Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSONI beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert the words
(f) shall provide for the annual publication of the accounts of the new or continued company, or any of the new or continued companies, including particulars as to the amount of coal used for the purpose of any business or operations carried on 1936 by a constituent company or in the common interest of the constituent companies and the price charged therefor, and particulars as to the number of persons employed in each grade or class by the new or continued company or any of the new or continued companies, and the aggregate wages paid to each grade or class, such accounts to be published in a form to be prescribed by the Board of Trade.I am moving this Amendment for the purpose of enabling the miners to get the fullest possible information regarding the industry in which they are engaged. The principle behind this Amendment is one that ought to be responded to both by the coalowners and by the Government. It is a demand that is not confined to the mining industry alone, but applies to the whole of British industry. Workmen in British industry to-day, like the miners, are anxious to get the fullest possible information regarding the operation of the industry in which they are engaged. The withholding of information regarding the matters mentioned in this Amendment is one of the causes of dissatisfaction and unrest in our industrial system to-day. If we are to have peace in industry, the employers ought to put all their cards on the table, and give the workmen the fullest possible information. The Report of the Coal Commission admits the justice of the claim put forward in the Amendment which I am now moving. We believe that it is in the interests of industry as a whole for the information mentioned here to be supplied to the workmen in the mining industry.Many of our mining companies to-day are engaged, and will continue, after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, to be engaged, in ancillary occupations such as iron works, steel works, coking plant and similar subsidiary works. The money earned in these ancillary operations is not brought within our ascertainment in the industry for wages purposes, and, naturally, the workmen are anxious to get the fullest information regarding this matter, so that they may be in a position to see the exact amount of money that is not finding its way into the common fund from which wages and profits are paid. Large quantities of coal produced in the coalfields are transferred to these ancillary companies, and we are anxious to know, not only the exact amount of coal that finds its way into such concerns, but also the exact price that is charged for the 1937 coal so transferred. Coal is also transferred in considerable quantity to selling agencies, with which a considerable number of the coalowners of this country are connected, and we also desire to have the fullest information regarding them. I can assure the House that the want of the necessary information with respect to the matters with which this Amendment deals is causing a considerable amount of suspicion to exist in the minds of our men, and I believe it would be to the advantage of the coalowners and the country if we had the information for which this Amendment provides. We also want to get the pit-head price of the coal sold at the particular colliery and the price paid for the coal transferred as I have already said, so that we shall be in the position of being able to ascertain whether these large quantities of coal are transferred to these subsidiary companies at anything like a fair and just price.
4.0 P.M.
We also desire to have full information regarding the number of persons employed in the grade or class in mining companies, and the exact amount of wages paid to each class or grade of workers. As a matter of fact, we want the fullest information as to the total production, the costs of production, and the profits made. I may be told, in the course of the reply to be given by the right hon. Gentleman, that we get this information in the quarterly ascertainments that are supplied to us in our respective districts through the accountants appointed for that purpose. It is true that we get a considerable amount of information, but it is supplied in the aggregate and it does not apply to each particular concern as is provided in this Amendment. We think that we are entitled to this information. We believe that it would be for the interests of the industry, and certainly it would be in the interests of the workers, I may point out that in this respect we are a long way behind some of our competitors. We are informed that the workmen in the mining industry in America get the most complete information as to the amount of production, the wages paid, and the profits earned by the respective companies. We do not see why the workmen in this country should be put in a worse position than their fellows in the coal 1938 mining industry of America. We believe that we are just as much entitled to that information as the workmen in America or any other industrial country with which we are in competition. If the fullest information; were provided, we believe that it would tend to remove a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and suspicion and unrest that now prevails. We believe that it would tend to promote an entirely different spirit in our industrial system. I think I am right in saying that during the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill promised that he would give this Amendment some consideration before the Report stage. I hope, when he rises to reply, that he will be in a position to intimate that he is prepared to accept the Amendment. As has been pointed out on more than one occasion, we do not look for much benefit from this Bill. We believe that it is a mere shadow of what is required in order to give effect to the Coal Commission's Report. If the Amendments which were put down for the Committee stage and for this Report stage in the names of my hon. Friends and myself had been adopted, the Bill would have come much nearer to giving effect to the, Coal Commission's Report. I hope that this Amendment will not share the fate of some others that have gone before, and be rejected by the Secretary of State for War. I hope that he will see his way to accept it.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment in Committee upstairs was quite right in saying that I said I would give consideration to it with a view to removing any suspicion that there might be in the minds of the men that full information is not given to them. Anything that we can do to remove that suspicion is obviously most desirable. I got two of his colleagues to confer with two Members on the opposite side of the Committee to see whether together they could find some way, within the framework of the Bill, of getting information which would in fact remove suspicion, but, although I am sure they tried, they have not been able to make any suggestion to me which would enable me to include some Clause in the Bill which would carry out the object of removing suspicion. I cannot accept this Amend- 1939 ment. It would really defeat or tend to defeat the whole object of the Bill, by putting certain companies which amalgamated under terms and conditions different from companies which are carried on without amalgamation. As far as publication of accounts is a hindrance or a handicap, it would be hindering and handicapping the absorptions and amalgamations that we hope will go through under this Bill.
