CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions of district schemes.)

HC Deb 11 March 1930 vol 236 cc1251-87

Captain BOURNE

I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out the words "election of," and to insert instead thereof the words "representation on."

Earlier in the afternoon we dealt with the question of the representation of the owners on the central board. On that occasion the President of the Board of Trade said that he thought that the matter had better be dealt with in connection with the district boards. As the Clause is drafted, if the matter was decided purely by election, 65 or 70 owners could carry every one of their representatives on the district board and thereby prevent any possibility of the minority being represented. I am deliberately not suggesting any scheme by which the minority should be represented, because that obviously depends upon the strength of the minority in any district, but I do feel that words should be put into the Bill to make certain that the minority obtains representation. It might be. by proportional representation or other means, but as conditions may change and vary in different districts I do not wish to tie the hands of the Board of Trade by putting down the exact words.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

The position is rather different upon this Amendment. In the discussion upon the central scheme, I indicated that I was addressing myself to the precise Amendment that we should consider ways and means and sec that all points of view were represented. I am afraid that I could not accept the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford has moved, but I will undertake to consider in what way we can meet his point of view. The simple proposals of the Bill are that the minority would obtain representation, and I will undertake to see what can be done to achieve this object before the Report stage.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I only desire to safeguard the representation of the coalowners on the executive board, and I think the method of election which is proposed is wholly unsatisfactory. We are not proposing proportional representation or a second ballot. If it is simply left to 100 coalowners to vote for 10 candidates and opinion is divided to the extent of 60 for and 40 against, the 60 will vote for the 10 candidates who back their their scheme. The President of the Board of Trade has stated that what he regarded as a safeguard is no safeguard at all. What is wanted is power to vote and to get your man in. I think there should be a scheme which will give the minority the control which they should have to secure such representation as is reasonable.

Mr. GRAHAM

I have already made it clear to the Committee that I can give no promise, but I would say to my right hon. Friend that, after all, we have con- sidered the interest, to put it no higher, of the owners when these schemes were framed. We observe, first of all, that they are all parties to the scheme when it comes into existence, and surely, in the interests of the progress of the scheme, they are not going to deny representation in this country to what has been a minority up to that point. But there is a further consideration. The Board of Trade has to approve these schemes and the method of election, and above all the method of securing representation from every point of view, so that up to a point these two safeguards are there. I undertake, without giving any binding promise, to look at any other method of securing the representation of all parties, and, as I understand it, the Committee does not press me to go any further.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I understand that the President of the Board of Trade will not approve any scheme unless he is satisfied that it is reasonable on all these points. Over and over again when I have piloted Bills through this House I have been told that, however much the House could trust my discretion, I had no right to put that discretion into an Act of Parliament when legislating for all time. I only wish to leave on record that we must be satisfied on Report in regard to the points which we have raised, and it must be understood that the minority will have a right to secure representation. On that understanding, I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to withdraw his Amendment.

Captain BOURNE

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment on the strength of the promise which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out the words "in the district," and to insert instead thereof the words: and the organisations of mineworkers in the district. The executive board to consist of representatives of the owners and workers in equal numbers, together with a chairman, who shall be appointed by the Board of Trade to represent the public interests. After the touching unanimity that we have just seen, and the eloquent testimony that we have had as to the necessity of all interests being represented on the board, I imagine that there will be no difficulty in getting this Amendment accepted by the Government. It is not only a question of the sale of coal, but a question of the producing of coal. It is the mine workers who produce the coal, and it is for them to say whether the scheme is successful or otherwise; and, as their wages and conditions depend on the whole question, they should be entitled to have their representatives on the board in order that they may be able to say what the conditions of production shall be.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I need hardly say that I have a very great deal of sympathy with the principle which lies behind this Amendment, because it is undoubtedly desirable, in many of these industrial changes, that the two sides of industry should be represented, and that to an increasing extent they should take their part in the direction of industry. I must, however, be quite candid with the Committee as to the nature of this scheme. If this Amendment were adopted, quite clearly the owners would be in a minority in regard to every executive scheme in the district, and I am bound to say at once to the Committee that in that state of affairs there would not be a scheme in any district. That would be one of the immediate results if this Amendment were added to the Bill; and it is also perfectly plain that, while the Board of Trade might be able to approve of a scheme, or of two or three schemes, in the event of schemes not being forthcoming from certain districts, it would be physically impossible for the Board of Trade to put in a scheme for every district, that is to say, to impose it upon the industry as a whole. I want to be perfectly frank. We have had to face the facts as they are, and they are as I have described. Perhaps, with this explanation, my hon. Friend will be able to see his way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I have no desire to imperil the setting up of these boards, although I say quite frankly that I am not enamoured of the Bill as a whole. In view of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. DAVIES

I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, at the end, to insert the words: (a) for empowering the executive board to establish a voluntary marketing scheme as may be expedient or necessary for the purpose of ensuring as far as possible—

1. (i) the economical handling, despatching and transport of coal;
2. (ii) the economical distribution of coal for sale in Great Britain or any other country;
3. (iii) the elimination of unnecessary costs and charges between the producer and the ultimate consumer of coal;
4. (iv) the encouragement of economic cooperative selling and avoidance of unregulated competition and, in particular, of sale below the cost of production;
5. (v) the encouragement of research and the improvement of methods of utilising coal."

