(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state fully the circumstances in which the Nine Mile Point Colliery in South Wales was closed?

A return notifying the closing of this colliery on the 3rd November gives want of trade as the cause.

May I further ask whether the continuance of the stoppage now is due to the mineowners endeavour- ing to recruit individually, and refusing to meet the men's accredited representatives through the Miners' Federation?

I could not answer that question without notice.

Is it not the fact that the present condition of affairs at this colliery is largely due to a misapprehension on the pare of the members of the Miners' Federation in the district, who have never been told that an objectionable condition in the terms of working was removed earlier than the 28th January last?

On a point of Order. Yesterday there were numerous supplementary questions relating to the subject covered by the question which has now been put and answered, and an under standing was reached that a full answer would be given to a question which we should be permitted to put to-day. That question was framed and, in accordance with the usual practice, was submitted to you. The latter part of the question was as follows: Whether the employers have refused to meet the accredited representatives of the men concerned and discuss terms for resumption of work? As I understand, Mr. Speaker, you could not permit that part of the question to be submitted. I should like to ask why, and to submit to you the view that that was the more substantial part of the inquiry on which we wanted information, in view of yesterday's scene.

If anything has been cut out of a question, it is very unusual for the reasons to be asked for, and still more unusual for the reasons to be given, but I should like, for the right hon. Gentleman's information, to tell him that there is a very strict Rule of this House, which is very strictly carried out, that, when questions are handed in, nothing in a question put to any Department shall relate to matters for which the Minister responsible for that Department has no actual responsibility. That is one of the strictest Rules governing questions in this House. Therefore, it would be most unfair to the House in general if anything were allowed to come in in a Private Notice Question which was not allowed in questions handed in in the ordinary way at the Table. That is the reason why this and other questions have been treated in that way.

May I respectfully submit that one of the functions of the Mines Department and the Ministry of Labour is to deal with disputes particularly when they are prolonged, with a view to settling them by arrangement with the parties to the dispute. In this instance one of the two parties clearly is the mineowners, and we have submitted, as a fact, that the mineowners have refused to meet the accredited representatives of the workmen in order to arrange terms of settlement, and I still hold the view that we are entitled to put that as part of a question relating to the trouble?

Is the Minister aware that there is a Conciliation Board agreement in existence in South Wales with rules for the settlement of disputes, and that the colliery company are signatories to that agreement and have a member on the Board, and is not the action of the management of the colliery a violation of that agreement?

I know there is a Conciliation Board in that district but, without notice, I could not say whether this colliery is a member of it or not.

Is it not a fact that the request made by the management to the miners in this colliery is a contravention of the Eight Hours Act, and, further, is it not a fact that the Umpire decided in favour of the men and granted them unemployment benefit; and is not his decision positive proof that the miners were not refusing work under proper conditions?

I think that point really anticipates another Private Notice question which is to be answered by my right hon. Friend.

On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, to consider this? The question that is now being answered is one which was originally addressed to the Secretary for Mines, but at his request it was transferred to the Ministry of Labour. That fact was brought to the notice of the Minister of Labour last night. But the question in its original form was handed to the Mines Department. It was transferred to the Ministry of Labour at the special request of the Secretary for Mines, in view of the fact that the latter part of the question related to Ministry of Labour administration and could not be answered by the Secretary for Mines, in order to fulfil a promise given to the House yesterday that a full statement on the matter would be made to the House to-day.

I think a misunderstanding has arisen owing to the fact that there is another Private Notice question down which is addressed to me on the subject. The point of discrimination is that so far as mining concerns are in question any point as regards unemployment benefit arising out of them naturally falls to be addressed to me, and any point as regards industrial relations should be addressed to my hon. and gallant Friend. That is the distinction between coal mining and other industries. Questions concerning industrial relations in any other industry are addressed to me, and questions concerning relations in the mining industry are addressed to the Secretary for Mines. The other question on the unemployment benefit side of it has yet to be put, and I have yet to answer it.

On a point of Order. I understand that you, Sir, have said that questions relating to matters of conciliation or disputes could not be properly addressed to the Secretary for Mines.

I did not say that. I only said that a question cannot be addressed to a Minister on matters for which he has no responsibility.

Precisely. That was my interpretation. May I, therefore, put this question to the Secretary for Mines? When did the Ministry cease to interest itself in industrial disputes in the mining industry? Has it not always been the function of the Mines Department since its inception, to take cognisance of all matters relating to the mining industry, not only on the commercial and statistical side, but in relation to industrial matters? Has it not frequently intervened in industrial disputes?

I do not know whether the question is addressed to me or to the Secretary for Mines, but that does not alter the fact that nothing can be put down or asked for for which the Minister himself is not directly responsible.

Neither the colliery owners nor the representatives of the men have so far approached me with regard to this matter.

Is it not the duty of the Secretary for Mines in a matter of this sort to take the initiative himself?

I understood you, Sir, to rule that no question can in future be put to a Minister unless the matter is under his control. May I with a rather long experience of the House, put it to you respectfully, that the rule in the past has been that questions might be put to Ministers not merely on matters over which they have control but on matters of which they have knowledge, which might be of interest to Members of the House.