If, on the other hand, it is not intended to deal with it purely from the mining industry point of view, it should not be in this Bill, but should be an alteration in the general law under which limited companies are carried on. Really, the details for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking are such as are not commonly disclosed by any trading company. But the mining industry has special facilities for getting information, facilities which are not generally enjoyed by workers in other industries. They have their own accountant who meets the accountant appointed by the owners, and those two accountants examine the books and the figures and get a degree of information which is infinitely greater than is given in any other industry in the country. The proper line of progress towards removing suspicion is through those accountants, and I feel sure, if the view of the right hon. Gentleman is generally shared, that it is in that direction that redress should be found.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOODThe speech, to which we have just listened has filled us with greater suspicion than we had before. If it be true that there is nothing which amalgamated companies need feel ashamed of, why should the publication of quite ordinary information hamper the formation of amalgamations? The right hon. Gentleman's speech has proved the need for an Amendment on these lines. There is a very large body of opinion, not confined to this side of the House, which to-day believes in a wide extension of publication of information on all industrial matters. Only within the last two or three weeks a very strong committee of business men and economists and accountants have published a document, of which the right hon. Gentleman must have some knowledge, stressing the im- 1940 portance of this industrial publicity; and here is the Government's first opportunity of carrying a policy of this kind into effect. We are not asking for any new favour. There is no industry in the country to-day which has regularly and systematically to provide more information with regard to output and costs than the coal mining industry. All we are asking is, that this information should now be carried to the point of publication, not as regards all the firms in the industry but as regards such undertakings as form amalgamations.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it would impede amalgamation. If that be so, I do not think he is going to get much in the way of amalgamation out of this Bill, because, if this Amendment will have the effect of destroying the desire for amalgamation, it must be a feeble, flickering desire that exists among them to amalgamate. The right hon. Gentleman has said time and time again, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House, that in Clause 1 there is an element of compulsion. If he means to use this element of compulsion, in what respect can this Amendment hamper amalgamation carried out by his powers of compulsion? I think we have been treated most unfairly by the right hon. Gentleman on this Amendment. We attach a great deal of importance to it, and we have been put off with a reply which I think is most unconvincing. When he urges that the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill would destroy the possibilities of amalgamation all that the Secretary of State for War succeeds in doing is to prove more than ever the need for industrial publicity, because surely, if that means anything at all, it means that, there is something to hide of which the undertakings are ashamed. If he does not, mean that, he does not mean anything and his argument has no weight. I hope the House will support the Amendment.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNI listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I certainly do not think that he did anything like justice to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). He said nothing but this: I considered this question in Committee, and I promised to look into it. In the meantime, I have done so, and I cannot accept it. That was his 1941 major argument. His minor argument was that, if it were applied to amalgamated companies, it must be applied to all companies. Why not? If this particular information were given frankly, it would remove one of the greatest grievances one constantly hears mentioned in connection with the ascertainment of wages. Why should it not be done? Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the publication of fuller information by companies employing workmen would make for industrial co-operation and higher production, or is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that it would impede it? He must have some mind on the subject. We think that one thing that could be done to assist a better spirit in industry would be a fuller supply of information to all the parties concerned in the industry, and, in my view, the right hon. Gentleman has advanced no argument whatever against the Amendment unless he believes that the supply of information to those engaged in the industry, information on which their own estimate of the justice of the wage depends, especially in the case of the coal industry where there is a special ascertainment, would hamper that spirit in industry, and in that case we know where the Government stand. But I am perfectly certain that many hon. Members opposite believe that something might be done to improve the spirit in industry by a fuller supply of information, and I do hope that some of them will ask the Government whether they could not accept this Amendment or some form of it which we believe is a step in advance.
§ Mr. LUKE THOMPSONI want to say one word in support of what the Secretary of State for War has said. Time and time again in Committee questions were asked regarding these transfer prices, and I think it would be well to tell the House how these transfer prices are operated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), who moved the Amendment, is well aware that, prior to the agreement of 1921, the wages of the men fluctuated either by an addition or a reduction according to the basic rate, but that with the inception of the 1921 agreement there were certain activities excluded from the ascertainment of these wages, such as coke ovens and so forth. These ancillary 1942 trades were placed on exactly the same basis as those activities outside. I could give quite a list of those excluded activities. When they were excluded it was necessary to have some arrangement, and these things were defined by the national board, whose reports were sent up and agreed to by the auditors of the masters and the men, and an audit was made on the recommendation of this national board which was called the terms of settlement audit, and it is on that basis that these transfer prices are defined.
