§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I beg to move in page 13, line 30, to leave out from the beginning to the word "section," in line 31.
I apologise to the Committee for introducing a manuscript Amendment. It is a most objectionable form of procedure, but I accept no responsibility for it. It is due to a combination of circumstances. I may be able to simplify it in less formal language by stating that it has the effect of omitting the wordsDuring the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926.I must apologise if I am causing the Committee any inconvenience, but I have not the prescience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and I did not realise, until breakfast time this morning, that it would possibly be necessary to deal with Part II of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Darwen was much more cautious, and by a lucky chance he has succeeded in diverting his attention upon Parts II, III and IV, while his party was considering Amendments to Part I. This Amendment requires reference to the Coal Mines Act of 1926, with which I have no doubt most hon. Members are quite familiar. That Act was passed on 8th July, 1926, and provided that it should be continued in force for a period of five years. That period will come to a conclusion in July, 1931, 16 months or so from this date. The object of this Amendment is one with which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will sympathise, because if the words in the Clause stand as they are, the inevitable effect will be that the question of hours, with all its implications and the trouble which it is continually causing to the House and to the country, must come up for discussion again on the expiration of the 1926 Act. Surely the coal industry and those engaged in it have in the last 20 years 1804 had enough legislation, which has not been uniformly successful. They and the House will have had enough of it by the time this Bill is through. Yet, as this Clause stands, I suppose that in 16 months from now we shall once more have to have the whole matter brought up for review; we shall have the whole discussion reopened, and all the old troubles renewed.
If the words are omitted, there is nothing to prevent the Government then in office from making what rearrangements they like, but I suggest that Acts of Parliament which are drawn so as to confine themselves to, or to depend upon various contingencies and the expiry of other Acts, will leave the industry affected in a state of uncertainty, and that is the last thing we wish to happen. As long as we legislate in such a way that 8, 10, 12 or 14 months hence the question has to be reopened, we are making it increasingly difficult for employers and employés to get down to their work without continually wondering what Parliament will do when the Act under which they are working expires. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether the Bill would not be better without these words. They do not add to the power of this Government. If he is in office at the time, provided he has a majority, he can deal with the case as his majority think fit; but if the words remain they merely create a further period of uncertainty for the industry and all who are engaged in it.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I under stand there is a manuscript Amendment which proposes to strike out the words "Continuance of the Mines Act, 1926" in order to insert "Part I of this Act." I hope the position will be safeguarded so that that Amendment can be moved.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, I shall see that that is done. The Question I shall put will be "That the words down to the second word 'the' in line 30, stand part of the Clause."
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I rise to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend. As this is a manuscript Amendment, perhaps it will do no harm if I read the Clause as it would remain if the Amendment were passed.Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the word 'one hour' there were therein substituted the words half an hour.'The gist of that is to make the increase of time to be worked in the mines, one half-hour—to make that permanent instead of leaving it as a tentative experiment for a period of less than 18 months, as would be the result if the Clause remained as it is at the present time. The Coal Mines Act, 1926, which will expire on the 8th July, 1931, increased the permissible number of hours which could be worked in a mine by one hour per day. This Clause reduces that by one half-hour, but that reduction can only last, in effect, for less than 18 months, because at the end of that time the Act of 1926 automatically comes to an end. In my opinion it is bad enough to have the trade dislocated once, but it would be just twice as bad to have it dislocated twice during a period of 18 months. It would be to the advantage of the trade if this alteration were made permanent instead of for only this particular period.
Goodness knows, the coal trade has been disturbed more than enough during the past 30 or 40 years. The dislocations have been of several kinds; there have been strikes, there have been lock-outs and stoppages due to unforeseen circumstances, and worst of all, there have been these dislocations due to legislation. Not only has production suffered, but marketing has suffered to an extraordinary extent. The coal exporter has enough factors to reckon with as it is, without having to take into consideration legislation which may affect the output or may affect the price of his commodity. He has to take into consideration the cost at the pit head, railway charges, freight and insurance charges, and also the demand in the place where he sells his coal. To add another factor to the dislocations which already exists will make it still more difficult for him to market the commodity abroad, more difficult for him to sell at a fixed price, and more difficult for him 1806 to make his contracts. For that reason I suggest that, however foolish this suggestion on the part of the Labour party may be, it is better to put up with the foolishness of which we know than to run the risk of having the trade upset twice in a period of 18 months.
The loss of markets by this country during the past 40 or 50 years is an absolute tragedy. There was a time not so very long ago, well within the memory of men who are now operating on the Coal Exchange, when British coal could be sold in practically every port and every market of the world. The fact that it is no longer so is largely due to the disturbing influences which I have just named—to the strikes, to the lock-outs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Very well, if hon. Members disagree with that I will prove my words. Not so very long ago, well within the memory of men now in the trade, we were actually able to sell Cardiff coal in Norfolk or Newport News, in the United States, a proceeding which to-day would be regarded as tantamount to carrying coals to Newcastle. Norfolk and Newport News are exporting centres for Pocahontas steam coal, which in the days before oil fuel became so general was the steam coal which competed more than any other with Welsh coal in the markets of the world. The fact that we have lost that market is not altogether due to the dislocations such as this Clause would cause—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—it is due to developments on the other side; but I do maintain that the loss of our markets on the River Plate, where there have been no colliery developments at all, and where there are not likely to be any, is very largely due to the fact that our exporters were unable to fix prices and make contracts, as they would have been able to do had they been assured of consistent conditions here. Thirty years ago we had practically a monopoly of the River Plate market. We also exported coal largely from Cardiff to the Cape, and there, again, the market has been lost through interferences with the trade. The same applies to the lost markets of Colombo, Bombay and even Calcutta. Twenty-five years ago we exported largely to Bombay and Colombo. To-day the whole of that market is supplied by Calcutta coal. We even sent the coal to Java or even to. Shanghai, a thing which is unheard of 1807 in these days. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Russia?"] I am coming to that. In the same way, at one time we sent coal to the whole of the Baltic ports, and we had a monopoly in the case of Denmark and Copenhagen. To-day, the interference to which I have alluded has made it impossible for our exporters to keep their contracts, and we have lost those markets. At one time the Tyne and Humber had a monopoly of the whole of the trade with the Baltic and Scandinavian ports, but to-day we hold less than 40 per cent. of that trade, the balance being supplied from Polish Silesia shipped from Danzig or from the new port being opened just close by. That is very largely due to the difficulties which our exporters had to face owing to interference by legislation and the uncertainty which prevailed in the coal trade in this country.
§ Mr. BECKETT
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that British capital in Poland employing Polish miners at 17s. 9d. a week has captured that trade?
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
Those mines in Poland would never have been developed but for the difficulties which occurred in this country.
§ Mr. BECKETT rose—
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett) can make his points later on, and I shall then show to him more patience, and I hope more courtesy, than he is showing to me. Twenty or 15 years ago we had a monopoly of the Genoa market.
§ Mr. BECKETT rose—
§ Mr. BECKETT
The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert-Ward) refuses to give way, but I have never refused to give way to him.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull gave 1808 way in the first instance, and the hon. Member cannot expect him to keep on giving way.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I am not aware that I have ever interrupted the hon. Member. I maintain that if there had been less interference with the coal trade the development of a great many of our coalfields would not have been hampered in the way that it has been, and we should not have lost markets which until then we regarded as particularly our own. During the last three or four years there has been greater stability in the coal trade, and to some extent we have gained some of those lost markets. During the past four years there has been no interference with the coal trade. In that period, we have recovered the Scandinavian markets, and we are sending-coal over the whole coast of Belgium and the Northern coast of France.
We have no monopoly there, and we have to sell our coal at a price which a great many people hold is utterly un-remunerative. At the same time, we are gaining a foothold in the markets which we have lost. It is bad enough to cause further dislocation of trade by altering the working day from eight hours to seven-and-a-half hours, but, unfortunately, it is much worse to do it twice over during a period of 18 months. In either case it will remain uncertain, and exporters will be unable to fix a price. This means cutting the price very close, and the exporters cannot do that unless they know at least two years in advance what the conditions are likely to be in the coalfields of the United Kingdom. The conditions will be bad enough when the working day is reduced from eight hours to seven-and-a-half hours, but they will be infinitely worse when the seven-and-a-half hours is turned bark to eight hours in less than 18 months time.
