Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 15, after the word "developed," insert
or is being developed for economic working.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The words that have been added in another place are supplementary to an Amendment that was introduced, either during the Committee or the Report stage in this House, from the Liberal benches. I think the position is covered without these words, but I do not object to them.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely what is the reason for putting in these words? I cannot imagine that any coal mine could be developed except for economic purposes, and it would seem that these words are superfluous, unless the right hon. Gentleman can discover some form of mine which is not developed for economic purposes. If these words are 2210 to be inserted now, why were they omitted from the original Bill? I do not think that their insertion will have any effect upon the development of the coal industry one way or the other, but we ought to know the meaning of the Amendment and to be clear that it does not extend something to one part of the coal industry and not to another.
§ Mr. GRAHAM
There is no mystery about this small Amendment. In the discussion on the fixing of standard tonnage in another place, I understand that a Noble Lord suggested the insertion of the words:or should be developed for economic working.It was plain that that was very largely a matter of opinion, and, after further debate, the words:or is being developed for economic workingwere suggested. Since that must inevitably be taken into account in fixing the standard tonnage, there is no objection to inserting these words in the Clause. I see no danger from their insertion but I do not depart from the view that I think it is inherent in the Clause without this condition.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 44, at the end, insert:Provided that in determining the quota with respect to a coal mine which is owned or controlled by a manufacturing or industrial company or undertaking the coal which is supplied, whether as coal or coke by that coal mine to that company or undertaking for consumption in the works of that company or undertaking shall not be included in either the standard tonnage or quota of that mine.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment raises a rather larger proposition, and I will give the Government view as briefly and clearly as possible. This deals with the case of the mixed undertakings, which was debated at length during the Committee stage and also to some extent on the Report stage of the Bill. The proposal is that there should be taken outside of the quota regulations any mine which is owned by, say, an iron and steel undertaking, or which is ancillary to any other 2211 form of business. That raises the whole question of the vertical trust in the sense of iron and steel coming down through coal, or any other raw material on which it depends, and, on the other side, the horizontal trust, or organisation in the coal industry itself. There can be no doubt that from some points of view, taking the case of the vertical trust and assuming that it is in the industrial interests of this country that that form of organisation should be encouraged, there is something that might be said for this Amendment, but the moment we pause to consider what it would involve for the coal industry, I think we must agree that the difficulties are practically insoluble. Observe what would happen. There are certain collieries which are linked up with iron and steel or with other forms of business. If this Amendment were adopted all those collieries, whatever the number, whatever the aggregate output, would be taken, at a stroke, outside the regulations of the marketing scheme under Part I of the Bill. That would be the first effect.
That raises a very great difficulty as between colliery and colliery, because those collieries which were not linked up to iron and steel businesses or which were what I might call pure mines, would be subject to the regulations regarding output whereas those collieries which were supplying iron and steel or any other undertaking would not be subject to any regulations about output. When we pass to the iron and steel industry itself, and consider the position as between iron and steel undertakings we observe that the iron and steel undertaking which had attached to it an unregulated colliery as regards output would be in a much better position than other iron and steel undertakings which were not linked up to collieries, and which had to purchase their supplies of coal in the regulated market under the terms of Part I of the Bill. This matter was discussed at great length in Committee and on Report, and hon. Members opposite impressed upon me the view that there was some kind of hardship in this particular legislation. To this day I have been unable to see it.
The only possible basis for dealing with collieries under this Bill is to deal with them on uniform lines as collieries, and not to look to the destination of the 2212 coal, at all events, in this part of the problem of regulation of output, always remembering that we have other ways of dealing with the regulation of that output as applied to the particular class of demand, whether it is for iron or steel or whatever it may be. If there is a case for special consideration of any class such as iron and steel, they may have under district schemes an allocation of 100 per cent. to the collieries affected.
That is the way to deal with a problem of that kind. The way in which we must not deal with it, unless we want to lead to absolute confusion, is to deal with it on the lines of the Lords' Amendment. Since the Committee stage I have made further inquiries into this matter and there is not the least doubt and this is borne out by the iron and steel industry on the one hand and by the colliery industry on the other, that if this Amendment was accepted it would be comparatively easy to get a considerable number of collieries to link up not under the terms of a vertical amalgamation but under the terms of a mere paper arrangement which would remove altogether any regulation of their output for the purposes of this Bill. The result of that would be that since they were taken outside the regulations a diminished amount must be allocated to other pure mines and the cost to these mines would be increased. They would be placed at a perfectly unfair disadvantage. I am reinforced in these views and in my resistance to this Amendment by a telegram which has just reached me from an area which is immediately and powerfully affected by the proposals.The coalowners of the county of Durham decided by a large majority against the principle of excluding from the standard tonnage and from the operation of the quota the output of composite undertakings. The owners concerned have at a special meeting instructed me to protest against the acceptance of any Amendment excluding the output of the composite undertakings from the standard tonnage and quota.That is the latest declaration of a representative body of owners in a peculiarly difficult part of the country, one which is more largely affected, as far as I know, by this proposal than any other, and from men who look at the question not only from the standpoint of coal. Many of these owners have great interests in iron and steel undertakings in this district, yet they have decided by this large majority in the terms of the telegram I 2213 have just read. For these reasons I must adhere to the view which was endorsed by the House in Committee, and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
We are presented with a position of some difficulty by this Amendment. While the Amendment may go perhaps a little too far, the President of the Board of Trade does not go far enough. The House will not be impressed by the argument that no consideration should be given to iron and steel firms which have bought colliery undertakings in the past, because that will be treating them with more consideration than those iron and steel undertakings which have no colliery of their own, because iron and steel undertakings with subsidiary collieries of their own will be able to get coal and use it at the cost of getting it, whereas other undertakings will have to buy in the open market, and, after this Bill, at a higher price than hitherto. That is not a reasonable argument. Why are iron and steel undertakings which have had the foresight to acquire a coal mine as a subsidiary business, and for the purposes of their undertakings, be deprived of that advantage? At one time the possession of such a colliery gave them a distinct advantage. It was a better proposition in the past than it is to-day, or will be under this Bill. They bought these coal mines not as a speculative undertaking but in order to have a steady supply of coal at a convenient distance from their blast furnaces and mills. That was a very proper and far-sighted thing to do.
