June 26, 1914.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1489

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—June 23.

Coal and Oil Fuel.

Mr. Edgar Jones asked whether the Admiralty had con-
ducted an investigation as to the coal areas which are likely
to be the most promising for distillation purposes; and
whether any steps would be taken to secure in the future an
adequate supply of coal for distillation from those areas.

Mr. Churchill said the Admiralty had accumulated con-
.siderable information on the subject referred to in the first
part of the question. As the scientific distillation of coal
and the organisation of the industrial use of the various
products so obtainable were still in a comparatively early
stage, there was much information yet to be acquired; the
Admiralty was not losing any opportunity of adding to its
knowledge, and would do what reasonably could be done in
the matter. The .Admiralty had made it their practice to
inspect processes and plant whenever invited to do so. In
reply to the second part of the question, there was no reason
to suppose that adequate supplies of the raw material would
not be forthcoming. The real problem, apart from any
further improvement of distilling processes, was how best to
secure the economical industrial use of the various products
of coal, particularly of the solid residue or coke. Action by
the Admiralty in promoting the supply of oil from coal for
naval purposes could at the best be only a partial contribu-
tion to the solution of the problem. The serious attention
and co-operation of large producers and larger users of coal
and other fuels were essential. In time of war the econo-
mical disposal of certain products might to some extent be
sacrificed to the more urgent consideration of supplementing
our reserves by a larger proportion of home-produced oils.
The Admiralty had for a long time past had this in view,
and had already taken some effective steps to that end. In
normal circumstances, however, the problem must be
approached on all its sides and not only on that of navy fuel
to secure a sound economic solution.

Mr. Edgar Jones asked if the right hon. gentleman was
aware that" already certain French and German syndicates
own large areas in the South Wales coalfields, and if
further syndicates set to work to obtain coal on a large scale
with a view to supplying oil to Germany, France, and Italy,
would the Admiralty in this country raise any objection.

Mr. Churchill said the best coal that was distilled for
oil, unfortunately, was not Welsh coal.

Mr. Edgar Jones asked for the total value of Cardiff
coal and the total value of oil fuel, respectively, consumed
by the Admiralty in each year since 1907-8.

Mr. Churchill said it would be contrary to Admiralty
practice to give the figures asked for, but the average demand
of the Admiralty upon best classes of Welsh steam coal did
not exceed from a-tenth to a-twelfth the total output. The
Admiralty policy regards accumulation of oil reserves
might in time necessitate provision of stocks on the West
Coast, but no particulars could be furnished.

In a written answer, Mr. Churchill states that he has
equipped an efficient laboratory for the examination and
testing of oil. For some years past an oil fuel experimental
station has been in existence at Portsmouth, and has been
developed as the use of such fuel extended. The chemical
work is in close co-ordination with the practical and engi-
neering experiments, and is carried out in the Admiralty
laboratory at Portsmouth, which is in charge of the Admir-
alty chemist, a scientific officer who has carried out for the
Admiralty very valuable research work in regard to fuel oils
as a member of a committee under the direction of the late
Boyal Commission on oil fuel and engines. The experience
of the Admiralty gained in experimental tests and in actual
use finds expression in the Admiralty specifications for oil
fuels which are issued to the trade. The specifications for
heavy oil fuel has been laid on the table of the Elouse. As
the standard of test is purely for naval purposes, it is not
proposed to issue periodical reports, but the Admiralty will
continue its present practice of affording as much informa-
tion as possible to all persons whose co-operation is in any
way likely to promote naval interests.

June 25.

Mt. Fell asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he was
aware of the experiments being made in Ireland to extract
oil from the beds of coal and shale in that country; and if he
could state the percentage of oil recoverable from each ton
of coal or shale.

Dr. Macnamara (Parliamentary Secretary to the Admir-
alty) said the answer to the first part of the question was in
the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question,
it was understood that the percentage depended not only on
the quality of the coal or shale, which varied with the
locality in which it was mined, but to some extent also on
the particular character of the products which it was desired
to extract and the purpose for which they were used.

