§ The CHAIRMAN
The first two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) will be taken together.
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 3, after the word "appointed," to insert the words "by an Order made."
Then I have a consequential Amendment—in line 5, at the end, to insert the words:and the Board of Trade shall, immediately after making such Order, lay it before each House of Parliament and unless either House within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat after such Order is laid before it resolves that the order be not approved, the Order shall have effect as if it were a part of this Act"—and the effect of them will be to provide that this House will have an opportunity of signifying approval of the composition of this Reorganisation Commission which is being set up under this Clause? I hope to convince the President of the Board of Trade and those who sit behind him that this is a very important Amendment and one of great substance, because upon it hang the powers of this House to have at least some voice in the composition, if not in the control, of this important body. Apart from this Amendment, there is nothing which gives this House any control or supervision over the Commission. As the Clause stands, the Board of Trade appoints the Commission, and the Board can make and unmake it, but the House has no say in it. If hon. Members will turn to another proposed new Clause, they will see how important some of the functions of the Commission are to be. It is to be trusted with the duty of facilitating the production, supply and sale of coal; of promoting and assisting, by the preparation of schemes and otherwise, the 2094 amalgamation of undertakings; of holding inquiries; of employing technical and professional agents; of preparing schemes, and, in certain cases, certifying schemes as matters of national interest.
The President of the Board of Trade, a fortnight ago, indicated the kind of people he had in mind for the Commission. He said that the kind of people they would have on the Commission were a lawyer, a gentleman versed in coal mining organisation, and a gentleman of great industrial experience. What the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind as suitable components of this Commission is not quite the same as getting the approval of the House for those components. The Board of Trade may have—it has happened before—some inclination to appoint an ex-Government official, which is quite natural; or they may have an inclination to appoint an ex-mining official or a retired mining engineer.
There are some on both sides of the Committee who consider that the Commission should not consist of experts, but that they could have expert advisers if they required them: and they would like to have the opportunity of seeing who is going to be on the Commission before it is definitely set up. There are precedents in other Acts of Parliament, and had they been followed this Amendment would not have been necessary. In the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, if I remember rightly, it was laid down that the qualifications of three of the five members of the Commission, and the tenure of office of two of them, depended upon the decision of the Board of Trade, while the other three held office during His Majesty's pleasure. With regard to the Railways Amalgamation Tribunal, the Railways Act actually named the members, so that if there had been objection to any of them Members could have expressed their objection on the Floor of the House. Here, we lay down no restriction and no qualification, except the one that no member of the Commission must be a Member of Parliament. He may, however, be a person of very strong and well-known political convictions which may commend themselves to hon. Members on one side of the House or the other. For example, the Board of Trade might appoint Mr. A. J. Cook, and that would appeal to hon. 2095 Members opposite—[Interruption.]—or some of them, but there might be dissension on this side—[Interruption.]—and on the other side. A prohibition against a Member of Parliament sitting on this Commission is not all that we require.
I think the Committee would like to know something more about the Commission. Hon. Members on both sides are jealous of the powers of Parliament, and all of us watch pretty carefully any attempts to encroach upon them by proposals to put more power into the hands of the bureaucracy than is necessary, and I suggest to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that this is one of the occasions on which Parliament might assert itself and request the President of the Board of Trade to accept this Amendment, so that we may be satisfied as to the composition of the Commission. It is not a very glaring case of despotism, for there have been many worse, but it is one of those oases in which we might be vigilant; and I make this appeal not only to the President of the Board of Trade but to his followers, because they are just as jealous of the powers of Parliament as any other Members. I am reminded that in a previous Debate the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) achieved a great deal of success in mollifying the President of the Board of Trade by using a Latin quotation. I propose to try the same experiment. I am not going to confine myself to a quotation applying entirely to him, it will apply with more force to his followers. I am sure that with his great learning he will recognise this well-known line,Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo,which, being interpreted, means "If I cannot persuade the gods to intervene I will stir up Hell."
§ Captain AUSTIN HUDSON
I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept this Amendment. It has been put down after considerable thought, and it was specially framed to secure what, I think, is called "negative resolution procedure," that is to say, that when the names come before us the House need not necessarily give time for their discussion. Only when objection is taken will it be necessary for the attention of the House to be called to the subject and for a Debate, perhaps, to take place. If 2096 there is a change in the personnel of the proposed Commission it will be possible for that change to be debated, but if there is merely a change over of two people in regard to whom nobody has any objection it will go through as a matter of course, and only those who are interested will really know anything about it. Since we first discussed the new Clause the number of the commissioners has been altered from three to five, and therefore this Amendment becomes all the more important, because the chances of their having to be changes are so much the greater. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) drew attention to the fact that people are objecting more and more to government by what is called bureaucracy, government by Departments with little or no control by this House. That point of view has been brought to the fore on several occasions lately, and several times Ministers of the present Government have agreed to insert provisions of this kind in order to give that control which Parliament feels it should have, so that the House may be able to guard the privileges which it is giving. The Amendment is framed in a way to which I think nobody can object, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to accept it.
§ Major COURTAULD
In supporting this Amendment I hardly think it is necessary for me to go much further than my hon. Friends have already gone, because I feel that the President of the Board of Trade must already be convinced and will agree to accept the Amendment as being thoroughly reasonable and one against which it is very hard to produce any arguments. In fact, I am inclined to the belief that the fact that this Amendment is not already embodied in the Clause is due only to an oversight. It must be realised that this is not only a matter of principle, but that it is a special case, and that if we do not accept the Amendment we are laying upon future Presidents of the Board of Trade an almost impossible undertaking. The task of this Commission, or committee, or panel, or tribunal as it has been variously described—I myself prefer the designation given by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he described them as "a body of men," because that, at least, tells us that it is not going to be a body of women—will be of the first magnitude, and of 2097 stupendous difficulty. We can imagine this body going about the country seeking whom they can amalgamate. To find not less than five men in the country who are capable of carrying out this stupendous task must, in itself, be a matter of great difficulty. It would be asking too much of future Presidents of the Board of Trade to require them to carry out this duty and take sole responsibility for it.
I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman in office at the moment would be quite capable of finding the five gentlemen, but we must look to the future, and must even envisage the possibility of a change of Government. It may be that in a few years' time we shall have a different party in office, and we do not know who will then be President of the Board of Trade. We are imposing on some unknown statesman of the future a task which his shoulders may not be broad enough to bear. If, as is possible, the party on this side form the next Government, I have no doubt that a President of the Board of Trade will be found to do the work; but there are other possibilities. There is always the possibility that the party below me—the Liberal party—may be entrusted with the task, though that may he going rather far into the realms of phantasy. I am informed also, by reading my daily Press, that there is yet another alternative. I am quite sure the Committee will not regard with calmness the possibility of five gentlemen being appointed by, perhaps, a gentleman on the staff of the "Daily Mail." This only shows that in order to secure the certainty of finding five supermen we should leave the final responsibility with this House and the other House, and not entrust the work solely to one Minister. I do not want to try to curdle the blood of hon. Members opposite by picturing other terrible possibilities, but I think there are others even worse. Probably my hon. Friends who spoke before me have already persuaded the President of the Board of Trade to accept this Amendment, but, if they have not already done so, I hope the few words which I have ventured to address to the Committee may succeed.
§ The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner)
I think it is safe to say that the proposal in the Bill follows the 2098 usual procedure on the part of the Board of Trade. It has been usual for Parliament to grant authority to a Department to carry out functions of this character. There have not, I think, been many occasions in the past when Ministers have been unable to find the just and perfect men who were required. I think there are these just and perfect men in the kingdom, and I am certain that my chief the President of the Board of Trade will be able to secure their services, and that Parliament may be confident that his judgment—
§ Mr. TURNER
The usual way of dealing with Parliamentary subjects as they arise and with reports that come along from the Board of Trade. I think the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman is so vast that he will never be at a loss to find a way. I am not able to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) in his Latin quotation, but I think I can reply to him in a well-understood quotation from Yorkshire—"There's nowt in it." That is how I would put it. We are following the usual policy of all Governments in similar circumstances, and I think our procedure deserves the support of the Committee.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
The Secretary for Mines has just told us that our ingenuity will be able to find some way of challenging any appointments which the President of the Board of Trade may make. I wish to know definitely what opportunity we shall have of challenging these appointments? It is no use telling us that our ingenuity will find some way out of the difficulty unless the hon. Gentleman can, tell us the occasion upon which he suggests that we shall have an opportunity of challenging any appointments which may be made by the President of the Board of Trade. If the Secretary for Mines cannot give me an answer to that question now, perhaps he will consider the matter and inform us later on what is the occasion upon which we can challenge these appointments.
The only occasion which arises upon which we can challenge the administrative action of any Department is upon the Estimates for that particular Department. There is no other way in 2099 which you can challenge their actions, and that is an opportunity which only occurs once a year. I know that is the occasion on which the President of the Board of Trade confesses his sins, but it is not satisfactory to have that confession of sins after they have been committed. I want power to intervene before the sins have been committed when I see the Minister entering into temptation in order that I can draw him back again into the straight and narrow path. It is no good telling me that we shall be able to find some opportunity As I have already stated, the only opportunity of challenging the administration of the Department is when the particular Vote for that Department comes before the House, and that Vote may be taken long after the action which it is sought to challenge has been done. Therefore, a suggestion of that kind is wholly unsatisfactory.
The Secretary for Mines has told us that we can follow the ordinary procedure in this matter, but that is what is proposed by our Amendment. We propose a procedure under which the House of Commons shall have an opportunity of expressing its dissent in a manner which is perfectly well known. The Amendment lays it down that an Order shall be laid on the Table of the House in the usual way. The Secretary for Mines has stated that under the new Clause the Government are proceeding according to precedent, but I could quote hundreds of precedents where the Board of Trade has to come to this House and lay Orders in regard to gas legislation. In that case, what has the Board of Trade to do? The President does not make Orders which can only be challenged when the Vote for his Department comes up in Committee of Supply, but in every case he makes an Order which lies on the Table for 21 days, and anyone who wishes to challenge that Order has a right to do so. In the case of electricity Orders which often affect only one particular place the Department has to lay those Orders, and, if anybody wishes to challenge them, a Prayer is put down. The whole of the precedents I have quoted are in fvaour of this proposal.
I feel sure that when the President of the Board of Trade considers this point, he will see that this Amendment is not 2100 only in accordance with precedent, but it is also a very reasonable one. The question we are dealing with is not merely the appointment of an Advisory Committee, but it is a Commission which will have considerable executive powers. This Commission may go round to the coal mines and make proposals which are going to affect every single mining undertaking in this country. Some hon. Members below the Gangway have stated that this new Clause is so far-reaching that it is almost a substitute for Part I of the Bill. We want to know who is going to exercise these important functions, even if the commissioners have only the moderate powers which have been stated by the President of the Board of Trade. These proposals are far-reaching in their terms, and I think we ought to know who are going to be appointed as commissioners. It is all the more important that we should have this information because there is no Clause in the Bill to show how the commissioners will be appointed, and the President of the Board of Trade can appoint anybody he likes.
It is not laid down in this new Clause that one of the gentlemen appointed shall be a barrister, an accountant, or a mining engineer, and it is not provided by Statute that those appointed must have special qualifications. The right hon. Gentleman can appoint any five people whom he likes. He may be very reasonable; but that has never been put forward before as a reason for not putting an Act of Parliament into proper form. We have to consider what are the general powers being conferred, and in this matter the right hon. Gentleman will have the widest possible powers. There are no controlling words over the men to be appointed, although, in far less important cases, the regular course is to come down to the House of Commons and lay an Order on the Table., If the President of the Board of Trade will give us an assurance that in this matter he will act strictly in accordance with a multitude of precedents, he will convince the House that he is acting reasonably, and I think that is something which we have a reasonable right to demand.
§ Mr. BEAUMONT
I share the disappointment which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) at 2101 the speech which has been made by the Minister for Mines, who claimed that the usual procedure was being adopted in making appointments of this kind. That is not so, and it is because we want the usual procedure which is adopted in matters less important than this instance that we are pressing forward this Amendment. After all, we are elected to govern the country. We have no objection on this side of the House to any nomination of the President of the Board of Trade, particularly if he follows the admirable rule laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a question of democratic control. The body to be appointed has to deal with one of the most important industries in the country, and one on which the life of the country depends. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for us to ask that Parliament should have a say in the appointment. After all, there is no getting away from the fact that we are continually falling more and more under departmental and bureaucratic control, and that is what we are anxious to get away from. I think that is common to all parties, and I know that hon. Members opposite have made a similar claim. For these reasons, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to accept this Amendment, and give Parliament real control over a body which will have to look after one of our greatest industries.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I want to impress upon the Committee the importance of the body to be appointed under this Clause. I am afraid hon. Members do not fully realise the responsibility that will devolve upon these five commissioners. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to tell us what objection he can possibly have to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to appoint five members on this Commission. I do not wish to press this point too far, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the five people whom he has in mind. I would suggest that he should appoint a barrister, an accountant, a mining engineer, and a surveyor.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That point does not arise on this Amendment, which deals with the question of an Order being laid upon the Table of the House.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
In view of the tremendous responsibility which will be placed upon the right hon. Gentleman, 2102 the large area which the commissioners cover, and the enormous amount of money which they may spend in organisation schemes, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to tell us who he has in mind. I cannot see what objection there can be to allowing the Committee to have power to object to an Order of this kind. In the case of gas and electricity industries, which are minor matters compared with the one we are discussing, it is necessary to lay the Order, and I cannot see what objection there can be to granting the same power in regard to a question which affects the whole country. Gas and electricity Orders only affect certain rural areas, and it seems to me that the House should have the right to object in the case we are dealing with. The President of the Board of Trade has just returned from truce negotiations for another purpose. We are now restarting the Debates on the Coal Bill, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will commence with another truce.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Commodore DOUGLAS KING
I was rather surprised at the reply which has been given by the Government to the very strong arguments which were put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon. On this side of the House we look upon this question as one of very great importance. We are simply asking that the House of Commons shall have an opportunity of reviewing, step by step, the action which the Government propose to take. The Secretary for Mines did not meet any of the points raised by those who supported this Amendment, and he simply said that we were raising ghosts. The only ghosts we are raising are Members of the House of Commons, and we have a right to decide whether the new procedure which is being adopted under this Clause is the right one or not. Throughout this Bill we are seeking to mitigate the evils of it as much as possible. In various Amendments the President of the Board of Trade will find that we are seeking, in place of the autocratic rulings of the Board of Trade, to insert a rule governing the power of the House of Commons. The Amendment calls only for what is known as a negative motion. It says that the Order shall be laid on the Table of the House, and that if not objected to it should become law after 20 days. It is a very moderate request. 2103 In other later Amendments with regard to other procedure we ask for a positive Resolution of the House in favour of what the Government propose to do. We consider that it is of the greatest importance to both sides in the coal industry, and to the consumers, that Parliament should have an opportunity step by step of controlling this entirely new procedure. The Secretary for Mines told us that he was adopting the usual procedure in such cases. But there never has been such a case before; we have never had compulsory amalgamations before. In this case every single unit in a proposed amalgamation may object to amalgamation, yet it can be compelled. We have never had such a thing in the history of the country. We have had strong powers given by Parliament in the past, and in some cases people have been deprived of property for the public good, but always under compensation. But this is an entirely new procedure. The proposal is that people should unwillingly be banded together, however unsuitable they may think themselves for amalgamation, and whatever personal feelings they may have.