It must be obvious that, immediately these activities were excluded, it would be necessary to define the transfer price, and the award of the National Board set out in the following terms. All figures relating to an excluded activity are to be excluded from the ascertainment. Things relating partly to a colliery and partly to an excluded activity are to be apportioned on an equitable basis. Fair transfer prices, based on fair market values, are to be charged in respect of transactions between a colliery and allied concerns excluded in the ascertainment. It will be seen that the fundamental basis was an equitable transfer price. It is left entirely to the Accountants on these two sides to define what is a fair marketable transfer price, and what obtains to-day is this, that the auditors of the two sides are responsible for fixing a correct transfer price to these excluded activities. There is also in that National Award a safeguard to the men in this, that if there is any question in dispute between these auditors in getting these ascertained prices, any question on which the independent accountants fail to agree is to be submitted to the independent chairman of the District Board, so it really comes to this, that in these transfer prices there is every provision made that an equitable price should be charged. It is rather a serious charge for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to suggest that these are not equitable because it is casting a very grave reflection upon the accountants appointed by those on the other side. If they are not satisfied with the transfer prices, it is for them to find out from their duly accredited accountants that these prices are charged on an equitable and a reasonable and commercial basis.
§ Mr. WALSHPerhaps there has been no statement repeated by the repre- 1943 sentatives of the owners more often and with less ground than that any statement we make as to suspicion of the transfer prices is a charge against the independent accountants. The independent accountants do not fix the transfer prices, to begin with. The transfer prices are fixed by the employers themselves, or by the officials acting on their behalf. [Interruption.] The transfer prices are fixed by officials acting on behalf of the colliery owners. It is they who fix the transfer prices and not the independent accountants. Is that sufficiently explicit?
§ Mr. THOMPSONNo. Suppose the men's accountants disagree with the transfer price, they have a right to refer the question to the chairman of the district board and have it adjusted.
§ Mr. THOMPSONNo.
§ Mr. WALSHCommon sense tells you that. Let us see what the Royal Commission itself says:
Wherever the boundary of the mining industry be drawn, the problem of transfer prices arises. The proceeds of the industry are to determine the wages; the proceeds depend mainly upon the quantity of coal sold and the price at which it is sold.I will not read two long paragraphs in full, but this is what they say:Leading representatives of two of those firms appeared before us as witnesses; we were impressed both by the thoroughness of their methods and by the spirit of fairness in which they approached their task. It is no reflection either on the fair dealing of the mine owners as a body, or upon the impartiality and efficiency of the joint accountants, if we think that a radical change in the treatment of transfer prices is needed to place the wage ascertainment beyond suspicion.We say first of all that this is a new departure that the State is undertaking. What possible logic or force can there be in the right hon. Gentleman's reply that there is at present a system existing which gives us in the aggregate the prices at which the transfer is made? In the aggregate, yes, but our wages depend upon the prices at which this commodity is transferred to the associated activities, and surely those whose wages 1944 depend upon this transaction have a right to know the price at which the transaction is effected. "But," it is said, "really that is to place existing companies not amalgamating at a disadvantage." Is the first regard not to be paid to the fact that the men's wages depend upon the prices at which these transfers are effected, and that in order to let the men know that their wages are being properly determined the figure at which the transfer takes place should also be known. Is not that the first consideration, to remove the suspicion, which even by the Report of the Royal Commission undoubtedly rests upon these transactions?This is a new departure. On the one hand they say "We are carrying out to the best of our ability the recommendations of the Royal Commission." All right! If you are starting on a new departure, which we did not ask for, we say to you, "This is a new departure. Bring in a new method which will remove the old suspicions." "Ah, no! that is to place those companies which are not in amalgamations or absorptions at a commercial disadvantage." The first point to consider is the right of the men to have such information as will enable them to see that they are not being defrauded of their wages. It is clearly what is due to the men. You say the method of regulating wages and profits came in in 1921. Of course it did, but it was never an agreement. It was forced upon the men against hundreds of thousands of a majority. When the men were called upon to vote they voted against this ascertainment—against this method—by hundreds of thousands of a majority. [Interruption.] In 1924 there has been a continuous protest, as the hon. Member knows if he knows anything at all about it, against this method of regulating wages and profits. It does not exist in any other country, nor in any industry except coal mining in this country. There has never been any agreement, and whenever we have pressed for fuller information to remove suspicion we have been met by the same argument as the right hon. Gentleman has given us to-day. "If we tell you any more than you know now you will be placing us at a very serious disadvantage." The fact that wages are regulated by those conditions seems to be not even a secondary but a subsidiary consideration. The Bill is a 1945 thing of shreds and patches as it is. It can never be very much good to the coalowners and I cannot see how it is going to be any good at all to the miners. We were hoping against hope that there might be a little backbone, a little something effected, a little something definite put into the Bill, but on every occasion, whatever may be the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman, "No, that cannot be done."
