HC Deb 05 July 1920 vol 131 cc1173-98

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds to the Minister of Mines, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses of the Ministry as may become payable under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Ministry of Mines, and for regulating the coal industry and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein, and of any sums that may become payable by the Treasury by way of temporary advances by reason of the extension by such Act of the continuance of The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920.

Provided that fees or expenses of any pit or district committee or area or national board or any members thereof which may be constituted under the said Act will not be payable as expenses of the said Ministry."—(Sir R. Horne.)

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir R. Horne)

In moving this Resolution, I desire to apologise to the Committee that it should be taken at this time of night, but, as I have no doubt the Committee will realise, it is only being taken now in order that it might not be taken at a time which would have been still more inconvenient to the Committee last week. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that an explanation was given upon that matter by the Leader of the House, and I think it was accepted by all hon. Members who were present. It will only require a very few words of explanation to make plain the object of this Resolution. The setting up of the mechanism under the Coal Mines Bill requires a Minister, and it is proposed to pay him a salary of £2,000 a year. That will be practically, so far as one can see at the moment, the only expense which will be added to the costs which are now incurred in connection with the operation of the various Statutes dealing with the regulation of coal mines. The staff which will come under the charge of the Minister of Mines will be taken from other Departments which are already dealing with the matters with which they are connected. For example, the inspection staff will be taken from the Home Office; the staff at the Board of Trade, which is at present under the charge of the Coal Controller, will be made available to the Minister of Mines; and those who are at present, in the Board of Education, dealing with the geological survey, will now, if the Coal Mines Bill passes, come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Mines. The only added expense which one can anticipate, accordingly, is that which is involved in the salary of the Minister of Mines, and in the staff with which he must immediately surround himself, that is to say, his headquarters staff. At the outset it cannot, in my estimation, amount to more than a very few thousands of pounds.

I would ask the Committee to recollect that this is an alternative to a very much larger expenditure. What is proposed in this Bill is the alternative to very much larger proposals which have been made from other quarters, and accordingly I hope the Committee will look at these proposals, so far as the expense is concerned, in the light of what it would cost the country to adopt some other scheme. It is perfectly certain, in view of the Report of the Sankey Commission, that we cannot leave the coal-mining industry of this country where it was before the War. If that is so, then undoubtedly we have to provide the mechanism by which we may improve the conditions under which the industry is carried on. I cannot imagine a less costly scheme than that which we have proposed, and accordingly I venture with every confidence to recommend this Resolution to the Committee.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, after "1920" ["continuance of the Coat Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920"], to insert the words Provided that the total amount so paid shall not in any one year exceed the existing yearly cost of the services transferred to the Ministry of Mines from any other Government Department. Clause 2 transfers various powers now exercised by the Departments to the new Ministry which is going to be set up. It transfers all the powers and duties of the Board of Trade with respect to the mining industry. It transfers all the powers of the Secretary of State; I presume that is the Home Office; under enactments relating to coal mines, metalliferous mines and quarries, and in Sub-section 2 it says that if in future any other powers from other Departments require to be transferred, they also shall be transferred to this new Department to be set up. When we were discussing the Bill the other day there was a White Paper circulated which explained very shortly, too briefly to my my mind, the finance of the Bill, and in this memorandum it was explained that practically there was going to be no increase of expenditure by this Department over and above what was already spent in respect of the whole of these subjects by other branches and other Departments and my Amendment is merely moved in order to ensure that there shall not be expended by this new Department a sum of money every year over and above the existing cost of the services of various branches of the Department in connection with mines. I should like to quote one or two lines of the memoran-dum— Beyond the salary of £2,000 made payable by the Bill to the Minister of Mines, the establishment of the new Ministry is not likely to involve any substantial increase in expenditure. It goes on to point out each of the services that have been transferred. I do not see why there should be any increase in expenditure. I do not think there ought to be any increase. There ought to be a decrease rather than an increase because, when you centralise powers exercised by various Departments in one Department and bring them all together under one head, surely it is much less expensive to work than when you dissipate the various powers among many Departments. I should have thought it would mean fewer persons belonging to the staff rather than more, and on the whole far less expense in running the concern.

I should also like to remind the Committee of what the Minister said the other day. He was talking about the expense of this Department, and he said: The question of expense, I gather, is the one which chiefly disturbs various people both inside the House and outside on this question. That is quite right. That is the question that disturbs a great many people inside and outside.