All I said was that questions cannot be put to a Minister on matters for which he has no responsibility.

On a point of Order. Do we understand that, even though the Minister may have no direct responsibility, the House has no right to obtain authoritative information on certain things from him by way of question?

Is it. any use putting questions seeing that there is no knowledge on the bench opposite?

I have nothing to add for the Ruling which I have given.

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether in the case of the Nine Mile Point Colliery dispute the decision of the Umpire was due to the existence of a condition which infringed the 1908 Act, and what is the position as regards unemployment benefit?

On a point of Order. There was a question on the Paper yesterday for a written answer in the name of the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir R. Gower) which was not answered—there is no answer circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT—and which would have given us information on a matter that was under examination yesterday. There were a number of questions asked arising out of a question to the Secretary for Mines by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury).

We can only deal now with the question which has just been asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford.

It is on this very point. We were promised an answer to a question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman which gave the impression that work was available for miners which they would not accept. The Chancellor of the exchequer took the responsibility of promising an answer to that question. As this question has been framed—

The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait and hear the reply.

May I make my point of Order? In view of the question that is put, it will be possible for no answer to be given on the matter which really interests this side of the House. My point of Order is: will you allow a further question to be put to the Minister?

If I consider that the answer given by the Minister of Labour needs more elucidation, I will allow hon. Members to put supplementary questions.

Owing to trade depression, the Nine Mile Point Colliery (owned by the Ocean Coal Company) gave notice to their men to terminate employment on and from 3rd November, 1928. New terms of employment were submitted to the men, but these were rejected. Benefit was disallowed by the insurance officer on the ground that employment had been lost by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute. On an appeal to the court of referees the decision of the insurance officer was upheld. The South Wales Miners' Federation then appealed to the umpire, who, in a decision No. 5672/1928, dated 14th January, 1929, allowed benefit on the ground that the terms offered entailed a breach of the Coal Mines Act, 1908 (as amended by the Coal Mines Acts of 1919 and 1926). Arrears of benefit due have been paid to the men. The colliery subsequently offered new terms of employment on 25th January, 1929. It is understood that these new terms were:

1. (a) For day wage-men remuneration on the same basis as that operative prior to the termination of the employment at the colliery on 3rd November, 1928, and
2. (b) for colliers—i.e., piece workers— the legal minimum wage.

May I ask whether, in view of the facts recited in the answer, the right hon. Gentleman does not now think that the case should be, as suggested by the Miners' Federation, remitted for decision to the Conciliation Board, and that his Department should intervene to that end?

No, Sir; there are two distinct points. The one is a point of unemployment benefit; the other is a question of Intervention in a dispute such as this. As far as benefit is concerned, as I have always said, that can only be settled by the statutory authorities. In this case it will be noticed that the two lower Courts disallowed the benefit, and the Umpire reversed their decision and granted it. In the further case, after new terms were offered, test cases have been taken and the matter is now under consideration by the statutory authorities. That is as far as that case can be carried at the present moment. Now, to intervene in a trade dispute is, as I said earlier to-day, quite a different matter, and is one in which anyone who has responsibility has always got very carefully to consider how far he can do it with advantage, granted he wishes to act with complete fairness by all parties. In the case of industrial relations in the coal-mining industry, I have already pointed out that it is a matter, strictly speaking, for the Secretary for Mines, and not for me, as distinct from disputes in other industries. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me. We will consider how far it is right and proper to take action and whether we can help in this matter or not. But, further than that, I am quite sure the House would not wish me to go this afternoon.

Mr. MARDY-JONES:

In view of the very careful statement the Minister has made, which we accept as an accurate statement of the actual position, may I ask, does it not now convey to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) that he had come to a rather hasty conclusion? Is it not evident, in view of the statement just made by the Minister that the case is sub judice? Is it not a fact that the decision of the insurance officer may or may not be reversed by the court of referees? Is it not a further fact that, even if the court of referees uphold this decision of the insurance officer, these men through their organisation have still a further appeal to the Umpire, and is it not possible again that the Umpire may reverse the decssion of the court of referees? In view of this fact, is it fair to insinuate that the men involved in this case should be charged with not being prepared to work?

The hon. Member is going back to the incident of yesterday. He had better leave that alone to-day.

On that ruling, is it not a fact that the whole of the matter we are now discussing has arisen out of the question of yesterday, and is it not necessary as a matter of high public policy— [Interruption.]—I can assure the House there is a great deal—

This is not the time to have a debate on high policy.

I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to put a supplementary question. I have to apologise to the Minister of Labour for putting it, because my information only reached me at 1.30 to-day, and my note may not have reached him yet.

I understood the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) rose to put a supplementary question.

On a point of Order. If my hon. Friend has a new question, may I put a supplementary question on the old one?

We must have one question at a time. If the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs wishes to put a supplementary question, he can do so.

I wish to put a supplementary question,

As hon. Members opposite are quarrelling, may I put my supplementary question?