It is true he suggested that he would be prepared to consider it, and he suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) and I might meet two hon. Members on the other side of the House to see what, if anything, could be done. The interview took place. We said, "Put in the transfer prices at which coal is transferred from the coal mines to your iron and steel works." "Oh, no, that cannot be done. You get that already in the aggregate from your independent accountants." A more nonsensical reply was never given. These independent accountants are bound to secrecy. Whatever questions we put to them we cannot elicit the information. That is no charge against the independent accountants. It is simply a recognition of the existing facts. "Put in the price at which you transfer the coal." "No, that cannot be clone. That would be to place the employers at a very serious disadvantage." "Put in the cost of the wages paid to the youths under 16 and to those above that age, not merely in the coal mining, but in your associated activities." "No, that cannot be done. That would duplicate accounts already in existence," which we could find if we made search in a hundred and one different departments. The whole thing is preposterous. If there is any desire, however weak, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government to make the Bill effective in the slightest particular, this is one of the means whereby he can effect his desire, but he has no desire. There has never been the slightest desire. It has been make believe from beginning to end, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself that this is part of the process of public bediddlement and befoolment. No one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman himself and hon. 1946 Members connected with coal mining opposite.
§ Sir ALFRED MONDThere seems to have been engendered a vast amount of heat about a very small point.
§ Sir A. MONDI really do not know why the Government cannot accept this somewhat harmless Amendment. I confess that a good many Amendments moved in Committee on this Bill reflected very little of the object of my right hon. Friend. What the right hon. Gentleman obviously requires, and what, I think, would be quite reasonable, is that this should cover all the coal mines. Personally, I cannot see that the information asked for can be of very much advantage.
§ Mr. WALSHIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, within the terms of the Bill, this can only apply to amalgamations? It could not, under the terms of the Preamble itself, be applied to all the coal mines. What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman talking like that?
§ Sir A. MONDNo doubt, there is a great amount of suspicion in the minds of those engaged in the reining industry, and certainly the agreement of 1921—or whatever you like to call it—for the ascertainment of wages in what was meant to be a profit-sharing scheme, for which I am not responsible, ought to carry with it the confidence of all those who participate. It always seemed to me a great mistake to make a mystery about the information. I do not think those who are seriously contemplating amalgamation on a large scale are going to keep back information, and, of course, there would be a way of dealing with this by legislation. But why cannot this terrible barrier of secrecy be removed by mutual consent? It would only require mutual agreement. Why should not the accountants disclose the information? The figures ought to be public. I quite agree that the man whose wages are determined by the price of coal, ought to know what that price is, and not have lurking in his mind the suspicion that a large amount is being transferred to some other company, or that he is not getting his fair share. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to meet this 1947 point, it would be a good thing. This Bill is not quite the flapdoodle that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has made out. This is not the proper time to enlarge upon it, but I could enlarge upon it at some length. There is a good deal which is of value in this Bill, as events are beginning to prove to my knowledge, and to the knowledge of some of those associated with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But something should be done to satisfy the not unreasonable demand of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to make this Bill really an effective Measure.
§ Mr. HARNEYAlthough I quite agree that this Bill only applies to amalgamated companies, undoubtedly it would be better to have had it for all companies. But half a loaf is better than no bread. A grave suspicion existed among many miners, after this scheme of profit-sharing was introduced, that the mineowner cut down the profits he was to distribute by alleging fictitious prices for pit props, and so on, and in regard to sales to subsidiary companies. That may be true, or it may be false, but the suspicion exists, and it exists on reasonable grounds. Therefore, since the object of the Government by this Bill is to create an atmosphere of good will, one would think they would not go out of their way to increase that suspicion. If it be untrue to say that mineowners are making any of these surreptitious profits, the best way to dispel that suspicion to give the facts. If, on the other hand they are making these surreptitious profits, what could you expect them to do but to struggle hard to conceal their accounts? It is emphasised in this case, because in Committee the right hon. Gentleman had this subject drawn to his attention, and he said that he would reflect over it, and see if it were possible to do anything. He has reflected, and what we have heard to-day amounts to this, that, after thoroughly considering the matter, the mineowners are of opinion that it would be dangerous to give these particulars. Could it be wondered at if in those circumstances miners throughout the country said, "We were quite right in thinking they were wangling the profits against us." The Commission, having considered the evidence, could not 1948 say there was any proof that the mineowners had been acting unfairly, but, still, they did not form a definite view, and they go on to say:
There are many points in the fixing of transfer prices as to which genuine doubt is possible, and that, in the solution of these doubts the mine owner selling under associated conditions has no particular interest in securing the highest possible prices for coal as it leaves the colliery, since he can make up later on, while he has some motive for giving the benefit of any doubt against the colliery.Therefore, they recommend that something should be done to allay suspicion.