The only additional cost that I can see this Ministry can involve is that of the Minister's salary, £2,000 a year, and the immediate headquarters staff that he requires. I believe this will be more than compensated for by the saving that you would make by bringing all the Departments which are dealing with this matter together. Therefore, as far as I can see, this £2,000 a year, which is supposed to be over and above the existing cost, will, in his own words, be saved by reducing the expenditure in other quarters. There was an answer the other day to a question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Tudor-Rees), who asked whether any estimate had been made of the annual cost of the proposed Ministry of Mines, and if so, what was the amount of it. The answer was: The provisional estimate places the cost of the new Department, including the staff taken over from other Departments, at about £250,000 per annum. Except for a very small proportion of the amount this represents the cost of the existing organisations which will be transferred to the Ministry. Therefore it seems to me that this really is a reasonable Amendment. It simply asks that no further sum shall be disbursed from the Treasury to this new Department than the existing expenses incurred in regard to mines. I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which I shall be prepared to move if the Government cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper. The manuscript Amendment takes the Government's own figures, and says: Provided that the total amount so paid shall not in any one year exceed the sum of £250,000. We have an opportunity to-night of limiting expenditure. I do not move my Amendment in a hostile spirit. If the Government find that their estimate is too small and they want more than £250,000 they can very easily come down to the House, and if they make out a good case the House will at once give them the money. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accuse the House of wanting him to spend extra money. The accusation is often made that Ministers are not responsible, but that this House is responsible for leading the Government into extravagance. We have not asked for this Bill. The Labour party have not asked for the Bill, and I know of no hon. Member on the back benches who wants the Bill. Certainly we are not responsible for the proposed expenditure. Therefore, I hope the Government will show their bona fides in what they have said about economy, and will take this opportunity of cutting down expenditure as much as possible.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in regretting that this matter has to be taken at such a late hour; but my regret goes a step further. When the Bill was before the House last week the party to which I belong asked for time in view of the Conference which is being held this week in connection with the industry to which the Bill applies. It was put back a little, but the Financial Resolution comes tonight, and I understand that the Committee has been fixed for this week, while at the same time the people who asked for time to consider it are discussing the matter in conference. It is unfair to the House that a Bill of such magnitude should be submitted when those who will be affected by the Bill have not had an opportunity of discussing it.

We may be told that the miners have always been in favour of the establishment of a Ministry of Mines, but this Bill does not establish a Ministry, as the miners have always requested. It establishes a Minister who is an additional secretary to an existing Department. He has certain powers, but these powers can be interfered with, because the Bill tells us distinctly that he can exercise these powers, subject to the Board of Trade. We do not know what powers the Board of Trade may refuse to let him exercise, and while we are not disposed to debate the matter at this hour of the evening, we shall record our protest by voting in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. HOLMES

The President of the Board of Trade in the White Paper tells us that the only additional expense, so far as the State is concerned, is the £2,000 salary of the Minister of Mines. The rest of the staff will be transferred from other Government Departments. Everyone must assume that the existing staff of the Coal Control Department will be transferred to the Ministry of Mines, but the staff of the Coal Control Department is not paid for at present by the State. It is a charge on the industry. The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, which the House passed recently, creates the pool to which all colliery companies pay in their profits, which are distributed in a certain manner, but the Act says also debit to said account such amount as may be necessary to meet the administrative expenses of the Board of Trade, constituted for the purpose of control of the coal industry incurred during the period of the operation of this Act. "So, at the present time, the whole of the expenses of the Coal Control Department are paid for by the coal industry and not by the Exchequer. If you are going to transfer the Coal Control Department to the Ministry of Mines, it is going to be a fresh charge on the Exchequer beyond the £2,000 mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade, and I would ask him to explain that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I would like to enforce what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Holmes). If you are going to follow the practice in existence since the War emergency coal mine control began, the cost of the Department ought to go on to the industry. The profits of the industry ought to be pooled as heretofore, and from that pool the cost of this Department should be borne. We are led to believe by the President of the Board of Trade that this Ministry of Mines is primarily for the benefit of the mining industry and the workers in the mines. Therefore we consider that the cost should not go on the Exchequer, but the industry, which is a principle to which some of us are beginning to attach great importance with regard to mining and many other industries. We want to make these industries self-supporting, and not have them all looking to the State for doles or subsidies.

Sir R. HORNE

Hear, hear!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I hope that he will explain this matter satisfactorily. I cannot allow this to pass without making an emphatic protest against the way it has been worked so far, and particularly from the point of view of my own constituency. As regards the coal trade, the port of Hull—

The CHAIRMAN

That does not arise on this Financial Resolution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I thought I could raise a protest against the paying of money to ruin my own constituency. There remains this fact: You can govern only by the consent of the governed. You can control the coal industry and run the Ministry of Mines effectively, only by the consent of the mineowners and the miners, and as far as I can gather, the majority of the mine-owners and of the miners—that will be settled shortly—are wholly opposed to this Bill. It does not leave the industry to work out its own salvation by its own efforts and its own nationalisation. We are—

The CHAIRMAN

It is not the merits of the Bill we are discussing. We are dealing now simply with the finance, limiting the Committee in considering the Bill to a certain expenditure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I did not attempt to address the Committee on the Bill; there were many experts to do that. I want to protest against the expenditure, because I think it perfectly useless, and certainly I am going to support the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), who seeks to set some limit to the expenditure. Our knowledge of new Government Departments tells us that some such limit is urgently required.