§ Mr. BECKETT
The hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull has attributed the trouble in the coal trade to too much legislation, but I would like to ask him if he is aware that British capital in Poland employs Polish miners at 17s. 9d. per week and in that way they are undercutting coalowners in the Baltic? The hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull said the reason for that was that too much legislation had driven the capital away from that trade, but the 1809 hon. and gallant Member must have been very hard-up fur an argument to be so unwise as to make a statement of that kind. I am sure even hon. Members who act with the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull would dissociate themselves from the argument that British miners should be able to compete with Polish miners at 17s. 9d. per week.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I have had very little time to consider the Acts of Parliament in order to see how this Amendment will work out, and this is a point which it is very difficult to determine in a hurry. These Acts of Parliament are very complicated, and legislation on this subject has been mostly by reference. So far as I can gather from a cursory examination of this proposal, what is now being proposed by this Amendment will not have the effect which is claimed for these words. Accordingly, I have on this point put down another Amendment which will come on later. If we are going to have this kind of discussion, without sufficient preparation to enable us to see how these Amendments are going to work, it is quite obvious that we shall go on discussing this Amendment until we are exhausted, and then we shall discuss the same question on a form of Amendment, which I think will bring it out, but will not be reached for some time until other discussions have taken place on this Clause, and then all that we have done to-night in discussing this Amendment will be entirely abortive, and we shall have it all over again on an appropriate form of words.
This really demonstrates what I ventured to point out to my right hon. Friend in the course of the afternoon, namely, that it puts everyone in such a position that the Debate cannot be carried on, and reduces the whole matter to a farce, for which we really are not to blame. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that we could not anticipate that we had to be prepared with our Amendments to Part II this afternoon. The very time that the right hon. Gentleman took to consider the Amendments proposed was enough to justify us in believing that we should not reach this part of the Bill for a considerable time, and I venture to suggest to him that he should allow Progress to be reported. [Interruption.] I say that not with any desire at all to obstruct. 1810 Surely hon. Members will give us credit for having proper motives on this matter. We are all, I hope, just as much interested in our country as they are, and these are matters of vital importance. I appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Debate to be adjourned, so that we may have a proper opportunity of debating this matter on a form of words which will really raise the question. I beg to move, "That the chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I think I can help the Committee to some step in the problem which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) and other Members on the opposite side. We have debated at considerable length the question whether there has not been proper notice or opportunity for the discussion of the hours question, and the Committee, of course, has taken a decision. I tried to point out earlier that this proposal, including the Amendments on the Paper has been before the House for a long time, and I think it is a very fair reply to say to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that they could quite easily have been prepared to-night with the views that they intended to express. While I hold very strongly to that point, and must maintain it, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, and whom, I should like to say in passing, I am glad to see again in his place. It is very difficult to disentangle these Acts of Parliament and to know exactly where we stand in regard to an Amendment of this kind, and, accordingly, I will explain the situation to the Committee, and make a proposal for what seems to me to be by far the better way of discussing this question of the reduction of half an hour, together with any proposal for averaging the hours over the week or fortnight which hon. Members may have in mind.
As the Committee know, under the existing legislation, that is to say, the Act of 1926, the permissible time is eight hours per day plus winding time, and, if the Clause went through in the form that the Government suggest, it would, as from some date four months 1811 after the passing of this Measure, reduce the eight hours to 7½ hours plus winding time, and that would continue until the Act of 1926 expires in July, 1931, when there would be an automatic reversion to the pre-1926 position of seven hours plus winding time, the latter averaging, over the whole country, about 35 minutes. That would be the state of affairs if there were no further legislation dealing with hours over and above the proposal in this Bill, and if the Act of 1926 expired in July, 1931.
So much for the general position. Let us turn now to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham), and supported by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). The two hon. Members, or, at all events, the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull, suggested that this was a permanent Amendment, and, of course, for the purposes of this Clause, that could only be a permanent Amendment of Section 3 of the Coal Mines Act, 1908. I am not going to press this point, because I am so reluctant to put any obstacle in the way of the discussion, but the Title of this Bill provides for amendment of the Act of 1908, and I am under the impression that, if this be a permanent proposal, as the two hon. Members say, it is not in order. I do not want to build upon that, however, because I am quite prepared to take the merits of the case. The Act of 1908, in the Section which provides for an eight-hours day in the coal mines of this country, provides for 60 hours over a year of commercial overtime, that is to say, on 60 days in the year an additional hour may be worked. What would be the effect of this present Amendment? It would delete the words at the beginning of the Clause:During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926,and the Clause would then read that Section 3 of the Act of 1908, which relates only to this commercial overtime, and which permits the working of one additional hour on 60 days in the year, would have that hour reduced to half an hour.
I have said sufficient to show that that is a perfectly hopeless method of dealing with this proposition. I do not for one moment blame the two hon. Members 1812 who have moved this Amendment, because only one who has lived with this subject for several months could endeavour to expound it, and I am not sure that I have by any means exhausted the subject in this rapid review of the situation. What is the better way of dealing with this problem? We have now approached the hours Clause in the Bill. There are two Amendments on the Paper, one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville), suggesting that the hours should be averaged at 45 over the week, and the other in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake), suggesting that they should be averaged at 90 over a fortnight. I suggest that, subject, Mr. Young, to your agreement, it would probably be the general wish and for the general convenience of the Committee, if after the present technically impossible Amendment, as I regard it, has been disposed of, we took the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Leeds, which is more comprehensive than that of the hon. Member for North Midlothian, and discussed on that Amendment both the proposal of the Government to reduce the working time by half an hour and the proposal of hon. Members opposite to accompany that reduction by an average, whether over a week or over a fortnight. I suggest that that would give us a comprehensive discussion, with perfect freedom to the Committee and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead. Quite candidly, there is no chance of exhausting this very important subject to-night. Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who represent mining constituencies wish to speak. Accordingly, the discussion would continue until 11 o'clock to-night, and then we should resume on this subject at Four o'clock on Thursday afternoon, when I give the Committee the assurance that there will be ample opportunity to explore it in all its aspects, because undeniably it is an important feature of the Bill. On that basis I think we might very well reach agreement on the lines that I respectfully suggest to the Committee.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Will it be a definite understanding that there is no Closure on that particular point?
§ Mr. GRAHAM
My hon. Friend must not feel sore about any Closure. I think 1813 he is under a misunderstanding. It is perfectly clear, however, that we have the remainder of the time to-night, and I can say at once that we must devote the great bulk of the day on Thursday to this subject. It will be in the interest of all of us if we can take the discussion on a comprehensive basis, but we must of course get a decision on this subject on Thursday.
§ Sir DONALD MACLEAN
I should like to suggest, Mr. Young, that it might perhaps meet the general wish of the Committee if you would allow this evening a quite general discussion on the whole question of the Clause. It has already been indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and I entirely agree that to debate any Amendment moved in this way would only add to the extraordinary legislative complexities which are inherent in this Clause as it now stands. At least three Acts of Parliament must be consulted before it is possible really to understand what any Amendment means when it is moved. I therefore think, if the Amendment cannot be withdrawn—and I do not suppose it will be withdrawn—the time of the Committee would be better devoted, with your permission, Sir—it cannot be done without your permission—to a general discussion on the subject of the proposal to reduce the hours of labour as contained in the Clause.