§ Mr. CAPEI think I am in rather a unique position as far as the question of transfer prices is concerned, as I have tested, to the best of my ability, the process by which these transfer prices are obtained. Some time ago, after audits by the accountants of the miners and the owners, the miners' representatives came to the conclusion that the transfer prices obtained for the transfer of the coal were too small. He approached me, and stated that we ought to make an application to have the transfer prices re-arranged. I was in the position of having to make an application to the employers for a change in the transfer prices, not knowing what the transfer prices were. The accountant, having been sworn to secrecy, could not divulge to me what the prices were, and, therefore, I had to assume certain things, and put in a claim. It was then decided that it should go to the independent chairman. I thought I would be quite right in taking with me the accountant, but when we arrived we found that the accountant was not allowed to give evidence, and I had to make my statement to the independent chairman asking for a higher price for the coal, not knowing the price charged. The coalowners representative knew all the figures which were obtainable, while I, who appeared on behalf of the men, knew nothing about the figures. The chairman had a private statement made to him by the accountants and, on that private statement, he came to the conclusion that the price charged for the transfer of the coal had been too small, but to this day I am not supposed to know what the real transfer price was. While I was not prepared to say we did not get a fair decision from the chair- 1949 man, I could not satisfy the Cumberland miners that it was a fair decision, because I could not tell them the price before the decision or after the decision. All I could tell them was that he gave us the 5 per cent. higher price.
What I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to this Bill, is that while it may leave outside certain collieries which may amalgamate in course of time, if we can get a full statement as to what the transfer prices are, that, I think in due time will regulate itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) said this was a matter which could be arrived at by mutual agreement. We know it could, if you could get the other side mutually to agree, but we have never been able to get the other side mutually to agree, and we have been trying since 1921 to get an agreement. For once in a while, at any rate, in these Debates, the Government might show that they are slightly on the side of the workmen. As long as the present system remains in operation, there will be suspicion, and no one can allay it in the men's minds. We have been told that we get the prices in the aggregate, but we do not get them in the individual colliery. What we say is that before we can have any contentment or any satisfaction in the minds of the miners of this country, they must be able to know from facts and figures the prices charged for coal for export purposes, home consumption, domestic consumption, and also with regard to transfer. Therefore, I hope the Secretary for Mines and the Secretary of State for War will give this matter further consideration, and accede to our request to make fully known to everyone concerned what the actual prices of transfer are, and so give some satisfaction to the workmen employed in the industry.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI regret that the Government have not been able to see their way to make some concession in this respect. But if they cannot accept the Amendment in its present form, surely they might recognise that there is a case for consideration with which they could promise to deal, at any rate, in another place? I think the speech made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down is unanswerable. What is the answer to the case he has made out? In 1921 there was an agreement entered into at the instance 1950 of the Government for a division of profits, and the figures were in the ratio of 87 and 13. That was the basis, and we all thought then that it was a very good new principle to be introduced. But, surely, in order that that should work fairly, both parties ought to be able to get access to the information to enable them to find out whether they have had a square deal in the transaction and unless they have, I do not see how it could work.
Here is a case where my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) stated that, when he came to reckon in his district what should be the share of the miners, very important facts and figures were withheld from him by men who were dealing quite honestly. The accountants were bound by their employers, and they were not acting unfairly. But what was the impression left on the miners as to whether they were getting a fair deal or not? The impression was that something was being concealed to the advantage of the employers and to the disadvantage of the miners. That is a very bad impression to create. The right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) has experience of this matter. He has large subsidiary interests as well as interests in the collieries. There cannot be any objection, from the point of view of colliery owners who have nothing to conceal from their workers and who would infinitely prefer to have good feeling maintained between them and their workers rather than the possibility that here and there they might be able to get a little advantage at the expense of their workmen. Most of the trouble in the coalfields has arisen from this suspicion, and in many other industries as well. I cannot help thinking that the Government here have only consulted the coalowners and they have not consulted the best of them. I regret to say that, from my experience, I do not think the best of the coalowners are represented on the Mining Association. One of the coalowners said to me when I asked him why he was not a member of the Mining Association, "I am too busy; I cannot go to London to attend these committees constantly." The result is that men who are not representative of the best among the mineowners represent them, appear for them and present 1951 their case, and I do not think that, in these conditions, you are getting the best kind of deal between workmen and employers.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot promise the consideration of the Government to this Amendment. I am not in a position to say whether this is the best form in which it could be presented, but, if they will promise to consider it and to introduce something in another place, then, when it comes back, the House of Commons will have further cognisance of it, and, if it were inadequate, it could be amended. There are some parts of the Report which I can understand that, for very strong political reasons, they cannot accept. I can understand the very powerful interests they have to deal with when it is a question of the purchase of royalties or the setting up of selling agencies, but there cannot be anything of that kind here. There may be a few owners who are suspicious, and who do not want to give away their accounts, but in the main I do not believe they would find any really powerful interest against them in the matter. What is the object of sticking rigidly to the text of the Bill, when a concession of this kind would tend to remove suspicion? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible for him at any rate to promise reconsideration of this Amendment, because it does not vitally affect the structure of the Bill? It does not undermine the fabric of this wonderful Measure, and if he were to do this, he would do something at any rate to remove that suspicion which has done so much to provoke controversy in the coalfields.
