Inskip Mr Thomas Inskip , Bristol Central

The hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn) appears to regard any suggestion which he makes as so conclusively reasonable that it ought to be accepted by this House, otherwise the miners will not carry out the provisions of the Act. It is a lamentable exhibition. He assumes that it is quite useless to use any argument in this House, and he therefore proposes to resort to the argument of brute force. The hon. Member a few minutes ago suggested that his party had made a mistake in not employing a lawyer. If he will consult a lawyer now he will find that the Clause really protects the miner.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

The Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself is for the deletion of five lines in this Bill. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has told us that this proviso is designed to protect the miner. As representing the miners, I can say that we are not anxious to have that protection. Up to the present we have not secured its withdrawal. If we take the Under-Secretary's Amendment, what it means is that it will give to the men in the sinking shaft an eight-hours day and to the men who are driving a cross-measure an eight-hours day.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

Instead of a twelve-hours day.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

These men have got a. seven-hours day now. We desire the deletion of the proviso on two grounds, one of them the ground which you have exalted to such a high degree yourself to-night, that it is not contained in the Sankey Report, and the other that it is intended to enforce the existing law. While I should have liked to shorten the discussion as much as possible, and also to accept the offer of the Under-Secretary, it is of such a character that frankly I cannot do so. It would tie bodies of workmen who are not tied now.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

I can assure my right hon. Friend that he is quite mistaken in supposing that this provision adds one single hour to the work of any man working in the mines.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

The Amendment offered only shows the limits by defining what is in the Bill. As the law stands, any man is entitled to work two shifts each of six hours in the twenty-four. That is twelve. He may work two of five in the twenty-four—that is, ten—but this provision prevents him working more than eight. He may work two of four, or one of five and one of three, but the total is only eight in the twenty-four. The provision in the Bill says that in the case of persons employed on work which requires to be carried on continuously by day and night they may be employed below ground for not more than eight hours during any consecutive twenty-four.

Photo of Mr Vernon Hartshorn Mr Vernon Hartshorn , Ogmore

Does not the right hon. Gentleman—

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

It is too late to give way. Because we seek to reduce the period to eight hours hon. Members who do not appreciate what the Bill means are too proud to give way and acknowledge that they have made a mistake. They would sacrifice their own people and prevent twelve being reduced to eight. We must stick to the Bill as it stands.

Mr. T. WILSON:

We may have failed to realise what these lines mean, but men may be called upon to work eight hours right ahead. Under the existing law they can only be called upon to work a six hours' shift.

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

They can only be if they agree; they cannot be forced.

Mr. WILSON:

Then why put it in the Bill?

Mr. WILSON:

Then to meet the wishes of those who represent the miners, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment. If industrial trouble arises, do not ask the representatives of Labour to come to your assistance.

Photo of Mr Robert McLaren Mr Robert McLaren , Lanarkshire Northern

I think it is a pity that the miners' representatives have not accepted this Clause. It appears to me that the whole purpose is that there should be no time lost during the whole twenty-four hours. In the case of development it is

necessary to work the whole twenty-four hours, because without development there can be no increased output. I would like to ask the Home Secretary if he would not put a little more into the Bill. A crosscutting measure is entirely different from driving in the coal, and I think that ought to be in as well. In these circumstances I think the miners are getting a great benefit and that they will do wrong not to accept it. I trust the Home Secretary will stick to the provision and allow us to pass it.

Photo of Sir Charles Edwards Sir Charles Edwards , Bedwellty

There is no provision in the Sankey award that I am aware of for working longer hours for development, so that this is entirely new. If you want to deal with emergencies, it is foolish in the extreme to talk about the Home Secretary giving orders, because a case of emergency has to be decided on the spot, and you cannot give orders from here in cases of that sort. Suppose you had a man buried under a fall. Must they get orders from you to work even eight hours? There is no sense and no reason in the thing. You cannot give orders in a case of emergency; it must be settled there; and there is no provision in the Sankey award for working longer hours for development, so that you are going back upon that entirely.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'may' ['the Secretary of State may'.], stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 26.

Division No. 90.]AYES.[12.41 a.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis DykeDoyle, N. GrattanKerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Adair, Rear-AdmiralElliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.Eyres-Monsell, CommanderLaw, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Atkey, A. R.Farquharson, Major A. C.Lindsay, William Arthur
Baird, John LawrenceForestier-Walker, L.Lort-Williams, J.
Baldwin, StanleyFoxcroft, Captain C.Loseby, Captain C. E.
Barker, Major R.Fraser, Major Sir KeithM'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Barnett, Major Richard W.Ganzoni, Captain F. C.Mallalieu, Frederick William
Barnston, Major HarryGibbs, Colonel George AbrahamMalone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John.Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.
Bennett, T. J.Green, J. F. (Leicester)Morden, Col. H. Grant
Blades, Sir George R.Gregory, HolmanMoreing, Captain Algernon H.
Borwick, Major G. O.Hailwood, A.Mosley, Oswald
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith.Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)Murchison, C. K.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.Hennessy, Major G.Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Brackenbury, Captain H. L.Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Broad, Thomas TuckerHilder, Lieut.-Col. F.Nall, Major Joseph
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)Hood, JosephNewman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.Hopkins, J. W. W.Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Wastbury)
Campion, Colonel W. R.Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)Parker, James
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)Perkins, Walter Frank
Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.Inskip, T. W. H.Perring, William George
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)Jameson, Major J. G.Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)
Courthope, Major George LoydJodrell, N. P.Pulley, Charles Thornton
Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)Johnson, L. S.Purchase, H. G.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)Sprot, Colonel Sir AlexanderTryon, Major George Clement
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)Turton, Edmund Russborough
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)Stephenson, Colonel H. K.Vickers, D.
Sanders, Colonel Robert ArthurStewart, GershomWigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)Sugden, W. H.Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Seager, Sir WilliamSutherland, Sir WilliamWills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Seddon, J. A.Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. JohnTerrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)Townley, Maximilan G.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamHartshorn, V.Shaw, Tom (Preston)
Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.Holmes, J. S.Smith, W. (Wellingborough)
Bromfield, W.Johnstone, J.Swan, J. E. C.
Cape, TomLunn, WilliamThomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Carter, W. (Mansfield)Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Casey, T. W.Murray, William (Dumfries)Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Dawes, J. A.Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Finney, SamuelSexton, JamesTyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.

Question put, and agreed to.

Photo of Mr William Adamson Mr William Adamson , Fife Western

I beg to move, after the word "State" ["the Secretary of State may"], to insert the words "after consultation with the workmen affected or their representatives."

The object of this Amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.