§ The CHAIRMAN
It was my intention when we took the Amendment on the Paper to allow a full discussion on the question of hours. I have here such a number of manuscript Amendments that it is very difficult to deal with them. I think we ought to dispose of this one.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I think the right hon. Gentleman has really misunderstood the object of the manuscript Amendment which is now proposed, because he has made the suggestion that all the questions raised in it will be met if we have a general discussion on seven and a half hours a day, or 45 hours a week. The Amendment, as I understand it, is wholly separate from that question. If we had had an opportunity of putting it on the Paper, the difficulty would not have arisen. The Amendment, as I understand it, is directed to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing at Geneva, namely, what 1814 ought to be the final arrangements with regard to hours in this industry. It is plain, whatever may be the right decision, that it is a matter which unquestionably ought to be debated on this Bill, and I was very glad the right hon. Gentleman did not take the technical point that the Amendment in form is one of a permanent character. Of course, that could quite easily be got round by an Amendment. No one would suggest that whatever Bill you might pass fixing hours necessarily fixed hours for all time. You do not want to do that. But, equally, I think you do not want always to have this question of hours being brought forward year by year and subject to some sudden change—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not do it in 1926?"]—We did. We gave five years—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would say that for a period of years—five years, if you will—there shall be no further change in hours, that at any rate would give some period of certainty, but I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman himself would look forward with any equanimity to the prospect of having a very long progress of this Bill, which inevitably is going to take a long time and the progress of which must be to some extent disturbing to the industry. Supposing he gets the Bill and we settle that you have either seven-and-a-half hours a day or you average it over the week, is that only to hold good for six months, and is the-whole thing to be in the melting pot again? That is the issue, I understand, that is raised by the Amendment, It may be that this is really not the right form in which to discuss the question. It may be that ultimately this Amendment ought to be withdrawn and that my right hon. Friend's Amendment, which I have not seen, is the right one. But, again, I am at a disadvantage, and the right hon. Gentleman is at a disadvantage, because he has not yet seen it. [Interruption.] When he intervenes again, no doubt he will advise us in the matter. To take the question of construction, as far as I can make out from what he said, while the Amendment appears to be permanent in form, it will have one effect for the next year and a-half, and, when the Act of 1926 has expired, it will have a different effect. It is extremely difficult to deal with these things by reference, 1815 and I am not sure that it would not have been more convenient if the Clause had been drafted so that he who runs may read, and, instead of saying we amend this for such and such a time in reference to that Act so that it may be read with the variation of a third Act, we had the Clause set out so that it said in simple language exactly what hours a man might work. Then we could understand it. I am not sure, on the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of his own Clause, that what he is doing is only to affect Section 3 of the Act of 1908 which, as far as I can make out, does not deal with the ordinary daily hours the miner works, but only with the extra hours that may be worked in exceptional circumstances. The Section is headed, "Power to extend hours worked on a limited number of days in the year."
The Clause as drafted says:Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the words 'one hour' there were therein substituted the words 'half an hour.'If my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is in the wrong form, is not the Clause also in the wrong form?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I am not on the merits, but on the form. I will come to the merits in a moment. The President of the Board of Trade objects to the Amendment, because he says it is only in relation to Section 3, and it would only have a temporary effect, and an exceptional effect. Whatever we are to do, we want to be amending the right section. If the construction the President of the Board of Trade has put upon the Amendment is right, his own Clause is wrongly drafted, because it is drafted so as to amend Section 3. I really think that it is so.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I am not at all ashamed of what we did in 1926. If this is the appropriate time to discuss whether what we did in 1926 was right or wrong, we will debate it. I should be ready at any time on this Clause in this House or anywhere else to debate that matter, but I am not sure that I ought 1816 to embark upon it on this Amendment. [Interruption.] I really do not think we ought to travel as far afield as that. [Interruption.] I will if challenged, but I am prepared to confine myself to rather narrow limits.
§ Mr. TOM SMITH
In Section 1 of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act of 1926 are these words:During the continuance of this Act, Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect.The language used in this Bill is due to the fact that in 1926 the right hon. Gentleman himself amended Section 3 of the 1908 Act.
§ Mr. HASLAM
As we are taking part in this Debate in very difficult circumstances, may I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to read out the manuscript Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have already done so. The Amendment is, in page 13, line 30, to leave out from the beginning to the word "section" in line 31.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I was under the impression that what was done by the Act of 1926 was, that, whereas the hours for working were seven hours from bank to bank, in 1926 they became eight hours.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I think there may be something in the hon. Gentleman's point. I may be wrong in that. In the maze of legislation by reference even a lawyer may stumble, much less a layman. Let us come to what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do by this Clause. As I understand it, he wants by this Clause to say that seven-and-a-half hours are to be a legitimate period, and all I say is, for heaven's sake let us be quite sure that we are using appropriate language in order to do this. Sometimes in altering Acts of Parliament we have repealed several Sections, and then set out their binding effect in a new Section. It would be more helpful and intelligible if we had tabled before us the actual meaning of this Clause. The object of this Amendment may be wrong in form for the purpose it seeks to accomplish. If so, and the right hon. Gentleman can convince us of that. I am sure 1817 that my hon. Friends will be ready to withdraw it in order that an Amendment raising this issue in a convenient form may appear on the Paper. I am perfectly certain that no one wishes to stereotype the working hours for all time.
The right hon. Gentleman said two things. First of all, uncertainty is very bad for this trade. That is quite true. It is true of all trades, and I hope that he will remind his colleagues of that fact. "Make the necessary representations," I think is the expression of the Lord Privy Seal. He has emphasised its importance. He has also emphasised, and no one more so, the importance of international agreements, and in this I am glad to say he seems to have found a convert in Mr. Cook. We were not very successful with Mr. Cook. [Interruption.] At any rate, we have increased the export trade in coal by 10,000,000 tons. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that done?"] In the last year and a half. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have been in office during the last six months!"] Yes, carrying on under our Act. [Interruption.] I was under the impression that we were selling in competition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the Bill; it is one of great interest. The Bill contains a provision which enables a levy to be made in order that the foreigner may get coal cheaper.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
It was not I who embarked upon that matter. I was saying that uncertainty was one of the conditions which was being considered by the right hon. Gentleman. The other was international agreements, and he is very fond of making international agreements. Some of the international agreements which he seeks to make are good, and some are certainly not so good. One that undoubtedly would be good would be an agreement in regard to hours or wages in coal mines. He certainly will find in myself, and, I think, in all who sit on these benches, active supporters every time he goes to Geneva in order to try and bring the standards in foreign countries up to the standards of this country. If he will devote his attention to that instead of 1818 trying to tie our hands by a tariff truce, he will receive more assistance and meet with more general support. I think that he has been rather successful with Mr. Cook—nearly as successful as with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I am not sure whether he has a deal with Mr. Cook or whether he has only an understanding, or whether they are both free to act as they like on the later stages of the Bill. At any rate, I think Mr. Cook and the owners are sufficiently alive to the importance of international agreements. I do not think I shall be misquoting Mr. Cook when I state that I read an account of a speech which he made in which he said he was speaking for himself, thought have no doubt that he was speaking the mind of a large number of the mining community whom he represents. The general tenor of his speech was, "When we have got this wretched Bill through, for Heaven's sake do not let us have any more upsets or changes until we can get changes by international means." If that was the view which he expressed, then I think he was expressing a view of very great wisdom and sanity which should command very general support.
The right hon. Gentleman has through his Under-Secretary been labouring at Geneva in order to try and get the foreign countries of the world into agreement. There appears to be no possible prospect of getting agreement over wages, according to the reports which are available to me. We have heard a good deal about wages being very low in this country, and they are certainly not very high, but, apparently, they are on an altitude to which it is quite impossible to get foreign mining countries to come up by conventions. Though there seems to be no prospect of getting any agreement about wages there does seem to be some reasonable prospect, if we do not tie our hands, of getting agreement over hours. I understand they were near enough to agreement to make all those who were present at the preparatory conference consider it worth while to hold a full-dress conference under the auspices of the International Labour Department of the League of Nations. The voting appears to have been rather interesting, according to the only report of which I have been able to get hold, and which, I think, is probably right. It says: 1819It may be said that the principal question left unsettled is that of the time to be spent in the mines. The Office draft did not propose any figure. The various proposals or amendments submitted by members of the Conference suggested that the normal time spent in the mine should be as follows:Seven hours, 7½ hours, 7½ hours with transitory provisions allowing the figure to he raised to 7¾ hours during a period to be fixed by the International Labour Conference, 7¾ hours, 7½ hours plus half an hour's break, and 8 hours.These proposals were rejected by votes which I will mention in a moment.