§ Commodore KING
I do not wish to do that. No usual procedure can apply to such a wholly unusual course as is proposed in the Bill. We cannot possibly ensure that the right people will be selected unless we have an opportunity of knowing their names beforehand. I quite agree with the Secretary for Mines that there are just and perfect men to be found for this as for other purposes, but at the same time we want Parliament to have the opportunity of considering whether they are just and perfect men; we want to know whether the opinion expressed by the officials or the President of the Board of Trade with regard to a certain set of men is well founded, and whether they have chosen the best men to undertake the work. In all these things we must have the greatest possible measure of Parliamentary control at every step.
The commissioners are to have power to go round the country and to plan amalgamations without any request from the coalowners concerned. Unless the right men are chosen, all those inquiries 2104 may be an extremely vexatious and unjustifiable interference with the ordinary business of the different units that it is proposed to amalgamate, and if the commissioners are not fully qualified for their work they may quite well put the different units to very great financial expense. The coalowners may have to engage counsel and expert advisers. The expenses of the commissioners, of course, will be covered by the Bill. I have the greatest respect for the judgment which is usually displayed by the Board of Trade, and I say that from my experience of the permanent officials during the last few years. On the other hand, we have to deal with the political management of the Board of Trade; we have to see that on the political side these duties are carried out properly. An hon. Friend referred to the Railways Bill. The Secretary for Mines must have forgotten that when he was dealing with the subject. There was a very similar duty imposed on the Railways Tribunal. They had not only to go into the proposals which the railway companies put up, but if after a certain lapse of time the railway companies did not put forward schemes—
§ The CHAIRMAN
It is not in order for the hon. and gallant Member to go into the details of that. It is in order for him to say as an argument that in the case of the railway amalgamations there were similar duties.
§ Commodore KING
Again I was only trying to enforce my argument on the President of the Board of Trade. The Railways Tribunal had imposed upon them, under the Railways Act, duties similar to some of those to be imposed on the Coal Commission, but their duties did not go nearly as far, because the railway amalgamations were of a wholly different kind. They were to be amalgamations of similar interests, whereas the amalgamations under this Bill ace to be amalgamations of wholly dissimiliar interests and in many eases of conflicting interests. Therefore, the duties of these commissioners are far more important and onerous than the duties placed on the other tribunal. Under the Railways Act, not only was this House given an opportunity of discussing who the people should be, but their names were actually set out in the Act. We are entitled to demand Parliamentary control in the 2105 present case, and this is the first Amendment in which we are seeking to maintain that control. I urge the President of the Board of Trade to accept the Amendment and to allow Parliament to carry out its proper function of saying whether the appointments are right or wrong.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham)
It is remarkably difficult to resist the reference to the truce, and still less the appeal which has been made from the other side, but, after all, the point before the House is a comparatively narrow and simple one. It is whether the appointments of the five commissioners and of the Chairman are to be made by the Board of Trade by the ordinary departmental process, or whether procedure is to be by an order to be submitted for the negative approval of this House. I support my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines in the view that the condition which the Opposition seek to impose is really unnecessary, and that there is no valid precedent for it within recent times. The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) asked what kind of protection Parliament would have. Of course, when the actual appointment of the commissioners is being made the names will be mentioned in reply to any Parliamentary question. Any hon. Member; can raise a discussion on the Adjournment, and of course the administration and work of these commissioners can be raised either on a Vote of the Coal Mines Department, or on the Vote of the Board of Trade itself. Those are the usual Parliamentary opportunities and I suggest that they are sufficient, and that it is quite unnecessary to burden this part of the Bill with the formality of laying an order on the Table.
Hon. Members opposite are quite wrong in suggesting that there is any effective comparison between the proposals of the Bill and the Electricity Acts or with the Railways Act of 1921. The Chair has ruled that we must not embark on the merits of that legislation, so I shall content myself with saying that in the case of the Electricity Acts there had already been a basis in previous legislation, and that to a large extent this was a regulated industry. In other words, there was a set of circumstances which do not in any way correspond to the circum- 2106 stances before us in the case of this Bill. As regards the Railways Act of 1921, it was not the duty of the three commissioners named to frame schemes of amalgamation. That was already done by a very elaborate process covering more than 100 constituent railway companies, and all that the commissioners had to do was to approve the conditions under which the amalgamations were to take place. In other words, the ground was very largely covered. That is not the case in this Bill, and I suggest that the analogy is entirely unreal.
Hon. Members have also tried to make something of the point that this is an extension of departmental or bureaucratic control. All of us on this side want to preserve to the fullest possible extent the powers of Members of Parliament, but we must have some common sense in the matter. If trifling and even important appointments are not to be entrusted to the appropriate Departments, there will be further congestion of business on the Floor of the House, and we shall be lost in what is in reality administration and not legislation at all. I suggest that the Bill is perfectly reasonable in this proposal, and, with all the good will in the world, such as has characterised these Debates from the beginning, it is impossible to accept this Amendment,
§ Captain CAZALET
Many Members on this side of the Committee, I think, regret very much that the President of the Board of Trade is unable to accept this Amendment. We had hoped that he would have brought back with him that sweet reasonableness with which he has been indulging the delegates at Geneva, and I think it would have augured well for the further stages of the Bill if he had been able to accept this most reasonable and sensible Amendment. It is highly important that these five men should receive the support, not only of Members on the opposite side of the House, but the general support of the country and the support of Members on these benches and below the Gangway. Unless they have the general good will of the community, their work will be vitiated from the very start.
The President of the Board of Trade has suggested that, in moving an Amendment of this nature, we desire to hold up the business of the House, and he even 2107 referred to the appointment of these five men as a trifling appointment. [Interruption.] I am very glad to hear that hon. Members opposite do consider these appointments to be of vital importance, both to the coal industry and to the general well-being of the country. If the five names are acceptable to hon. Members in all parts of the House, there will be no delay. The Order will be laid on the Table of the House, and, if the names are acceptable, the subject will not be debated and there will be the least possible delay. It is only if we see reason to object to any of these nominated individuals that there will be a Debate and time will be taken up, but, surely, the right bon. Gentleman will see that, if there is disagreement as to the position and qualifications of any of these gentlemen, their work will be vitiated from the start, and they will not be able to fulfil the functions which they were originally intended to fulfil.
If we cannot get some more satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman, I think it will be our duty, at some later stage of the Bill, to try to introduce Amendments to ensure that these five individuals belong to certain categories of industry—for instance, that one should be a banker, one a barrister, and so on. I am not going to develop that matter now, but it is obvious that, if the President of the Board of Trade will not give us the right to say whether we approve or disapprove—and this is the only opportunity that we shall have of making our voices heard on this matter—we shall be compelled at a later stage to introduce Amendments to ensure that the members of this body will represent the views that we think should be represented on a committee of this kind.
We regard with no little concern the sinister silence of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches in reference to this matter. Is this another bargain? Whatever other faiths the Liberal party may cling to, we have always associated with them the liberty of the subject and the scrutiny by the representatives of this democratic country of all Measures that come before the House of Commons. We consider these to be the closely cherished and highly prized traditions of the Liberal party, but here they have a first-class opportunity of putting their views before the Committee in support of an eminently 2108 reasonable Amendment, and there is complete silence on their beaches. [Interruption.] It is, indeed, the result of the almost complete emptiness of those benches when we are discussing a matter which we consider to be of the gravest importance, but which they, apparently, consider to be of no importance whatever, I hope that, in view of the speeches which have been made from these benches, and of our desire to carry forward this Measure with the greatest possible amount of good will some hon. Member opposite will see his way to accede to this Amendment.
§ Major GEORGE DAVIES
I want to stress one consideration which, while it has been touched upon, has not in my opinion been sufficiently emphasised. On this side of the Committee, as the Secretary for Mines will appreciate, we set great store by this Amendment, because we think that it enshrines an essential part of this legislation. I would like hon. Members opposite to consider this point of view. The Secretary for Mines, in his Second Reading speech on the Bill, pointed out what a tremendously important piece of legislation it was, and how he earnestly looked forward to its bringing, at last, peace and prosperity to an industry which has been so torn with disputes and lack of prosperity in the past; and that it was of the greatest importance that the provisions of the Bill should be calculated from the start to achieve his objective. The Clauses which we have been discussing were not originally part of the Measure. They were added for reasons into which it is not necessary to go now, but a majority of the House agreed that they were an essential, or at any rate a necessary, part of the Measure.
What is this Clause going to do? It is all very well for the Secretary for Mines to say that it is a usual procedure. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Commodore King) has pointed out, this is a most unusual case. For the first time in the history of this country, the House of Commons as a body is making itself responsible for the manner in which one of the industries of the country shall be carried on in detail and in general. That is an enormous responsibility for us all, in whatever quarter of the House we sit, because we are bound by the 2109 majority which will pass this Measure. On these benches, our objective is to consider how we think that this Measure will work when it is put into operation, and to try, as far as possible, to see that it is a better and not a worse Measure when it leaves the House of Commons.
These Clauses really introduce the most important part of the whole Bill, that is to say, the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, who are going to be the spokesmen of the expressed will of the House of Commons and to put into operation provisions which, possibly, will entirely revolutionise the system of our coal-mining industry. No more important task has ever been entrusted by Parliament to any body of men, however eminent, however able, and however expert they may be in their particular spheres of life. At the same time, we are providing that the President of the Board of Trade shall have supreme control of the appointments, without Parliament having any opportunity, except the trivial ones which the right hon. Gentleman outlined, of having any voice in the matter.
This is not a question of whether the Conservative party are going to try to express disapproval. It appeals to hon. Members opposite just as much as to anyone else. Time and again from our-back benches we have held up a hand of warning to occupants of our own Front
§ Bench who had shown that tendency, which seems to be inseparable from those who hold ministerial positions, of trying to rely entirely on their own Departments. They have, quite rightly, complete confidence in their Departments, but they forget that their ultimate master is the House of Commons. We are not trying to put, as it were, spokes into the wheels, but we do suggest that this provision for what is called a negative approval is a proper one, in the interests, not of the Conservative party, but of the House of Commons itself, because on the success of these appointments will depend the realisation of the whole object of those who believe, as we think mistakenly, that the result of this Bill is going to be for the welfare of the mining industry and of our people. We, therefore, attach the greatest importance to this Amendment, and are correspondingly disappointed that both the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines, and also, as far as I can make out, hon. Members generally on the opposite benches, fail to realise that this is not a party question, but a House of Commons question. I believe that this House of Commons and our successors will have cause to regret that it is not possible to accept this Amendment.
§ Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 283.2113
|Division No. 177.]||AYES.||[5.28 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Ferguson, Sir John|
|Albery, Irving James||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Fison, F. G. Clavering|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Ganzonl, Sir John|
|Astor, Viscountess||Christie, J. A.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Baldwin, Bt. Hon. Stanley (Bowdley)||Colman, N. C. D.||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Colville, Major D. J.||Grace, John|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Berry, Sir George||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Bowater, Col, Sir T. Vansittart||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Boyce, H. L.||Davidson, Bt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hammersley, S. S.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hanbury, C.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Butler, R. A.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Everard, W. Lindsay||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Cattle Stewart, Earl of||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Purbrick, R.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Ramsbotham, H.||Train, J.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Llewellin, Major J. J.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Locker Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Long, Major Eric||Ross, Major Ronald D.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Lymington, Viscount||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|McConnell, Sir Joseph||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Salmon, Major I.||Williams, Com, C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Margesson, Captain H. D.||Savery, S. S.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Meller, R. J.||Simms, Major-General J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Skelton, A. N.||Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Muirhead, A. J.||Smithers, Waldron||Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Somerset, Thomas||George Penny.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)||Cove, William G.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dagger, George||Herriotts, J.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Dallas, George||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Dalton, Hugh||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Hollins, A.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Ammon, Charles George||Day, Harry||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Angell, Norman||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Arnott, John||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Dukes, C.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Duncan, Charles||Isaacs, George|
|Ayles, Walter||Ede, James Chuter||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Edmunds, J. E.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Egan, W. H.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Eimley, Viscount||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Foot, Isaac||Kelly, W. T.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Freeman, Peter||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Benson, G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Kinley, J.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Kirkwood, D.|
|Blindell, James||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Knight, Holford|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Gill, T. H.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gillett, George M.||Lang, Gordon|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Glassey, A. E.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gossling, A. G.||Lathan, G.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Gould, F.||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Bromfield, William||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Law, A. (Rossendale)|
|Bromley, J.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Brooke, W.||Granville, E.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Brothers, M.||Gray, Milner||Lawson, John James|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Leach, W.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Burgess, F. G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Groves, Thomas E.||Lees, J.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Calne, Derwent Hall-||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Cape, Thomas||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Longden, F.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Chater, Daniel||Hardie, George D.||Lunn, William|
|Church, Major A. G.||Harris, Percy A.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||McEntee, V. L.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Haycock, A. W.||McKinlay, A.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymonr||Hayday, Arthur||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Sorensen, R.|
|McShane, John James||Potts, John S.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Quibell, D. J. K.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Mansfield, W.||Raynes, W. R.||Strauss, G. R.|
|March, S.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sullivan, J.|
|Marcus, M.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Markham, S. F.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Marley, J.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Marshall, Fred||Romeril, H. G.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Mathers, George||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Matters, L. W.||Rothschild, J. de||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Maxton, James||Rowson, Guy||Tout, W. J.|
|Melville, Sir James||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Townend, A. E.|
|Messer, Fred||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Millar, J. D.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Turner, B.|
|Milner, J.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Montague, Frederick||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Viant, S. P.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Sanders, W. S.||Walker, J.|
|Morley, Ralph||Sandham, E.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Sawyer, G. F.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Scott, James||Watkins, F. C.|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Mort, D. L.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Sherwood, G. H.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smothwick)||Shield, George William||West, F. R.|
|Muff, G.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Westwood, Joseph|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Shillaker, J. F.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Shinwell, E.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Simmons, C. J.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Sinkinson, George||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Palin, John Henry||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Paling, Wilfrid||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Palmer, E. T.||Smith, Rennle (Penistone)||Wise, E. F.|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Perry, S. F.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Snell, Harry||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Phillips, Dr. Marlon||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.|
§ The CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment which I call is that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies)—in line 8, after the word "any," to insert the words "interest, or shares, or."
§ The CHAIRMAN
It is becoming a habit to hand in manuscript Amendments in this way when there has been a large amount of time in which to put Amendments on the Paper. I have to make a selection, and it is unfair to those who have put their Amendments on the Paper that Amendments should be handed in in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman had no other opportunity of getting this on the Paper, I should perhaps have selected it, but I have not selected it on this occasion.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
This raises a very important point of Order. I have done my best to give very ample 2114 notice of all the Amendments that stand in my name on the Paper. This Amendment was not put down, in order to declare the type of man who should be appointed, because I had put down an Amendment, which I thought was a very reasonable one, asking the Government to consent to the names of the commissioners being embodied in an Order to be laid before the House. I did not wish to put unnecessary Amendments on the Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment that these commissioners should be included in an Order to be laid before the House, I certainly should not have dreamt of moving an Amendment prescribing from what classes these gentlemen should be taken, and I submit, therefore, that I was perfectly reasonable in only putting my one Amendment on the Paper and, because I have not been met on that, I submit that I ought to have an opportunity now of moving an Amendment which, as the House is not to have the opportunity of knowing who these commissioners are to be, shall lay down how they are to be 2115 appointed. Indeed, the President of the Board of Trade himself, in opening these Clauses, characterised the type of man who should be taken. My Amendment is only putting in terms what was in his speech. The Amendment is important and, in the circumstances, I submit that it was not unreasonable that I should not have put it on the Paper.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the right ton. Gentleman, having such wide experience of the House as he has, should not have assumed that the previous Amendment would have been accepted by the Government and, therefore, he should have protected himself and left me an opportunity, when I was deciding which Amendment to select, to do it then. I am pointing out that the habit is growing of putting in Amendments at the last moment, and it lies under Standing Order 27A with the Chairman to decide which Amendments to select. There is no more right for a Member to protest against the Chairman not selecting his Amendment when not on the Paper than there is a right to protest against any Amendment when the Amendment is on the Paper. The rule gives the Chairman the power to select Amendments. This Amendment will have an opportunity of being selected at a later stage if the right hon. Gentleman puts it on the Paper, and I do not see that I am doing him any injustice.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
If I understand that if the Amendment is put down on the Report there will be an opportunity of discussing it—
§ The CHAIRMAN
That does not lie with me. I am carrying out the powers vested in me by the Standing Orders. No point of Order arises.
§ Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 8, after the word "any," to insert the words "interest, or shares, or."
The purpose of the Clause is to make the commissioners as free from bias and as independent as possible, and my purpose in this Amendment is to make the Clause even stronger, because as it at present stands it merely deals with one matter, namely, securities in a company which may be possessed by a commis- 2116 sioner. The word "securities" is a very technical one and, further, a mine or a business of selling coal or manufacturing by-products for sale might be the possession of a single individual. As the Clause as present stands, the only person who would have to get rid of his securities would be a commissioner who happened to have securities in a company. This, with a consequential Amendment, is intended to cover not merely securities but shares in a company or any interest in an undertaking that might be in the possession of an individual. Further on, I am proposing to leave out the word "company" and to insert the word "undertaking." When we come to the right hon. Gentleman's third Clause, the commissioners are to amalgamate not companies but undertakings, and it would be only right that they should not have any interest in any undertaking, whether for selling or producing coal, and that they should get rid of their shares or interest within three months, just as the right hon. Gentleman proposes that they should get rid of their securities in the same period.
§ Sir BOYD MERRIMAN
Before the hon. Gentleman accepts it, I should like to suggest that in one respect the words are too wide. Everyone sympathises with the object the hon. Member has in moving these words, that there shall be a sufficient parting with control of any share in a coal mining company or undertaking, but by using the word "interest" he has really gone a little too far. Let me give an illustration. Supposing you have a partnership business for the sale of plant connected with coal mining, and the proposed commissioner happens to be a relative of the man who is carrying on that business. The partner dies leaving the business to be carried on for the benefit of his widow and a large family, with an ultimate trust in favour of this brother, in which there is not the faintest chance in practical politics of his really ever having a share. Yet that would clearly be an interest in that business, and, at considerable inconvenience to everybody concerned, he would have to get rid of, or sell, that interest. I would suggest that a form of words a little less drastic might be obtained. Similarly, I would suggest that the words in the consequential Amendment a little lower on the 2117 Paper "or dispose of," so far from strengthening, may tend to weaken the desire that these shares should be got rid of. You can dispose of a thing by making a declaration of trust, and it would not, in my opinion, strengthen the intention of the Amendment to add the words "or dispose of." You cannot have anything very much stronger than the word "sell," and I would suggest that it would effect the purpose if the words "or dispose of" were kept out.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I cannot help commenting on the fact that neither of the Law Officers of the Crown has thought fit to be present on the Treasury Bench to advise the Committee with regard to the legal position on this Amendment. It is a well-known fact that instead of strengthening a Clause you can weaken it by inserting too many words. I would particularly like to be advised on this matter, because, after all, the Government have accepted this Amendment very glibly, and it is the duty of the Opposition to criticise their action even though they may have accepted an Amendment which has been put down by an hon. Member below the Gangway. I should like to know whether the Law Officers of the Crown consider that this Amendment makes the position clear. It seems to me that the word "securities" is sufficient, and that it would cover everything if you inserted the words "or shares." It might be possible under that wording for a person to retain possession in his own right of an undertaking which was not a company, but his own personal property. Furthermore, the proposal seems to complicate the position in which he would find himself were he a trustee. The Clause says quite definitely that he shallsell any securities which he may hold in his own name or in the name of a nominee for his own benefit.The fact remains, that although he might be holding this interest in trust for the benefit of someone else, the money might, and very likely would, be paid into the bank to an account in his own name, for the simple reason that the banks to-day have a distinct objection to having accounts in the names of trustees. They always wish to have them in the name of a particular individual. In that case it would rather complicate matters, for although a person might be holding these interests for the benefit of a trust or some 2118 other party, the moneys or dividends accruing therefrom might be paid into his own account. As the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway has been accepted, I imagine that further Amendments on similar lines may also be accepted. Therefore, I think it is a most regrettable thing that we have no expert legal advice as to what actually will be the effect of this Amendment. We have no opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the Clause is actually strengthened thereby or whether it is, in a legal sense, even weaker.
§ Mr. C. DAVIES
If I may intervene in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), in the absence of the Attorney-General, the object of the Clause, without a doubt, is to make the Commission sacrosanct, so that they shall be above suspicion and shall not hold any property in connection with any coal mine which will engender in the minds of suspicious people a feeling that they may have a bias. I chose the best word I could devise, namely, "interest," by which I mean, of course, legal interest and even a fiduciary interest, and not merely a relationship. Of course, the interest will be an interest which is legally centred in the person who is asked to get rid of it within three months of his being appointed a commissioner. With regard to the words "or dispose of it," I thought that it was only fair that the Commission should be entitled to dispose of property rather than actually to sell it. I assume the case where a person has some interest or actually some shares. At present he would have to go through a fictitious sale and pretend that it was a sale, it may be, to his son or somebody else who was carrying on. With the introduction of the words "or dispose of" he need not go through any fictitious sale, but he could dispose of his interest and be able to act as a commissioner free from suspicion.
§ Sir B. MERRIMAN
I have not succeeded in making my points clear to the hon. and learned Member and it may have been my fault. I and he want to achieve the same object. The point I was making was not concerned with relationship at all. I was assuming that in the case supposed the man had a reversion- 2119 ary interest however remote. I gave an illustration in which a brother or relative had in the case of the ordinary will an ultimate trust in favour of brothers and sisters, though, as a matter of legality, there would be no practical possibility of his actually sharing. There is no real chance of his sharing. I put that as an illustration, and that clearly would be an interest. The point I was trying to make was that if you made the words as wide as was proposed, you would cause a great deal of inconvenience to those who were really interested in the business and would achieve no useful purpose at all. I should have thought that it would be quite sufficient to apply the provisions where the share or shares were the man's own shares in a business or company in which he was really interested. That is the point which I was making.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Young, owing to my enforced absence from this Committee for a few minutes. How many Amendments are we taking? I want to know how much ground is being covered?
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I did not know whether you had agreed that a general discussion should take place on the second and subsequent Amendments.
We have had another Amendment since the hon. Member was here last. These Amendments are consequential.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
The Clause says that a commissioner shall within three months after his appointment sell any securities which he may hold. I assume that the five commissioners who may be appointed will probably be men of great standing. They may be trustees or have a reversionary interest in all sorts of concerns connected with coal mining, and that is the reason why I asked how far the discussion on this Amendment was to be allowed to proceed. It seems to me that to put in the word "interest" is to give too wide a scope. It may prevent a person from holding a position as commissioner, because it is quite possible that owing to the depressed state of the coal industry—and I think it will be more 2120 depressed because of the provisions of this Measure—he may have an interest which is a minus quantity and which, in consequence, he will be unable to sell. There might be a man whom the President might approach and ask to be a commissioner, who would say, "I own an interest in a certain undertaking." Is the word "undertaking" restricted to coal mines? A man may be interested in a subsidiary concern associated with a coal mine or a partnership in a coal mine. He may be a shareholder or a debenture holder in a gas company or an electricity company, or a china clay company or in anything which might—[Interruption.] I am raising this matter in all seriousness, because it happens to be part of the business in which I am engaged. I can understand a commissioner, in all good faith, accepting an invitation of the President of the Board of Trade, and later on being found to be a shareholder in, say, a co-operative society.
The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment from the Liberal benches desired to make these commissioners sacrosanct, and he has almost put them in an impossible position. Supposing a commissioner is invited to take part in this Commission and must sell his interest or shares within three months, it seems to me it would be a very hard condition to place upon a man whose whole capital might have been invested in coal mines perhaps for generations. You would suddenly say that because you wanted this man to help in the reorganisation of the coal mining industry he must within three months, when the coal industry is depressed, be compelled to sell his interest or shares in a particular company. I feel sure that if the President of the Board of Trade sees my point he will take steps to put the matter right on the Report stage. We want the public to have complete confidence in this Commission. We want the Commission to be above suspicion. I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that it would meet the position if he could put in some words so as to make the Clause apply to any interest, share or security which a commissioner may hold and which gives him voting rights and the power to give some definite orders which absolutely control or influence the immediate policy of a company in which he may be interested. 2121 To ask a commissioner within three months to sacrifice what may have been in the family, in his company or in his organisation for a lifetime seems to me to be utterly unreasonable. I think that the Amendment which has been placed upon the Paper to include the word "undertaking" would make the Clause rather too wide. I think that the matter should be reconsidered and, if possible, the provision made a little narrower. I take it that the men you will invite to be commissioners will be men beyond all reproach, and they should not be penalised by being compulsorily made to part with their reversionary interests in three months.
§ Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT
It is suggested that the word "securities" does not cover all the interests which might be required to be covered. At the same time the proposal to insert the word "interest" is also too wide, because interests may be remote or near, but at the same time it would be a hardship on a commissioner if, on inquiry, it was discovered that he had some remote relationship which was regarded as an interest. I therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend that, if he added the word "fiduciary," before the word "interest," so as to cover an immediate, personal, financial interest, that would secure all that is desired.
§ Commodore KING
I should like to ask whether, in this conflict of legal opinion, we are not to be favoured with some guidance from a Law Officer of the Crown. The late Solicitor-General has expressed his view, which is dissented from by another hon. and learned Gentleman from below the Gangway here, and now we have had an intimation from another hon. and learned Gentleman opposite who seemed to disagree with both.