I was glad to hear the Attorney-General a few moments ago say that the Government were always reasonable, because I knew that that was a prelude to his acceptance of the Amendment which was before the Committee. I hope that I may say the same with regard to the President of the Board of Trade, who, on the first day on which I had the honour of proposing Amendments to this Bill, accepted two out of three of them. I submit this Amendment also for his kind consideration. The Clause gives the power for the formation of a district scheme, and my reason for proposing the insertion of this Amendment is that the whole purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to make the cost of production as near as Epossible, while leaving a profit, to the price which the consumer has to pay. We on this side of the House believe that that could be best done by having a general marketing scheme, not limited by a quota or by the fixing of minimum prices.

My Amendment would not force the executive board, but would empower them, to establish a voluntary marketing scheme. They will not even have the power to thrust it upon a district and compel its acceptance, but it will be a voluntary scheme, and the board will be empowered, so far as may be expedient or necessary, to establish a scheme for the purpose of ensuring the five matters which are set out in the Amendment. These are matters which have been considered by every Commission to be necessary in order to bring the coal trade once again on to its feet.

The first is the economical handling, despatching and transport of coal. A great deal of the waste in this country is due to transport. I have had experience, and so has the Attorney-General, of cases in which the price charged to the consumer is largely inflated by the cost of transport. I remember one case in particular where the cost of transport by railway amounted to as mach as 3s. 6d. a ton, and, with the assistance of the Railway and Canal Commission, the price was reduced to 9d. That is economic transport and economic handling, and, if a marketing scheme can be provided to enable better economic handling, so much the better.

The next part would be the economic distribution of coal for sale in Great Britain or in any other country. That is establishing centrol depots from which the coal can be most conveniently and better distributed. The elimination of unnecessary costs and charges between the producer and the ultimate consumer speaks for itself. That is to do away with as many as possible of the middlemen who take so much of the difference between the pit-head price and the price ultimately charged to the consumer. The others are the encouragement of economic co-operative selling and the avoidance of unregulated competition, and, in particular, the very fact that has been emphasised by the President of the Board of Trade throughout, that the sale shall not be below the cost of production. Finally, the scheme should also provide for the encouragement of research and improvement in the methods of utilising coal.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

The hon. Member has told us that on a previous occasion he had two out of three Amendments accepted. I cannot help thinking that that was a fair quota, with which he might very well have been content. I do not dissent from the argument that these steps are necessary in further reorganisation at all stages of the coal industry and, more particularly, from the point of view of bridging the gulf between the producer and the consumer. The hon. Member makes it clear that this is only a voluntary or permissive proposal, and I am obliged to ask whether, as the result of my inquiries and consultations with the owners and with the industry as a whole, there is any chance of getting this put into operation in the form in which he has stated it. I am bound to report that there is no chance in existing conditions, and, therefore, the inclusion of these words would lead to no result.

There is another consideration. If any plan of this kind were to be adopted, it would not be sufficient or appropriate to set it forth in a few short paragraphs of this kind. In my judgment, to bridge the gulf between producer and consumer would require a pretty elaborate Bill with a good deal of regulation, and that may be, for all I know, another stage in coal legislation in this country. I am obliged to make this point perfectly clear, not because I am opposed to this Amendment in spirit or in purpose but simply because I regard it as certain to achieve nothing at all even if it were included.

I do not want to conclude on that purely negative note. There is this which I can say to the Committee, that the organisation of the owners which is brought into being in Part I of the Bill will, in my judgment, in the near future, very likely lead to this result. They will be able for the first time to present a united front to the wholesale and retail trades, and even now discussions are taking place between the owners in certain districts, which discussions will become much more frequent in character when they are organised. I think it will lead to some kind of scheme of economy in bridging the gulf between the producer and the consumer. I have always made it perfectly plain that unfair prices to the consumer—and sometimes these unfair prices are charged in the retail trade—react adversely on coal production, and are unjust to what I call primary producers in this country in a problem which is by no means confined to coal. I trust that the hon. and learned Member, for the reason which I have given that the Amendment will not achieve anything, will not now press the Amendment to a Division.

Sir H. SAMUEL

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is one advantage which will come out of this Bill when it is passed into law, namely, that there will be an organisation of the coalowners of the country. That is one thing which is very much to the good. They will be formed into something like a corporate body. Hitherto the trade has been far too sparsely organised. The quarrel with this part of the Bill is rather that it will be restrictive instead of constructive, that the powers which are conferred are powers of restriction upon production and price, instead of which the industry needs, above all, a far more constructive spirit, a building up in various ways, better organisation and better methods. All the inquiries which have taken place in the industry have urged this. The Lewis Committee strongly urged that there should be a properly organised system of co-operative marketing. The Duckham Committee on Transport has strongly urged that there ought to be a pooling of wagons, and has emphasised the wastefulness of the present system of distribution, and the Royal Commission in 1926 emphatically advised that there should be more constructive activity in the way of organising the industry for the purposes of production, in regard to research, in regard to methods of utilisation of coal, and in regard to transport and to sale.