In recent years, when the price of coal has been low, these mines have been a liability rather than an asset. They could have gone into the open market and bought coal at a cheaper rate than mining it in their own coal mines, but they still carried on the coal mines although obtaining no advantage from them. They kept these mines on in order that they would be available for their own industrial purposes when the price of coal should rise. Why should they be damnified and be deprived of an insurance for which they have paid a premium in the past? There is no reason why they should not be allowed to have the full benefit of such mines for the purposes of their iron and steel works. Every single iron and steel works, or other industrial undertaking, 2214 which possesses a coal mine subsidiary to itself ought to be able to draw from that coal mine for its own industrial purposes the full amount it requires for those purposes. At present there is no guarantee that it can do so. You may have a factory, or other works, which has a coal mine which, when it is working to 90 per cent. capacity, produces exactly the amount of coal the undertaking requires. With the reorganisation of our iron and steel works, which we all want to see and which is very rapidly coming about, three or four isolated steel works may be amalgamated. Each of them may own a colliery but does not draw the full output of the colliery. When these steel works are amalgamated and the production is concentrated in one or two units, it may be very desirable for that reorganised unit to draw 100 per cent. output from a convenient pit which is close to that concentrated undertaking.
What will be the position under this Bill? It will have its output quota-ed at 80 per cent. or 75 per cent. That amalgamated undertaking may wish to take from the colliery not 75 per cent. of the output but 100 per cent., not for sale in the open market but simply and solely for the purposes of its own industrial operations. Why in that case should that industrial undertaking be told that it can only produce up to 75 per cent. and that it must go into the open market and buy the other 25 per cent. of its requirements? You are hitting it twice over. You are increasing the costs of production on the 75 per cent. output because, obviously, it can run its colliery cheaper on an output of 100 per cent. You increase the cost per ton of the coal which it gets from its own coal mine and you send it into the market to buy the other 25 per cent. at a higher price than it costs to get its own coal, in a much less convenient way because there will be higher transport charges. That is very unreasonable.
I should like to see an Amendment providing that any industrial undertaking shall be allowed to win the full amount of its requirements whether it is in excess of its quota or not. When you get beyond that and you have a subsidiary coal mine not working for the iron and steel undertaking but going into the open market and selling coal as a colliery then I agree that it should be quota-ed on the amount it sells in the 2215 open market. For that reason I think the Amendment perhaps goes too far. It covers not only the case of an industrial concern wishing to use 100 per cent. of its output but it also says that where a coal mine is owned by an industrial concern it shall get and use as much as it wants for its own purposes and that upon the balance it should enjoy a privileged position, there is no quota upon what it produces and the quota will only operate on the balance it desires to sell. That is giving them an undue advantage, but if I have to choose between penalising an industrial undertaking which has a subsidiary colliery or giving it a slight advantage as a coal seller in the open market I should plump for giving it an advantage in the open market, because at all costs you want to preserve the position it has secured for itself by acquiring this subsidiary undertaking.
What I think would meet the general fairness of the situation, and what I hope the President of the Board of Trade will undertake if the Amendment is passed, is that it should be amended in another place into a form which will enable a company to work the full amount of coal they want for their own industrial requirements free of quota but that in other respects they should come under the scheme. Apply the quota and the standard tonnage but, having done that, if any industrial undertaking wishes to get from a coal mine it owns more than its quota that it should be free to work and use that coal without any breach of the regulations. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to introduce something like that into the scheme we could part with this Amendment on the understanding that it would be amended in this way. But if he forces us into the position of having to stand or fall by this Amendment, and if this is the only way in which we can give an industrial undertaking the right to work and use the coal it wins for its own purposes, I shall support the Amendment. This Bill is largely built up on the Five-Counties scheme. Is it not the fact that in that scheme there is a provision very similar to this, or similar to the proposal I have now made? If there is special consideration given in the Five-Counties scheme to coal mines owned by industrial undertakings then I think we certainly 2216 ought not to be less generous to these industrial undertakings.
§ Major NATHAN
There seems to be great force in the contention to which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken addressed himself, namely, that the form of words of the Lords Amendment is rather too wide to meet the necessities of the case. I would remind the House that when this matter was being discussed in Committee I moved an Amendment which was supported by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and by his party, and which gave a far more limited interpretation to the object in view. I ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider that form of words, which then met with the approval not merely of the Conservative Opposition but also of a number on the Liberal benches and attracted to itself the strong support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). The real matter of controversy that arises in connection with this Amendment is whether in a disorganised industry—which has however efficiently organised itself in certain great industries, comprising coal mines, along vertical lines—the mixed undertaking is to be allowed to live when the technique of the horizontal trusts is applied to the industry as a whole.
The Bill as it stands and the speech of my right hon. Friend are really an attack upon the whole system of combination in this country known as the vertical trust, in so far as a mine is included in a mixed undertaking. I am not at all sure but that just as by way of horizontal trusts great hopes lie for the economic reconstruction of our industrial system, so similarly there is a very valuable and important part to be played by vertical trusts. The problem is so to arrange things that they combine their assistance to economic reconstruction side by side. The Miners' Federation is quite unambiguous as to its support of the vertical combination in the coal industry. The President of the Board of Trade will be familiar with the evidence given before the Royal Commission on behalf of the Miners' Federation. He will allow me to draw his attention to a quotation on page 66 of the Royal Commission's Report, from the 2217 Memorandum submitted by Messrs. Davies and Hall on behalf of the Miners' Federation. They say:Modern development of industry is making it more and more impossible to treat coal mining as something completely separate and with only accidental connections with other industries. It appears that the typical coal mining concern is becoming more and more a complex unit. In some cases it is becoming a unit which so far transcends ordinary industrial divisions that it can only be described as a heavy industry unit. This does not apply to all the pits, it is true.Then they say:But in measuring an industry the workmen feel that it is the modern and most developed form of the industry which must be taken as the type.I am afraid that the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment may operate as a handicap in the development of that form of industry to which the Miners' Federation has expressed itself as attaching so much importance. The Royal Commission, when considering this Memorandum and the Whole question of nationalisation, made some comments which are germane to the matter under discussion. I would refer to a passage on page 67 of the Commission's Report. They point out that in the event of nationalisation—and the same results will follow from the adoption of a horizontal trust without discrimination throughout the industry—integrations that have already been effected would in fact have to be broken up. Then they go on to say:The very sections of the industry which already approach the standards that are likely to prevail in the future, would be the most injured. Existing combinations would be disintegrated, and a serious obstacle would be raised against further integrations.One of the main needs of industry in this country at the present moment is that there should be further integrations. In the creation of combinations and trusts, vertical as well as horizontal, lies perhaps the best hope of industrial recovery. Mines are owned by a vast variety of mixed undertakings. I need merely instance iron and steel, blast furnaces, glass manufacturers, gas companies, engineers, chemical manufacturers and all the rest of them—the real heavy industries of this country. It would be a great mistake to believe that these are unimportant in relation to their consumption of coal. I believe it has been 2218 estimated that one blast furnace alone is capable of consuming as much coal as a town of 100,000 inhabitants—a very striking fact. Then there is the question of special coal required for special purposes by special industries, for which no provision at all will be made were it not for an Amendment along the lines of that suggested.