§ Commodore KING
The hon. and learned Member did not seem entirely to agree with the meaning of the word, but when we have a conflict of opinion on legal matters, I think the Committee is entitled to a certain amount of guidance from a Law Officer of the Crown. On matters of detail in a Bill, there is no learned Gentleman in the House who can 2122 put the case more clearly to us than the President of the Board of Trade himself, and on matters of detailed explanation we should never wish for any clearer exposition than he always gives us, but on legal matters it is the custom to have some opinion from a Law Officer of the Crown. We have asked for that on one occasion already on this Bill, when the Attorney-General was actually sitting on the Treasury Bench, and I have always understood that the duty of the Attorney-General is to advise the House of Commons. It is only part of his duty, as a Law Officer of the Crown, to give advice to the Government itself; he also has the wider duty, when it is required, of giving legal advice to the House of Commons. I therefore ask that we should have some guidance from a Law Officer of the Crown before we come to a decision on this Amendment.
§ Mr. J. JONES
When lawyers fall out, generally speaking, ordinary citizens come by their own, and whether they are on our side or the other side, we, usually discover that they always fall out about words and never about principles. We all agree that there is something that should be done, and we are asking that something may be done. Commissioners are going to be appointed, and they should be free from any personal interest. They should have no connection with the industry from a financial standpoint. I am not likely to be a commissioner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why should I not? All that I know about coal is that I have to pay for it, and I know a place where we are paying for rubbish £2 8s. a ton.
§ Mr. JONES
But the commissioners, when they start to operate, will have a very large power in connection with the price of coal and the general control of the mining industry, and therefore, though I am averse to them in a personal way, I have no objection to them. The commissioners should receive a certain remuneration, but they must not be directly 2123 connected with the industry, and under present day conditions it seems almost impossible to segregate an individual from his industrial investments. He may be a commissioner for coal, but he may also be a director of a railway company that uses coal to an enormous extent, or he may be a director of a bank which finances a coal company. Nobody can tell where these interests begin and where they end. Is it not far better to say that these commissioners shall be appointed, and that they shall have no connection with any financial or industrial interest which is connected with the coal industry? Then we will hand it on to our cousins, sisters, and aunts, because we have the right of disposal.
What a marvellous system it is! I am a member of a public body where we have a regulation that members cannot themselves be directly connected with contracts given out by the local authority, but immediately we stop them by resolution of our council, we find there is a public company formed, and we cannot touch them. They can have all their relations as shareholders, but the other members of the council are not in it. Is that playing the game? So far as we are concerned, we say that, if you are going to have commissioners, you should have them free, you should pay them a decent salary for their work, and you should tell them that they must cut themselves adrift from all connection with these national concerns.
Why should the workers make all the sacrifices? The miners will be called upon to make some sacrifices—they have already been called upon to do so—and why should we not ask these clever people, who know all about it, to make a sacrifice in order to help the men and women whose lives depend on the industry, for the good of the nation? They are always patriotic, but they are always looking to the main chance. Patriots, yes, when it pays—five per cent. patriots, and that is a minimum. Are we not entitled to say that if this Bill goes through, we are asking them to work the coal mines of this country in the interests of the country, which is a patriotic duty? During the War, they were all prepared to lay down their lives upon the altar of their country, but all that they did was to lay down other people's lives on the 2124 altar of their country. When the War was over they wanted to make more profit than they had ever made before, and now they are grumbling because they are in a bad way. They have had complete control of this industry for "donkeys' years."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We are now discussing certain commissioners to be appointed, not the action of past owners.
§ Mr. JONES
I hope you will not appoint the same commissioners as were appointed in West Ham. We do not want superannuated ex-officials of the State, who were paid more for doing a job in West Ham that they were incapable of doing than they could get at their own job. All that we ask is, if you have commissioners, that you should have right commissioners, and I do not care what you pay them, so long as you get the right men. If this industry is in a parlous condition, as those who know more about it than I do have told us it is, we want the best men we can get, and we want to pay them the beet price we can to keep them free from all private and subsidiary interests.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I cannot claim to be in any way an authority on the legal aspects of this problem, but I think I can put the position of the Government quite simply and clearly, so far at least as the points which have been raised are concerned. As hon. Members have pointed out, the whole object was to secure the appointment of commissioners who would have no direct or immediate interest in this industry, in order that they should bring quite impartial minds to the amalgamations and to all the other problems connected with these schemes. Accordingly, the Committee will observe that in the long Clause on the paper there is a certain amount of specification as to the interests or securities which must be disposed of before they become eligible for this work. That specification turns on an interest in companies which are raising coal or in companies which are associated with the by-products of coal, and they go beyond that into undertakings which are related to plant or machinery connected with coal mining in this country.
On the whole, that is a pretty reasonable and fair specification. There are certain hon. Members who have suggested that to specify machinery or plant connected with coal mining is to go perhaps 2125 a little too far, but I suggest to the Committee that it is best, in a matter of this kind, and in view of the very large interests involved, that we should put the problem beyond all doubt, and that the specification contained in the long Clause is, in the circumstances, reasonable and fair. That has not been attacked, and I think that is a substantial reply to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers), who asked as to the kind of disqualification in industrial ownership that would be imposed. It is limited by the specification in the long Clause, and it will never apply to any undertaking or rights in an undertaking which simply happened to use coal, because then you would have to bar out almost every individual in the State. That is not intended for a moment, and I suggest that the specification is perfectly clear on that point.
Now I come to the second point, which was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Solicitor-General, as to whether the adding of these words on the Paper, "interest, or shares, or," over and above the term "securities," is really too wide, and on that point I am frank to confess that I am impressed by the argument that "interest" may cover a reversionary interest which may be very remote, that it would rule out the whole of such a very remote reversionary interest, and impose perhaps considerable disturbance, which, on the facts of the situation, is quite unnecessary, and that that is not something which any section of the Committee desires to do, and might in practice very severely restrict our choice of capable commissioners. Accordingly, I think I have said enough on the two points of explanation to enable me to make this proposal, that as regards this term "interest," if there is any difficulty regarding a reversionary interest, I am willing to find appropriate words, in consultation with Members before the Report stage, in order to remove a difficulty of that kind. On that undertaking, I think we might very well pass this Clause.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I should like to thank the President of the Board of Trade for his reply. He confessed that he is not a legal authority, and I am desirous that the choice of commissioners shall not be restricted in any way. I should like to ask the learned Attorney- 2126 General whether the words "manufacture or sale of by-products of coal" would restrict the choice. The by-products of coal are very numerous, and I want to be quite clear that the new Clause is restricted to the actual coal, the working of the coal mine and the making of plant and machinery; and that it does not go any further.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
Where do we stand now? The Government have accepted this Amendment to their Amendment and they now say that they will reconsider the whole matter on Report. Is the Amendment to the new Clause going to be inserted or not; or are we to wait until the Report stage?
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
The point is perfectly plain. I have undertaken to accept the word "interest" in the proposed Amendment, but, if there is any prejudice, I have undertaken to find a remedy before the Report stage.
Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN
In the event of one of the proposed commissioners holding an interest in coal mines in America or India, or anywhere else, would he have to sell his interest or not?
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
Off-hand, I must not pronounce finally; but I am glad to think that in this case I am legislating only for Great Britain.
§ Amendment to proposed Clause, agreed to.
§ Mr. C. DAVIES
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 10, to leave out the word "company," and to insert instead thereof the word "undertaking."
§ Mr. SMITHERS
The word "undertaking" has a much wider meaning than the word "company," and I should like the President of the Board of Trade to consider this point. I think the word "undertaking" creates the same difficulty as the word "interest."
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
Yes, but if there is the slightest doubt about it we shall have to remove it on Report stage.
§ Amendment to proposed Clause agreed to.
§ Consequential Amendments made to proposed Clause.2127
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 15, after the word "sell," to insert the words "or dispose of it or."
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
May I ask for the guidance of the learned Attorney-General as to whether this Amendment will open any back-door means for the disposal of shares other than by selling them; that is, retaining them under a different name or in any other way retaining practically possession of these shares although to all intents and purposes they have been disposed of.
§ Commodore KING
During the discussion on this new Clause I asked that we might have the advice of the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade acceded, as he usually does, to a seasonable request of that kind, but he was able to give the reply himself. The reason I asked for the guidance of the Attorney-General was because there was a difference of opinion. The hon. and learned Member for Nottingham South (Mr. Knight) tried to clear up the point and said something about a fiduciary interest. I do not think he meant to use that word at all.
§ Commodore KING
I should like to know whether this Amendment does give wider powers than is intended?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt)
In my view it will not give wider powers. It is desirable to have these words, and I do not think they will open the door in any way in which we want to close it. At the same time, the Amendment will receive further consideration in the same way as the other questions.
§ Amendment to proposed Clause agreed to.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 23, at the beginning, to insert the words:For the purposes of any business for which a quorum of the commissioners is required by this Act to be present, three commissioners personally present shall be a quorum, but, save as aforesaid.On a previous occasion several hon. Members raised the question as to the manner in which the commissioners would 2128 act. The Amendment provides that for the purposes of business the quorum shall be three, and the Committee will observe that these words have been incorporated in later Clauses. Hon. Members will have to read them with the inclusion of these words in subsequent Clauses of the Bill. In the case of getting evidence under the Tribunals Evidence Act by compulision, the submission of a scheme or a certificate of valuation, it is provided that a quorum of commissioners, that is three, will be necessary for such purposes. This Amendment has been put down in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I should like to ask one question. Can these three commissioners come to a decision on behalf of the commissioners as a whole, or must any decision of the commissioners be unanimous? I have an Amendment later on to insure that every decision on important matters shall be unanimous, and I should like to know whether the quorum of three will have to put their decision before the remaining two members and get their consent before it can be deemed to have been approved by the commissioners?
§ Mr. GRAHAM
It is perfectly clear that on all proposals there will be consultation among all the members of the Commission, and I hope and indeed believe that on all occasions the commissioners as a whole will be familiar with what is proposed. After all, we must be practical in these matters and the Amendment which I am now moving realises that in these important matters a decision may be taken but it is specified that three members must be a quorum. I suggest that in practical business matters it is the only basis on which we can proceed.
§ Commodore KING
The difficulty in my mind is with regard to a previous remark of the right hon. Gentleman. He made a reference to the possibility of the commissioners sub-dividing themselves, and he appeared to visualise the commissioners carrying on inquiries in different parts of the country. It seemed that they had power to organise schemes and make recommendations as separate entities. I should like to know whether he has this prospect still in mind. If three is to be a quorum I quite realise that it is not possible for the commissioners to divide themselves up in this way. That is my difficulty; and I want 2129 to make sure that there is no opportunity of the commissioners dividing up their forces in such a way that certain people may come to a certain decision in one part of the country and certain other people come to another decision in another part of the country. This is a matter which should be treated from the same angle throughout the country, and we want to make sure that there is no sub-division on the part of the commissioners, one part coming to a decision in one part of the country and another part to a decision in another part of the country.
§ Mr. GRAHAM
There is no difficulty in giving the hon. and gallant Member an assurance on that point. When we last discussed the constitution of this Commission and the manner in which it would go about its work I indicated that in order to save time, and in the interests of the efficiency of the investigations they might undertake, that an inquiry in different parts of the country in numbers of three or two, or whatever happened to be the more convenient arrangement, might be undertaken. I have not the slightest doubt that is the manner in which they will work. These commissioners will have a very definite view of the plan they intend to follow but without committing them in any way I think that for the purposes of a district inquiry or the submission of a scheme that this quorum is essential. No scheme can go up unless it is approved by a majority of the commissioners, and therefore the question of the subdivision of the commissioners is not a difficulty which will arise.
§ Amendment to proposed Clause agreed to.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 28, to leave out the words "to the commissioners and."
The Clause in its present form reads as follows:The Board of Trade may appoint a secretary to the Commission and the Commission may employ such officers and servants as the Board may, with the approval of the Treasury determine, and there shall be paid by the Board such remuneration to the commissioners and to the Secretary,etc. I propose to leave out the words which would include the commissioners in any remuneration. The hon. Member 2130 for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said he did not mind how much we paid these commissioners as long as we got the right men. He said "Pay them a decent wage. I do not care what you pay." Some of us think that the work of this Commission will be as important, especially to this great fundamental industry, as that of any Commission which has ever sat in this country to deal with a domestic subject, and it is my desire in moving this Amendment to enable the President of the Board of Trade to get the very best men available for the job. It is a long established custom in this country, when His Majesty through his Ministers, requires advice and counsel on some important point, to select a Royal Commission and I believe I am right in saying that those commissioners are never paid. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will get better men to serve on this Commission if he proceeds on those lines and appoints unpaid commissioners.
I do not know the kind of men whom the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in connection with this Commission, Earlier in these discussions I suggested that the Commission should consist of a leading banker, a leading barrister, a leading accountant, a leading mining engineer and a leading surveyor. Whether that is the right hon. Gentleman's idea or not I do not know, but, from whatever professions he selects the five commissioners, he wants to get the very best men available. I do not think that the Committee yet realises the vast importance of the work which is to be entrusted to this Commission. In sending invitations to prominent men in any of the great professions which I have mentioned, asking them to serve on the Commission at a salary, what sort of salary would the right hon. Gentleman have in mind? What kind of salary would the right hon. Gentleman offer to men of the type that I hope he is going to get? What kind of salary would men of such professional eminence consider? I do not think that the hon. Member for Silvertown, with the best will in the world, would be prepared to vote a salary of £10,000 or £15,000 to a commissioner appointed for this purpose. Therefore I suggest that it would be better to follow the precedent of the Royal Commissions and to appeal to the very best men in the country to give their services freely.