I earnestly hope that the outcome of the committees and the organisation of various kinds which are to be set up in Part I will be that these committees before long, when they have got over the initial difficulties on matters with which they are directly charged, will turn their attention to the other matters to which my hon. and learned Friend has called attention and which, I believe, are vital to the further prosperity of the industry, I agree also with the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment, as it stands, is not sufficiently developed or elaborated really to be put into an Act of Parliament in its present form, and, therefore, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and in view of the reasons which he has given, I think that my hon. and learned Friend will probably be willing not to press his Amendment further.

Mr. C. DAVIES

After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, I desire to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. E. BROWN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that in determining the standard tonnage of any mine regard shall be had to the present output and economic and efficient working and condition of development and prospects of development of that mine, with a view to determining such standard as will not hamper the development of a mine with a growing output or allot to a mine with a diminishing output a standard in excess of its probable output. The intention of the Amendment is on its face. The district board is to make a scheme, and in making this scheme it has to allot the standard tonnage. By this Amendment we seek to issue an instruction to the Board that in fixing the standard tonnage certain things shall be taken into consideration. First, output. There I am not quite sure as to the word "present" and I should like to hear what the President of the Board of Trade has to say on that point. Certainly output is to be taken into consideration. Then there is the economic and efficient working of the mine; its economic and efficient condition, its prospects of development, and that the standard tonnage shall not be so fixed as to hamper or restrict development nor to allot to a mine with a diminishing output a standard in excess of its probable output. As the Bill stands, without an instruction of this kind, a standard might be allotted to a closed pit. The Committee will agree that that should not be done. The Amendment will give guidance to the Board and I hope the President will accept the intention of the Amendment, which I believe is his intention as well as ours.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

This Amendment raises a subject which has had very prolonged and serious consideration in the preparation of this Bill, and it is quite appropriate that Parliament should ask questions about the method of fixing the standard tonnage and applying the quota to that standard tonnage before we pass with this phase of the Bill. In the scheme of regulation which is in force already, that is the Five Counties Scheme, they have had to lay down a method which was calculated to get the support of the largest possible number of coalowners in the area, and accordingly have had to make a good many concessions both in standard tonnage and in the quota. In the Five Counties Scheme they were entitled to take an average over a long term of years, 15 years, and get their arrangements put on that basis for the purpose of the quota under that scheme. It is part of the duty of the Board of Trade to approve these schemes before they come into force and the question now before the Committee is whether any kind of direction worth anything at all can be included in this Bill. I am bound to tell hon. Members that this is a very difficult thing to do. It is remarkably difficult so frame a definition which would not lead to difficulties in almost every direction, but I think I can say this with safety—that, according to all the information at my disposal, the standard tonnage will be taken over a recent period and will be related to what these collieries have been doing within recent times. If that standard tonnage is scientifically fixed—a phrase which I think I am bound to employ in this connection—then any chance of injustice or penalty to developing mines will be very largely removed. Let the Committee remember that the essence of this case is really in the standard tonnage. The quota allocation is uniform for the time being in that district—that is, it is applied to all pits and to the standard tonnage which is fixed for each pit, and so our main duty is to get the standard tonnage properly fixed and then the quota will not inflict any serious injustice.

If that standard tonnage is taken over a recent period and related to what the colliery has been doing, then it is part of the duty of those carrying out the district schemes, in fixing the standard tonnage and of the Board of Trade in approving of it, to have regard to all the factors which have operated in that connection. But that is very different from trying to put in a statutory obligation of this kind, more particularly in the light of those difficulties to which I have briefly alluded. For example, the hon. Member in this Amendment uses the term "the present output." If we take the Five Counties Scheme it is quite true that that scheme included nine-tenths of the output of that area but you have a certain amount outside—people who are quite unregulated and who can produce right up to the limit of their capacity, and if we fixed the tonnage on present output you might be doing a permanent injustice and conferring a right upon that minority for all time, by taking a standard tonnage and by relating it to an existing unregulated output. That would be manifestly unfair and it would be unjust if any recent period were taken, as for instance in South Wales when special conditions obtained or if we were to go back to the period in Scotland when there was regulation, before that system broke down, after a comparatively short time, round about a year ago.