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox)The House, I am sure, will have every sympathy with the desire to do everything possible to remove what has done a great deal to cause suspicion in the mining industry. But I should like to remind the House that the coalowners' witnesses before the Commission said they had given every facility.
§ Colonel LANE FOXI heard the evidence that was given before the Commission. I hope the House will not be drawn on this occasion into a general discussion 1952 on this subject, because it is quite evident that the Amendment would not leave the situation in any completer form. This is a much bigger question than the question involved in this Amendment. The whole thing is a matter for agreement between the parties. [Laughter.] Do not let hon. Members opposite always jeer. It is high time that those who represent the miners began to realise that they must trust somebody. I would like to remind the House that an undertaking has been given by the coalowners, as was stated in the House by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, that they are prepared to consider the devising of machinery for the settlement of transfer prices which will leave no possible ground or doubt as to their fairness. That was said by them to the Coal Commission. They have expressed their intention of meeting the men and securing better arrangements, and I do beg the House not to try to impose on them something which I believe they are prepared to give in a much more complete form than this Amendment indicates. I hope this will be left as a matter for agreement, and that this Amendment will not be pressed.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDI do not want to intervene in a discussion which is very largely technical, but the Government are constantly telling us that this Bill is carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission's Report. I should like to supplement what has been said by my hon. Friends around me on this point. The Royal Commission, having heard these accountants, dealt with this matter. On page 138 of the Report, referring to a table of figures included in the Annex, they say:
It is not too much to say that no definite conclusion can be drawn from them"—that is from the figures—that disposal of coal under associated conditions depresses, on the whole, the price obtained. On the other hand, the indication that this may happen is sufficiently strong to make it impossible for us, as a result of our inquiry, to give the miners the assurance that it does not and cannot happen.That is the case. After having heard the accountants, after having heard the evidence that the Secretary for Mines heard, the Commission itself state that the assurances that the accountants gave 1953 was not sufficient for the Commission to accept as a good enough assurance for the miners. The Report goes on:Without assurance on this point, the wage agreement cannot secure the object for which it was devised, of promoting good relations and settling wages without disputes.There is the whole case. What do the Government propose to do on that recommendation? It is quite true that on page 140 the Report says:We are inclined to think that the only real solution of the difficulty is to leave out of account the transfer prices which the individual employer may enter in his books and to declare officially and publicly from time to time, through some impartial authority in each district, what shall be taken as the market price at that period of every kind of coal sold in the district.That is one way of doing it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the proposal in the Amendment may not be the best way of doing it, but the Government cannot indulge in the luxury of rejecting a proposal that has been made to meet what the Royal Commission's Report states to be a serious grievance on the part of the miners. If the proposal in this Amendment be not sound, if it applies only to a small field and applies unfairly to one field and not to another field, the Government, if they are justifying their claim to carry out the Royal Commission's Report, must give us another proposal which will be acceptable and which will carry to the miners the assurance that they are not being cheated by the various prices entered on the books of the companies. Therefore, we shall certainly ask the House to divide upon this Amendment of ours, because no other suggestion has been made as to how it can be secured to the miners by legislation.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Lieut.-Commander ASTBURYI very much regret to see that the Government have not done anything to meet the views of those of us who in Committee have supported this Amendment. Although the Government gave us no satisfaction on the point in Committee, they said then that they would see what could be done before the Report stage. There is no doubt that a great deal of suspicion exists among the men, and I find myself up against it every time I have the privilege of speaking to the miners. They say that they do not know whether they 1954 are getting a fair share of the profits or not. They say that the accounts should be furnished in a form prescribed by the Board of Trade. What objection can the Government or the mineowners have to that? It seems to me that those who are arguing against this Amendment are really casting a slur on the miners. I would press most strongly on the Government, even at this late stage, that they should accept the Amendment. Some of my friends will have to vote for this Amendment unless the Government can do something that will at any rate tend to do away with the distrust between miners and owners. Most of the strikes in our day are due to distrust between owner and employés. Any little that we can do that will tend to create greater trust between mineowner and miner will at least do something to improve the position.