2131 We have never yet failed to find patriotic people of the greatest eminence to act on those Commissions and I suggest that it would be better for the country and for the industry if no payment were offered in connection with this Commission. Let the right hon. Gentle-man go to the very highest men in those professions and say to them, "We want you to serve your country in this very difficult matter." If he does so, I believe he will get tip-top men, and I think that any sum -which the Treasury would allow, or which the right hon. Gentleman feels himself able to offer, will not be appropriate to men of the type that we hope to see on this Commission. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to rely on this case on the patriotic spirit which has always been shown by men of all parties—as the Lord Privy Seal can, I believe, testify from experience. That patriotic spirit has always been shown by the leaders of the great professions and the right hon. Gentleman will do well, as I say, to rely upon it for the carrying out of this highly important task.
§ Major G. DAVIES
The question raised by the Amendment is: Are these commissioners to be paid or unpaid. It rests with the Committee to decide as to whether we shall get the best men by paying the commissioners or by not paying them. That is the only point at issue. There are, we know, two arguable views on this point which arises very often in connection with local government and other forms of public service. The question is whether by making a position unpaid you do not rule out a great many people, whose financial position makes it impossible for them to give their time, although to rule out their services means a loss to the State. On the other hand due weight must attach to the experience of the past and to the prospect of getting the kind of men we want. One of the boasts of our public life for generations has been the fact that we have a constant supply of men, in all classes of life, who are willing to give their ability and their time to public work. Our experience in the past generally speaking has been that we have been able to get the very best men for all kinds of public service from acting on a Royal Commission to acting on a board of guardians, without any pay.
2132 I cannot help feeling that the balance of argument is on the side of having these commissioners unpaid, though I agree that there are arguments to be advanced on the other side. My reasons for supporting the Amendment are twofold. First, if you get the very best men, they will be men who have proved by their ability and success, their fitness for such an office. A man of that kind will have reached a responsible position, which ordinarily takes up a great deal of his time, and if you are going to try to compensate him by means of any form of remuneration, you will be confronted with the payment of exceedingly high salaries involving great financial burdens on the State. I submit that it is possible to get equally good men without paying anything at all. A second and more serious consideration is that if these positions are remunerated on a very high scale, or a reasonably high scale, the President of the Board of Trade will run the risk of having a great many people seeking these positions whose interest is not so much what they can give to the State, as what they can get from the State. In other words, the payment of a salary will attract a typo of person whom the President of the Board of Trade, in common with myself, would regard as the last kind of person to be entrusted with this enormous responsibility. It is an enormous responsibility, and, as has been said, the Committee and the country little realise what a tremendous responsibility it is in connection with this important industry. The payment of salaries to these commissioners might go far to disappoint the aims and ideals of hon. Members opposite. We cannot afford to make a mistake in this matter and, while giving full weight to the objection that we might rule out Al brains on mere considerations of worldly success or financial considerations, I think, at the same time, the balance of argument is on the other side. We would do well to accept the Amendment and call on that patriotism and that willingness to serve, which has always been shown in connection with great national and State services, by people who are willing to come forward without the attraction of a salary.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
The Amendment seems to me to be a mixture of idealism and meanness, and I have been reminded during the discussion on it of some lines of Kipling referring to the ideal state: 2133And none but the Master shall praise us and none but the Master shall blame,And no one shall work for money, and no one shall work for fame,But each fur the joy of working, and each in his separate starShall draw the thing as he sees it, for the God of things as they are.Those lines refer to heaven, and I understand that, as far as we know there is no coal in heaven. I do not know what the Amendment is really about. If the idealism part of it stood alone one could respect it, but when we have linked with it the other argument that we require men so good and the salaries which we ought to pay them are so large, that we ought not to pay them anything at all, I think the Committee will remain unconvinced even by the painstaking efforts of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers).
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has remarked that there is no coal in heaven and in the course of these long discussions that is the most encouraging thing that I have heard. The Amendment before us would make it impossible for the Government to provide any remuneration for the commissioners appointed in connection with these amalgamation schemes. I think I can explain the position in a very few words. The Financial Memorandum pointed out that of the total expenditure of £285,000 annually under this Bill, about £250,000 would be attributable to these amalgamation schemes and I added that the great bulk of this £250,000 would be related to the technical charges connected with the preparation of schemes which would be recoverable in due course from the amalgamated concerns—that is in regard to the technical and other advice which it was required to bring in for this purpose. Expenditure in paying the remuneration of the commissioners would not be a charge on the undertakings, but upon the State. I cannot give the slightest indication to-day regarding the remuneration to be offered to the com missioners, but hon. Members will recollect that it has been decided that they need not necessarily be full-time commissioners. The whole object will be to get very able people, who will command universal confidence. We have never disputed that they are to be entrusted with a task of very great 2134 magnitude, affecting practically the whole of the industry and commerce of this country. If we set out to get full- time commissioners' and to pay them a salary which would be reasonable, having regard to the sacrifices that men in that position would have to make, that would be a very large charge upon public funds. Quite frankly, it is not intended to do anything of the kind.
We all know, to our satisfaction, that any Government, irrespective of political parties, can command the services of distinguished people in this country who are willing to do a very great deal for nothing or for a mere honorarium or recognition which, in many cases, will not cover the loss they sustain in other directions. I am satisfied, indeed, I know already that service of that kind will be forthcoming in this connection. If the Amendment were carried I should be debarred from giving any recognition at all, and that is a thing to which even a Scottish mind finds it difficult to respond, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed, but in any event the Government cannot accept it.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
The Amendment puts me in a rather difficult position, because I sympathise with the view expressed by the President of the Board of Trade that if you are to have commissioners you are bound to offer them some remuneration, and that it would narrow the choice very much if that was not done. At the same time, objecting as I do to the fact that the commissioners are to be there at all, and disliking the the character of the work that is to be put upon them to do, and believing that considerable mischief will result—I am not entitled to go into that matter now—I do not feel inclined to support any proposal that gives money to a thoroughly unsound scheme. On the other hand, I agree that if we are to have these commissioners, it ought not to be made impossible to pay them anything. The Committee has decided that there are to be commissioners, and the question arises what is to be the position of any honest Member of Parliament who thinks as I do. Am I to vote money for a purpose which I know will be wasteful, merely because the Committee, having made a mistake, and having agreed to appoint commissioners cannot expect to get good work from them unless some salary is paid 2135 to them? When the right hon. Gentleman speaks about big money not being wanted, I do not quite understand his position. I do not know what negotiations he has had or what assurances he may have got, but I think it is extremely unlikely, in view of the work that the commissioners will have to do, that he will find men prepared to give up so much of their time without a very high salary. It is extremely unlikely that we shall find that these commissioners can be appointed unless very considerable salaries are given.
In the White Paper it is suggested that a considerable amount of expenditure, about £250,000, can be got back from the undertakings if amalgamations are carried out through the commissioners. I have not yet been able to discover the amount of interference by the commissioners which would entitle the Government to claim back the expenditure involved. I should think that it is very unlikely that any very large sum will be recovered. Any amalgamation which is going through normally and does not require the services of the commissioners, will pay nothing. A large number of inquiries will prove to be futile, and in a good many cases the action of the commissioners will have the effect of irritating rather than encouraging amalgamations, and amalgamations which might possibly have been pushed through may be checked or stopped by the action of the commissioners. In these cases, large expenditure may be involved in technical experts and no money will be recovered. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman is extraordinarly sanguine when he suggests that the cost will be so small. If we are to have commissioners and if they are to do the work that the right hon. Gentleman thinks is necessary, they will have to be paid well, but I cannot agree to take any part in voting money which I believe will be wasted, and which may lead to mischief.
§ Captain HUDSON
I and other hon. Members on this side are disappointed with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. The object of this Amendment, in support of which my name appears, was, to a great extent, to get a statement from the President of the Board of Trade as to what sort of men he expected to get for his commissioners, 2136 and how he proposed to pay them. We hoped that we might have a fairly full statement as to the type of men that he hoped to get. He has given us very little information. We hoped to find out whether a full-time salary was to be paid and how much was to be paid, but he gave us practically no information. It would probably be better if the commissioners were unpaid, the reason being that the finest type of men can be got on commissions of this kind, which have a great national work to do, and such men are not attracted necessarily by high salaries, but from a sense of duty.
What we want on this Commission, more than anything else, are men of experience and of particular qualifications in regard to the subjects that will have to be dealt with. We want the finest type of men, and I believe that type of men will be attracted if on this Commission, as on many other commissions, they are on an unpaid basis. That suggestion seems to surprise the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I agree that if you cannot get the type of man that we want on an unpaid basis, then we must pay a price which will secure the best brains, in competition with industrial undertakings. I could not understand what the President of the Board of Trade meant when he said that he proposed to pay the commissioners, but that he did not propose to pay them much. Perhaps he will enlighten us a little further on that point. Either a man is paid what he is worth or he is not paid at all. If it should be decided that the commissioners must be full-time men and must be paid, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that he offers such a salary as will attract men who are capable of taking a most important part in the industries of this country. We must get the very best people either by paying them nothing at all or by paying an adequate salary to attract them.
§ Mr. REID
I feel myself in somewhat the same position as the right hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox), although my sympathies are with the President of the Board of Trade. I should like to hear what class of men he proposes to get. I am afraid that he will be in a difficulty. Take the position of an accountant. It is a gross breach of professional honour 2137 for an accountant who is engaged in dealing, for instance, with the affairs of colliery companies or other companies that might come under the control of the commissioners, to make any use of information that he has acquired in that capacity, for the purpose of these amalgamations. That means that if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to appoint men who have been professionally dealing with the trade, he may find himself in a difficulty. For example, if one were a solicitor and had been conversant with the affairs of companies that may come under the purview of the Commission, one could not make use of any of that information for the purpose of this Bill. In these circumstances it seems to me that the men appointed must be men who are not intimately acquainted with and have not had experience of this particular trade. In that case, they will have to learn their job and they will have to be full-time men, and, if they are to be men of sufficient capacity to do their job properly, they will have to be highly paid.