If the view of the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Cook is right the question of hours ought to be settled by international agreement in the interest of this country, because it is only by international agreement that you will get hours down here, for you must get a level of hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not think of that before?"] I have always thought of it, and I have tried for international agreement, but what I never accepted was the thesis, so often put to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this country had better do something which no other country proposed to follow it in doing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to remember that when I was a responsible Minister I asked the House to ratify international conventions which I had made. [Interruption.] I shall make way sooner for the speeches which hon. Members wish to deliver if they will allow me to continue. I was responsible for making many conventions, but I included in those conventions a provision in the more important of them that this country, while perfectly ready to take the lead in negotiating them, as it always has done, would ratify such conventions when her principal industrial competitors ratified them. I constantly impressed on this House that there should be no doubt as to our good faith and intentions, and that we should ratify them and have them approved by Parliament, ready to come into force when other nations ratified them.
I think that a very sound line on which to go, in the interest of the industries of this country and the workmen employed in them. I am perfectly certain—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree with this and will do 1820 this when he negotiates—that if he wants to get wages and hours on the Continent on a level with hours here, and to get hours reduced by international agreement, without a shadow of doubt his wise course is to proceed, as he, has begun, by international action and by the negotiation of a convention at Geneva, but to make it quite plain that the further reduction in the hours shall come into force when foreign countries adhere. Let us see how far a departure has been made from that. The first proposal—[Interruption.] I should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would have had some interest in the negotiations conducted by the President of the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN
The right hon. Gentleman is protesting about interruptions, but the interruptions were made on his left.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a patient hearing, and I think he ought to encourage it.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
The first proposal was for seven hours, and there were nine votes for it and 18 against; for the seven and a-half hours proposal, which was the British proposal, there were 11 votes for, and 13 against, if that is correct, the British Government and the Under-Secretary proposed at Geneva seven and a-half hours.
§ Mr. GRAHAM
I must clear this point up. I will deal with the matter if I speak again. All the discussions at Geneva were based on a bunk-to-bank basis.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I am not quite sure about that, and we must get agreement as to the facts. I think the one thing about which there was a consensus of agreement was that in determining the time spent in the mines and how you were to account for it, the practical way of counting the time was one winding time included. I think the seven and a-half hours' proposal is practically the proposal in the present Bill; at any rate, there we had the British proposals for seven and a-half hours and there were 11 votes for it and 13 against with three abstentions. For the proposal of the Netherlands Government of seven and a-half and seven and three-quarters 1821 there were 12 for and 12 against. For the French Government's proposal of seven and three-quarter hours there nine votes for and 13 against. For the German proposal of seven and a-half hours and half an hour's break there were one vote for and 24 votes against. For the Czechoslovakian Government's proposal of seven and three-quarter hours and a quarter of an hour's break, there were 11 votes for, 13 against, and three abstentions; while for the eight hours' proposals there were 11 votes for, 13 against and three abstentions. I quote this, because if I am wrong in the detailed application it does not in the least vitiate the general argument which I am addressing to the Committee. The whole of the argument which the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary put at Geneva was that future progress in this matter, in order to be stable progress, must be by international agreement. If that was the line that he took up at Geneva and the line he instructed his Parliamentary Secretary to take at Geneva, I am sure that he will not be inconsistent in taking up one line at Geneva and taking up a different line here.
It is probably true that this Amendment ought to be withdrawn in order that the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has drafted, might be discussed and a decision taken upon it. I wish to make it plain that the object of the Amendment is to emphasise the importance, first, of certainty. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to put words into the Amendment: "Subject to international agreement among the principal competing countries," if desired. I believe that that is the common desire, and my object is to make it plain that that is our desire, and the object of our Amendment, however ill the Amendment may have been worded. I think it is the line which the right hon. Gentleman has been pressing at Geneva, and I beg him to give an assurance that when we come to the right form of words we may have his sympathetic consideration of such a proposal.
§ Mr. POTTS
I have listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, and I can 1822 assure him of one thing that so far as hours are concerned, the hours worked in mines in this country are longer than the hours worked in other countries in Europe. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member passed an Act in 1926 increasing the hours of work in the mines, and the President of the Board of Trade is now taking the same procedure in order to take off one half-hour. He is perfectly right in doing so. There are two factors to which I would draw attention, apart altogether from consideration of the provision of cheap coal, whether for sale in England or abroad. I refer in the first instance to the ill-effects of conditions on the lives of workmen in the mines and, secondly, I would call attention to accidents, fatal and otherwise, which are on the increase in our mines. I happened to be the individual who was called to give evidence in favour of shorter hours before the Royal Commission, and I had the honour of succeeding, because the Government took up the matter and reduced the eight hours to seven hours.
With respect to winding time, we have been told that it is only a matter of 25 minutes. From the time of starting to finishing it is more than 25 minutes, it is nearly twice 25 minutes. The average walking distance in the mines is over 1½ miles. It takes about a quarter of an hour to walk a mile on the surface and, of course, it takes longer to walk underground. Therefore, it must take 25 minutes at least to walk one way underground. The miners have to walk out as well as in. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine the recognised time for winding coal, recognised and fixed by the inspectors, he will find that it is far longer than he has stated. The actual time at the large collieries is 40 minutes more than the actual winding time.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is developing a general discussion, which will come later when we deal with hours.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The difficulty about this Amendment is that it seems not to amend the Act of 1926 so much as the Act of 1908.
§ Mr. POTTS
The hours ought to be reduced. The half hour reduction does not satisfy me. If I had my way and 1823 I could rule everybody I would stand for the full hour being taken off. Why would I do that? I have in my hand a Report, an official Report, as to the heat in our mines. The heat in our mines is between 70 and 80 degrees, even in the roadways. I have made inspections where I have seen people working in more than 100 degrees of heat. Let me give one important factor dealing with the question of the half hour. The statement was made that the value of that half hour to the miners was 1s. 6d. It was made by the right hon. and gallant Member the late Secretary for Mines.
§ Commodore KING
I quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, that the decrease of half an hour in the working day would increase the cost of production of all coal by 1s. 6d. per ton.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment is to delete the words "During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926." That is the Amendment.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
May I point out that hon. and right hon. Members on the other side have wandered around Geneva and Switzerland, and it seems to me that a fairly wide scope has been allowed—whether it was your intention or not. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is not quite fair to pin the hon. Member down unduly after the latitude which has been allowed other hon. Members.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he must obey the Ruling of the Chair.
§ Mr. POTTS
I do not intend to dispute your ruling, but I had certain things in 1824 my mind in connection with this matter and I should have liked to have had a general discussion. But if you will not allow me to develop this subject now I must do it at another time. It is so important that I am bound to get it in somehow. May I say that if it is not cleared up, and we reach a certain date, it may mean trouble between the working people of this country and the Government and the coalowners. As I am not allowed to speak on one or two points which I intended to raise I will confine myself to saying that I hope the House will reject the Amendment and that hon. Members opposite will allow the half hour to come off without any demur. If they knew the conditions under which men have to work, the unfortunate conditions underground, I am sure, having regard to the increase in the loss of life which has taken place owing to the lengthening of the hours of working, they would be willing to agree to shortening the hours of our miners. These facts cannot be disputed. Not long ago I gave facts with respect to accidents and proved my statement from the reports of inspectors. I am only repeating them now, and I ask the Committee to agree to the half hour coming off because it is essential in the interests of human life.
§ Mr. DIXEY
I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) and I am only sorry that, apparently, his points are too wide for the scope of the Debate. I am not quite clear where the President of the Board of Trade now stands. I had hoped that he would have replied to the appeal which was made to him by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to give us some sort of guarantee that however badly drafted the Amendment might be the point intended to be covered should be debated in a proper way—[Interruption]. It is no good hon. Members interrupting because I shall speak as long as I like, and I can assure them that there are quite a number of small points to be considered. As far as I see the position there are two points which should be considered. First, whether it is right to have a seven hour day permanently in this country after the expiration of the next 12 months, and, secondly, whether we should have a period under this Bill of a seven-and-a-half-hour day and then go back in 1931 1825 to a period of seven hours. When we have Members and right hon. Members like the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the right hon. Member for Hillhead—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I must ask for the assistance of the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) in regard to this Amendment. It is a manuscript Amendment, and I am in the same difficulty as the rest of the Committee—namely, that I cannot consider it until I have seen it.