Sir R. H0RNE

I seldom find myself in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and l am very glad on this occasion to be able to endorse one of the sentiments which he avowed. I am able to support him on this occasion only because he has disavowed everything he has said in the past. I entirely agree that the trades in this country should be dependent on themselves and should not look for any help from the State, but that is not the question we are discussing. This proposal concerns a Government Department which is to look after the interests of the mining industry, apart altogether from operating the mining industry—which we do not propose to do at all—to look after the better safety and welfare of the men in the trade, as the State has always done. The Amendment is one which I could have accepted with alacrity, but I should be lacking in candour to the Mover if I did not explain that this proposal would mean a great deal more money than I require. If I were to accept his initial Amendment, based upon the expenditure of the current year, I should be obtaining far more money than I estimate will be necessary to operate this Department.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I said, "will not exceed."

Sir R. HORNE

Both the Amendments contain the wording "not exceeding" a certain sum. If I were allowed to spend up to the sum of the original Amendment, I should have far more money than I require. The reason is that within recent weeks we have performed an operation which will decrease the expenditure of the Coal Control Department by about £400,000. I am prepared to accept the second Amendment of my hon. Friend. I estimated the expenditure at £250,000, and, as I understand his Amendment, it will allow me to spend money up to that limit. I think that sometimes a mistake is made in suspecting that a Minister is desirous of spending more money than he need spend—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Officials"]. I think the Committee may make a great mistake in adopting this form of economy too frequently. Every Minister who is compelled to estimate under these circumstances will estimate so as to give himself an ample margin, and, as soon as you have a fixed limit, which gives you an ample margin, the tendency of the officials may be to spend up to that limit. Therefore, the Committee may under such circumstances defeat its own object. I made my estimate of £250,000, however, quite honestly, and I am prepared to stand by it and accept that sum, but the Committee will realise that it is not possible for any man to be infallible, and, if something unexpected occurs, and I have to come back to the Committee, I hope that they will recollect the circumstances under which I have accepted my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Captain W. BENN

I am sure it is a matter of great gratification to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should have met so fairly the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but I am not quite clear where we stand. We are discussing how much money ought to be allowed for the setting up of the new Ministry, and we are trying to ascertain how much it is intended to spend. I understand that this Department is to be set up very shortly and is to take over the duties, as at present performed, by the Home Office and the Board of Trade in connection with mines. I find in the Estimate for the Home Office that there is a sum of £52,000 for the Mines Department, and in the Board of Trade Estimates there is a sum of £500,000 for the Coal Mines Department. Do I understand that those two sums are to be put together and reduced to a sum that will not exceed £250,000 annually? If that be so, I presume that the revised Estimates will be introduced cutting down the Estimates of the Home Office and the Board of Trade by an amount representing the saving effected by the new Department. If that be so, it is a very satisfactory state of things, and we would like to know more particulars.

Sir R. HORNE

If my hon. and gallant Friend had listened to the speech I made, he would recollect that I have already announced that I have effected a considerable saving in the last few weeks on the £500,000.

Captain BENN

I am not complaining.

Sir R. HORNE

No; I am only explaining that you do not listen.

Captain BENN

On the contrary, I always listen with the greatest pleasure to what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I am sure does every Member of the Committee. Are we to have revised Estimates representing this diminished sum? Clearly, it would not be right for us to vote a large sum if the Government do not intend to spend it. I am very glad that this saving has been effected, but is it intended to present us with revised Estimates which will give us an accurate account of what the Government intend to spend?

Mr. HOLMES

I want to press the point to which the right hon. Gentleman did not reply. He says in the White Paper: Beyond the salary of £2,000 made payable by the Bill to the Minister of Mines, the establishment of the new Ministry is not likely to involve any substantial increase in expenditure; inasmuch as the majority of the powers of the new Ministry will he derived from the transfer of existing powers from other Government Departments, the concentration of which in a single Department is one of the chief objects of the Bill. With the powers will be transferred the staffs of the other Departments now engaged on the administration of the services to be transferred, e.g., the staff of the Mining Department of the Home Office, and of the Coal Controller's Department. Anyone would assume that in the future the cost under the Bill will be £2,000 for the Minister, plus the cost of the present Coal Department, plus the cost of the present officials at the Home Office dealing with the coal trade. I submit that at the present time the Exchequer is not bearing the cost of the Coal Department, because it is borne by the industry under the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act. Therefore, the additional cost to the Exchequer would be £2,000, the salary of the Minister of Mines, plus the whole cost of the Coal Control Department. This White Paper is misleading in leading the Committee to assume that the additional cost is going to be £2,000.