§ Captain PEAKE
The question is, are the commissioners to be paid or are they not to be paid? That raises one very important matter in regard to the appointment of the commissioners. Whereas the Bill provides for the appointment of the commissioners, there is no machinery to provide for getting rid of the commissioners. Therefore, these jobs are going to be jobs for life. As I understand it,
§ at the rate Commissions proceed, on the best estimate that I can make it will take about 140 years for the ambition of the right hon. Gentleman for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) to be achieved. Therefore, it is very important, if we are going to give a salary to the commissioners, that there should be provision either for getting rid of the commissioners when they are past their work or else they should be unpaid commissioners, in which case they will be perfectly willing to resign when they feel that they can no longer carry out their duties.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I can clear up the points raised in a few words. First of all, the commissioners are to be appointed by the Board of Trade, subject to the conditions imposed at the time of the appointment by the Board. Those conditions may very well, and probably will, provide that in the case of a commissioner becoming, through any reason, disqualified or incapable of discharging his duties, he may be removed from office. There is no difficulty on the other points that have been raised. May I suggest to the Committee that as we have had a very full discussion, we might now come to a decision?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 160.2141
|Division No. 178.]||AYES.||[7.1 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Brockway, A. Fenner||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Bromfield, William||Day, Harry|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Bromley, J.||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Brooke, W.||Dudgeon, Major C. R.|
|Alpase, J. H.||Brothers, M.||Dukes, C.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Duncan, Charles|
|Angell, Norman||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Ede, James Chuter|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Edmunds, J. E.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Buchanan, G.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)|
|Ayles, Walter||Burgess, F. G.||Egan, W. H.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Butler, R. A.||Elmley, Viscount|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Evans, Capt, Ernest (Walsh Univer.)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Foot, Isaac|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Calne, Derwent Hall-||Freeman, Peter|
|Batey, Joseph||Cameron, A. G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Cape, Thomas||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Charleton, H. C.||Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Chater, Daniel||Gill, T. H.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Church, Major A. G.||Gillett, George M.|
|Benson, G.||Clarke, J. S.||Glassey, A. E.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Cluse, W. S.||Gossling, A. G.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Gould, F.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Compton, Joseph||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Bilndeif, James||Cove, William G.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Daggar, George||Granville, E.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Dallas, George||Gray, Milner|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dalton, Hugh||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||McShane, John James||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Mansfield, W.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||March, S.||Shield, George William|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Marcus, M.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Markham, S. F.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Marley, J.||Shinwell, E.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Marshall, Fred||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Hardie, George D.||Mathers, George||Simmons, C. J.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Matters, L. W.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Maxton, James||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Melville, Sir James||Sinkinson, George|
|Haycock, A. W.||Messer, Fred||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Millar, J. D.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Hayes, John Henry||Milner, J.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Montague, Frederick||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Smith, Rennle (Penistone)|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Morley, Ralph||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Herriotts, J.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Snell, Harry|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Snowden, Rt. Hon Philip|
|Hollins, A.||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Mort, D. L.||Sorensen, R.|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Moses, J. J. H.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Isaacs, George||Nathan, Major H. L.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sullivan, J.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Johnston, Thomas||Oldfield, J. R.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Palin, John Henry||Tout, W. J.|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Paling, Wilfrid||Townend, A. E.|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Palmer, E. T.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Kelly, W. T.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Turner, B.|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Perry, S. F.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Kinley, J.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Kirkwood, D.||Phillips, Dr. Marlon||Walker, J.|
|Knight, Holford||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Wallace, H. W.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Potts, John S.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Lang, Gordon||Price, M. P.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Quibell, D. J. K.||Watson, W. H. (Dunfermline)|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Raynes, W. R.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Richards, R.||West, F. R.|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Leach, W.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Ritson, J.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lees, J.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Romeril, H. G.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Rothschild, J. de||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Longden, F.||Rowson, Guy||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lowth, Thomas||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Lunn, William||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Wise, E. F.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|McElwee, A.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Sanders, W. S.|
|McKinlay, A.||Sawyer, G. F||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Scott, James||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Scurr, John||Whiteley.|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Sextan, James|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward|
|Albery, Irving James||Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Castle Stewart, Earl of|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bird, Ernest Roy||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Boyce, H. L.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Bracken, B.||Christie, J. A.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Buckingham, Sir H.||Colville, Major D. J.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Crichton-stuart, Lord C.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hurd, Percy A.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col, Sir Godfrey||Iveagh, Countess of||Savery, S. S.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Knox, Sir Alfred||Skelton, A. N.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Lane Fox, Col. Ht. Hon. George R.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Smithers, Waldron|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)||Long, Major Eric||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Fielden, E. B.||Meller, R. J.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Train, J.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Muirhead, A. J.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Grace, John||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||O'Neill, Sir H.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Purbrick, R.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hanbury, C.||Ramsbotham, H.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Remer, John R.|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Captain Margesson and Sir George|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Penny.|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must rule out of order the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin)—in line 32, at the end, to insert the word:(7) Any costs ordered by the Railway and Canal Commission to be paid by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys proved by Parliament.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
On that point of Order. May I submit that the Financial Resolution is wide enough to cover this Amendment. The Financial Resolution, as originally introduced, was rather narrow in form. It was then withdrawn in order to make it the widest Financial Resolution which has ever been introduced into this House, and the Financial Resolution in terms covered any provision which may be introduced into the Bill. The actual words of the Financial Resolution were:and such other expenses as may be required to be defrayed for the purposes of the said Act.I submit that the provision that the Railway and Canal Commission shall 2142 have jurisdiction over costs must be within the scope of this Bill, because, in the Clause that stands in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, express directions are given as to how the Railway and Canal Commission are to apportion coats. When a case is presented to the Railway and Canal Commission by the Board of Trade, there is a direction in the later Clause to say that the Railway and Canal Commission must direct the parties to the action to pay all costs which have been incurred by the Board of Trade in preparing the case and so on. I submit that plainly, with that Amendment standing on the Order Paper directing the Railway and Canal Commission to order that all costs including everything done by the Board or Trade shall be paid by the party, it must be in order to move an Amendment to say that the Railway and Canal Commission shall have a discretion as to ordering the payment of costs. That plainly must be in Order. If the Railway and Canal Commission are to have that discretion, then they must be able to order the Board of Trade to pay part 2143 of the costs in an action instituted by them. I submit that, if that power is to exist, we ought to take power under this Clause for the payment by the Board of Trade of such costs as the Railway and Canal Commission direct shall be paid by them. It is an Amendment plainly within the scope of the Bill, and, indeed, within the specific words of the Clauses which the right hon. Gentleman is going to move. I submit that it is clearly within the Financial Resolution, which was intended to be drawn so as to cover any Amendment of this kind, and in fact provides:Of such other expenses as may be required to be defrayed for the purposes of the said Act.It is an expense for the purposes of this Bill that the Board of Trade go to the Railway and Canal Commission and prepare their case. It must equally be an expense for the purpose of this Bill if the Railway and Canal Commission direct that the Board of Trade shall pay part of the costs and not that they shall recover the whole of the cost from the other party.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is a very long point of Order. I must still adhere to my Ruling, and I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph (i, d) of the Money Resolution, which lays it down quite clearly—that a sum equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the employment of such agents as aforesaid"—that is, technical and professional agents—for the purpose of promoting or assisting the amalgamation of any undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines shall, in the event of the undertakings being amalgamated, be repaid to the Board of Trade by the owners of the amalgamated undertaking.I submit that that paragraph lays down definitely the source from which the expenses must come for that particular provision. The provision made in paragraph (ii) is for a different purpose entirely, and not for this particular purpose. Therefore, I must rule that I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
This obviously raises a tremendously important point. Do I understand your Ruling to be that the Financial Resolution, by authorising, in the words which you have 2144 read, that the cost of all these inquiries shall be repaid by the parties to the action, binds the House of Commons, so that no Amendment can be moved to the provisions of the Bill?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
As I understand it, the Financial Resolution authorises the President of the Board of Trade to present certain Clauses, and authorises the House of Commons to amend those Clauses in any way, provided the Financial Resolution be not exceeded. The words of the Financial Resolution have to be wide enough to cover whatever proposals the Government put forward, but I submit, with great respect, that, provided we do not exceed the financial provisions which are laid down in the Resolution, it: is the inalienable right of the House of Commons to amend the Bill in any way it pleases. With great respect, if your Ruling were to extend to say that, because provision is made in the Financial Resolution, the costs may be paid in a particular way, and that the House of Commons cannot vary that, it would make it absolutely impossible to amend any of these Clauses. The Financial Resolution has, I submit, always been held to be an enabling power setting out the limits within which money may be spent, but in no case has a Financial Resolution ever been held to be a compelling power telling the House that they must spend the money in that way and in no other way.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
In this particular Financial Resolution, the precise source is laid down definitely and clearly. The House of Commons has tied my hands; I am not tying the hands of the Committee. The House has definitely decided that such expenses shall come from a particular source and, if that is altered and made a charge, it will be a new charge entirely, and a charge which Parliament has decided shall be met from a particular source. I must, therefore, adhere to my decision, and rule the Amendment out of order.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
The right hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that the clarifying of a Ruling of the Chair is not only the privilege, but the duty of those who take part in the Debates.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I submit that the words of this Resolution are an enabling power which say that certain moneys may be spent in a certain way. What I am proposing is no increase at all in the charging power. All I am proposing is that within the limits of that power there shall be discretion.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must rule against the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment would make a new charge entirely upon the State, and the House has decided by the Money Resolution that this charge shall not be a charge upon the State, but shall be a charge upon the amalgamations which are successful in completing their amalgamations. I therefore rule that this would be a new charge on the State.
§ Commodore KING
The words in paragraph (i, d) which you quoted, Mr. Dunnico, refer to costs in preparation of a scheme before the Commission, whereas our Amendment refers to costs in the action before the Railway and Canal Commission.
§ Mr. KNIGHT
Is it in order, when you have given your Ruling, for right hon. Gentlemen to discuss that Ruling?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I give my Ruling, and, if any further information is given, it is always open to the Chair to alter that Ruling. Therefore, I am always quite willing to listen to hon. Gentlemen. In this case, however, the points raised confirm me in declining to alter it. With regard to the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers)—at the end of the Clause to add the words:( ) It shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, if he thinks fit, to remove for inability or misbehaviour any appointed commissioner.2146 I am doubtful whether it is in order, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to explain it.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
When the commissioners are appointed, any one of them who misbehaves himself or does anything wrong can be dismissed by the President of the Board of Trade. Sub-section (4) of this Clause which is very important, reads:If a commissioner becomes disqualified for holding office, or fails to comply with the provisions of the last foregoing Sub-section, or becomes in the opinion of the Board of Trade unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under his Act, the Board shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as they think fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant.I ask the Committee whether it is fair on the President of the Board of Trade to be given these extremely dictatorial powers? After all, the President has appointed the commissioners, and, supposing one of them in the execution of his duty finds that in these amalgamations—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member propose in this Amendment to transfer the power from the President of the Board of Trade to the Lord Chancellor?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If the intention of this Amendment is to transfer the power from the President of the Board of Trade to the Lord Chancellor it is out of order, because that has already been passed in an earlier part of the Clause.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
With great respect, is there any reason why both the President of the Board of Trade and the Lord Chancellor should not have concurrent powers?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is obviously not the intention of the Amend- 2147 ment. My first intention was to rule the Amendment out of order, but I gave the opportunity to the hon. Gentleman to state his intention. He has stated his intention; I accept that intention, and I rule the Amendment out of order, and I cannot now allow him to alter his intention having expressed it.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, at the end, to add the words:( ) The central office of the Commission shall be in London.It has been represented to me that there is a section of opinion which would like to have the headquarters of the Commission out of London. When we think of the work which the commissioners have to do, extending from Durham and Northumberland to Yorkshire, from Warwickshire down to Kent and Wales, we would agree that there is only one place for the headquarters. The Commission is appointed by the Board of Trade, and it should be in constant touch with the Board. That is essential. I have an Amendment further on as to continual touch being kept between the commissioners and the Board of Trade, and I hope that the President will see his way to accept this Amendment. If it is not accepted, we shall find, after all this has quietened down and the Bill becomes
§ law, that there will be a movement to get the central office elsewhere.
§ Mr. TURNER
I am quite certain that this Amendment is not necessary. Subsection (5) gives the commissioners power to regulate their own procedure, and it is not wise to tie them down in this particular fashion. They will know their business best as to where the headquarters should be, and I do not think the proposal is necessary or that it can be accepted.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I have made this contribution with a real desire to help, and I am disappointed at the way in which it has been received and dismissed in a few words without a fuller reason being given. In every Amendment I have moved, I have tried to contribute to the Bill. Here is a simple Amendment which I have reason for moving, and I do not feel that sufficient consideration has been given to it. For the better working of the Commission, it should be near the Board of Trade; it is essential, therefore, that the headquarters should be in London. I am very disappointed that the Secretary for Mines has not accepted the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 284.2151
|Division No. 179.]||AYES.||[7.31 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Albery, Irving James||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Elliot, Major Walter E.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.|
|Boyce, H. L.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Bracken, B.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Fielden, E. B.||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||McConnell, Sir Joseph|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Ford, Sir P. J.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.|
|Butler, R. A.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Meller, R. J.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Gower, Sir Robert||Mond, Hon. Henry|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Grace, John||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Christle, J. A.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Hanbury, C.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hartington, Marquess of||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Penny, Sir George||Simms, Major-General J.||Train, J.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Skelton, A. N.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Remer, John R.||Smithers, Waldron||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Somerset, Thomas||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Captain Wallace and Sir Victor|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Thomson, Sir F.||Warrender.|
|Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Leach, W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gibbins, Joseph||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Lees, J.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gill, T. H.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Gillett, George M.||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Angell, Norman||Glassey, A. E.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Gossling, A. G.||Longden, F.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Gould, F.||Lowth, Thomas|
|Ayles, Walter||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lunn, William|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Granville, E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Gray, Milner||McElwee, A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||McEntee, V. L.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)||McKinlay, A.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Groves, Thomas E.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Grundy, Thomas W.||McShane, John James|
|Benson, G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hail, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mansfield, W.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||March, S.|
|Blindell, James||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Marcus, M.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Hardie, George D.||Markham, S. F.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Harris, Percy A.||Marley, J.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Marshall, F.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mathers, George|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Haycock, A. W.||Matters, L. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Heyday, Arthur||Maxton, James|
|Bromley, J.||Hayes, John Henry||Melville, Sir James|
|Brooke, W.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Messer, Fred|
|Brothers, M.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Millar, J. D.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Milner, J.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Herriotts, J.||Montague, Frederick|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hoffman, P. C.||Morley, Ralph|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hollins, A.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Horrabin, J. F.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Hudson, James K. (Huddersfield)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Calne, Derwent Hall-||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Mart, D. L.|
|Cape, Thomas||Isaacs, George||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Carter, W (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Charleton, H. C.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)|
|Chater, Daniel||Johnston, Thomas||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Cove, William G.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Daggar, George||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Dalias, George||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Kelly, W. T.||Palin, John Henry|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Kennedy, Thomas||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Day, Harry||Kinley, J.||Palmer, E. T.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Kirkwood, D.||Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Knight, Holford||Perry, S. F.|
|Dukes, C.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Duncan, Charles||Lang, Gordon||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Potts, John S.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Price, M. P.|
|Egan, W. H.||Lawrence, Susan||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Freeman, Peter||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Raynes, W. R.||Simmons, C. J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Richards, R.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Walker, J.|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sinkinson, George||Wallace, H. W.|
|Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Ritson, J.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).|
|Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Romeril, H. G.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Rowson, Guy||Snell, Harry||West, F. R.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Westwood, Joseph|
|Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Sorensen, R.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Stamford, Thomas W.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Stephen, Campbell||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Sanders, W. S.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Sandham, E.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Sawyer, G. F.||Strauss, G. R.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Scott, James||Sullivan, J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)|
|Scurr, John||Sutton, J. E.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Sexton, James||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Wise, E. F.|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Thurtle, Ernest||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Sherwood, G. H.||Tinker, John Joseph||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Shield, George William||Tout, W. J.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Townend, A. E.|
|Shillaker, J. F.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Shinwell, E.||Turner, B.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Vaughan, D. J.||Smith.|
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
Before the Committee part with this Clause I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give us some clearer information as to who these commissioners are to be and how they are to work. I regret that he was unwilling to accept the Amendment which would have named these commissioners to the House. I think it would have facilitated the passage of the Bill if he had given way, though I really do not think it was a question of giving way, because he showed himself willing to meet the Committee; and I still venture to hope that when he reconsiders the position, which involves no question of amour propre, he will realise that the reason why the House desires to have the names is that we may be satisfied that the men who are appointed are men of real standing, who will inspire confidence. After all, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is always going to be President of the Board of Trade.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
We have got to legislate for all time, or at any rate for the duration of this Measure. I say quite frankly that if the right hon. Gentleman said to me, "I am going to appoint some very good men, and I am going to have the appointment of them entirely in my hands," I should probably be fairly satisfied with the appointments he would be likely to make; but I would not say that of everybody who might hold his office, and after all, he has to legislate for his successors as well as for himself. I ask him whether he cannot give us some hope that when we come to the Report stage he will either be able to tell us who the commissioners are to be, or that he will reconsider the position and say that before these commissioners are appointed the House shall have an opportunity of knowing who they are in a form which, if necessary, can be debated. Indeed, this would be the more reasonable course, because if the right hon. Gentleman is so sure of being able to get the best men he is really giving away nothing by offering us the chance of debating the appointments. If they are the kind of people I should expect he would appoint I certainly should not wish to debate them myself. Failing that will he tell us what he is going to look for in these people?