It often happens that some great industrial concern may buy a colliery because it produces a peculiar type of coal which is essential for the purpose of its own manufactures. It wishes, against all the vicissitudes of price and the difficulties of the market, to be secure in its supply of coal. Of that security it would be robbed were the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade adopted, for he has made it quite clear that the whole purpose of the quota scheme is to restrict supplies, and while I support the quota system in relation to the industry as a whole, I certainly find myself completely unable to do so in the case of a mine forming part of a mixed industry. My right hon. Friend, in addressing the House on 11th March, made certain replies to the arguments advanced by those on this side of the House, and it may be convenient, in order to clear up the situation, to direct attention to those arguments. I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last did not refer to the first of the arguments.
The President of the Board of Trade suggested that this Amendment would make a manifest and unfair distinction between individual pits. I shall return to that argument in a moment. The second argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman was, he said, more impressive from some points of view, and it was the effect on the iron and steel industry itself. I think I heard him use that argument again to-day, when he suggested that an iron and steel plant which happened to have a colliery undertaking would be at an advantage, because its coal supply would not be regulated at all under the terms of this Amendment, whereas—I would emphasise these words:all the other iron and steel undertakings of the country which happened not to be tied to a colliery would have to depend on regulated coal, subject to a quota and presumably able to command rather better prices.2219 Then he used the argument about the roping in of some colliery undertaking for the purpose of bringing it within the total exemption which would be applied if the Amendment were carried.
This is a matter of grave importance, and very briefly I will examine the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. The first argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that this proposal makes a manifestly unfair distinction. I do not follow it. The mine to which we are referring, the mixed mine, which I prefer to call a captive mine, does not compete in the least with the pit that disposes of its coal in the open market. It uses, under the suggestion which has been made in modification of the form of the Amendment, the whole of the permitted coal for its own purposes. There would be no competition. It would not come into the open market and therefore there would be no question of unfairness. It would not come into the open market in so far as they use the coal for their own purposes. In so far as they do not use it for their own purposes by all means let them be subject to the quota.
The second argument was that advanced by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to ordinary iron and steel companies not possessing mines of their own and having to rely on regulated coal at a better price. There, in terms, the right hon. Gentleman lets the cat out of the bag. He desires that those mines, those industries which at present are able to control their own supply without any restriction, should have the additional burden put upon them of having to pay the higher price. If the scheme means that the dear market coal, which burdens all consumers, is to be forced upon the mixed undertaking, then you are depriving the mixed undertakings of that which they have had the foresight to obtain for themselves—the vital interest of independence of the market and of market fluctuations. It was in order to obtain security and relief from the uncertainty of these fluctuations, in order to be able to see a little ahead and to make plans accordingly, that so many industries embarked on the enterprise of coal mining as ancillary to their main undertaking and bought mines long before any scheme of quotas or prices was thought of in this House or outside. To force, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, mixed 2220 undertakings to stop their own pits one day a week or it may be more, in order to buy a portion of their requirements from outside, may very well result in coke ovens, blast furnaces, steel mills and by-product plants having to shut down—a very sorry result from a Bill which in many of its aspects must be of enduring benefit to the coal mining industry. Of course, I need scarcely point out that any undertaking which can absorb the whole capacity of a mine is at perfect liberty to buy one. Then with regard to the suggestion about roping in collieries so as to evade the purpose and intention of the Bill, that suggestion can only be relevant if it is proposed to exclude from the quota the whole output of a captive pit and of course that is not so. I do not know if my right hon. Friend bears in mind the amount of coal to which this Amendment applies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen in Appendix 18, Table 9, attached to the Royal Commission's report makes it clear that in 1925, out of 221,000,000 tons of coal sold by associated and other colliery undertakings only 20,350,673 tons were sold to the trading and industrial concerns which control them. Even if this Amendment were passed, nine-tenths of the coal would still be subject to this scheme. I suggest that it is essential that mixed undertakings which have shown the foresight and the courage to invest their money in coal mines at a time of great depression and anxiety and without any foreknowledge of a Bill of this kind, should be allowed to do what they like with their own coal. This Bill, without the Amendment, means that some of these great industries, with enormous potentialities if they are allowed to continue as vertical combines, with every part neatly adjusted to meet the requirements of every other part, will be hamstrung by a form of restriction which, in my judgment, is justifiable only as a desperate remedy for open competition in the raw coal sales market and is quite inapplicable to those vertical combines which exist in such great numbers and which are of such great importance in many of our industrial areas.
§ Mr. BOOTHBY
I regard this Amendment as being perhaps the most important of all those with which we have to deal. It would be a very detrimental and reactionary thing, from the point of view 2221 of the reconstruction of industry, if the President of the Board of Trade were to persist in his refusal of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the Government have frequently emphasised the fact that the rationalisation of industry is desirable and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that in the heavy industries, particularly such industries as iron and steel, we are about 10 years behind our most formidable competitors in the United States and Germany as regards actual industrial organisation. He knows also that vertical rationalisation is, in many cases, just as desirable and necessary as horizontal rationalisation, particularly in this country. This country is perhaps better situated for rationalisation than any other country, because we have certain districts with waterways and coalfields all together, admirably suited to that form of organisation which can work from the raw material to the finished article and export the finished article from that same district. Vertical rationalisation has made practically no headway or at any rate very little headway in this country in the last seven or eight years and our organisation is not comparable with the organisation in the Ruhr district, to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman once again to give his particular attention.
If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this Amendment, what will be the result? It is vital, if we are to regain our export markets in the heavy industries that our factories, our mills and our mines should work as far as possible at 100 per cent. capacity and I have heard the right hon. Gentleman himself say so, over and over again. If the Amendment be not accepted, it is more than likely that any concern which has achieved a measure of vertical rationalisation in so far as it owns its own coal mine, will have such a quota that the output of the mine will be cut down. The mine will then be compelled to work at 75 or 80 per cent. of its capacity, instead of 100 per cent. That is bound to increase the cast of production and you get the still more fantastic result that in many cases these firms will be compelled to make up their total requirement of coal from other sources, while their own mines which they have gone to so much trouble to develop as part of a general industry covering the whole operation from the 2222 raw material to the finished article, are not working up to their full productive capacity. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman persists in his present attitude towards this Amendment, he will do a bad day's work for the reconstruction and rationalisation of our heavy industries.