Earl WINTERTON

I think the Committee should be grateful to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment for the satisfactory reply which has been made by the Government. What I understand was strongly objected to on this, as on similar Resolutions, was that it proposed entirely new expenditure at a time when this country is not in a position to bear new expenditure, and to the original Estimate involved in a Resolution of this kind or some other form of Estimate being greatly exceeded. The announcement of the Minister seems to me to be most important and unprecedented, and I hope it will be followed in the future. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has given an assurance which I regard as a pledge of honour that under no circumstances will this new Department cost more than the existing Department. He said he would have accepted the first Amendment, but that it would give him more money than he required, and therefore I regard that as a pledge that this particular work is not going to cost more than the existing Department. In the second place, I understand, and I speak subject to correction, that he has definitely promised that he cannot exceed the sum mentioned in the Resolution without coming to the House for permission. That will not permit the most reprehensible practice of Departments of spending money and then coming to the Committee of Ways and Means to get permission for that spending. I understand that we have the definite promise in this particular matter that that will not be done, and that if the estimate of £250,000 is exceeded that before expenditure is incurred the Government will come to Parliament for sanction. I think all parties in the Committee have reason to congratulate the Mover. I hope it is not frivolous to say that many of us hope to follow his example and to seek on other Resolutions to bind the Government down, as it should be bound down, to a definite sum named in the Resolution.

Major BARNES

The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act is to be in operation to 31st August next, and the administrative expenses up to that time come on the industry and not on the Exchequer. When the Coal Control Department is transferred to the Ministry of Mines how are the expenses of the Department to be met after 31st August? Do they then come on the Exchequer? The point is that, with the staff, is being transferred the cost of the staff. Up to 31st August, 1920, the cost of the Controller's staff is not on the Exchequer, but on the industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is going to happen with regard to the cost of the staff after 31st August, 1920?

Sir R. HORNE

I am sorry if I have not succeeded in making the situation plain to the Committee up to now, but I do not think there is any serious difficulty about it. I recognise the cogency of the point put to me by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) and reiterated by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes), and I think the explanation is not a difficult one to follow. It is perfectly true that the coal industry has borne the expense of the Coal Control Department for the reasons my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle states, but what has got to be realised is that these expenses come upon the Vote for the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade is responsible for the expenses of the Coal Control Department, just as the Home Office is responsible for the expenses of the Inspection Department. The figure for the Inspection Department of the Home Office is something very much larger, according to the figures given to me, than my hon. and gallant Friend stated. But that is by the way. The Home Office is responsible for that, and there is no other way of getting that sum out of the Exchquer; but with regard to the Coal Department of the Board of Trade, while all these costs fall upon the Estimates of the Board of Trade, if there is a surplus at the end of the year, the money is taken out of the surplus, and paid back to the Exchequer. That is what has been happening while coal control has been lasting, and, so long as coal control lasts, that will still happen. If there is a surplus in the coal trade, as I explained to the House when we were discussing the question of the increases in the price of coal, so long as the coal control lasts, all the surplus which comes to the Coal Control Department will go to the Exchequer, and therefore the Exchequer gets it either in one way or the other. What-ever surplus arises from the profits of the coal trade will go entirely to the Exchequer, so that it does not matter whether the expenditure of the Coal Trade Department is taken off initially and the balance paid to the Exchequer, or whether it is paid out of the Estimates of the Board of Trade, and the Exchequer gets all the surplus. Whichever way you do it, the result is entirely the same, and accordingly I hope I have satisfied my two hon. Friends upon the matter.

Sir F. YOUNG

Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the Committee how the Coal Control Section, when cut down, would compare in size and cost with the Coal Section of the Board of Trade previous to the War?

Sir R. HORNE

As far as the Coal Department of the Board of Trade was concerned prior to the War, it was a very small thing indeed. It was only concerned with the fixing of minimum wages, the appointment of District Boards, and the expenses of Departments which control that matter, but you are now in an entirely new region. What you propose to do is to apply by regulation to the coal industry a series of arrangements whereby the coal trade may be carried on, not in the haphazard system which has been described by the Commission, but in some new way which will be worthy not only of the industry, but of the country which owns it. I do not imagine that any Member of the Committee expects that in future we shall be able to carry on the coal industry as it was done before the War. We shall be carrying it on at very much less cost than during the War. The Coal controller's Department now, on the Estimates, is proposed to cost something over £500,000, but what it will cost, as we anticipate under the new arrangements, will be something like £75,000, which is a very considerable saving. The £75,000 which the Coal Control Department will cost, together with the Home Office Inspection Department and the other Departments which we take over from other Ministries, will, we estimate, come to something like £250,000, which is the figure which my hon. Friend has adopted in moving his Amendment.