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
They will be neither engineers nor miners. You can take that from me. They will be from your class.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to-day that people of intelligence would be selected.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I have always been able to keep myself without seeking for a Government appointment. [Interruption.] Let the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirk-wood) talk as much as he likes. I shall get on rather quicker if he interjects less. What are the qualifications which will be required of these commissioners? Are we to have a barrister among them? Obviously there will be important legal questions to be considered, and I imagine it will be necessary to have a man who is either a barrister or a solicitor of very considerable standing. It may be that a mining engineer will be required. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has in mind that he wishes to go outside those professions and find someone else. If so I think he ought to make it plain what are the qualifications that he is looking for. The commissioners will have a task of very great responsibility. If this new Clause is not to be suspect amongst the people whose activities will be covered by the working of this Commission, I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to make it plain what qualifications the commissioners are to have. If the right hon. Gentleman has in mind what those qualifications are to be, then I think he would be well advised to nominate his commissioners and put into the Bill the qualifications which will be required.
I hope the President will be able to say more as to how these commissioners are to be paid. After all the House of Commons is primarily responsible to look after the finances of the nation, and although the financial resolution is pretty generous in its terms—I know that it is not generous enough for some hon. Members opposite—it is almost lavish in the power it gives to the President of the Board of Trade to spend money. I think we ought to have some idea of the sort of salary that is to be paid, and the sort of people that are contemplated for these appointments. That is not an unreason- 2154 able request. I have often piloted money Bills through the House of Commons, and I have always been expected to give a very full and precise estimate of the expenditure. For these reasons I think we should hear a little more on that subject before we part with this new Clause.
I am still in the dark as to how the commissioners are going to work. I understand that the only provision in the Bill is that they shall sit together when they propose a scheme. I want to know before they set to work on any proposition whether the Commission will act as a composite body, or will these five gentlemen set out all over the country, bring in returns from different parts, and suggest any proposals that they like? That is a very relevant question, and I think the original proposal by the right hon. Gentleman was reasonably fair. It is true that this Commission was really an inquisitorial body; but they were to report, and their action was to be the corporate action of the Commission. I am not sure that under pressure of Members below the Gangway the Government have not departed from that, and I want to know how far they have departed from their original idea. Is this going to be a Commission of responsible men whose acts are to be regarded as corporate acts? They cannot set out on independent inquiries all over the country if their plan is to be the considered plan of a corporate body. If, on the other hand, these five gentlemen are to be sent out like scouts by the President of the Board of Trade scouting in each area—[Interruption]—well that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)—each of them bringing up some scheme or some recommendation which he thinks is advisable, and we only get corporate action when they reach the last stage, if that is the procedure then I feel sure that the mining industry will be a good deal more anxious than if the Commission had to act as a corporate body.
I ask the President to state plainly whether the action which the Commission takes, and any decision upon which action is taken, will be the corporate decision of the Commission as a whole, and not the individual action of any one commissioner. I am sure that that was the original intention, because the commissioners were first introduced as a cor- 2155 porate body. I am very sceptical as to the action the commissioners are likely to take as a corporate body, because they will have to do a great deal of investigation, and I do not think they will produce a very large number of schemes. I think we shall waste much time and money if every member of the Commission is sent out on a different hunt of his own, and in that way we shall waste a good deal more money than if the action of the commissioners is confined to the considered action of the whole corporate body. I should like the President to give the Committee further enlightenment on those points.
Sir GEORGE HAMILTON
It is laid down in this Clause that a commissioner shall not be concernedin any company carrying on the business of coal mining or supplying or selling coal or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal mining.When the successor of the President of the Board of Trade is looking for a commissioner, I should think one of the most suitable people to appoint would be a mining engineer who has had experience out in Canada who has made his little bit out there, and has a considerable number of shares in a Canadian mine. If that man came over to this country and the President invited him to become a commissioner, he would have to sell all the shares he held in that coal mine, although it was in Canada. The hon. Member for Middleton (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) raised this question, but the President of the Board of Trade brushed it aside, and said that his proposal did not apply to anyone outside the United Kingdom, and that this was what was known in international circumstances as a global figure.
A large number of people who are engineers in this country have shares in large manufacturing concerns such as the General Electric Company of New York. That company is concerned with the supply of machinery for coal mining in this country, and I suppose that those holding securities in that company would be ruled out. Of course, I do not consider that this is a point of substance, and I shall be satisfied if the President will give me an assurance that he will consider this point and make the Bill apply to shareholders holding an interest in the United King- 2156 dom, so as not to rule out people who might be most useful in running coal mines successfully. Perhaps the President will let me have some assurance on that point.
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
It would be unfortunate if the impression got abroad in the country that under this new Clause the Commission is to be the creature of the Board of Trade. As the new Clause stands, the President will have a blank cheque in regard to the constitution of the Commission. There is no restriction put upon the right hon. Gentleman by the House, and the House has no control over the salaries to be paid, the class of men to be appointed, or the tenure of their office. This legislation is the responsibility of the House and not the responsibility of the commissioners. After all, the House in the last resort is responsible for the amalgamation Clauses. I suggest to the President that it will be a very slight concession to accept the principle that this House should have power to control the constitution of this Commission.
Possibly the right hon. Gentleman may relent at a later stage; I believe his present attitude is due to the vagueness which he himself feels about this Commission. I do not believe that the Board of Trade have any idea as to whom they are going to appoint, what class of people they want, what they will pay them, or how long they will keep them. I believe the reason is that these Clauses, as far as the President of the Board of Trade is concerned, are an unwanted child, and the right hon. Gentleman is in doubt as to what class of nurse he wants for his unwanted child. I should have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would have welcomed the possibility of putting the responsibility on the House for the appointment of these most important people for the working of what is now acknowledged to be a most important Clause. I suppose it is too late for the President to change his mind, but I feel most strongly that both sides of the House would have cooperated in insisting that this House should have an opportunity of saying something as regards the appointment of these commissioners. They are very important, and may become more important; if they fail in their duty, the result will be disastrous, and that is 2157 why I think this House should have an opportunity of saying something about the terms of their appointment.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
Perhaps the Committee will permit a brief reply at this stage. I can summarise the Government attitude regarding the points which have been raised. I take first the appointment of the commissioners and the question of a possible commissioner having a holding in some mine, colonial or Dominion or foreign. As I read this Clause, anyone who has an investment of that kind would not be barred from acting as a commissioner. It is quite true that on looking at the words of the Clause they appear to be capable of very wide interpretation. I imagine, for example, that as regards the importation of coal no question would arise, because little or no coal is imported into this country. Probably there is no great problem as regards colliery undertakings, but there might be a problem in the case of the manufacture of plant abroad for the use of collieries in this country, if a commissioner had an interest in such an undertaking. After all, we want the widest possible field and the greatest ability made available for this task. I have no hesitation in giving an assurance that if there is any doubt or difficulty, because the words are capable of very wide interpretation, we shall see that proper Amendments are made on report.
The request has been made that the commissioners should be appointed only after an order has been made by the Board of Trade and submitted to this House. On further consideration I feel sure that hon. Members could hardly press that view, because there is no valid precedent for an arrangement of the kind. It is quite unnecessary and very undesirable to clog the machinery of this House with orders and to deprive the Board of Trade and the Minister of Mines of responsibility by further restriction of his departmental authority. There are many safeguards in the Bill, and these were outlined in reply to the speeches on the Amendment—the fact that an early announcement will be made to the House as soon as possible, that questions can be addressed to the Government any day, that it is possible to review the Vote of the Department, and that there are the ordinary processes 2158 of raising the question on the rising of the House. Therefore, I am afraid that with a very real desire to meet the Committee on all these points, I should be wrong in holding out hope that on Report this matter will be reconsidered. If it stood alone it might not be a very great matter, but these things do lead to innumerable difficulties in other directions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) put three questions to me. He asked, Whom do you intend to appoint? What kind of people will you appoint? What class of experience will they have? Plainly, I could not indicate even the probable names of the commissioners. That would be altogether unjust, even if I knew them, or all of them, because this Bill has still to go through the remainder of the Committee stage and Report and Third Reading, and has then to proceed to another place. I cannot go to eminent business men, some of whom may be in mind at the moment, and suggest anything to them until I know the final form that the Bill will take. I am sure, therefore, that the Committee would not expect names from me. But as to probable experience, I have in mind a very eminent accountant, an eminent lawyer, two people who know the coal industry, and someone who is familiar with public administration in a mining area,
I would assure my hon. Friends on this side who are interested more especially in the miners that, in my judgment, the names will be acceptable to them as to other interests, and will command a general confidence. A million men and their dependants and the whole of their interests are vitally affected by these amalgamation schemes. I want to be sure that the social problem presented by the amalgamation processes is adequately kept in mind by a Commission of this kind, not only in the interests of the miners, but of the nation as a whole. I ought to explain here that, although I thought a mining engineer might be one of the commissioners, I am now satisfied that he had much better be one of the advisers of the Commission, because he will render far more conspicuous service in that capacity and will be in a position to make a much more effective contribution. So I tell the Committee frankly in a preliminary way that I have changed my mind to some extent on that point.
2159 In the next place, the right hon. Gentleman asked me what would be the expenditure of the Commission. I wish I could give the exact sum, down to the coppers, that will be expended on these five eminent men, but it is quite impossible to give any estimate of the kind. They are not to be full-time people, to begin with. In the next place, I do not know, and no one knows, how much voluntary amalgamation will be stimulated by the passage of this Bill and by the appearance of these commissioners, or what will be the extent to which, because of voluntary amalgamation, the task of these gentlemen will be simplified, if not very largely removed, in some parts of the country. They must be remunerated to some extent in terms of honorarium or allowance hot disproportionate to what would be some moderate recognition of the work that they perform. I have explained that to get men on full time to give up all their other interests, which would be very large interests in this case, would involve a very large payment. Neither the Board of Trade nor this House nor the men themselves would want that.
But I can say with perfect confidence that only a very small part—it may be so many thousands of pounds—out of the £250,000, will be attributable to this expenditure. The great bulk of the money will be expended on the technical and other assistance essential to the efficient promotion of these schemes. As the Committee has already decided, part of the expenditure will be recoverable from the undertakings which are amalgamated. The expenditure not recoverable will be that incurred in cases in which amalgamation does not proceed, where preliminary expenses have been incurred, but the statutory commissioners, as a result of further investigation, do not proceed before the Railway and Canal Commission. But as regards completed amalgamation the technical expenses will be recoverable. That does not mean that the expenditure need be extravagant. I have no doubt that the commissioners and the industry will do everything possible to keep the expenditure within the lowest possible limits.
Then the right hon. Gentleman asked in what way the commissioners would set about their work. He drew a very 2160 attractive picture of the President of the Board of Trade or my melancholy successor sending out five men to roam the country, with a licence to do practically what they pleased. They were to be five scouts or pioneers in amalgamation. First of all, these five men will have at their disposal at preliminary meetings a survey of the position of the coal industry, more particularly as related to amalgamation. They will know what is done under the Act of 1926. They will have the Reports of the Mines Department. They will have a note of the schemes which are under consideration. They will say, "We had better separate one or two of our members to go to one district to make preliminary inquiries, and one or two to go to another. That would be a very valuable examination, but while, for the purpose of review and investigation, that sub-division will be made, I have already explained that for the larger purposes there must be a quorum of the commissioners, that is three of the commissioners. For the purpose of inquiries under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, for the purpose of submitting schemes to the Railway and Canal Commission, there must be a quorum; and also for the purpose of certifying the valuation on which these undertakings are to be amalgamated. These are things of substance, and when we come to these issues in these proposals, there must be a quorum of the commissioners. These three would be a majority of the Commission as a whole. I can only express the hope that whatever hon. Members may think, this procedure will provide an effective start, and that by this process of preliminary inquiry from the beginning it will be possible to bring schemes rapidly into efficient operation.
§ Mr. REID
Before we pass this Clause, I think we ought to realise that here the House is doing something that it has never done before. This Commission, of which the President of the Board of Trade speaks so lightly, is unique in our history. We have heard a great deal to-day about the commissioners being above suspicion. In the case of our Judges, we go so far as to put them in a position in which their salaries are not under the review of the House of Commons, and in which their tenure of office is secure; but here were are setting up a body of five people who are to be 2161 appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, and are to have powers which nobody else in this country has at the present time. They are to have power to go round the coal trade and investigate the affairs of everyone in the coal trade. They are to tell the people in the coal trade what they think about their affairs. They may tell them that they are not to carry on their business in their own way, but are to amalgamate their business with someone else's business. In fact, they are to be a sort of Paul Pry going round the country and spying out what is happening in other people's business.
We know that, when investigations are made by Income Tax officers, they sometimes give rise to a certain amount of feeling, and we know that Income Tax officers are very strictly pledged to regard all the information that comes into their hands as confidential, and not to be used for any purpose other than Income Tax purposes. Here, however, we find that these commissioners are to have the powers given by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, one of the first of which is the power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath, and to compel the production of documents; and, further, if any person summoned as a witness should refuse to produce a document or do anything of that kind, the commissioners will have power to bring him before the Courts. These are very extreme powers, and the coal trade is being put in a position in which no other trade or person in the country is put.
This Commission is to be a tribunal within the meaning of the Act to which I have referred, and that Act provides that such a tribunal shall not refuse to allow the public to be present at any proceedings of the tribunal unless it be, in the opinion of the tribunal, in the public interest expedient so to do. I should have liked to ask, if any Law Officer had been present, whether that is going to apply to this Commission, I think that before we pass this Clause we ought to consider very carefully what we are doing and what kind of example we are setting for the future. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed by the former President of the Board of Trade to give some information as to the class of persons from whom these commissioners will be appointed, but he has 2162 given us no further information, I submit that this Clause is quite incomplete, and that the Committee ought to reject it.