Frankly, I think this Amendment is impossible as it stands, but I can give, the Committee this assurance, that in fixing the standard tonnage and in applying that tonnage, or rather in approving of the arrangement, these considerations will be very clearly before us. We should defeat a very large part of our own object if we penalised the efficient pits when we wish to do the very reverse. I trust that, with that explanation, my hon. Friend will not seek to import words into the Measure which, as they stand, would never apply and would, I fear, defeat rather than assist the object which he has in view.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The right hon. Gentleman has given very inadequate reasons for rejecting the Amendment and has indeed given one or two reasons for accepting it. He said that it was difficult to put precautions of this kind into the Bill because when certain coalowners were promoting a voluntary scheme in the Five Counties, they found that they had to make certain concessions to get everybody in and that they could not make their scheme as perfect as they would have liked. It is quite true that when you are making a voluntary scheme and wish to bring in a number of people you have to make concessions here and there. Here he has got all the owners into a scheme, and, if we are all to be forced into a compulsory trust, let us have it as good a trust, and not as bad a trust, as possible. The President said that all the things set out in this Amendment are very true, and that when he, as President of the Board of Trade, comes to consider whether he can approve a scheme, he will have the most careful regard to all the things put down in the Amendment. Indeed, he will see that each scheme complies with these provisions, so that the expanding pit shall have proper consideration, and that the decaying pit shall not have too much given to it. He says, "All these things it will be for me, as President of the Board of Trade, be consider, and I shall not approve a scheme unless all these matters are taken into account."

If that be so, why not put that direction in the Bill? Suppose that the President were in every case going to propose the scheme in the first instance, and he got up at that Box and said, "If I have to prepare a scheme, I should have special regard to these considerations," the House might at once say to him, "Very well, if that is the basis upon which your scheme is going to be proposed, you will not have any objection in putting that into your Bill, so that you and your successors will be bound by it." If the President of the Board of Trade were going to propose schemes himself, and he says that these are the right principles by which to be guided, he would be the first to admit that these principles ought to be put into the Bill. But he is not going to propose the schemes. Everything has to be proposed by the local coalowners. Then why not say to the coalowners, "If you do not have regard to these principles, I shall not approve your scheme." That is what he said he will not do. Why not put it into the Bill, and so let the coalowners know that the scheme will not be accepted by the Board of Trade unless those conditions which the Board regard as of paramount importance are fulfilled? It seems to me common sense and simple logic to put it into the Bill.

It is not as if he were asked to lay down absolutely hard and fast rules to which every scheme has to comply, and that a mathematical formula were set out. I should understand that that would not be possible, but let us look at the words. The Amendment does not say that every scheme must conform to a hard and fast rule. What it says is that in determining the standard tonnage of any mine regard shall be had, etc. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shall!"] Certainly, but that is what the President says. He says that when the scheme comes to him, "I shall have regard to these principles," not "may," and he says further, "I shall not approve the scheme unless it conforms to those conditions." If the President of the Board of Trade, in approving a scheme, "shall" have regard to the very conditions which are set out in this Amendment, and if the scheme is to come to him from coalowners who know that it will not go through unless it does conform, then why in the name of fortune cannot we have in the Bill a statement that in preparing the scheme the coalowners shall have regard to those conditions? Sensitive as the coalowners may be, I do not believe the President of the Board of Trade would be stretching their allegiance too far in accepting what seems to me to be a reasonable Amendment.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

I wish to support this Amendment, as I think it is a most important one from the point of view of the coal mines, and I agree with every word of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). For years past coalowners have been urged to spend money on the development of their mines, bringing them up to date, so as to enable them to produce coal in the most economic fashion. I know of coalowners who, for seven years past, have been spending money in developing their mines and who now feel that the whole of that money will be wasted through the introduction of this quota system. I could give the right hon. Gentleman the names of owners who have spent thousands of pounds in developing the lay-out of mines in order to secure the most economic production of coal. Up to date they have not benefited to the extent of 6d. from the expenditure of that money, because the new developments have not been brought into operation, and now the possibilities of reaping benefit will be ruled out of account because the quota will be based upon the standard tonnage of the pit in the past. Surely that is not the intention of the Government! Surely we ought to encourage those who have done their best to bring the industry up-to-date in the matter of the production of coal. This Amendment deserves consideration in their interests.

I know that in the North it is felt that this Amendment would meet their case. There are mines there the owners of which have spent in development large amounts which they believe, it may be erroneously, will now be wasted money. If we are to have any hope of success in producing coal at a cheap rate, we must support the lay-out of new mines. Further, I am sure the President of the Board of Trade knows that contracts have been made with the Crown under which it is laid down that production is to be at the highest possible level. There are mine-owners who are now developing below water in the Crown area where they are under contract to produce the maximum output who will, unless this Amendment is accepted, be denied that output. Not only will they be crippled financially, but they will be crippled from the point of view of the working miners. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, in principle, at least, even if not in these particular words.

Sir BASIL PETO

When listening to the President of the Board of Trade I was irresistibly reminded of the speech on Second Heading delivered by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). In his resumé of the powers conferred by the Bill he ran through a number of items, the levies, the quota and so on. The Committee will remember that he answered every question hypothetically—" Who is it fixes the levy? The coalowners." "Who suggests the quota? The coalowners." The President of the Board of Trade said, in effect, in answer to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who is attempting by this Amendment to put in some indication as to the direction in which the council should proceed in order to do something constructive in the development of the industry, that it was not right that Parliament should attempt to do anything of that kind. We should be up against great difficulties, he said, for he finds that that is so from his consultations with the owners. Behind the owners he tells us one thing more, that we must trust the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, he says, will have regard to all these things, being a benevolent bureaucratic institution. It is his recommendation to Parliament, to take no steps whatever to see to the direction that this legislation will have. He says we may rest quite assured that if the owners fail by this beneficent provision the President of the Board of Trade will see that it is all right on the night. That is the new method of legislation proposed by the Socialist Government.