Captain W. BENN

The point that I raised has not been answered. In a few days' time we shall be called upon to vote, without any Debate, the remainder of these Estimates. These Estimates are based on the original intention of the Government as regards coal control, and the Minister has told us he will save very largely on these Estimates. Therefore, we are consciously going to vote in a few weeks' time a sum of money which we know, on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, is largely in excess of the sum required, and that sum has to be paid by taxpayers who are already overburdened.

Sir R. HORNE

I cannot allow my hon. and gallant Friend the last word upon this matter. He is under an entire misapprehension. Although a few weeks ago I was able to make an arrangement by which to effect a saving of £400,000, it does not all operate at once, in one year, and therefore it would be impossible to say the precise amount by which the original estimate should now be cut down. You have got to wind up Departments, and you cannot disband everybody at once, but that is the eventual saving. Whatever is saved under this arrangement necessarily will go to the Exchequer, because the whole of the surplus goes to the Exchequer. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to imagine that if it be in the Estimate it is therefore spent, but every hon. Member knows that that is an entire fallacy.

Mr. HOLMES

In my opinion the White Paper which the right hon. Gentleman has circulated is grossly misleading. He told us in his speech on the Second Reading that the only additional cost to the Exchequer would be £2,000.

Sir R. HORNE

That is accurate.

Mr. HOLMES

But it is going to be £2,000, plus the cost of such portion of the Coal Controller's Department as is transferred to the Ministry of Mines, which he estimates at £75,000 a year. Therefore, at least, the Exchequer is going to bear £77,000, compared with nothing at the present time.

Sir R. HORNE

That is quite inaccurate.

Mr. HOLMES

The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act charges the whole of the Coal Controller's Department on the industry at the present time, but in future such portion of the Coal Controller's Department as is transferred to the Ministry of Mines is going to be paid for by the Exchequer. At the present time it is estimated to be £500,000, and the right hon. Gentleman says he can cut it down to £75,000.

Colonel GRETTON

The present position is not satisfactory. We set up, following a temporary expenditure, what is likely to be permanent. Some limit should be placed on the expenditure. This is a very serious charge to impose on the industry; and I, for one, am not satisfied. The whole policy of these Votes is wrong. We ought not to saddle the country with a new permanent secretarial and new officials; the explanation is by no means satisfactory. When my hon. Friend opposite presses the Minister to put into the Estimate the full expenditure, no doubt he is perfectly right. It is not a right, nor a proper constitutional practice, to ask the House in the Estimates now before us to vote money which is not required. This is a serious matter, and I must express my objection to the procedure adopted, and ask the Minister to put the Vote in order and according to constitutional practice. I am far from satisfied at the present condition of things, but I suppose it is little or no use to make continued protest. Still, one can continue to urge these matters upon the Government, and urge the Minister to put his Vote in order, and to submit a Supplementary Estimate for the reduced amount required during the current year.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

We are going to give the right hon. Gentleman power to spend up to £250,000. At least, what he is going to spend ought to be put down. He has told us he is going to spend £2,000. But he must know how many secretaries, inspectors, clerks, and office staff he is going to employ; to take over from the Board of Trade, the Coal Control Department and the Home Office? Let us know. The Minister of Transport made exactly the same, or a similar, statement to that of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that in the taking over of staff there would be little or no additional expense. Then we had a Vote for a million and three-quarters put forward by the Minister who was not going to spend any additional money! We have the lesson there. I want to assure the Minister—and I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House present—that this House and the country is getting increasingly serious and determined over the question of economy. We can no longer pursue the policy of the War, when we were quite willing to give Ministers what they asked for, and were prepared to admit that the middle of the War was not the time to enter deeply into questions of economy. Now we are determined to see that Ministers do not spend a single unnecessary sovereign, or engage one unnecessary clerk. If clerks are necessary the House would not be niggardly; but the House is just as responsible as the right hon. Gentleman for the expenditure. We as hon. Members are as much entitled to take part in discussions on expenditure, and as responsible for the engagement and management of officials as any Minister on the front Bench. And is the sole power left at present to the House of Commons—the power of controlling the officials of the country? I do not say the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Derbyshire is right or wrong in his contention, but he raised a perfectly plain issue; and all the answer he got was that he was totally inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman said a few months ago that he would have the last word. I give him that opportunity now to explain to the House as clearly as, with his well-known ability, he can explain, the points put to him—as to the coal control. Let him tell us now or in a subsequent While Paper—when the Bill is next before us—what he proposes to spend of this £;250,000; what clerks, and so on, he is going to transfer; and what are his movements in these various matters.