This body will be purely and simply the creature of the Board of Trade, the creature of the Minister of the day, to deal with as he chooses, and the result will be to put the whole of the coal trade absolutely in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade for the time being. Again, these powers may have quite unexpected repercussions. Suppose that the commissioners investigate the affairs of a particular company. The mere fact that they have investigated them and not carried through an amalgamation may in itself be very detrimental to the company. I am bound to say that I cannot understand why the Committee seems to take this matter so lightly. If we are going to revolutionise our whole conception of individual freedom and the freedom of people to carry on their business in their own way to the best of their ability, I think that the Committee ought to take the matter into very serious consideration, and I hope that the Clause will not be allowed to stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I should like to support what the last speaker has said, because I want to reinforce the point of view that this Commission is unique in the history of law-making in this country. I am convinced that compulsory amalgamation can do nothing but harm to the industry to which it is applied. Sub-section (4) of the proposed new Clause provides for the dismissal of one of the commissioners, a power which ought not to be given to the Board of Trade. The Sub-section states that:If a commissioner becomes disqualified for holding office, or fails to comply with the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection, or becomes in the opinion of the Board of Trade unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under this Act, the Board shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant, and shall notify the fact in such manner as they think fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant.No one has more respect than I have for the present President of the Board of Trade, but, while the Board of Trade, through its permanent officials, goes on continuously, the President of the Board of Trade has of necessity a political bias. 2163 After all, this Bill is a Socialist Bill, brought in by a Socialist President of the Board of Trade, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman himself has had great difficulties, not only with the mining Members of his own party, but with the party below the Gangway, of whom, although their own amalgamation Clause is being discussed, only one Member is here to represent them. [Interruption.] I was referring to the necessary political bias of the President of the Board of Trade, who is a Minister in the Government that happens to be in office, and I say that it is unfair to a Minister representing a political Government—
On a point of Order. Are we discussing the functions of the Minister or of the commissioners?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member was pointing out what the Sub-section provides so far as the President of the Board of Trade is concerned.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I have been here since a quarter to four, and have followed every word of the Debate, and I think I am in order in discussing Subsection (4) of the proposed new Clause which is now before us. Five commissioners are to be appointed and are to be given certain work to do. Suppose that one of them, desiring very much to do his duty, finds, when he inquires into amalgamation schemes that are put before him, that the obstacles in those schemes are greater than the benefits. Perhaps two commissioners may take such a view. Suppose that the President of the Board of Trade is continually having reported to him the fact that none of these amalgamations can go through because two or three of the commissioners keep on voting against them. It may be his desire, as a Socialist President of the Board of Trade, to get these amalgamations through. Will that be an occasion for the President of the Board of Trade to say that a particular commissioner is not doing his duty, that he is not bringing about amalgamations, and that, therefore, there is power to dismiss him? It does not say in the Clause what misdemeanour he shall commit before he can be dismissed. After all, a commissioner will be a responsible man. If in the execution of his duty he does something to annoy the President of 2164 the Board of Trade, and if he is dismissed, will he have power to appear before the President of the Board of Trade to state his case and to call witnesses with all the facilities of a court of law? For that reason, I am desirous that the power of dismissal shall be taken away from the President of the Board of Trade and given to the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
The hon. Member said I was trying it on again. I appeal to you, Sir. Why should I be talked to like that across the Floor?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member will learn by experience to keep to the question before the Committee.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
The only reason why my Clause is out of order is that, through an error, I put it in the wrong place. I shall consult some legal friends before the Report stage to see in what way I shall be in order in moving to omit Subsection (4) and to insert in its place some proposal which will transfer the power of dismissal from the President of the Board of Trade to some judicial tribunal. Subsection (3) refers to certain securities which the commissioners may or may not hold. The President of the Board of Trade saw the reason of cur arguments, and promised to inquire into it before Report. An hon. Member below the Gangway raised a further point. I want to ask the Minister of Mines if he will consult with the President to enable him to get the best men possible. I suggest that the whole of Sub-section (3) should be reconsidered and re-drafted before Report. The right hon. Gentleman remarked that there was little or no coal imported into this country. That is true, but I am informed by responsible people that even to-day, if they liked to do it for a narrow margin of profit, they could import foreign coal into the Thames cheaper than coal from Durham.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I would not do it, but there are thousands of people who would, and I am given to understand that big companies who are consumers of coal have asked for quotations—
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I am replying to a remark of the President of the Board of Trade himself. If I may finish the sentence, quotations are being obtained now, previous to the proposed passing of the Bill, for coal to be brought into the Thames for big consuming companies because they can get it cheaper. We are against this Clause as a whole because we believe compulsory organisation by the Government is bad for industry. If amalgamation cannot be come to voluntarily by those engaged in the industry, it had better be left alone altogether. In spite of interjections from people who come in for a few minutes and go out again, I have tried in my Amendments to do something to improve the Bill. I shall vote against the Clause because I am against the principle of compulsory amalgamation.
§ Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON
I should not have interposed had it not been for what I consider an extraordinary statement by the President of the Board of Trade when referring to the payment of the Commissioners. First of all we are given to understand that these five commissioners are to be very eminent gentlemen in their calling, and secondly that they are to have payment but that the payment will not be large. Either they ought to be paid properly for doing the job or not at all. You could quite easily obtain almost as many men as you wished who would be glad to give their services if they were considered by the Board of Trade fitted for the job. In every walk of life we see men ungrudgingly give the best that is in them for the public good, but if these commissioners are to be paid at all, they should be paid a salary commensurate with the work they are doing.
§ If the right hon. Gentleman's intention is carried out, and they are only paid a comparatively small amount, probably sufficient for their travelling expenses, it means that only wealthy men can take on these jobs. Therefore, the President should not carry out his intention but should decide that these commissioners are either to be paid a salary commensurate with the work they have undertaken, or that it should be perfectly voluntary service.
§ The right hon. Gentleman gave us a list of some of the duties that they will carry out. They will be eminent gentlemen acceptable to all sections of the House, including an auditor, two who are mining engineers, and one who is a well-known lawyer. But Sub-section (5) says they shall have power to regulate their own procedure, and they may not carry out the intentions of the President of the Board of Trade. They may not carry out the work along the lines which he has indicated to the Committee to-night, because under Clause 5 they have the power to carry through their own method of procedure in their own way without any instructions from the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that the Secretary for Mines, if he is unable to deal with these points, will pass on my suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade that these commissioners should either be paid a proper salary for the job or that they should not be paid at all. If you only pay them a small amount of remuneration for what undoubtedly will be a very onerous task, it will mean that only those men possessed of considerable means will be able to take on a task of this description. I hope that note will be taken of my suggestion.
§ Mr. TURNER 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, 279; Noes, 114.2169
|Division No. 180.]||AYES.||[8.39 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Attlee, Clement Richard||Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)||Ayles, Walter||Bennett, William (Battersea, South)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Benson, G.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Bentham, Dr. Ethel|
|Alpass, J. H.||Batey, Joseph||Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)|
|Amman, Charles George||Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Birkett, W. Norman|
|Angell, Norman||Bellamy, Albert||Blindell, James|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret|
|Bowen, J. W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Johnston, Thomas||Raynes, W. R.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Richards, R.|
|Bromfield, William||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Brooke, W.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Brothers, M.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Ritson, J.|
|Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kelly, W. T.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Buchanan, G.||Kennedy, Thomas||Rowson, Guy|
|Burgess, F. G.||Kinley, J.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Kirkwood, D.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Knight, Holford||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Calne, Derwent Hall-||Lang, Gordon||Sandham, E.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Cape, Thomas||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Scott, James|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Scurr, John|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lawrence, Susan||Sexton, James|
|Chater, Daniel||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Leach, W.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Shield, George William|
|Compton, Joseph||Lees, J.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Cove, William G.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Shillaker, J. F|
|Daggar, George||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shinwell, E.|
|Dallas, George||Longbottom, A. W.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Longden, F.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Lowth, Thomas||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sinkinson, George|
|Day, Harry||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||McElwee, A.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||McEntee, V. L.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Dukes, C.||McKinlay, A.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Duncan, Charles||MacLaren, Andrew||Smith, Rennle (Penistone)|
|Ede, James Chuter||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Snell, Harry|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||McShane, John James||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Egan, W. H.||Melone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Sorensen, R.|
|Foot, Isaac||Mansfield, W.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Freeman, Peter||March, S.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Marcus, M.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Markham, S. F.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Marley, J.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Marshall, Fred||Sullivan, J.|
|Gill, T. H.||Mathers, George||Sutton, J. E.|
|Gillett, George M.||Matters, L. W.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Maxton, James||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Melville, Sir James||Thomas, Rt. Hon J. H. (Derby)|
|Gould, F.||Messer, Fred||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Millar, J. D.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Mills, J. E.||Tout, W. J.|
|Granville, E.||Milner, J.||Townend, A. E.|
|Gray, Milner||Montague, Frederick||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Turner, B.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Morley, Ralph||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Viant, S. P.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Walker, J.|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mort, D. L.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Moses, J. J. H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Hardie, George D.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Nathan, Major H. L.||West, F. R.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Noel Baker, P. J.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Haycock, A. W.||Oldfield, J. R.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Hayes, John Henry||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Palin, John Henry||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Paling, Wilfrid||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Herriotts, J.||Palmer, E. T.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Perry, S. F.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Laughb'gh)|
|Hollins, A.||Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Phillips, Dr. Marlon||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Isaacs, George||Price, M. P.||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Grace, John||Penny, Sir George|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Berry, Sir George||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Remer, John R.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Hanbury, C.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneli|
|Bracken, B.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hurd, Percy A.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Iveagh, Countess of||Smithers, Waldron|
|Christle, J. A.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Somerset, Thomas|
|Colville, Major D. J.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Train, J.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Dixey, A. C.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Meller, R. J.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Muirhead, A. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||O'Neill, Sir H.||Captain Sir George Bowyer and|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."2170
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 121.2173
|Division No. 181.]||AYES.||[8.48 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Buchanan, G.||Freeman, Peter|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)||Burgess, F. G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Alpass, J. H.||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Calne, Derwent Hall-||Gill, T. H.|
|Angell, Norman||Cameron, A. G.||Gillett, George M.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Cape, Thomas||Glassey, A. E.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Gossling, A. G.|
|Ayles, Walter||Charleton, H. C.||Gould, F.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Chater, Daniel||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Church, Major A. G.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Batey, Joseph||Clarke, J. S.||Granville, E.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Cluse, W. S.||Gray, Milner|
|Bellamy, Albert||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Griffth, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Compton, Joseph||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Cove, William G.||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Benson, G.||Daggar, George||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Dallas, George||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Dalton, Hugh||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Blindell, James||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Day, Harry||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hardie, George D.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Dukes, C.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Duncan, Charles||Haycock, A. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Ede, James Chuter||Hayday, Arthur|
|Bromley, J.||Edmunds, J. E.||Hayes, John Henry|
|Brooke, W.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Brothers, M.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Egan, W. H.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Herriotts, J.|
|Brawn, James (Ayr and Bute)||Foot, Isaac||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Messer, Fred||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Hollins, A.||Millar, J. D.||Shinwell, E.|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Mills, J. E.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Milner, J.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Montague, Frederick||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Sinkinson, George|
|Isaacs, George||Morley, Ralph||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Johnston, Thomas||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Smith, Rennle (Penistone)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Mort, D. L.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Moses, J. J. H.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Snell, Harry|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Sorensen, R.|
|Kelly, W. T.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Noel Baker, P. J.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Kinley, J.||Oldfield, J. R.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Kirkwood, D.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Knight, Holford||Oliver, P. M. (Man, Blackley)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Sullivan, J.|
|Lang, Gordon||Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Palin, John Henry||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Paling, Wilfrid||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Palmer, E. T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Perry, S. F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Tout, W. J.|
|Leach, W.||Phillips, Dr. Marlon||Townend, A. E.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Potts, John S.||Turner, B.|
|Lees, J.||Price, M. P.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Quibell, D. J. K.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Walker, J.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Raynes, W. R.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Longden, F.||Richards, R.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Lowth, Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|McElwee, A.||Ritson, J.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|McKinlay, A.||Romeril, H. G.||West, F. R.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Rowson, Guy||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|McShane, John James||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sanders, W. S.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Sandham, E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Mansfield, W.||Sawyer, G. F.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|March, S.||Scott, James||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Marcus, M.||Scurr, John||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Markham, S. F.||Sexton, James||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Marley, J.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Marshall, F.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Mathers, George||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Matters, L. W.||Sherwood, G. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Maxton, James||Shield, George William||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Melville, Sir James||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Colville, Major D. J.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Alien, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Gibson, C. G, (Pudsey & Otley)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Grace, John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Berry, Sir George||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Dixey, A. C.||Hanbury, C.|
|Boyce, H. L.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Bracken, B.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Ferguson, Sir John||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Fielden, E. B.||Hudson, Capt. A U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Ford, Sir P. J.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Christle, J. A.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Penny, Sir George||Stanley, Maj, Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Ramsbotham, H.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Llewellin, Major J. J.||Remer, John R.||Train, J.|
|McConnell, Sir Joseph||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Margesson, Captain H. D.||Salmon, Major I.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Meller, R. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Savery, S. S.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Simms, Major-General J.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Mond, Hon. Henry||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Skelton, A. N.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Muirhead, A. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Smithers, Waldron||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Somerset, Thomas||Captain Sir George Bowyer and|
|O'Neill, Sir H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Peake, Captain Osbert||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
Question put, and agreed to.