The CHAI RMAN
Yes. It is suggested as a temporary Amendment to a Section of the Act of 1926: but apparently it is to be permanent.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I gather that the President of the Board of Trade referred to it and said that, technically, he thought in its actual form it might possibly be held to be out of order, and, subject to your permission, he made that point. But he took the further point, which no doubt the Secretary for Mines will explain, that the Amendment would be ineffective for its purpose because it was so drafted as to have a permanent effect, whereas it would have only a temporary effect, according to the duration of the two Acts mentioned in the Clause. I could not quite follow that point.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) himself argued that the effect of the Amendment would be of a permanent character. If it is of a permanent character, then all our Debate is out of order.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
May I put the matter like this? The Amendment of the Government on the Paper has been put forward at the last moment and was totally unexpected. It has, therefore, been extremely hard to meet the new situation which has been created, and I suggest that while this Amendment is being considered we should be allowed to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Assuming that this Amendment was agreed to and the words were taken out, the position would be thatSection 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the 1826 words 'one hour,' there were therein substituted the words 'half an hour.'
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I realise the difficulty which you are in and which we are all in, but, thanks to your generosity, we have been able to have a sort of preliminary discussion on this Amendment, however obscure its terms. That has been of great value to the Committee in indicating what would be the form of Amendment which should appear on the Paper. I should be grateful to the Secretary for Mines if, with your permission, he would shortly explain to the Committee just what are the legal and technical difficulties in this matter.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have been in the same difficulty as all hon. Members in dealing with this manuscript Amendment. I have now come to the conclusion that it is out of order. The next Amendment will allow discussion.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I fully realise the difficulty into which, not only you, but the whole Committee has got. Possibly this Amendment is not in order, but it is quite clear that it is the desire of the Committee to consider an Amendment which they can read, the terms of which they can understand and which they can debate with a knowledge of its form, and as the whole Committee is now absolutely at sea—I am the only Member who has succeeded in making a speech which apparently was in order on an Amendment that is out of order—I submit that the only way out of this ridiculous impasse is to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and that I would like to move.
§ Mr. DIXEY
On a point of Order. I was speaking, quite properly as far as I know, when I was asked to resume my seat. I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that, although there might be a technical objection to this particular Amendment, so far as he was concerned he would raise no point upon that. He encouraged us to go on with this Debate and himself made a speech on the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I quite agree that he did, and when he used those words I was anxious to find out what was the meaning of the Amendment. As I have 1827 said, it is very difficult to understand Amendments handed in in this way, but now, having taken this Amendment into consideration, I am under the impression that it is out of order.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I am very sorry to have been out of the House while these points have been raised. The Amendment of the hon. Member would delete from the beginning of the Government Clause the words, "During the continuance of the Act of 1926." Under Section 3 of the Act of 1908 there was a provision to work 60 hours of overtime for a year, that is an additional hour on 60 days of the year, on the basis of the Act of 1908, which related to an eight hours day. The only effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be that, after the expiration of the Act of 1926, namely in July of 1931, instead of its being possible under the Act of 1908 to work an additional hour on 60 days of the year, it would be possible to work only an additional half hour. I suggest, as the Seconder of the Amendment plainly indicated, that that would be a permanent Amendment and inconsistent with the terms of the Bill, and therefore out of order; but I said expressly to the chairman that I had no desire to raise an objection on a technicality, and that I would rather take the ground that the Amendment was hopeless in the sense that it simply would not work at all.
I suggest that it would be very much better to go on with the two Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) and another hon. Member, and, by agreement with the chairman, take the discussion on two points, namely, as to whether this half hour should be taken off, and with that, the question whether we should average the working time over a week or a fortnight. On this second point I express no opinion at this stage. If the Committee will allow me, I propose to speak later on it, perhaps on Thursday, if convenient. As regards the hon. Member's Amendment that is the state of affairs. It would, perhaps, be for our general convenience if the Amendment were either negatived or withdrawn and we now proceeded to the wider issue.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is not in order. Mr. Beaumont. Captain Balfour.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
What Amendment is being called now? An Amendment which I submit is entirely in order is one to leave out the words, "the Coal Mines Act of 1926."
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
Earlier in the evening there was an Amendment moved, on Clause 9, to leave out the words, "During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926." That was the original Amendment moved. Then a further Amendment was suggested to leave out the words, "During the continuance of." If my memory serves me right, you said, Mr. Chairman, that you were putting the words, "During the continuance of," so as to preserve the right of the Committee and of other Members, to go on to the further question of the Coal Mines Act of 1926. The point which I wish to raise is this: Are we dealing at present with the original Amendment, or with only the first part of the original Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) he would have heard me say that I had saved the Amendment to which the hon. Member now refers. That is the Amendment which I am now taking.
§ Mr. BEAUMONT
I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, to leave out from the word "of" to the word "section" in line 31, and to insert instead thereof the words "Part I of this Act."
The object of the Amendment is to suspend the ending of the new hours provision and to make it coincide with the termination of Part I of this Act. Speeches from the benches opposite and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading, have shown definitely that Part I of this Measure and the hours provision are mixed up to such a degree that it is impossible to separate them. The object of Part I is to make the alteration of hours possible. The whole of Part II depends on the operation of Part I and it seems stupid in the extreme that whereas, as the Bill stands, Part II will come to an end in 1931, the part of the Bill on which it depends, and which makes provision for it, is to go on for another two years.
1829 No one suggests that the last word with regard to hours will be said when this Bill is passed, and hon. Members opposite feel that just as strongly as we do, though probably they look at the matter from a different standpoint. There is no question of this being a permanent Bill. Owing to the arrangement into which the Government have seen fit to enter, we cannot tell, when we are discussing this Part of the Bill, exactly when Part I will come to an end but, whenever it does some to an end, it is surely more reasonable and convenient that the two things should be coterminous. If the Government wish to bring these hours conditions under review earlier than the date at present in Part I, they can, if this Amendment is accepted, move to alter the date, when we come to discuss it in Part I. There is nothing in the Amendment which lays it down that the hours conditions shall go on one day or minute longer than the Government would like to arrange, but the two parts of the Bill which are admittedly interdependent should be reviewed at the same time. We think it would be silly to review the one without the other or to bring the one to an end without the other.
§ Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGE
This Amendment is an important one, and it shows the muddle into which the Committee is getting owing to the action of the Government. May I point out the difficulty in taking into account Part I, with which we have not dealt, in connection with Part II. Part I is the coal-owners' part of the Bill introduced by a Socialist Member. It is, as the Government say, the means of finding the necessary money to work Part II. Part I places a burden on the consumers of this country. It is entirely in favour of the coalowners and against the consumers, and as the representative of an agricultural constituency I protest against agricultural labourers being forced by a Socialist Government to pay for the export of coal.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am listening to the introduction of the hon. and gallant Member carefully and waiting to hear whether he is in order or not.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
The hon. Member's point raises the question of the 1830 Liberal party's share in supporting the Government, but I am afraid I would not be in order in pursuing the present relation of those parties. But as far as Part II is concerned, I ask does it or does it not impose fresh burdens on the agricultural community? We are very anxious that the Socialist Government should not place fresh burdens on the agricultural labourer but apparently both parts of this Bill increase the cost to the working-class households of the country and it is the Socialist party who are doing that. They ought to wake up to what their present masters are compelling them to do. No doubt a Socialist would point out that in the country districts the people do not buy very much coal, but that does not alter the fact that under this Bill they will have to pay more for it, and the object of the Amendment is to get a statement from the President of the Board of Trade as to how matters now stand in relation to the increased cost to the consumers. We have a right to know.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment which is now before the Committee deals with the continuance of certain provisions and not with the price of coal.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
With great respect, Sir, I think it has been indicated by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that both Parts I and II will raise the cost to the consumer.