Mr. Fell asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he had
caused any experiments to be made for the extraction of oil
from the coal now being raised in Kent; and, if the experi-
ments were favourable, would he consider the question of
the advantages of that field for the supply of oil for the navy.

Dr. Macnamara said the answer to the first part of the
question was in the negative. It was only quite recently
that this coalfield had furnished to the Admiralty a sufficient
supply for test as coal. In regard to its possibilities for
production of oil, which would, of course, involve the finding
of a profitable market for the other products of distillation,
no doubt the colliery companies would take the matter up
if they so desired, and inform the Admiralty of results. The
Admiralty would give consideration to any information in
regard to developments which might take place in this or
other fields.

Pithead Baths.

Mt. John Williams asked the Home Secretary whether
there were any statutory Orders issued by his department
making it compulsory on the workmen to pass through the
colliery office or manager’s office when recording their votes
in the matter of pithead baths; whether there was a special
form of ballot paper required; whether it was necessary for
the workmen and the management to work conjointly before
the ballot had been taken; whether it was essential that the
ballot should be taken under the supervision of the colliery

officials ; and whether the officials of the mine and boys under
16 years of age came within the term “ workmen ” for this
purpose.

Mr. McKenna replied :—‘ ‘ The procedure in this matter is
regulated by an Order made by me under section 77 of the
Act, which provides for the ballot being carried out by a
representative of the owner, agent, or manager, and a
representative of the workmen, and leaves it to these repre-
sentatives to determine the place of the ballot. A form of
ballot paper is prescribed by the Order. The persons entitled
under the terms of the section to vote are ‘ all workmen
employed underground, and all workmen engaged on the
surface in handling tubs, screening, sorting, or washing ccal,
or loading coal into wagons.’ I am advised that the term
‘ workman ’ in this connection includes boys; and I am
further advised, although the point is not perhaps altogether
free from doubt, that having regard to the object of the pro-
vision, firemen and other officials employed continuously
underground are also included.”

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Colkery Maintenance Men.

The enquiry with regard to the draft special extension
Order, in which it is sought to add the repair of works of
construction and sawmilling to the scheduled industries
coming under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, was
continued by Mr. A. A. Hudson, K.C., Commissioner, at the
Caxton Hall, Westminster, on the 17th inst.

In order to satisfy the requirements as to notice, the
enquiry with respect to sawmilling was formally opened
and adjourned until July 2. The colliery case will probably
be taken on July 3.

The enquiry on the first Order, relating to repairs of
works of construction, was then continued, Mr. H. W.
Beveridge, director of Labour Exchanges, being again
under cross-examination.

In reply to Sir T. Batcliffe-Ellis, who represented the
Mining Association of Great Britain, witness said it was
the policy of the Board of Trade in the first instance to
apply this Act only to precarious trades which were liable to
very considerable fluctuations. He was afterwards closely
catechised as to the meaning of “ trade” and “works of
construction.”

At the close of his evidence, the Commissioner said it
seemed to him that the word “ repair ” had been, at any
rate at that time, properly omitted, because a work of con-
struction was of a much more indefinite nature than a
building work, or a shipbuilding work, or an iron-
founding work, or construction of vehicles, or one of
those things. Work of construction, or construction of
works, was a very comprehensive term; therefore, when
they grouped them all together under section 2 they felt
that they could not put in the word “ repair ” unless they
dealt with each repair in respect of each of the different
classes which might arise, either specified or coming under
the words “ other works of construction.” When they had
an omnibus JOrder] of this kind, and made it apply to all
works of construction, with only one exclusion as regards
two particular trades, it made the question extremely
difficult. If he had the power to amend the Order, his
difficulties might be lessened.