To me it seems perfectly obvious that in a Clause of this kind, which has been described so rightly from the benches below as purely restrictive in its provisions, we should make some effort, at any rate, to give an indication to this council and take some measures or, at any rate, empower it to do something constructive for the industry. That is what the Amendment proposes, and I think the President of the Board of Trade has not only given us no answer to the Amendment but has said, in effect, that if we were really a legislating body this is an Amendment which ought to be put into the Bill, but as we are merely trusting to the coalowners, and if they do not do the right thing then we can trust the Board of Trade, why should Parliament be bothered about putting in any Amendment at all to see that this Bill does something effective for the improvement of the industry? On these grounds, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Leith will persist in his Amendment. If the words are for any reason not precisely applicable—we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) that they were very carefully considered and very wise words—though the President of the Board of Trade found no fault with them, they can be modified. I do not think we ought to part with this Clause without seeing that these words are inserted.

Sir H. SAMUEL

I do hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consider yet again the advisability of accepting the Amendment. It is quite clear that the general sense of the Committee is in favour of an Amendment of this character. No one has spoken against it except himself, and he condemns it in very faint terms. He takes no exception to any part of the Amendment except the word "present." My hon. Friend will be very willing to move the Amendment with the omission of that word. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is not a factious or foolish opposition to this Bill in the country, but a very real anxiety lest the effect of it may be to penalise the efficient mine and to protect the inefficient, and thereby to keep the cost of production of coal, and therefore the price of coal, above what it might properly be. Once the standard output is fixed, for all the mines, their fate is settled, because when the quota comes to be applied to the standard out-put, it must be applied equally to everybody, efficient and inefficient alike; it falls equally on the just and on the unjust, and therefore it is, when we are fixing the standard output, the standard tonnage, that we have to take these matters into account.

The right hon. Gentleman surely would not wish this Committee to regard this Bill as something sacrosanct, agreed between him and the owners, and that cannot be touched. We sometimes have to deal with treaties between two high contracting parties, which have either to be accepted as a whole or rejected, but no claim of that sort can be made here, and the Committee is quite entitled to press the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment which is really reasonable in itself. It is not, as has been said by the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), proposing a cut and dried scheme, a hard and fast rule, which must be applied rigidly in every case; it is merely an indication of what it is that Parliament desires to be considered if and when these schemes are being framed. It would help to mitigate in some degree the hostility to this Part of the Bill if this Amendment were accepted, and I would venture strongly to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he should not reject the proposal.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

My right hon. Friend has fastened on the two words which quite plainly raise very serious difficulty in this Amendment, but before I deal with that point, may I just discuss the point of the inefficient mine? It has been a great deal with us in all these long discussions, and I think now we do not get rid of it until it is amalgamated with some other undertaking and finally put out of action altogether. It is one of the grave problems of the industry that, however bad times may be, these collieries continue to produce coal, and that being so, they would have their place. I do not want to waste more time on the inefficient mine, or the weak mine, because part of the object of this Amendment is to try to safeguard development and to provide for the proper standard tonnage, that that tonnage ought not to confer too much on the weak colliery.

The position is different, I quite recognise, if these two words "present output" are omitted from the Amendment, because I think hon. Members opposite recognise that the only effect of that would be to give a further benefit to present unregulated pits over the whole of the remainder. If these words were deleted, the Clause which would remain would be of the nature of a direction that the development should be taken into account, and that nothing should be allocated, as this suggests, to a mine with a diminished output. I think the words on the Paper are difficult. As a matter of fact, every effort was made, in the long consideration of this problem, to find a way of meeting it, but if hon. Members opposite agree to the deletion of the words "present output," and do not ask me to accept to-night the precise words on the Paper, I will at least give this promise, that I will do my best, in consultation with the parties, to find a form of words that may be appropriate, because there is no difference of opinion between us on this point. If the words "present output" are deleted, we are all agreed that the developing concerns should not be discouraged in their development, and if hon. Members were prepared to leave it on that basis, I would, however difficult the task—and it is difficult—try to find some form of words.

Mr. E. BROWN

In acknowledging the friendly way in which we have been met by the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that surely the word "output" should stand, though the word "present" might come out? Surely we must have regard to the output. In moving the Amendment, I pointed out that I was not sure about the word "present," and I shall be very glad to omit it from the Amendment if, at a later stage, the right hon. Gentleman can meet the substance of the Amendment. On that understanding, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major NATHAN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, after the word "class," to insert the words: Provided that if in the case of a coal mine which is owned or controlled by, or comprised in an industrial undertaking, the coal supplied from that coal mine to that undertaking is in excess of its quota then its quota shall be deemed to be the amount of coal so supplied.

11.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

This Amendment seems almost to raise the same point as the Amendment which stands in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian (Major Colville) and other hon. Members—in line 37, at the end, to insert the words: 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 the quota of that mine. Perhaps it would be convenient if we discussed them together.