§ Mr. SPENCERThere are two points with which I am going to deal. They are incomplete and inaccurate returns as the basis of suspicion that exists at the present time. I will give the returns in my own area and leave hon. Members to form their own opinion as to the completeness of those returns. If it is deliberately done, I can conceive of nothing that is more despicable and mean than the way of presenting the returns. Anyone in the coal trade knows that there are times of the year when a return can be given most favourable to the men. In January, 1925, the colliery companies presented 94.41 per cent. returns. In August in the same area, when the summer trade had come and the returns were of a character that was least beneficial to the workmen, they gave 99.61 per cent.; that is to say, that 6 per cent. of the collieries of the whole of the Eastern area did not present returns at the most favourable moment. Is anyone surprised at there being elements of suspicion with things of this kind going on? It is just the thing that creates suspicion. I do not say it is done deliberately, but if it is done deliberately, then it is mean and despicable. If it is not done deliberately, then the owners ought at least to be more careful in sending in their returns. If the matter rested there, one might not be able to draw any inference at all. In January, 1926, we come down again 1955 to 96 per cent. The thing that makes us suspicious is, that their returns are in August and September, not merely on August, and that it is when it was favourable to us to have a return, they are not made. I am justified in saying that returns of this character ought to be complete returns. Unless you get complete returns you will not remove suspicion.
Let me give an instance of the inaccurate returns. Turning to the Government returns in their White Paper issued quarterly, you find the Eastern area is said to return 22,777,000 tons of coal for the quarter ending December, 1925. The area, presenting as it does for the same quarter 99 per cent. of returns, gives the return of 23,168,000 tons—400,000 tons of coal difference between the Government return and the return for the Eastern area. I am dealing in each instance with the same quarter. How can you expect men to divest their minds of suspicion if you get returns so different as that? Of course, it was explained with regard to the different price of coal, which I know was the right answer. But the point I want to make is that, if you want to remove suspicion, you must present accurate and complete accounts. We ought to have an Amendment of this character for a complete and accurate return, and until you furnish men with the financial side of the industry and with reliable statistics you will not remove suspicion nor will you bring to an end the distrust which is undoubtedly playing a prominent part in prolonging the present stoppage.
§ Mr. MORRISThe situation that has arisen is a very remarkable one. The Secretary of State for War and the Secretary for Mines have taken up an impassive attitude, even when their supporters like the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond)— who has a great interest in the coal trade—have appealed to them. What becomes of the main argument of the Secretary of State for War against accepting this Amendment? His argument was that if you accepted this Amendment it would tend to prevent amalgamations. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen gave a complete answer to that by saying that acceptance of this Amendment would do nothing to prevent any amalgamation, 1956 and he added that he knows there is a great deal more going on at the moment by way of bringing about amalgamations than is often accepted. The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is one that at the very least ought to be accepted by the Government—that consideration should be given to this question and that, if the Amendment cannot be accepted, an undertaking should be given that it would be considered in another place. Here is the Government given an opportunity to do something to introduce a better spirit in industry, After the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape)—in which he said that he himself went before a district board not knowing what the transfer figure was and that it was adjusted afterwards—it cannot be said that there was not a real basis in that case for suspicion. Here is a first-class opportunity at a time of crisis to abolish distrust, and it should be taken by the Government.
Commander WILLIAMSI have listened to some half-a-dozen speeches, all of which, except the last, have come from Members who have been mixed up in this coal industry. I do not apologise for getting up and trying to put the point of view of someone who has no connection with that industry and who is one of the ordinary people of this country who ought to be considered before either side. I do not think this Amendment is perfect or workable or the best Amendment, but everyone of us knows quite clearly that in some cases in this industry you have got to a point where it is difficult for men to know what their wages are or ought to be in relation to the selling price of coal. That cannot possibly go on. You have a feeling in the industry that as far as the owners are concerned, what they lose on the swings they make up on the roundabouts, while the men have a feeling that what they lose on the swings they lose on the roundabouts. I do not think anyone looking at this Amendment can possibly think it is serious in any way, because it does not meet the question. The Government cannot accept it, because it is not worth while accepting and will not help the industry, but I think they might give a very clear indication before this Bill leaves the House that they will make this matter 1957 quite clear, so that the men will have a real understanding of what is the price of coal.