§ Mr. STRACHEY
The last two speeches in support of this Amendment resolved themselves into pleas for vertical rationalisation. I cannot feel much sympathy for that point of view, nor can I endorse the suggestion of the last speaker that vertical rationalisation is virtually untried in this country. I should say that it is the one form of rationalisation which has been tried in this country. We have had, in our heavy industries, a number of organisations comprising miscellaneous pits and steel works and by-product works of all sorts, and I do not think that the results of those miscellaneous and rather heterogeneous organisations have been at all encouraging.
Surely, in this connection we ought to note the last example of rationalisation in this country—the first really scientific effort at rationalisation, planned in advance, or at any rate, the most scientific effort of that kind which we have had. I refer to the recent scheme proposed in Lancashire in regard to iron and steel works on the one hand, and coal pits on the other. In that case, exactly the reverse tendency has been put into force. These large mixed organisations have been sorted out into two horizontally rationalised organisations. There is a big steel corporation and a big coal corporation. There will be, of course, some connection between the two new organisations, but what has really been done has been to take a series of what were vertical organisations and put them all together, and then to sort out the coal concerns from the steel concerns and make two horizontally organised corporations. That is very strong evidence that the present tendency in rationalisation is towards horizontal organisation of that sort and the objections which have been raised to this Bill have no force whatever if they are applied to organisations of that sort. This Bill is in line with that tendency and the Amendment is away from that tendency.
2223 I think that these coal organisations such as the new organisation which is being formed around the Wigan coal companies, and the new organisation in South Wales—organisations owning a large number of coal pits—will not be in the least hampered by the operation of a Bill of this kind. Who supposes that these organisations, so very powerful in their own districts, are going to have insufficient quotas allotted to them? They are perfectly well able to look after themselves and to see that they get a quota which will permit them to raise all the coal which they need to raise and which they can market properly. I do not think we need have the least fear that they will be "put upon" as a result of the Bill. They will be linked in some cases, of course, to the large steel organisations which are being formed, but the mere fact that there is some link of that kind, that their first object is steel, does not mean that the organisation will be interfered with in the least by the operation of this Bill. The Bill is in line with horizontal organisations of that sort, and I cannot see that they can be interfered with under this proposal. For those reasons I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will resist the Amendment.
§ Major COLVILLE
I entirely disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Strachey) on the subject of rationalisation, but I do not propose to enter into that discussion. I wish to put certain facts before the House. Certain industries in this country are at the present time struggling for their very existence. There are certain industries in which unemployment has been increasing rapidly. I have searched the Bill from beginning to end and I can find no safeguard which assures me that those hard-hit industries which have had the foresight to secure coal for the purposes of their manufacture will not be injured by the artificial raising of price which will be brought about by the quota system. The President of the Board of Trade may say that those who are aggrieved have the ordinary machinery for bringing for ward their complaints and that they may through that machinery secure 100 per cent. allocation. They can only do so, however, if they have majorities in their own districts, and in very few districts, 2224 if any, will the manufacturers to whom I refer who own coal mines and use the coal for their manufacturing purposes have majorities enabling them to secure 100 per cent. allocation.
I most earnestly urge upon the Government that they should consider what they are doing. I would sound a note of warning. In the iron and steel trade unemployment is rife. No less than 30 per cent. of the insured workpeople in the steel trade are unemployed—a greater percentage than the unemployed in the mining industry—and that figure compares with 26 per cent. a month ago and 18 per cent. a year ago. That trade is bound to be affected by the Bill. I am not tied to the words of the Amendment inserted in another place and the effect which we wish to bring about is more in line with the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) moved when the Bill was previously before us, an Amendment which was supported by Members on this side of the House because it was in accord with a proposal which we ourselves had drafted. I wish to secure that at any rate, the owners of these mines may be able to work the mines to their full capacity for the coal which they require for their own manufacture.
This matter does not affect iron and steel alone. Its effects will be spread over a wide range of industries, including brickmaking, glass manufacture, potteries, shale oil manufacture and others. In the case of shale oil there are pits which are worked entirely for the production of coal to heat the retorts. If those pits are quota-ed, the cost of production in that industry will go up, more unemployed will be added to the register. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has not said a single word in defence of the principle of applying a quota to these undertakings. He has defended his Bill, but that is a very different thing. He has said the Bill must apply to all, but he has never defended the proposition that he is making to apply a quota to these undertakings, artificially increase their costs, and thus make them less able to compete in the markets of the world. Is he considering only his Bill, or the industry of the country?
§ Mr. SULLIVAN
The hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said the steel trade in this country was 10 years behind the Ruhr. If that does not set hon. Members opposite thinking, nothing will. That was not said by somebody on this side, but they had that from one of their own friends, and they had better try and put their house in order. We want a regulation of the coal trade in order to protect the employers as much as the men, and I commend this to hon. Members opposite, that I do not know any concern that produces coal only for its own works. The hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian and Peebles (Major Colville) is connected with a firm that has coal mines, steel works and shipbuilding works, and ever since they went into the coal trade the miners have not been going 75 per cent., but have been going less than 50 per cent. Just now numbers of those men are idle, and if the steel works are suffering, it is not for lack of coal, because we could produce mountains of coal. We have no right to be carrying other trades on our backs when they have got into a bad state of inefficiency, and I hope the House will support the President of the Board of Trade in the attitude which he has taken towards this Amendment.
§ Colonel CLIFTON BROWN
The President of the Board of Trade read out a telegram from the Durham owners, and I have no doubt that it was accurate, but I do know that the owners and those connected with steel works in Durham have been fighting this question for some time, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that that telegram represents the owners of steel works as well as coalowners. I can assure him, of my own knowledge, that that cannot be the case. Personally, knowing some of the practical facts of the matter, I am very much in sympathy with the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. I spoke before, particularly on the question of Durham, and I know very well that, while we may talk about vertical and horizontal combinations, these are practical difficulties between mine and mine.
§ I do not think the matter is in a satisfactory state, and I am sure we have to consider some suggestion such as that, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), but it is the practical difficulty between mine and mine which I think makes it impossible to put the matter right all at once.
§ All steel companies sell a great deal of coal in the open market, and if they have no quota for coal consumed in their steel works, which amounts to about 75 per cent. of their production, and the other 25 per cent. has a quota, they will work on a quota which is much more favourable than the quota of an ordinary coal mine; and, from figures given to me, that means that they will be able to sell coal 1s. cheaper than a pure coal mine. That is very nice for miners in these steel works, and it means that they will have more full time in their mines, but their fellow miners in pure mines will have more short time, which does not seem fair. He must also not forget that steel works sell coke, and this competes with coal, so that under this Amendment the steel works would get it both ways.