The CHAIRMAN

That would be the convenient course.

Major NATHAN

In view of what has been said by the late President of the Board of Trade, I am by no means bound by the precise form of the words of my Amendment, nor am I, on reflection, entirely satisfied that this is the most appropriate place for it. Should the Amendment commend itself to the Committee, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would take into consideration the question whether it would not come more appropriately at the end of paragraph (d) instead of the place where it stands upon the Order Paper. This Amendment is designed to deal with the case of the vertical combine or the mixed mine. The scheme of the Bill is that every coal mine shall come within the framework of the quota system. There are obvious reasons why coal mines which are part of a larger enterprise, which are even comprised in a vertical combine, should be treated on a differential basis. If the general scheme of the Bill were to apply to the mixed mines a curious result would follow. In the case where an iron and steel works, or a chemical business of an engineering business had acquired a coal mine for the express purpose of providing itself with coal for the purpose of its own business, thereby ensuring that it should not have to look elsewhere for its coal, it would be denied the possibility of using its coal mine to the best advantage and would be put in the extraordinary position that, while the mixed mine would be part of its enterprise and adequate itself to provide the coal re- quired for its business, it would have to go elsewhere to acquire the necessary surplus of coal over and above the quota, instead of being able to take the coal supply which it had had the foresight to acquire for itself. That seems to me to be uneconomic and impossible to defend.

The problem is not raised for the first time in this country, or by this Bill. The same problem has had to be dealt with in Germany. I would refer the Committee to the Report of the Lewis Committee on co-operative selling in the coalmining industry, where this problem is referred to on page 33 and the following pages. In Germany, when this same problem was met, arrangements were made whereby the mixed mine was given two quotas, one for its own consumption and the other the sale quota. That would meet the case here where the consumption is less than the total production. This matter is really of fundamental importance in the economic management of our great heavy industries. The quota system as such should apply to these mines, but if an industrial or manufacturing enterprise requires for its own purposes less coal than its quota obviously it should only be permitted to sell in the open market the difference between its actual quota and the amount that it requires for its own purposes. Otherwise it would be receiving an unfair advantage over other mines.

The mixed mine, however, may he in the position that, its quota being less than its production, it yet requires, for the purpose of its own business and not for sale outside, an amount of coal which is in excess of its quota, and may in fact be as large as its production capacity. This Amendment is designed to establish the situation in which the industrial undertaking would be entitled to use the coal produced from its own mine to the full extent to which it requires coal and to which its own mine is capable of producing. In other words, the mixed undertaking is not to be called upon to go to outside sources for coal as long as it can provide the coal for itself. I have said that I am not bound to the wording of the Amendment, but I trust that, whether my form of words or that of a later Amendment commends itself to the Committee, at least the principle will be approved and that this important provision may find a place in the Bill.

Major COLVILLE

I have on the Amendment Paper an Amendment dealing with this question, but I will not move it if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) will agree to the insertion of the words "whether as coal or coke" in his Amendment.

Major NATHAN

I am willing to accept that suggestion.

Major COLVILLE

I wish to put forward several exceedingly important points. In many parts of the country there are composite undertakings the owners of which have had the foresight to purchase mines in order to have more coal of a particular class readily available in sufficient quantities for their manufactures. In common fairness the right hon. Gentleman cannot apply limitations to those manufacturers who have who have laid out their capital for this purpose. The Amendment is not confined to one industry. There are coke ovens, blast furnaces, brick manufacturers, shale oil industries and many other industries in the country in which they require suitable coal for the purposes of their manufacture. The quota will work very hardly in many directions but in no case will it operate more severely than against those manufacturers who have secured coal for those purposes.

Those industries are not in such a prosperous condition that they can afford to take risks of that kind. Unemployment in the iron and steel trade is very much heavier than in the coal trade the percentage being 23 in the former and 13 in the latter. In Scotland the shale oil industry has had very hard times indeed. In the shale industry they have acquird supplies of coal for the retorts and they are going to be subjected to limitations which are bound to react on their trade. The coal trade cannot stand alone, it must have consumers, and if this Bill acts in such a way as to damage the interests of those consumers who are most closely interested in the coal trade that will react on the coal industry and there will be more unemployment amongst the miners.

Two things are very necessary. The first is equity and the second efficiency. We are suffering from foreign competition in countries where coalowners have realised that they cannot stand alone. They have grouped themselves with other industries, and we ought to do the same in this country. This Measure cuts right across such combinations which are beginning to be formed in this country. We have not advanced to the extent that some of our competitors have in that respect, but this will set back the clock. I most earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this Amendment on the two grounds that I have mentioned, namely, those of equity and efficiency.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

This Amendment again, like so many of its predecessors, raises an important question which has been very carefully considered. I will explain the position to the Committee, and the very great difficulty which would be caused if either of these Amendments were adopted. They have now been brought substantially into line. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) suggested that when the output devoted to ancillary undertakings was in excess of the coal supplied to them, they would of course get that output; while my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) has an even wider proposal on the Paper, which would take the whole range for the purposes of the supply of a mixed undertaking outside of the proposed regulation altogether. Let the Committee observe what would happen if these Amendments, now related together, were accepted.