12 M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and before he rises to give further explanations I wish to call attention to one or two points as to which I am in doubt, and which I desire him to clear up with that lucidity which he possesses. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said he was cutting clown the expenditure from £550,000 to £75,000 a year. I see the estimate for the Coal Mines Department is £550,522, as against £517,000 odd the year before. Of course, if he is now going to cut that item down to £75,000 it will be a most creditable performance. He warned us it would not come into operation at once, as the winding up of the Department would take a considerable amount of time. We have watched that sort of thing in other Government Departments at Whitehall, and at both the War Office and the Admiralty the winding-up process has proved a scandal and a disgrace. It has simply aroused the ire of the impoverished taxpayer more than anything else I know of. We have been told that officials and assistant secretaries have been kept on because otherwise they would be thrown on the unemployed market. That is not what the country wants. We want these overcrowded Ministries wound up immediately. We want the officials, I will not say sacked, but paid off at once, so that they may devote themselves to some useful work as soon as possible. We want them to be employed on productive work. This winding-up process fills me with alarm, and I ask for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there is not going to be the least delay from considerations of humanity or anything else in getting rid of these superabundant officials. Here is a long list of officials in this Department. There arc 21 railway officials in the Coal Control Department, with an average salary of £400 a year. There is a Director at £1,000 a year; a chief clerk at £550, rising by £20 increments to £700 a year, and so on. We have already voted these salaries for the year, so that the officials are safe for another twelve months; but in the interests of economy I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to give these gentlemen their congé, or turn them over to some other Department. This expression "winding-up" has filled me with alarm. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in a most flam-buoyant tone of having a Ministry worthy of the country. That is not the spirit or attitude we like in these matters. We do not want tremendous marble palaces, with hosts of beautifully dressed typists and immaculately attired bureaucrats. We do not want to feel pride of that nature in our Ministries. It is all very well to talk of setting up Ministries worthy of the Empire, but these are things which are going to drive the Empire into bankruptcy. Finally, may I ask who the new Minister is to be? That would be a very interesting piece of information.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I propose to withdraw my first Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

Before the Question be put from the Chair, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to have the last word, as he seems to be very fond of doing. Certain questions have been asked of him, and if he has nothing to say, of course, the Committee will draw its own conclusions.

Mr. BETTERTON

I sincerely hope that the Committee will accept the offer made by the President of the Board of Trade. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, this new Ministry has to take over certain duties hitherto discharged by the Board of Trade. May I remind the Committee it is not merely a case of taking over certain duties; the Ministry also assumes responsibility for certain obligations. There must be borne in mind, for instance, the Report of the Royal Commission dealing with Metalliferous Mines, which sat seven years ago, and which made definite recommendations, largely dealing with the health and welfare of those engaged in the industry. When my right hon. Friend tells us he is going to limit the expenditure to £250,000, I assume he has not forgotten these obligations.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

As I understand, my first Amendment is before the Committee. I am willing, with the consent of the Committee, to withdraw it, and then move my second Amendment with regard to the limit of £250,000, which has been accepted by the Government.

The CHAIRMAN

I understand leave to withdraw the first Amendment was refused, and it must therefore be negatived before the second Amendment can be submitted.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, after "1920" ["continuance of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920"], to insert the words Provided that the total amount so paid shall not in any one year exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. If we accept this Amendment, can we vote against the Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN

Yes; I should then put the Question, as amended.

Mr. HOLMES

Can an Amendment to it be moved to reduce the sum? I want to move a reduction.

The CHAIRMAN

I should point out that this does not involve the expenditure of £250,000. The amount within that limit will have to appear on the annual Estimates each year.

Mr. HOLMES

I want to move that it shall not exceed £175,000.

Captain W. BENN

Would not my hon. Friend be right in moving, as an amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out £250,000 and to insert £175,000?

Mr. HOLMES

I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "two hundred and fifty" and to insert instead thereof the words "one hundred and seventy-five."

I have not had any reply from the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the point which I put, although I have repeated it three times. He says that the Coal Controller's Department is now going to cost £75,000. I say that that £75,000 is a new charge on the Exchequer, which it has never borne before. The right hon Gentleman's White Paper implied that the additional charge on the Exchequer was going to be £2,000.

Sir R. HORNE

My hon. Friend says that he has reiterated his point three times and has not yet had any reply I, however, have reiterated my reply three times, but evidently I have not succeeded in convincing my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that that is my fault, but I should like to say that, in spite of what the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) remarked, I meant no discourtesy at all, as I am sure the Committee will agree, when I said I considered a certain remark to be inaccurate. It is entirely erroneous to regard my interjection as the only reply that I made. It may have been the only one that was audible to the hon. Baronet, but I have attempted several times to make a reply which I hoped would be satisfactory. I will tell the Committee, quite frankly, what the position is. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) has been comparing the circumstances in which we now are with those in which we have been during the last year or two. In each case we are dealing with a period during which the coal trade has been under control, and whilst it is under control a certain surplus is being realised. So long as it remains under control I do not doubt that there will be a certain surplus, though it may not be a large one. What has happened during the previous period of control—during the War—has been that the Estimates for the cost of the Coal Control Department have appeared upon the Board of Trade Schedule. The House in Committee have dealt with that from time to time. If there had been no surplus to pay for these expenses the Board of Trade was liable, or the Exchequer, as representing the Board of Trade, was liable.