§ There is another point about this Amendment which, if it were carried out to the full, would be rather important. Any industry could then acquire a coal mine, and could therefore claim the benefit. I have always understood that one of the objects of this Bill was to get a higher price out of the gas industry, but there is nothing in this Amendment to prevent a gas company purchasing a coal mine, and, therefore, instead of paying a higher price, it would pay a lower price. On those grounds, I think we must seriously consider whether this Amendment is suitable, and whether some suggestion like that of my right hon. Friend below me would not be better.
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 167.2229
|Division No. 337.]||AYES.||[6.21 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Ammon, Charles George||Barnes, Alfred John|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Arnott, John||Batey, Joseph|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Attlee, Clement Richard||Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Ayles, Walter||Bellamy, Albert|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood|
|Alpass, J. H.||Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)|
|Benson, G.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Johnston, Thomas||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Ritson, J.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Rowson, Guy|
|Bromfield, William||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Brooke, W.||Kennedy, Thomas||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Brothers, M.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Kinley, J.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Knight, Holford||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Lang, Gordon||Scurr, John|
|Buchanan, G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Sexton, James|
|Burgess, F. G.||Lathan, G.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Shield, George William|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lawrence, Susan||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Cape, Thomas||Lawson, John James||Shinwell, E.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Charieton, H. C.||Leach, W.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Chater, Daniel||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Sinkinson, George|
|Church, Major A. G.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lees, J.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Longbottom, A. W.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Compton, Joseph||Longden, F.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Cove, William G.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Daggar, George||Lowth, Thomas||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Dallas, George||Lunn, William||Snell, Harry|
|Dalton, Hugh||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Day, Harry||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Sorensen, R.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||McElwee, A.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Devlin, Joseph||McEntee, V. L.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Dickson, T.||McKinlay, A.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Dukes, C.||MacLaren, Andrew||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Duncan, Charles||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Ede, James Chuter||McShane, John James||Sullivan, J.|
|Edge, Sir William||Malong, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Mansfield, W.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||March, S.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Marcus, M.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Markham, S. F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Marley, J.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Gill, T. H.||Mathers, George||Tillett, Ben|
|Gillett, George M.||Matters, L. W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Gossling, A. G.||Maxton, James||Tout, W. J.|
|Gould, F.||Melville, Sir James||Townend, A. E.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Messer, Fred||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Middleton, G.||Turner, B.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mills, J. E.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Montague, Frederick||Viant, S. P.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Morley, Ralph||Walkden, A. G.|
|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)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Harbison, T. J.||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Harbord, A.||Muff, G.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Hardie, George D.||Muggeridge, H. T.||West, F. R.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Noel Baker, P. J.||White, H. G.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Oldfield, J. R.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Palin, John Henry.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)||Paling, Wilfrid||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Palmer, E. T.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Herriotts, J.||Perry, S. F.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Hollins, A.||Pole, Major D. G.||Wise, E. F.|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Potts, John S.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Price, M. P.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Isaacs, George||Richards, R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)|
|Albery, Irving James||Allen, W. C. D. (Belfast, W.)||Astor, Viscountess|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Atkinson, C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Balniel, Lord||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Purbrick, R.|
|Berry, Sir George||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Remer, John R.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Boyce, H. L.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Bracken, B.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Buchan, John||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Savery, S. S.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hartington, Marquess of||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Butler, R. A.||Haslam, Henry C.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hurd, Percy A.||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Christie, J. A.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Knox, Sir Alfred||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Cowan, D. M.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Long, Major Eric||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Meller, R. J.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Mond, Hon. Henry||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|England, Colonel A.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Nathan, Major H. L.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Ferguson, Sir John||O'Connor, T. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fielden, E. B.||Peake, Captain Osbert||Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||George Penny.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 7, line 1, agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In line 15, after the word "supplied," insert "by owners of coal mines in the district."
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment relates to the Clause dealing with the fixing of prices; it would naturally apply to coal supplied by owners, but it makes it perfectly plain.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 1, agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
2230 We now come to a question which, I am afraid, is more controversial than the two or three drafting Amendments of which the House has just approved. We have had considerable debate on this subject both in Committee and on Report, and perhaps a brief statement only is necessary. After debate in another place, the provision for a permissive district levy was deleted. The position is therefore, that the House of Commons has deleted the central levy, and, as the Bill now stands, the district levy is also excluded. The central levy on national lines is beyond further consideration, but I now move this Motion for what, I am satisfied, are very strong reasons. From the very beginning, there has been, I think, a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to this levy. May I point out that in any respect it is 2231 on a clearly permissive basis, and that the object of the levy is to raise, in relation to the tonnage raised in the district, resources which will facilitate the supply and the sale of any class of coal.
No doubt the first object is to facilitate the export of coal, but hon. Members must bear in mind that the levy also applies to any other class of coal, and might in fact be used to facilitate the sale of coal to iron and steel undertakings, or to any other class of demand which was needing a special or easier price in the disposal of the commodity. When we first discussed this, I took the view that it is practically a device for providing a variation in price or a differential price, that is, to give certain terms to certain classes of demand, a device to be used, when there was a very strong case for it, as the whole situation had been weighed up by the executive board comprised of the owners in that area, and subject to all the safeguards as regards consumers and so on which come in this Bill. I have been unable to agree that it is a form of protection, as some hon. Members have said; it is simply a measure for providing that differential price.
It may be argued that there is no difference in principle between the central or national levy and this district levy which we propose to reinsert in the Bill. In a certain broad sense that is perfectly true, but the scope of the two proposals is very different, and the way in which a device of this kind on a district basis would operate is of the greatest importance for certain parts of the country. I can illustrate that with the case of Scotland. There you have the Lanarkshire coalfield on the one side supplying very largely the inland market, and the Fifeshire coalfield on the other side, which supplies one-third of the output in Scotland, a great deal of which goes to the export trade. It is one of the admitted objects of this Bill that an economic or remunerative price for coal should be obtained, and if under the regulations in one district—and Scotland is one district for the purposes of this Bill—a better price is received for the inland coal, that raises the ascertainment in Scotland as a whole, and certain advantages follow to the owners on the one side and to the miners on the other, 2232 and a higher rate of remuneration would be available as progress was made on those lines.