It is all very well to come down on the men's side and say, "We do not trust the accountants," and it is all very well to come down on the owners' side and say, "There are certain trade secrets." The whole trouble is that both sides in this industry do not trust anyone. It seems to me that you have got the worst men among the mineowners leading the owners, and that you have got the worst men among the miners leading the miners, and what you want to get is the reasonable person whether he is on one side or the other. The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) said this was done in America. I think it can be done, and probably is done, in America, but it is done there for this reason—that it does not matter which trade or industry you go to, employers and employed work for the good of the industry, and not for some political or outside purpose of any kind. If you could keep politics out of your industry, and work for the good of the industry, you would get along much faster. As far as I am concerned, it is impossible to vote for this Amendment. It does not meet the case or clear away the difficulties. But I think it is necessary that this matter should be made quite clear in the future by the Government.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI want to point out that, with the excep-
§ tion of the Treasury Bench, opinion in this House is unanimous. May I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams)? He did not accept the Amendment, but he made an appeal to his leaders to do something in another place. That can be quite well done. An Amendment acceptable to the Government's draftsmen can be proposed in another place. I understand that the Unionist programme of the future is to be opposed to nationalisation but to have, as an alternative, co-partnership. I understand that the Government are hammering out a programme of that sort. That will be the alternative at the next General Election to nationalisation. Some strong alternative to nationalisation will be required for the mining industry. What will be the value of such a proposal to the Unionist party if the first essentials of cooperation, complete frankness and complete knowledge, are not accepted or allowed? Certain hon. Members opposite are not happy about the state of things in this country. They are not satisfied that all the causes of the trouble in the mining industry come from Russia. They feel that there is something wrong, which they wish to put right. Could not they bring pressure upon the Government in the usual way and through the usual channels to have something done in another place to put this matter right?
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 267.
1961| Division No. 403.] | AYES. | [5.17 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Dennison, R. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Dunnico, H. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Gardner, J. P. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Barr, J. | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Batey, Joseph | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Bean, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Gillett, George M. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gosling, Harry | Kelly, W. T. |
| Briant, Frank | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Kennedy, T. |
| Bromfield, William | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Bromley, J. | Greenall, T. | Kenyon, Barnet |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Buchanan, G. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lee, F. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Groves, T. | Lowth, T. |
| Cape, Thomas | Grundy, T. W. | Lunn, William |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) |
| Clowes, S. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | March, S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hardie, George D. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Harney, E. A. | Montague, Frederick |
| Compton, Joseph | Harris, Percy A. | Morris, R. H. |
| Connolly, M. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hayes, John Henry | Naylor, T. E. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hirst, G. H. | Owen, Major G. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Hurst, W. (Bradford, South) | Palin, John Henry |
| Paling, W. | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Stamford, T. W. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Stephen, Campbell | Welsh, J. C. |
| Potts, John S. | Sullivan, J. | Westwood, J. |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sutton, J. E. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Riley, Ben | Taylor, R. A. | Whiteley, W. |
| Ritson, J. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Saklatvala, Shapurji | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Sexton, James | Tinker, John Joseph | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Townend, A. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Varley, Frank B. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Viant, S. P. | Windsor, Walter |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Waddington, R. | Wright, W. |
| Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Watson, W. M. (Dumfermilne) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Snell, Harry | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Charles Edwards. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cope, Major William | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Couper, J. B. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Holland, Sir Arthur |
| Allen, Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Ansley, Lord | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Atkinson, C. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Dawson, Sir Philip | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H |
| Balniel, Lord | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Drewe, C. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Eden, Captain Anthony | Jacob, A. E. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Edmondson, Major A. J. | James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Elveden, Viscount | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Everard, W. Lindsay | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Berry, Sir George | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Bethel, A. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lamb, J. O. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Fermoy, Lord | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green) |
| Braithwaite, A. N. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Loder, J. de V. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Frece, Sir Walter de | Lougher, L. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Ganzoni, Sir John | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Goff, Sir Park | Macintyre, Ian |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks. Newb'y) | Grace, John | McLean, Major A. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Grant, Sir J. A. | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Burman, J. B. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Grotrian, H. Brent. | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hanbury, C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Harland, A. | Moles, Thomas |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Harrison, G. J. C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Christie, J. A. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Haslam, Henry C. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hawke, John Anthony | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxford, Henley) | Murchison, C. K. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | O'Neill, Molar Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hills, Major John Waller | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hilton, Cecil | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Perring, Sir William George | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | ShepperSon, E. W. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Pielou, D. P. | Skelton, A. N. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Pilcher, G. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Power, Sir John Cecil | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Preston, William | Smithers, Waldron | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wells, S. R. |
| Radford, E. A. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Raine, W. | Sprot, Sir Alexander | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple |
| Ramsden, E. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Remnant, Sir James | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Stuart, Hon. J (Moray and Nairn) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Rye, F. G. | Styles, Captain H. Walter | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Salmon, Major I. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Sandeman, A. Stewart | Templeton, W. P. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | |
| Sandon, Lord | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Savery, S. S. | Tinne, J. A. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer. |
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)The next Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) and other hon. Members—in Clause 6, page 6, line 10, at the end, to insert the words
Provided always that the Board of Trade shall not refer to the Railway and Canal Commission any scheme affecting a coal mine which is part of an undertaking engaged in the production, treatment, or manufacture of any commodity without the consent of such undertaking—has been disposed of by the first Amendment on the Paper.