Mr. LUNN

There was a surplus.

Sir R. HORNE

In the first place, the Exchequer was liable to pay the costs. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but that is my information, the Exchequer was liable to pay the costs, but the money which the Exchequer paid was repaid to the Exchequer in respect of money which was in the Coal Controller's hands, arising out of the profits of the coal industry. That is my information. What will happen still under the period of control, undoubtedly, will be that when you have a surplus from the profits of the coal trade it will go into the pockets of the Exchequer.

Mr. HOLMES

indicated dissent.

Sir R. HORNE

My hon. Friend shakes his head again. How will he prevent it going into the pockets of the Exchequer? So far as the Exchequer is concerned, so long as the period of control lasts, precisely the same result will happen so far as the money is concerned as has been happening during the previous period of control. It is perfectly right to say that when we have emerged from the period of control—[An HON. MEMBER: "At the end of August!"] One hon. Member is very optimistic if he thinks that the period of control will terminate at the end of August. My hon. Friend must recollect that the Mines Bill provides for an extension of that period of control for another year, and thereafter year after year according to Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. Nobody in his senses anticipates that we can leave aside at the present moment, or for a considerable time to come, control in respect of the coal trade of this country. Accordingly, we have to look forward to a period of control for some time as necessary for the purposes of regulating the ,coal trade, and the profits, such as they are, from the coal trade will go into the pockets of the Exchequer. The expenses of the Coal Control Department will be paid, no doubt, by the Exchequer, and will be recouped from whatever profits there are. There is no difference between the present period of control and what is immediately to be anticipated from what has happened in the past. My hon. Friend (Mr. Holmes) is inaccurate, because he stated that immediately we were going to have this extra charge put upon the Exchequer. That is not so, in the sense of making any difference from what has been our previous practice. Ultimately, I have no doubt, there will be a charge upon the Exchequer when all this profit ceases, but the hon. Member has been referring to a period of control which was erroneous, in the sense that immediately we were to have a new charge saddled upon the Exchequer.

Mr. HOLMES

The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the information which he has received. The unfortunate thing is that he does not know his own Act. He told us that with regard to expense if there has been no profits on the coal industry paid into the pool, the Exchequer would have to bear the charge. The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act says, in Clause 7, Sub-section (5): If at any time the sums standing to the credit of the account are insufficient to meet the payments to be made thereout, the Treasury may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay into the account such sums as may be required for the purpose; but any sums so paid shall be treated as temporary advances, and shall be repaid to the Exchequer with interest as soon as there are funds in the account available for the purpose. That is the first point. The second point which the right hon. Gentleman makes is that any surplus of profit will go into the Exchequer. Has he any ground for saying that? There is no legislative right to the Exchequer to take this money. Under the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, which was piloted through this House by Lord Ashfield, then Sir Albert Stanley, there is no right given to the Exchequer to take any surplus which may be in the fund.

Sir R. HORNE

Surely my hon. Friend realises that the Act gives the coalowner the right to get only a certain amount of money. What remains falls to be disposed of by Parliament.

Mr. HOLMES

No.

Sir R. HORNE

Undoubtedly it does. I made an anouncement when this matter was previously debated that the intention was that any surplus should go to the Exchequer.

Mr. HOLMES

The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the Committee. All the profits of the coal companies go into the pool. The coalowners take the pre-War average and one-tenth of the balance. Then a certain amount of war wage is paid, and the expenses of the Coal Controller's Department are paid. After these payments have been made, there may or may not be a surplus. If there be a surplus, the right hon. Gentleman has no right whatever to touch it. It can only be dealt with by a new Act of Parliament.

Sir R. HORNE

No.

Mr. HOLMES

Certainly. The matter is one of absolute certainty. We may be quite sure that if there be a surplus which has to be dealt with, the coal-owners will say, and probably the miners will say, "This came out of the industry and it has to go back to the industry and be divided amongst the coalowners and the miners, and not taken by the Exchequer." The right hon. Gentleman has no right to touch the surplus. There is nothing in the old Act or the present Act to allow him to touch the surplus in any way. This White Paper is absolutely misleading because it

Proposed words there inserted.