Several other witnesses were then called on behalf of the
Board of Trade, after which, Mr. A. P. Llewellyn
presented the case of the pottery manufacturers. At this
stage the Commissioner presented the form of the
Order which he should have preferred, viz. :—“ The
Board of Trade hereby extends the provisions of
Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, subject to the
modification hereinafter contained, to workmen in the
trade of repairing railroads, docks, harbours, canals,
embankments, bridges, piers or other works of construction
other than roads and the permanent way of railways.”

On the 19th inst. Sir T. K. Batcliffe-Ellis put the case
of the Mining Association of Great Britain. He said
in the first place he contended that the only alteration
that could be made in the Schedule or in the Act
of Parliament except by inserting a new trade, must
be done by Parliament. Section 104 enabled the Board
of Trade by a Special Order to take a man out of an
insured trade if his work was common to an insured and
an uninsured trade and merely ancillary to the purposes of
an insured trade, but a man could be what was termed an
in-and-out man ; he might be.working in a trade which is
not an insured trade, but doing work in that trade similar
to the work which was done in some insured trade. The
Act provided that those were cases which were to be
decided by an Umpire. But he maintained that subsection
2 of section 107 had nothing whatever to do with that
enquiry, but was merely for the Umpire; it was to assist
the Umpire in his decision, and was a direction to him as
to what should guide him in deciding this question as to
whether contributions were payable or not. The Umpire
was the only person who had to decide whether any trade
in which a workman was or had been employed was an
insured trade or not. That could not influence the
Commissioner in any way in deciding whether a proposal
by the Board of Trade to put in an entirely new trade was
right or wrong.

Sir Thomas next mentioned that the word “repair” was
left out of the schedule intentionally, because it might
include in that trade some persons whom the Board of
Trade thought ought not to be included. What the Board
of Trade wanted now was to get that word “ repair ” in one
way or another into that clause 2. At the present time
there was a Bill before Parliament promoted by the
Government for the express purpose of making some
amendments to the Insurance Act, and he suggested that
an amendment could be put into that Bill to insert in this
Sixth Schedule, clause 2, the word “repair.” Then the
matter could be discussed, and if it were considered proper
that this mistake, if it is a. mistake, should be corrected,
there was an opportunity of doing it by the authority
which left it out. As matters stood the Board of Trade
did not propose to introduce a trade into the schedule,

which would accord with what they were entitled to do
under the provisions of section 103 of the Act. They
proposed that only a certain section of persons in the new
trade should be insured, and it was a new trade substantially
the members of which were already insured. It was said
as a reason for this that a certain amount of confusion had
arisen in the decisions of the Umpire. All he (Sir Thomas)
could say was, that if it was going to be amended by the
method proposed by the Board of Trade it was not confusion
but absolute chaos that would result. The position was not
the same as under the Mines Act. The Board of Trade
here had power to propose an addition to the schedule;
but they had no power whatever to take it out; and
therefore certainly there was a greater responsibility in
putting forward something which could not be altered,
however mischievous its effect might be. In this
case the < ommissioner was not entitled to amend the
Order either by omission or addition, but had to report
to the Board of Trade, and the only report that he could
make was whether the Order should be made or not. After
the report the Board of Trade made their Order ; that
Order then lay on the table for 30 days.