It is perfectly plain that there would at once grow up a manifest discrepancy between the Lanarkshire coalfield on the one side, supplying very largely the inland demand for which that better price had been obtained, and the Fifeshire coalfield on the other side, in their export trade, in which there might be more difficulty in obtaining a due price. There would very soon be an anomaly in those two parts of the coalfield in the Scotland, which form one wages ascertainment district. Certain effects would be almost certain to follow from that state of affairs. It has never been disputed in this House that the Scottish owners have been very much opposed to the marketing plans under this Bill, but I have every reason to hope that, after the Bill becomes law—and the House will remember that in this part of the legislation the only substantial Lords Amendments relate to what we are now discussing, the whole of the rest of the marketing schemes being left practically intact—I have every reason to hope that the Scottish owners will come into line, and that a scheme will be put up for Scotland rather than a scheme imposed on Scotland by the Board of Trade. While we would be compelled to take that step as a last resort, it would be better to have the industry with us if possible, and that certainly would be the whole trend of my efforts at the Board of Trade.
It seems doubly certain that unless this district levy can be retained in the legislation, there is great doubt whether a scheme could be put forward by the owners in Scotland, because they attach great importance to this levy, and they have conveyed their view to hon. Members in all parts of the House. That might be one result. The other possible result is that it might have the effect of dividing Scotland into two wages ascertainment districts. In that case, we have to add one more district to the list of districts in the First Schedule to the Bill. We have made plain through all these debates that, in our view, there is already too large a number of districts for the purposes of this legislation. The First Schedule or the Second Schedule, or the two Schedules together, provide for the 2233 amalgamation of these districts, and I would like to see them reduced at the earliest possible moment to a much smaller number, because that will make for efficiency in the industry. I also think that it will facilitate the relationship between the central machinery on the one side and the administrative machinery on the other. I must therefore set my face against any proposal that tends to increase the danger of Scotland or any other district in a similar position being divided into two wages ascertainment districts, and so adding to the kind of difficulty which I have described.
It may be argued also that if all this is permissive, why is it necessary to include it in the legislation? Hon. Members may suggest with some truth that if this device is found to be necessary in Scotland, the owners themselves will agree to apply it. That may be, but of course it is a very different state of affairs if it is recognised in legislation, and brought in the scheme of the Bill, and if in the process the Board of Trade, as representing the public and as speaking for the Government of the day, has a definite place given to it. I have come to the conclusion that for all these, and other, reasons which have been argued on the Committee stage and on Report, this paragraph is absolutely necessary, and I have no hesitation in moving that we disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I agree with the President of the Board of Trade in one thing, that this question was very fully debated in the House of Commons on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I do not think that on either side there is much to be added to the arguments that were advanced for and against the proposal. I entirely disagree with him, however, when he tries to draw a distinction between the principle of a central levy and the principle of a district levy. I followed his arguments as well as I could—and they are always easy to follow, because they are very clear—but every one of the arguments which he advanced to-day in support of the district levy was just the argument which he advanced in support of the central levy, which the House by a definite majority rejected after very full debate. The House was entirely taken by surprise on the last occasion when we reached the 2234 district levy and he said that, although he had been defeated on the central levy, he proposed to stick to the district levy. I can put equally briefly the argument which convinced the House before that this levy is wrong.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
My right hon. Friend will remember that the district levy was retained by a substantial majority.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
That is true. On the last occasion many of us assumed, though perhaps we were not entitled to do so, that the two would go together, and I think that hon. Members below the Gangway were as much surprised as we were at what happened. The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to reply that we ought to have been here to vote against the proposals; and therefore I will repeat the argument in the hope that I may be more fortunate on this occasion in convincing the House. The right hon. Gentleman has really pressed one argument only. Taking Scotland as an example, he said that though Scotland has not, on the whole, shown much liking for his scheme, yet the great attraction to the Scottish owners was this district levy, and that it is so patently to the advantage of Scotland to have the levy that the owners want it made an integral part of the scheme. If all the Scottish coalowners feel like that, they can have the levy without anything being put into the Bill. We are not inserting a provision that the district levy shall be no part of the scheme. All we ask is that the levy shall not be made a statutory levy.
There are two or three arguments against the levy. First, there is the argument that if by this statutory levy we subsidise our export trade in coal we must stultify every representation we make to foreign countries with the object of getting them to abandon their export subsidies on wheat or other commodities. The President of the Board of Trade feels the difficulty about such subsidies as much as we do. He has promised that he will be unremitting in his efforts, whether made at Geneva or through the Chancelleries of Europe, to get those countries to abandon the subsidies, but if he is to undertake that work he must do so with clean hands. If he goes with his hands stained with this statutory levy, what earthly chance of success will 2235 he have? The foreign countries will say, "What is the good of coming to negotiate with us? The subsidy you forced through by Act of Parliament is a far stronger instance of a State-aided and State-enforced subsidy than anything to which you can object on our part.
In the Derating Bill your party applied the same principle.
Sir P. CUNLIFE-LISTER
Oh no, not in the least. I should be prepared to argue that point at any time. I am quite certain that no international lawyer would find any difficulty in arguing at the Court of The Hague—[Interruption.] The point was carefully considered at the time, and there is all the difference in the world in law—and this can be tested if necessary—between what we did in the de-rating scheme and what is being done at the present time.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
If it were a question of Protection, would not the right hon. Gentleman call these powers in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade bargaining powers?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I do not think that is a relevant intervention. This is a perfectly plain issue, which does not involve the question of Free Trade or Protection.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
This is not a contentious party point. I think all parties equally object to subsidised competition against this country. If the hon. Member opposite is in favour of subsidised competition, of course this argument will not appeal to him, but I think we are all agreed that it would be to our advantage if we could persuade foreign countries to abandon State subsidies in aid of exports. The President of the Board of Trade has never denied it. He will be in a very feeble position to appeal to foreign countries to reduce subsidies on exports if he himself has just passed a Bill through Parliament compelling a trade to pay a subsidy in aid of exports. Already that view is being taken by foreign countries. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who is jeering at this suggestion will find it is a real point of substance if he will take the trouble to study it, and, from the electioneering standpoint, he will find that it will not bring him many friends 2236 among farmers if he makes it as difficult as possible to get the wheat subsidy abandoned.
That consideration ought to be enough to ensure that the proposal is abandoned; but the proposal is bad in itself. It is unnecessary, because if the coalowners wish to make a levy, they can do so without any compulsory provision being inserted in the Bill. This provision can be necessary only if the coalowners do not desire to adopt a levy or if there is a minority of owners opposed to it. What fairness is there in compelling dissentient coalowners to pay a levy which they think will not only be of no use but will actually subsidise their competitors? A coalowner who sells his coal inland and thinks this levy is a bad proposition is still to be compelled to pay the levy—not that he may himself may be helped to sell more coal, but that another coalowner in the same district may sell more coal.