Main Question put (as amended).

tells the House that the only additional expense of the new Ministry will be £2,000, whereas it will be £2,000, plus the expense of such proportion of the Coal Controller's Department as is transferred, which expense at the present time is met by the coal industry itself.

Question put, "That the words two hundred and fifty' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 34.

Division No. 183.] AYES. [12.22 a.m.
Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. Farquharson, Major A. C. Purchase, H. G.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Foreman, Henry Raper, A. Baldwin
Atkey, A. R. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. Remnant, Sir James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gilbert, James Daniel Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Barnston, Major Harry Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Royden, Sir Thomas
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Glyn, Major Ralph Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Gould, James C. Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Bennett, Thomas Jewell Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Betterton, Henry B. Greenwood, William (Stockport) Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland Gretton, Colonel John Simm, M. T.
Blane, T. A. Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by) Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F. Haslam, Lewis Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Borwick, Major G. O. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Bridgeman, William Clive Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Steel, Major S. Strang
Briggs, Harold Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Stewart, Gershom
Brittain, Sir Harry Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Strauss, Edward Anthony
Brown, Captain D. C. Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Sturrock, J. Leng
Bruton, Sir James James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sutherland, Sir William
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. Jephcott, A. R. Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Jodrell, Neville Paul Townley, Maximilian G.
Burdon, Colonel Rowland Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Vickers, Douglas
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Waddington, R.
Casey, T. W. Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Clough, Robert M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Molson, Major John Elsdale White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Coats, Sir Stuart Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. Whitla, Sir William
Cobb, Sir Cyril Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Courthope, Major George L. Morrison, Hugh Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) Mount, William Arthur Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe) Neal, Arthur Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Doyle, N. Grattan Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Edgar, Clifford B. Parker, James Younger, Sir George
Edge, Captain William Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Perring, William George Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Ward.
Falcon, Captain Michael Pulley, Charles Thornton
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. Hirst, G. H. Rose, Frank H.
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Marioneth) Royce, William Stapleton
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Sexton, James
Breese, Major Charles E. Lawson, John J. Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole Lunn, William Sugden, W. H.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Swan, J. E.
Entwistle, Major C. F. Palmer, Charles Fraderick (Wrekin) Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Grundy, T. W. Raffan, Peter Wilson Thomas, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Rankin, Captain James S. Waterson, A. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Remer, J. R. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hayday, Arthur Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hinds, John Robertson, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Griffiths.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 33.

Division No. 184.] AYES. [12.30 a.m.
Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Purchase, H. G.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Falcon, Captain Michael Raper, A. Baldwin
Atkey, A. R. Farquharson, Major A. C. Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Baird, Sir John Lawrence Foreman, Henry Remnant, Sir James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Frece, Sir Walter de Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C. Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Barnston, Major Harry Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Royden, Sir Thomas
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Gilbert, James Daniel Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Bennett, Thomas Jewell Glyn, Major Ralph Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Betterton, Henry B. Gould, James C. Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Simm, M. T.
Blane, T. A. Greenwood, William (Stockport) Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F. Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Borwick, Major G. O. Haslam, Lewis Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Breese, Major Charles E. Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Steel, Major S. Strang
Bridgeman, William Clive Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Stewart, Gershom
Briggs, Harold Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Strauss, Edward Anthony
Brittain, Sir Harry Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Sturrock, J. Leng
Brown, Captain D. C. Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Sutherland, Sir William
Bruton, Sir James James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. Jodrell, Neville Paul Townley, Maximilian G.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Vickers, Douglas
Burdon, Colonel Rowland Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Waddington, R.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Casey, T. W. McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.
Clough, Robert Molson, Major John Elsdale White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. Whitla, Sir William
Coats, Sir Stuart Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Cobb, Sir Cyril Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Morrison, Hugh Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Courthope, Major George L. Mount, William Arthur Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Murray, Major William (Dumfries) Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Neal, Arthur Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)
Doyle, N. Grattan Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Parker, James Younger, Sir George
Edgar, Clifford B. Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Edge, Captain William Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Pulley, Charles Thornton Ward.
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Royce, William Stapleton
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Sexton, James
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Lawson, John J. Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole Lunn, William Sugden, W. H.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Swan, J. E.
Entwistle, Major C. F. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Raffan, Peter Wilson Waterson, A. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Rankin, Captain James S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hayday, Arthur Remer, J. R.
Hinds, John Robertson, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hirst, G. H. Rose, Frank H. Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Holmes.

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds to the Minister of Mines, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses of the Ministry as may become payable under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Ministry of Mines, and for regulating the coal industry and for other purposes connected with the mining industry and the persons employed therein, and of any sums that may become payable by the Treasury by way of temporary advances by reason of the extension by such Act of the continuance of the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920. Provided that the total amount so paid shall not in any one year exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds. Provided that fees or expenses of any pit or district committee or area or national board or any members thereof which may be constituted under the said Act will not be payable as expenses of the said Ministry.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty minutes before One o'clock a.m.