My supplementary question is, whether the iron foundry labourers at Kirkintilloch—

It seems to me that the hon. Member's supplementary question has nothing to do with the main question.

Arising out of the reply of the Minister of Labour, I desire to know whether the decision of the Umpire was given on the ground that there was a contravention of the law in one of the conditions offered, that the offending condition was cancelled by the owners of the colliery on 25th January, that the members of the Miners' Federation in that district had never been informed of that by their leaders, and that, therefore, they are refraining from work under a misapprehension and are likely subsequently to be deprived of unemployment benefit?

On the information given to me, it is quite true the whole of the first case put before the Umpire, in which ultimately he allowed the benefit, turns on a breach of the Coal Mines Act, 1908. As I have just stated in my answer the colliery sub- sequently offered new terms of employment on 25th January, 1929, but as to how far those terms were or were not made known to any member of the association, I have no information at all.

Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, take steps to make this known to these unfortunate men, so that they may no longer be deprived of the work which they wish to obtain, and which they are prevented from obtaining by the South Wales Miners' Federation?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terms offered which he read out contain no piece-work rates whatsoever, nor do they, as far as we know, make any alteration in the present piece rates, and that the minimum rates depend upon earnings on piece-work? So far there has been no mention whatsoever of these piece-rates or any alteration. I would like to ask, further, whether the Employment Exchange is now engaged in trying to get men to work behind the back of the Miners' Federation?

As regards the actual conditions of the new terms offered, I have not got any detailed information. I was not able to get any in the time nor, indeed, for this purpose was it material, because whether they are suitable terms for the purposes of benefit or not is precisely the point which will have to come before the Umpire, as was the case in the previous instance, in which he gave his decision contrary to the Court of Referees.

There are no terms.

If there are no terms, then that will be one of the points which, I have not the least doubt, the Court of Referees and the Umpire will have before them as a basis on which to make their decision.

May I now ask the question you, Mr. Speaker, said I could ask? Does the Minister of Labour realise that his answer will confuse people who are engaged outside the coalfields in raising funds for miners' relief, and can he say definitely whether it was the fault of the men themselves that they are not working in this pit? That is what the ordinary charitable person wants to know.

I cannot do anything of the kind. The hon. Member referred to a question yesterday which, apparently, was not answered. I, myself, was not present at the time yesterday, and I know nothing except from hearsay about what occurred here. On the other hand, as far as this case is concerned, my responsibility primarily deals with the unemployment benefit question, with regard to which, I think, as it stands at this moment, every Member of this House is satisfied. It would be, I think, grossly wrong of me to attempt to weigh up the merits in this particular case as between employers and employed, and I do not think that I am in a position to do so.

Are you not aware of the propaganda that is going on against the miners?

May I ask whether there is any evidence at all that in South Wales there is a body of men out of work who are not willing to work?

I have got no evidence of the kind. Such evidence as there is comes up and is laid before the Court when the question of unemployment benefit arises.

Is it not a fact that no allegation has ever been made against the men, that they wish to work, and the allegation is that the officials of the South Wales Miners' Federation have dissuaded them from accepting work?

That is peace in industry! Peace in industry, on starvation wages!

Is the Chancellor of the exchequer prepared to honour the statement which he made in the House yesterday, that a full statement of the circumstances operating at the Nine Mile Point Colliery should be given to the House to-day?

A statement has been made by the Minister responsible, and I am sure that if anyone reads that statement and studies it they will be able to draw their own conclusions.

The Minister of Labour has, I think, given all the informa- tion that he has in the Department for which he is responsible. If hon. Members desire to ask further questions, they had better put them upon. the Order Paper.

On a point of Order, I desire to ask your ruling. Yesterday, I put a supplementary question, and afterwards I explained that I meant no insult of any kind to the miners. Certain expressions were, however, used which you did not hear, expressions which have always up to now been considered as unparliamentary expressions. In view of my statement that I had no intention whatever to insult in any way the miners, I hope that the hon. Members will see their way to withdraw those expressions.

HON. MEMBERS:

Withdraw your question!

What the hon. and gallant Member says may be quite true. I did not hear the actual expressions to which he refers, which are published in the newspapers; otherwise, I should have taken more notice of them. I think this incident had Better close.

On a point of Order. I would ask your ruling whether something could no;; be done and whether the hon. Members, in view of the fact that I said that there was no insult whatever meant to the miners in the supplementary question, will withdraw their statements?

May I ask the Minister of Labour whether either he or his Department are actively engaged in recruiting or trying to recruit labour from other districts for these mines?

Time must be given to the right hon. Gentleman to answer these questions. Dealing with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), I am sorry to say that regrettable expressions are used in this House very often in the heat of the moment, and I am sure that hon. Members who have been guilty of saying them, regret them afterwards, and will withdraw them.

That applies to both sides of the House.

As we have an assurance from the hon. and gallant Member that he meant no insult, but inasmuch as the supplementary question had the effect of the feelings of this side of tending in that direction, cannot he see his way to ease the whole situation by withdrawing any insinuation of that kind and expressing regret for any adverse effect that the supplementary question may have made?

rose—

Other questions on this matter must be put on the Order Paper.