A second objection is, Why on earth should we have a compulsory levy in order to subsidise exported coal? The President of the Board of Trade has said the levy may also be used to subsidise coal sold to our steel-works and, in short, that coal may be sold at a differential price. There are in the House a good many people interested in the steel trade, but I do not think any of them look forward with any certainty, or with very much hope, to the levy being used to make coal cheaper for their steel-works. On the contrary, all the steel manufacturers to whom I have spoken are extremely anxious lest their coal should be made rather dearer, while coal for export is subsidised. It is no good burking the question; that is the real object of the levy. Another point is that there will be no limit on the amount of the levy. It may be 3d. or 6d. At whose expense will the money be found? At the expense of the British consumer, every time. Already he will have to pay any increase which may occur in the price of coal. Coal sold in a foreign market has to be sold at the world price. Therefore, any ordinary increase in cost brought about by this Bill will fall on the British consumer, and if, on top of that, is to be added the cost of this levy, that will be another charge upon the pockets of the domestic or industrial consumers of coal in this country.
2237 In the words used by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), a tax upon British industry is to be used to subsidise competitors in foreign countries. As another right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), said, the result of this subsidy on export coal will probably be that British ships trading in the narrow seas will find it cheaper to bunker in a foreign port. There will be further unemployment in the ports of this country, fewer ships coming into our ports, rises in harbour dues—all the vicious circle of difficulties. The levy is not a necessary part of the Bill. It is not an integral part of the scheme. It is really an excrescence on the scheme. As I understand it, the coalowners themselves are by no means unanimous about it. If they were unanimous, there would be no need to insert compulsory powers in the Bill. It will make this Bill, which, as I have never disguised from the House, I regard as a bad Bill, a very much worse Bill. There is a very general feeling in many parts of the House that that is so. Hon. Members above and below the Gangway on this side of the House have frequently chaffed one another on the lack of unity within their respective parties. On this occasion we are in the happy position of finding a completely united Conservative party and a completely united Liberal party. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see!"] The right hon. Member for Darwen made a most admirable speech against this proposal on a previous occasion and so did the right hon. Member for St. Ives. They are completely united on this matter, and I congratulate them upon it, and we also are united; and as this does not involve the principles of the Bill I hope the President of the Board of Trade will drop the proposal. It really has not appealed to the House. If the President of the Board of Trade necessitates our pressing this to a Division, I shall look with confidence to hon. Members below the Gangway to support us, as they have promised to do.
§ Sir HERBERT SAMUEL
May I begin by reciprocating the very kind remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the unity on this subject which happily prevails in that party as well as in this party? There is another point on which 2238 I agree with him, and with the President of the Board of Trade also. Although the views they expressed upon this Amendment were diametrically opposite, they both agreed that the subject had been most thoroughly debated in Committee and on Report, and that it was not necessary to go over the arguments so very well expressed on those occasions.
If this question of the district levy had been dealt with by the House of Commons immediately after it dealt with the central levy, there is no doubt whatever that this proposal would have met the same fate, and it is only a Parliamentary accident that the subject has come back to us from the House of Lords instead of having been dealt with in the House of Commons. The President of the Board of Trade, in defending the proposal, has really limited his defence to one district, Scotland. I do not know of any other district in which at the present time this proposal is defended. The President of the Board of Trade has, at any rate, to-day pleaded only the case of Scotland. How does it work out there according to the case he has presented to us? He says that Lanark produces for home consumption and Fife for export, that Lanark is in the position of being able to charge more for its coal, and Fife wishes to subsidise its coal, and that, the two being in one district, Scotland must unite for this purpose.
The consequence is that, if this proposal is put into the Bill, Lanark coal-owners would be able to charge their customers more, a levy being placed on their coal. The Glasgow Corporation, for example, would pay more to the Lanark coalowners for the coal for its gasworks. They would not retain the money, but would put it into a pool from which the Fife coalowners would draw it in order to give a reduction to their customers in Sweden, Norway, or wherever it might be. That is the position. Glasgow Corporation pays the money to the Lanark coalowners, who hand it over to the Fife coalowners, who hand it over to the Swedish consumers. That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman defends, and it appears a very amazing proposition to be defended on the Floor of the House by a representative of the British Government. It is legalised dumping. What is dumping? It is selling 2239 goods below the cost of production. These coals from Fife are to be sold abroad below the cost of production at the expense of the Glasgow Corporation and other consumers.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
Surely this is not a case of dumping goods at a price with which the manufacturers of those countries cannot compete? That coal must be put on the European market at that price, a price corresponding to the European price, and, unless we put it at that price, we cannot sell the coal at all.
§ Sir H. SAMUEL
We discussed that theory of the European price in Committee, and discussed whether there is such a thing as a European price. The price of British coal enters very largely into the determination of European price. Suppose that, by some gift of the gods, the right hon. Gentleman was able to give a subsidy of 5s. or 10s. a ton to all British export coal, it would, of course, affect what he calls the European price. Obviously, the European price is not fixed absolutely by the laws of nature; it varies, and it varies to some extent in accordance with the supplies which the British producers are able to place upon the market. The whole idea of subsidy is, in our eyes, entirely wrong wherever it is to be found, and we do not wish to see the British Parliament authorising that principle and adopting it in this or any other case. If it is right in Scotland, just because Lanark and Fife happen to be in one district, how about South Wales, which exports coal, and another area which does not, say, Lancashire? Precisely the same arguments ought to apply. Why should not Lancashire be charged extra for its coal to subsidise South Wales? Simply because they happen to be two different districts for the purpose of this Bill. All the arguments used in respect of Lanark and Fife apply equally to any two districts in this country, one exporting and the other producing for home consumption. The House having struck out the central levy, which was intended to bring them all into one whole for this purpose, I do not see how we can retain the district levy for the same purpose.
Further, the right hon. Gentleman has never given any effective answer to the case for bunker coal. At one stage of the proceedings in this House it seemed 2240 as though he was going to give us an assurance that he would use his powers of controlling these schemes reserved to him under the Bill to ensure that our ships which bunker in this country were not going to be charged the full price plus a levy for their coal, when, if they went to a foreign port, they would not only be free from the levy but would get the advantage of a subsidy. That is how the matter would stand under his present proposal, that any coal sold at a port in this country for bunkers would pay a levy on it, if a levy is raised, whereas the ships have to go only across the North Sea to Antwerp or Rotterdam, and they would not only get the same coal free from a levy, but with a subsidy. I do not see how it is possible to have such an unfair discrimination against British ports. Furthermore, this proposal, as it stands in the Bill, must involve a great deal of friction between one district and another. They are competing against one another for the export trade, but you are going to give Scotland a levy for this export trade which other districts cannot obtain. It is quite true that, under the Bill, the consent of the Central Council has to be given before any such levy can be imposed within a district. I can imagine the friction that will take place between Scotland on the one hand and the other exporting districts on the other when Scotland's levy comes before the Central Council for final determination.