In the first place, there would be a manifest and unfair distinction between individual pits. When we have adopted, as we now have, a quota regulation under this Bill, the only possible basis is a regulation of the output in the case of all pits and all collieries in the country, and output has been defined. If this Amendment were adopted, a clear distinction would be drawn between those pits which stand separately and independently, merely as part of a colliery undertaking, and pits which happen to be part of a mixed concern, that is to say, which are tied to some ancillary undertaking in the form of what is called a vertical trust. Those pits, which are part of a mixed undertaking or vertical trust would have a 100 per cent. standard tonnage and quota applied to them, or, in other words, would be subject to no regulation at all, and therefore they would be in an entirely different and, I suggest, unfair position as compared with other collieries which were independent of an iron and steel plant or any other part of a mixed undertaking.

In the second place, and this is even more impressive from some points of view, let us consider the effect on the iron and steel industry itself, 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 these Amendments, whereas all the other iron and steel undertakings in the country which happened not to be tied up to a colliery would have to depend upon regulated coal, subject to a quota, and, presumably, able to command a rather better price. There would therefore be in the iron and steel industry manifest anomalies, and the tendency would be to try to rope in some colliery undertakings for the express purpose of bringing them within the total exemption which would be applied if these Amendments were carried, and in a very short time a good deal of the necessary regulation, as we regard it, would disappear.

I think I have said sufficient to show that neither from the point of view of the pit nor of the iron and steel undertaking would these Amendments be practical politics. I would, however, venture to explain the solution of the difficulty. The coal supplied to an iron and steel undertaking, whether it were part of a mixed undertaking or whether it were a free undertaking, would be supplied under this Bill in terms of the trade or destination for which it was required, and, as I have already explained, this is of particular importance to the iron and steel trade. There would be many cases with a special standard tonnage and a special quota, which would be fixed from time to time, which in practice would give 100 per cent. of the output for the iron and steel industry as a whole from all the pits as a whole. That is one of the precise proposals of the Bill, and it is the only way of putting the pits on the one hand and the iron and steel industry on the other hand on terms of strict equality. That is the reply to the Amendment, and I trust that I have said sufficient to enable hon. Members to see that these Amendments would never work in practice. The Government could not possibly accept them, but I assure the Committee that the interests of this industry are in fact adequate safeguarded.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division. I really do not think the argument the President of the Board of Trade has used has any substance. His argument is two-fold. He says, in the first place, "We cannot accept this Amendment, because it would be very unfair to other coal mines." How could it be unfair to other coal mines? It could only be unfair if a coal mine belonging to a manufacturing undertaking was given power to compete in the open market against other coal mines not so owned on a preferential basis. This Amendment is carefully drafted so as to avoid that danger. It never comes into competition in the open market in respect of any excess over the quota. We are not asking for an unlimited quota for a subsidiary coal mine. All that is asked is that it should have its quota and its standard of tonnage exactly as is given to any other coalmine in the country. It starts absolutely dead level. Provided it only supplies to the undertaking that uses it an amount less than or equal to the quota that has been allotted to it, it obtains no privilege under the Amendment. The only case where it obtains a benefit is where it actually works coal in excess of its quota and passes over the whole of that coal to the steel works. In that case, if it is 6 per cent. over the quota, we say, because the whole of that has gone into the steel works, you ought not to penalise this pit. What damage are you doing to any other pit? What unfairness are you creating by allowing that to happen? There is not an ounce of coal going into the open market in competition with the other quota pits. I cannot see how that other pit is going to be injured. Each has the same standard of costs and it is given no benefit in the competing market. There is really no case on that score that this is unfair to other coal mines.

Then the right hon. Gentleman says it is unfair to other manufacturing undertakings which have not got coal mines of their own and have to buy their coal in the open market. But why? That man bought his coalmine years ago in order to be sure of his coal at a price. He thought it a wise form of insurance and he took the risk. Sometimes, when there has been a slump, he lost a good deal of money. Probably in the last few years a great many steel makers were very sorry they had coalmines. Their coal cost them much more than it would have done in the open market. Because they have taken that risk and paid that premium and obtained an insurance of real value, why should they be deprived of the benefit of it? There is a very strong case for this Amendment.

Sir H. SAMUEL

It is unfortunate that a point of real importance should come before the Committee at a late hour, but in spite of the lateness of the hour, and in justice to the very large interests involved I think the Committee should emphasise the view which is held on the benches above and below the Gangway here. The justification for the proposals in this part of the Bill as a whole is that it is designed to stop cutthroat competition between the mine-owners, which reduces the price of coal in the market to an unremunerative level, and thereby miners and others suffer. This Amendment applies to coal which does not come on to the market at all, and which does not affect the market price in any way. It is coal which goes direct from one branch of an undertaking to another branch of an undertaking, and in these circumstances there is no reason why it should be made subject to the quota.