Sir Thomas then proceeded to discuss the effect of the
Order if it ever got into the Sixth Schedule. Knowing
that in trades where the men were in they were very
anxious to get other people in who were doing the same
sort of work, one would imagine that every argument would
be put before the Umpire which would induce him to
include in the new trade as many people as could possibly
be gathered into the net. If he found the word “ repair ”
in clause 2, then it might be submitted to him, and he
would probably accept the view that the word “ repair ”
must be construed as a repair of the particular works men-
tioned in the section in which the word “ repair ” occurs ;
and he would also, and perhaps rightly, say that the
concluding words: “ Other works of construction,” are
works of construction akin to and similar to the works of
construction mentioned in the earlier part of the section.
But that was not what was going to be put to the Umpire.
What was going to be put to the Umpire was an entirely
new trade, which was not to have any reference whatever
to any trades mentioned in the schedule. The Umpire
would have nothing whatever to do with any other of the
trades in the Sixth Schedule, except this new trade, and he
would have to deal with that as if there were no other
trade in the schedule. This was the position : There was an
Order proposed which might mean bringing in a great
number of people that the Board of Trade did not wish it
to bring in, and recognise should not be brought in. It
might, in point of fact, be construed by the Umpire in
such a way as entirely to defeat the object of the Order.
Again, this “ in-and-out ” business was not unforeseen when
the Act was passed. By section 91 (a) it was provided that
regulations might be prescribed, and they had been
prescribed, “for permitting workmen who are employed
under the same employer partly in an insured trade and
partly not in an insured trade, to be treated, with the
consent of the employer, as if they were wholly employed in
an insured trade.” The coal owners would not object to
pay any legitimate demands which were made upon them,
whatever they might be. Parliament intended the
difficulty to be met in the way provided in section 91, and
that was the way it should be met.

Continuing, Sir Thomas said the only ground that could
be considered in deciding whether this Order should be
approved was whether in this gigantic trade which was
proposed to be introduced there was a substantial amount
of unemployment to be insured against. He proposed to
put forward one or two witnesses to show that at collieries
the persons who would be brought in as repairers of works
of construction were never unemployed; they were there
year in and year out, and there was no difficulty in demar-
cation ; they were employed at collieries in doing’ certain
work, and those people certainly ought not to be included,
because there was no unemployment which was insurable.
Before doing so, he referred to another section of the Act.
That was section 94, which was a provision enabling the
Board of Trade to refund to an employer a sum equal to
one-third of his contributions. Now that was a valuable
provision if a man was properly in the insurance part of
the Act, that was to say, if a man was properly insured,
and ought to be insured, it was a valuable provision to
enable the employer to get back a certain amount of his
money in case there should be no unemployment, or
practically no unemployment; but if a man should not be
in the unemployment part of the Act it was no satisfaction
to let the Board of Trade take two-thirds of the money and
give the employer one-third back.

Mr. John Moffat Gilliams, a blacksmith employed at
Ashington Colliery in Northumberland, and representing
the National Federation of Colliery Mechanics, was then
called. He said the work necessary at collieries was done
by men who were employed primarily for pit work, such as
shoeing horses in the mine, and sharpening tools for miners
—picks and other tools—and then making pieces of work
for use in the mine, which, of course, was not insurable
work. Then they made tools for the deputies for chopping
timber, repairs to the pit cages, &c., and there was a whole
host of uninsurable work in small pieces, such, for instance,
as binding wood chocks with iron hoops. In the course of
their employment they were diverted from that work for
not a whole day or even a given part of a day, but possibly
for a few minutes at a time. Their work was quite
different from the ordinary work of a blacksmith who was in
a foundry or an ironworks. At the present moment there
were 1,500 in the Northumberland union and slightly over
600 in Durham. They paid unemployment benefit. For 10
years prior to the exception of the Act, that is, concluding*
in 1911, it cost altogether =£474 8s. in Northumberland, that
was an average for those 10 years of <£47 Ss. 9d. per annum.
At that time the average number of men that the period
covered was 1,020. That came out at lid. per member
per year, or less than |d. per member per week.
During this period up to 1911, there were at least two
distinct periods of slackness in the coal trade. During
the last two years, that is, during 1912 and 1913, it had
cost them in the two years, with an average membership
of 1,400, <£51 2s. 4d. That came out at a cost
of 4|d. per man per year, or about one-third of
■|d. per week. Their case was typical of the counties
mentioned, Northumberland, Durham and North Wales.
Their men had definitely instructed them time and again
to oppose any extension of this Act by an Order such as
this, and they had sought to be relieved altogether from
the Act. They had been before the Umpire and sought