§ The CHAIRMAN
This Amendment has nothing to do with raising the cost to the consumer. The Amendment which was proposed from the hon. and gallant Member's side of the Committee is that during the continuance of Part I these conditions laid down in Part II shall continue, and we must confine ourselves to that point.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
It is quite clear that at this stage we shall not be able to raise the question of the cost to the consumer. I should like to add that the difficulties in which this Committee is placed at this stage are entirely difficulties which the Government have brought on themselves.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I must not at this period become involved in these pleasantries which brighten the Debate, but come at once to the simple facts of this Amendment. Strictly speaking, it is very nearly on all fours with the Amend- 1831 ment already submitted to the Committee except that on this occasion I think it is probably in order on technicalities, but that, of course, Mr. Chairman, is entirely a matter for you. On the simple merits, what the hon. and gallant Member seeks to achieve is that during the continuance of Part I, which contains the marketing proposals of this Bill, Section 3 of the Act of 1908 shall continue as if there were substituted half-an-hour for the one hour in the 1908 legislation.
I have already pointed out on the previous Amendment that the 1903 Act, in Section 3, provides on 60 days for 60 hours of overtime—one hour additional on 60 days. The hon. and gallant Member proposes during the continuance of Part I of this Bill to reduce the overtime permissible under that Section of the Act of 1908 to half-an-hour, but he will observe that on the expiry of the period of Part I of this Bill the only effect would be to revert to the full hour, that is the 60 hours, spread over a year, under the 1908 legislation. I have already indicated, either on the Second Reading or in some other part of the Debate, that we are prepared to limit Part I of the Bill to three years, because quite frankly, if the amalgamations come into operation, the arrangements will have to be modified in any case; but quite apart from the duration of Part I, this Amendment, like the preceding one is in no way, either technically or in any other way, a method of dealing with this problem and would only land the industry and everybody else in hopeless confusion. I can only repeat what I suggested on the previous occasion, namely, that we must resist this Amendment, and I would ask the Committee to pass to the discussion of Amendments in the name of other hon. Members which will offer a more effective method.
There is one point that the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked. This particular Amendment, fortunately, appears to be in order and arguable, and that is a relief after the sandbank of manuscript Amendments in which we have been floundering. In this Amendment, which links up this Clause with Part I of the Bill, and is one of the only life-lines which the right hon. Gentleman is going to have to give 1832 him a temporary and precarious hold on to that portion of the Bill which he values so highly, but which in due course will be jettisoned by Members below the Gangway, unless there is some other Amendment which will form the function of a dovetail, there will be an opportunity of anchoring down something which he values and which he stands in grave danger of losing. If this Bill can be regarded as a coherent whole, there must be some practical point of balance between the different parts. It is not in order to go into Part I of the Bill now, but inasmuch as the Amendment refers to the period during which Part I is in operation, I suppose it is in order to consider whether it is or is not an advantage to cement that connection and link the operations of the one Clause now before us to the one to which it refers. That is a distinctly arguable point.
It is common to both sides that we are face to face with a very difficult problem. Figures and statistics have been brought forward on an earlier occasion during the afternoon to show the difficulties which have faced those who have been trying to deal with it from an international viewpoint. Nobody is supposing that any decision that we can reach here in connection with this Bill is going to be finality, because these provisions will, we hope, be ultimately amended in the direction in which the wisest minds in this country think the best, in common with representatives of the other coal producing countries of the world. Therefore, from that point of view, these provisions must necessarily be of a temporary nature.
The provisions in Part I of the Bill, to which this Amendment seeks to link up this particular Clause, are admitted to be of a temporary nature of three years. It is well worth consideration whether this Amendment should not be accepted from this point of view. It preserves the general balance of the Bill, and it secures to the President of the Board of Trade the surety that he will be able, when the time comes, to play his cards in connection with Part I as well as he has played them badly hitherto in connection with these very dangerous poker players in the game in which he has become inveigled. It keeps this Measure in a temporary position, so that at any 1833 time when an international discussion makes it desirable, we shall find that it hangs together as one.
§ Mr. DIXEY
On a point of Order. As I understand, Mr. Young, you found the last Amendment out of order. This Amendment is practically on the same principle as the last Amendment, and the President of the Board of Trade agrees with me that, if the last Amendment was out of order, this Amendment is also out of order.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
On that point, there seems to me to be an essential difference. This is a temporary Amendment of the Act of 1908, and it is related to Part I of the Bill, which is itself temporary, and therefore is in order. The previous Amendment was on a permanent basis, and was therefore out of order.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
Since the effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the 60 hours' overtime which the colliery managers may permit their workmen to work during any one year down to 60 half-hours, I suggest that my right hon. Friend might accept the Amendment and teach the hon. Gentlemen opposite a lesson.
§ Captain PEAKE
On a point of Order. It is said that Section 3 of the 1908 Act permits an extra hour to be worked on CO days in the year. In point of fact, the 1926 Act—
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
As the unfortunate parent of the last child which died an irregular death after a life of an hour and a-half, I may make a remark about the regular infant. Under these Clauses, the period for the 7½ hours is temporary, and as it must be temporary during the continuance of Part 1, what is to happen when Part I ceases to operate? Part I provides, as I understand it, the sinews of war—or of commerce. That is why the Mover of the Amendment has put down an Amendment which has the effect of making the 7½ hours last just as long as, and no longer 1834 than, the continuance of Part I of this Bill. The whole thing is so complicated, and there are so many Sections of other Acts involved, that it is impossible when these Amendments have to be put in at the last moment to address one's mind adequately to the issues. The President of the Board of Trade seems to have the faculty of keeping a photographic list of Statutes in his brain, but those of us who are less fortunate than he take some time to address our minds to the full issues involved. Only since this morning have we known that it would be necessary for us to try to grasp the complications of these Statutes, and at the last moment we have had to bring forward manuscript Amendments, to the great inconvenience of the Committee as well as of ourselves. It would be a great convenience to us if the learned Attorney-General could be persuaded to rise to explain to us what these Statutes definitely mean, how they are correlated, and what are the effects of the Amendment. It would be a great convenience to us, and would not be a waste of time.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I rise to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). If, as the President of the Board of Trade says, this Amendment will have the effect of reducing the overtime which can be worked in any given 12 months from 60 hours to 30 hours, then I am in favour of the Amendment and would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept it. Hon. Members opposite have tried to make the hours as long as they could, but if by an inadvertence they have done the opposite—
§ Mr. BEAUMONT
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to assume that we do not know the implications of our own Amendments?
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
There is no assumption on my part at all. It seems to be the accepted opinion of the House and of those in charge of the Bill. Even the late Secretary for Mines does not seem to object to the suggestion that that is the meaning of the Amendment. I suppose he has only just discovered the damage his own party are doing to their case. Hon. Members opposite do not 1835 understand what they are doing, they do not understand how the thing works. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment, and if he does, I will do all I can to get Members into the Lobby in support of it.
§ Commodore KING
Seeing that the hon. Member challenges me as to the meaning of the Amendment, I feel I must, much against my will, say a word or two upon it.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD rose—
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I really did not challenge you about it. I merely said that apparently you did not understand it.
§ Commodore KING
I should like to assure the hon. Member that until the Amendment was read out from the Chair I did not know of it. That is the worst of this rush into which we are being plunged. I understand that the Amendment was not even drafted when the House met to-day, and it has been forced upon us by the action of the President of the Board of Trade moving to leave out Part I. With regard to the actual Amendment before us, I have looked into the actual effect of legislation by reference in previous Acts, and, after my experience, I make an appeal to the Attorney-General to explain this matter still further. This is really a question for the Law Officers of the Crown, but I am quite prepared, after the challenge of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Wallhead), to attempt an explanation myself, although I am sure my explanation would not be equal to that of the Attorney-General. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] This is a matter of great substance, and before I try to explain this legislation by reference, I wish to say to the President of the Board of Trade that I think the advice that was given to him from this side of the Committee was kindly meant. Although the wording of this Amendment may not be quite right, at any rate it is a safeguard, and it will enable the right hon. Gentleman to have some hold over his temporary comrades. It appears to hon. Members on this side of the House that 1836 the President of the Board of Trade is going to be jockeyed out of his position by waving aside Part I, and carrying through what the Liberal party require. After that the right hon. Gentleman may find that the Liberal party are going to jockey him out of the position he has taken up of carrying Part I.