For all these reasons, the House ought to adhere to the view expressed on the last occasion when it rejected the central levy. No one can say that this is vital to the Bill or to Part I of the Bill, because when the central levy was struck out, it was proved not to be a vital Amendment by the fact that the Bill survived. If this is struck out of the Bill now, as the House of Lords propose, no one can suggest that it is a serious impairment of the powers proposed by the Government. On this occasion the House of Lords have agreed with us in the views expressed on these benches and, as they have agreed with us, we find we must agree with them.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I wish to deal with only one point on which the President of the Board of Trade—I am sure not intentionally—may have misled the House in the speech he made. He led 2241 us to understand that Scotland was in favour of the retention of this district levy. It is true that a minority of the owners in Scotland, some of the Fife owners, are in favour of it, but I have authority to say that the Scottish committee, who were called specially to consider this matter, decided by a majority that they did not wish to have a levy. They decided that the ordinary arrangements by which they can make voluntary arrangements among themselves was sufficient. They wish to have full power to make their own arrangements, and not to have this compulsory arrangement under the Bill.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
The Scottish Coalowners' Committee representing the Scottish coalowners. If I had not made that point, the right hon. Gentleman's speech might have led the House to believe that the one and only solid point he tried to make in favour of this proposal, that it was really necessary for Scotland, was also supported by the owners in Scotland. The point is not as good a one as he suggests, although it is the only solid point he tried to make in favour of this proposal, which I do not believe will be more than futile. I do not believe it will ever be used.
§ Sir H. SAMUEL
Before we divide, may we have a reply from the right hon. Gentleman? He based his whole case on the plea of the Scottish coalowners for this provision, but the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said that the Scottish coalowners do not wish it. Does the right hon. Gentleman still wish to proceed, nevertheless?
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
I thought I made clear in my speech a few minutes ago that there has been a division of opinion with regard to this Bill among the Scottish coalowners. That division of opinion continues, but I hope they will agree to initiate a scheme in Scotland after the Bill becomes law. What I tried to make plain was that the Fifeshire owners and others who appreciate this export position are certainly in favour of the levy, and, indeed, regard it as absolutely essential to Scotland.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire owners are wholly against this Bill?
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 220.2245
|Division No. 338.]||AYES.||[7.11 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Charieton, H. C.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Chater, Daniel||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Church, Major A. G.||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Clarke, J. S.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Cluse, W. S.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Arnott, John||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Harbison, T. J.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Compton, Joseph||Hardie, George D.|
|Ayles, Walter||Cove, William G.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Daggar, George||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Dallas, George||Haycock, A. W.|
|Batey, Joseph||Dalton, Hugh||Hayday, Arthur|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Devlin, Joseph||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Dickson, T.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Benson, G.||Dukes, C.||Harriotts, J.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Duncan, Charles||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Ede, James Chuter||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Edge, Sir William||Hollins, A.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Edmunds, J. E.||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Bromfield, William||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Bromley, J.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Brooke, W.||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Isaacs, George|
|Brothers, M.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Gibbins, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Johnston, Thomas|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Gill, T. H.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Buchanan, G.||Gillett, George M.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gossling, A. G.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Gould, F.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Cape, Thomas||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Snell, Harry|
|Kinley, J.||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Knight, Holford||Muff, G.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Lang, Gordon||Muggeridge, H. T.||Sorensen, R.|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Naylor, T. E.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lathan, G.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Oldfield, J. R.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Lawson, John James||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)||Palin, John Henry||Sullivan, J.|
|Leach, W.||Paling, Wilfrid||Sutton, J. E.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Palmer, E. T.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Lees, J.||Perry, S. F.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Pole, Major D. G.||Tillett, Ben|
|Longden, F.||Potts, John S.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Price, M. P.||Toole, Joseph|
|Lowth, Thomas||Quibell, D. J. K.||Tout, W. J.|
|Lunn, William||Richards, R.||Townend, A. E.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Turner, B.|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Ritson, J.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|McElwee, A.||Romeril, H. G.||Viant, S. P.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Walkden, A. G.|
|McKinlay, A.||Rowson, Guy||Walker, J.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wallace, H. W.|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|McShane, John James||Sanders, W. S.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sawyer, G. F.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Mansfield, W.||Scrymgeour, E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|March, S.||Scurr, John||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Marcus, M.||Sexton, James||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Markham, S. F.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||West, F. R.|
|Marley, J.||Sherwood, G. H.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Mathers, George||Shield, George William||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Matters, L. W.||Shillaker, J. F.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Maxton, James||Shinwell, E.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Melville, Sir James||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Messer, Fred||Simmons, C. J.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Middleton, G.||Sinkinson, George||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Mills, J. E.||Sitch, Charles H.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Montague, Frederick||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Morley, Ralph||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wise, E. F.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Mort, D. L.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Buchan, John||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Albery, Irving James||Buckingham, Sir H.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Butler, R. A.||Duckworth, G. A. V.|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Butt, Sir Alfred||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Carver, Major W. H.||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Elmley, Viscount|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||England, Colonel A.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)|
|Atkinson, C.||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Chapman, Sir S.||Ferguson, Sir John|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Christie, J. A.||Fielden, E. B.|
|Balniel, Lord||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Foot, Isaac|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Ford, Sir P. J.|
|Berry, Sir George||Colfox, Major William Philip||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Colman, N. C. D.||Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Colville, Major D. J.||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Cowan, D. M.||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Boyce, H. L.||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Granville, E.|
|Bracken, B.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Gray, Milner|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Dalkeith, Earl of||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Meller, R. J.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Millar, J. D.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Nathan, Major H. L.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Harbord, A.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||O'Connor, T. J.||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Peaks, Capt. Osbert||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Train, J.|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Purbrick, R.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Pybus, Percy John||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Ramsbotham, H.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Remer, John R.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||White, H. G.|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Rothschild, J. de||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Long, Major Eric||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Withers, Sir John James|
|McConnell, Sir Joseph||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Salmon, Major I.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Savery, S. S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Scott, James||Sir George Penny and Captain|
|Margesson, Captain H. D.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Wallace.|
|Marjoribanks, E. C.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 17, agreed to.