§ Commodore KING
I think it is necessary that there should be some mention of Part I, because the proposals we are discussing would fail to operate if there was no Part I to which they referred. I hope we shall have an explanation from the Attorney-General. I notice that the Solicitor-General is also present, and we have now present three Law Officers of the Crown. I never like an amateur to explain an Act of Parliament, but as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil has challenged me as to whether I knew what this proposal means I will explain the matter. We have here one of those objectionable practices of legislation by reference. The Clause reads:During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926, Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the words 'one hour' there were therein substituted the words half an hour.'If we turn to the Act of 1926, we see that it isAn Act to amend temporarily the Coal Mines Acts, 1887 to 1919, with respect to the hours of employment below ground.Unfortunately, that Act of 1926 only legislated by reference. It said:During the continuance of this Act, Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if the words 'on not more than 60 days in any calendar year' and Sub-section (2) thereof were omitted therefrom.That, again, is legislation by reference. It so happened that I had the reference with me, and I shall be happy to hand it to the Attorney-General if he would like to deal with it. Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, says:The time fixed by this Act as the time during which the workmen in a mine may be below ground for the purpose of their work, and are going to and from their work, may be extended as respects any man by the owner, agent or manager of the mine on not more than 60 days in any calendar year by not more than one hour a day.1837 As far as I understand it, the Act of 1926 omitted the words "on not more than 60 days in any calendar year," and that allowed the hours to be extended on every day of the year by one hour. That is the effect of this legislation by reference. I quite agree that the wording of the present Amendment would not carry out the purpose which my hon. Friends desire, but I think that most Members of the House, on considering the matter, will realise that there is a great deal of substance in this Amendment. It is going to be very upsetting indeed to the whole of the coal industry to have the working hours altered in April of next year, while the reorganisation scheme which the Government are seeking to impose upon them is to be continued for a period of three years. All these disturbances and turmoils in the coalmining industry do not make for good and efficient working or for industrial peace, and I firmly believe that, if only the hours suggested under the present scheme could be extended to cover the whole working time of the reorganisation scheme proposed under this Bill, it would be very useful, and would receive the assent of all thinking members of the Minors' Federation and the miners' leaders throughout the country. I think that they are realising that. The only way in which success is going to be achieved in industry is by having a certain amount of continuity, a certain amount of peace, and a certain amount of stability, on which the industry can be built up. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to give careful consideration to this Amendment. We think that it is a good Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not, he will at least admit that there is some merit in it for the good of the industry, and perhaps he may see his way to accept it.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I have listened with very great patience to a very large number of speeches on all sides of the Committee on this most important Amendment. I propose to ask one or two questions. I do not think we need expect an answer from the Attorney-General. He comes in the category of not genuinely seeking work. The President of the Board of Trade has spent so much time in asking for a full discussion and then getting the Closure, that I do not think I need worry with him. May 1838 I come to the real personage who is controlling these Debates? I refer to the Father of the House of Commons.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member says that he is going to ask some questions. I am waiting to hear them.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I would read the Amendment, but it mean that I should have to go back over some other ground, and I may prevent the Committee giving proper attention to the matter. The Amendment is to omit the words "the Coal Mines Act, 1926." I do not know whether I need read the whole of it, because, from the few observations I have heard from the other side, they seem to be gloriously innocent of any knowledge of the Act, and I do not think in the time at my disposal I could possibly get the knowledge into the heads of many of them. Beyond that, I am afraid I am not going to get very much help from the Gentleman who is paid so much respect by the Committee, and whose opinion we should all like to hear upon the Act, because I believe he has changed it recently. That is the hon. Gentleman who looks after the mining industry. What I really wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose distinguished position as Father of the House enables him to exercise an extraordinary control over the Socialist party—we all know the control he has over his own party—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I really must ask the hon. Member to ask his questions or to deal with the Amendment.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The question I was trying to put, only I have been interrupted several times, is whether the right hon. Gentleman has given the Government leave to withdraw the Coal Mines Act?
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is really not the Question before the Committee. The Amendment moved from that side of the Committee is to take that Act out.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I am very sorry if I put it wrongly. I intended to ask: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept this Amendment in the way that you, Sir, have just put it? I believe, if this goes out, Part I goes in. I think you have ruled that we must not discuss Part I, so I will not do it in any way whatever. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell us—after all this is the House of Commons—whether he will accept this bit of Part I coming in here or not. It is a most important question. Before we decide a vital matter such as this we ought to be allowed to know publicly what has really happened as far as this Amendment is concerned. I am not blaming hon. Gentlemen opposite for the difficulties of their position, but we have had very little information to-day as to what has really been going on. Surely, the Leader of the Liberal party—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that his speech should have some relevancy to this matter.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
If an hon. Member has been called to order on three occasions, is it not in order for you to proceed to call upon him to resume his seat?
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I quite realise that this Amendment involves a very difficult and technical discussion, and for that reason I will simply repeat my request, that we should have a definite, clear and simple explanation from the right hon. Gentleman who is controlling the House in this matter.
Sir GEORGE HAMILTON
On a point of Order. Is it in order to put in the words "Part I of this Act" when we come to that part of the Amendment, in view of the fact that we have no knowledge of Part I, which has not been before the Committee. I think that we cannot discuss that matter.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
I cannot help thinking that there is a little confusion in regard to this Amendment. The Clause, as drawn, will cease to have any effect 1840 next year when the Coal Mines Act, 1926, comes to an end. The position will be that the power to extend the working hours will be limited to 60 days in the year, and the object of the Amendment is really to continue the state of control during the continuance of the first part of this Act. I should press for the Amendment to be accepted for the reason that I intend to put down an Amendment to addand as if the words 'are not more than 60 days in any year' were omitted.If that further Amendment be accepted, the Amendment under discussion would become perfectly intelligible and useful. As it is, it is, I quite agree, a useless Amendment. It appears to me that when the Coal Mines Act, 1926, comes to an end the power of an owner to extend the working hours will be limited to half an hour on 60 days of the year, but, if you have a further Amendment extending the working time on every day in the year, the two Amendments together would do what I rather imagine everybody would like to do—extend the status quo so long as the Part I of the Act is in operation. I suggest that this Amendment should be considered on the basis that if it were passed there would be a further Amendment moved which would make it effective to extend the status quo for a further period of three years. But the one without the other would be useless, and I press this Amendment on the assumption that there would appear on the Paper a consequential Amendment which would make it a very useful and effective one.
§ Sir BASIL PETO
The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) was an admirable one. [Interruption.] The point I want to make is even simpler. I realise that the confusion caused by putting Part II before Part I is very natural. I would like to call attention—[Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMAN
the chairman is not allowed to enter into the joke, but the result of it is that I cannot hear what the hon. Member is saying.
§ Sir B. PETO
The President of the Board of Trade clearly indicated that he was in favour of the principle underlying the Amendment which has been moved, as he told us on one occasion that he intended to limit the operation of Part I to certainly not more than three years. I think there is general agreement on all sides of the Committee that it would be desirable if we could find appropriate words to make the operation of Part I and of Part II coterminous. That would, obviously, be better than having a somewhat nebulous undertaking from the President of the Board of Trade that he intends at some future time, if ever we come to discuss Part I at all, to limit the operation of that part of the Bill. The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's admirably clear speech was to the effect that by omitting the words proposed to be omitted, namely, "the Coal Mines Act, 1926," the mover of the Amendment would completely upset the purpose in mind. I suggest, as I am always desirous of assisting and promoting intelligent debate in Committee and the quicker despatch of business in the House, that possibly the right hon. Gentleman might see his way—as we have had no explanation from the Attorney-General—to accept it if we leave in the words "the Coal Mines Act, 1926" and simply add the words: "and Part I of this Act." We should then maintain the position in the Clause as it is and also make it a condition of the continuance of Part II of the Act that Part I should also be in operation, and that would make the Clause clearer. It maintains the words that have been moved in the Amendment, and it maintains what the President of
§ Why should not the operation of Part II be dependent upon the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and also be dependent upon the continuance of Part I of this Bill? If we can have that, the President of the Board of Trade will have what he wants and my hon. Friend who has moved the present Amendment will have what he wants and what we want on this side, namely, a clear undertaking in the Act that these two parts shall go together, and that one shall not continue for a single day after the other has ceased to operate. It is clear from the speeches made by the President of the Board of Trade that the reason why he wanted to put Part I before Part II was that he wanted to be sure that the arrangements by which Part II would be financed should be in the Act. In this Amendment we want to be sure that Part I will operate so long as Part II operates, so that we shall not have Part II hanging in the air, as a terrible incubus over the whole coal trade of the country, if Part I is not operating. Therefore, the President of the Board of Trade might well accept the suggestion which I make.
§ Mr. DIXEY rose—
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 162.1845
|Division No. 141.]||AYES.||[10.58 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Cape, Thomas|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Bevan, Aneurin (Enbw Vale)||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Birkett, W. Norman||Charleton, H. C.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Blindell, James||Chater, Daniel|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Church, Major A. G.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Bowen, J. W.||Clarke, J. S.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Angell, Norman.||Broad, Francis Alfred||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.|
|Arnott, John||Bromfield, William||Cocks, Frederick Seymour|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Bromley, J.||Compton, Joseph|
|Ayles, Walter||Brooke, W.||Cove, William G.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Brothers, M.||Daggar, George|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Dallas, George|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Dalton, Hugh|
|Batey, Joseph||Burgess, F. G.||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon Wedgwood||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Devlin, Joseph|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Caine, Derwent Hall-||Dickson, T.|
|Benson, G.||Cameron, A. G.||Dudgeon, Major C. R.|
|Dukes, C.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Duncan, Charles||Lees, J.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Edge, Sir William||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Logan, David Gilbert||Sanders, W. S.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Longbottom, A. W.||Sandham, E.|
|Egan, W. H.||Longden, F.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|England, Colonel A.||Lowth, Thomas||Scurr, John|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sexton, James|
|Foot, Isaac||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Freeman, Peter||McElwee, A.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McEntee, V. L.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||McKinlay, A.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||MacLaren, Andrew||Shield, George William|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Shinwell, E.|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Gill, T. H.||McShane, John James||Simmons, C. J.|
|Gillett, George M.||M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Glassey, A. E.||Mansfield, W.||Sinkinson, George|
|Gossling, A. G.||March, S.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Gould, F.||Marcus, M.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Markham, S. F.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Marley, J.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Gray, Milner||Mathers, George||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Matters, L. W.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Maxton, James||Snell, Harry|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Melville, Sir James||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Messer, Fred||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Middleton, G.||Sorensen, R.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Millar, J. D.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mills, J. E.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Milner, J.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Montague, Frederick||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Harbison, T. J.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Harbord, A.||Morley, Ralph||Sullivan, J.|
|Hardie, George D.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Sutton, J. E.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mort, D. L.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Haycock, A. W.||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Hayday, Arthur||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Tillett, Ben|
|Hayes, John Henry||Muff, G.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Muggeridge, H. T.||Toole, Joseph|
|Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Murnin, Hugh||Tout, W. J.|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Townend, A. E.|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Naylor, T. E.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Herriotts, J.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Turner, B.|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Oldfield, J. R.||Viant, S. P.|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Walker, J.|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Palin, John Henry||Watkins, F. C.|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Palmer, E. T.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Isaacs, George||Perry, S. F.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Johnston, Thomas||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||West, F. R.|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Westwood, Joseph|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||White, H. G.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Pole, Major D. G.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Potts, John S.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Price, M. P.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Pybus, Percy John||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Williams, T. (York Don Valley)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Rathbone, Eleanor||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Raynes, W. R.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Knight, Holford||Richards, R.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wise, E. F.|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Ritson, J.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Romeril, H. G.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Lawson, John James||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Rothschild, J. de||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Leach, W.||Rowson, Guy||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Albery, Irving James||Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Ganzoni, Sir John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Atkinson, C.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Poto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Gower, Sir Robert||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Balniel, Lord||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Remer, John R.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Bracken, B.||Hammersley, S. S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Salmon, Major I.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Haslam, Henry C.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Butler, R. A.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hurd, Percy A.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Iveagh, Countess of||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Chapman, Sir S.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Tinne, J. A.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Culverweil, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Lymington, Viscount||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Davies, Maj. GEO. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Meller, R. J.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon Sir W.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Muirhead, A. J.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Fermoy, Lord||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Fielden, E. B.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||O'Neill, Sir H.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."1846
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 166.1849
|Division No. 142.]||AYES.||[11.9 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Blindell, James||Cluse, W. S.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Bowen, J. W.||Cocks, Frederick Seymour|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Compton, Joseph|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Broad, Francis Alfred||Cove, William G.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Bromfield, William||Daggar, George|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bromley, J.||Dallas, George|
|Angell, Norman||Brooke, W.||Dalton, Hugh|
|Arnott, John||Brothers, M.||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Ayles, Walter||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Burgess, F. G.||Devlin, Joseph|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Dickson, T.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Dudgeon, Major C. R.|
|Batey, Joseph||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Dukes, C.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Caine, Derwent Hall-||Duncan, Charles|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Cameron, A. G.||Ede, James Chuter|
|Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Cape, Thomas||Edge, Sir William|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Edmunds, J. E.|
|Benson, G.||Charleton, H. C.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Chater, Daniel||Egan, W. H.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Church, Major A. G.||Elmley, Viscount|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Clarke, J. S.||England, Colonel A.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Foot, Isaac||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sandham, E.|
|Freeman, Peter||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||McElwee, A.||Scurr, John|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||McEntee, V. L.||Sexton, James|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||McKinlay, A.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||MacLaren, Andrew||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Gill, T. H.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Gillett, George M.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Shield, George William|
|Glassey, A. E.||McShane, John James||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Gossling, A. G.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Shinwell, E.|
|Gould, F.||Mansfield, W.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||March, S.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Marcus, M.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Gray, Milner||Markham, S. F.||Sinkinson, George|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marley, J.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Mathers, George||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Matters, L. W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Maxton, James||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Melville, Sir James||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Messer, Fred||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Middleton, G.||Snell, Harry|
|Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Millar, J. D.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Mills, J. E.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Harbison, T. J.||Milner, J.||Sorensen, R.|
|Harbord, A.||Montague, Frederick||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Hardie, George D.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Harris, Percy A.||Morley, Ralph||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sullivan, J.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Mort, D. L.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Muff, G.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Muggeridge, H. T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Murnin, Hugh||Tillett, Ben|
|Herriotts, J.||Nathan, Major H. L.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Naylor, T. E.||Toole, Joseph|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Tout, W. J.|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Noel Baker, P. J.||Townend, A. E.|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Oldfield, J. R.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Turner, B.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Viant, S. P.|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Palin, John Henry||Walker, J.|
|Isaacs, George||Palmer, E. T.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Johnston, Thomas||Perry, S. F.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Pole, Major D. G.||West, F. R.|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Potts, John S.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Price, M. P.||White, H. G.|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Pybus, Percy John||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Raynes, W. R.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Richards, R.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Lawson, John James||Ritson, J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Roberts, Ht. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Leach, W.||Romeril, H. G.||Wise, E. F.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Rothschild, J. de||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Lees, J.||Rowson, Guy||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Longden, F.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Balfour, George (Hampstead)|
|Albery, Irving James||Atholl, Duchess of||Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Atkinson, C.||Balniel, Lord|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Gower, Sir Robert||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Remer, John R.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Bracken, B.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hacking, Ht. Hon. Douglas H.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hammersley, S. S.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Butler, R. A.||Haslam, Henry C.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hurd, Percy A.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Colville, Major D. J.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Tinne, J. A.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol. West)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Lymington, Viscount||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faveraham)||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Dixey, A. C.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Meller, R. J.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Muirhead, A. J.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Fermoy, Lord||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||O'Neill, Sir H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.