A great iron and steel works has bought a coal mine. It develops that coal mine so as to secure a production which is precisely regulated to the amount required by the works. They spend capital, they lay out their mine, they employ labour, so as to produce the tonnage which the works require. That works quite harmoniously, and there is an economic balance between the coal side and the steel works side. Then comes the right hon. Gentleman, and through this Bill he suddenly cuts down the output of the coal mine, throwing it out of relation to the purpose for which the coal mine was created. The consequence will either be that the mine will have to shut down a large part of its working and throw its own employés out of work, or else, so as not to keep a part of its own mine idle, have to go into the market and buy quotas from other mines elsewhere at a certain cost, and thereby increase the cost of working and the cost of iron and steel put on to the market in competition with the rest of the world.

The right hon. Gentleman says: Oh, well, the schemes, when they come into force, will meet this. They can allow 100 per cent. output for all these mines which supply iron and steel works particularly. But there may be a majority among those controlling the schemes who are not interested in mines of this character and they may insist upon the quota being applied universally, with the detrimental results I have described. If it is the case that these schemes ought to allow 100 per cent. for this output in the case of these mines why not put in this Amendment. Then the consequence will be, that Parliament, having decided that these mines shall not be cut down in their production, the schemes will have to provide for all other similar mines, providing similar works not to be cut down, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has given in his speech the very answer to his own objection to this, saying that if this were put in, the schemes would be adapted so as to prevent any inequality or injustice to the various classes of mines doing this particular trade. It is desirable on all grounds to encourage these combinations of mines with the other industries to bring them more and more into organic relationship with the chemical works, the coke ovens and the gas works, and other undertakings of that kind. This Bill would be greatly improved if the effect of it were to encourage that reorganisation and combination and not. as would be the effect of leaving the Bill as it stands without this Amendment, seriously to discourage it.

Major DAVIES

I make no apology at this hour for adding my protest to the refusal of the President of the Board of Trade to consider this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is rather like a Bench of Bishops who have come to an agreement with the Church Assembly and produces for us a Deposited Book and says that we must take it or leave it. The right hon. Gentleman says: "I cannot accept this Amendment because if I except these vertical trusts I destroy the whole basis of my quota system." I would reply that that does not show the impossibility of refusing to apply it to these vertical combinations, but it shows the folly of this quota system which he has included in his deposited book. It is amazing to contemplate that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be jockeyed into this position by those who have given him his brief in connection with this Bill. We have had dinned into our ears that what we want for our industrial troubles is rationalisation. Here we have organisations with the foresight, determination and courage to carry out their own rationalisation system. They seek to control their own supplies of raw material; coke oven and chemical organisations have developed their own pits in order to provide themselves with what they need. The right hon. Gentleman now says that he is going to compel them to come into an organisation which is primarily a "cinch" for the coal industry. They will have to come in and are to be handed over to owners who may be their competitors and who will be able to dictate a quota. They are going to dictate to them how much coal they are to get from their own mine, which they need for their own industry. One of these vertical combinations by working 100 per cent. is able to get all the coal it needs at a minimum price. The quota system comes along and says that they must only produce 80 per cent. They will have to lose the other 20 per cent. and make it up by buying someone else's quota in the market. It means an additional cost to the undertaking. And we talk about helping industry! It is a most complicated state of affairs for a Front Bench which says that it represents the business needs of this country to come solemnly to the House of Commons and stultify itself by this kind of legislation. I hope that the party below the Gangway and this party will refuse to take part in any such policy.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in the course of his powerful argument left, unintentionally, the impression that the Amendment was smaller in its operation than it really is. He referred to the steel industry. The Amendment goes beyond the case of the particular industry which happens to have a coal mine, and hon. Members have already drawn attention to one or two very important aspects of this question which are of great importance to the coal industry. One of the things upon which all people who have been discussing the coal industry in recent years have emphasised is the desirability of utilising the by-products, and it is the case that a large number of enterprising companies in recent years have spent large sums of money in utilising coal which is not saleable as coal on the market. That is one of the things for which the Amendment is designed to provide. In particular, coke and by-product works have been set up by a large number of companies in this country. I am told that the proportion of small coal raised in the collieries of this country is very large—about one-third of the output, and until some use could be made of the small coal it was waste. It was waste until scientific development and experience enabled it to be put to some use, and that has been done through these coking works, which have involved a heavy expense on the part of the companies indulging in them. It is important to remember that it is impossible to work that plant efficiently and economically unless there is a full load to work upon, and that is

one of the things which we have in mind in the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade has a well deserved reputation for clarity of thought and expression, but I thought his speech showed a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Amendment. He spoke more than once about inequality as between different collieries, but the Amendment does not give rise to any inequalities as between collieries. The Amendment has been drawn up with great care, and all that it seeks to accomplish is that the quota shall meet the requirements of those companies which are industrial undertakings and happen to own coal mines. It is not designed to enable those undertakings to compete with the collieries in the selling of coal or in adding to the quota, but it is designed to ensure that where there are undertakings of this character which happen to own coal mines which they have purchased from a business point of view, that they shall not be penalised in respect of the coal which they require for the other purposes of their undertaking.

Major COLVILLE

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "supplied," to insert the words "whether as coal or coke."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 251.

Division No. 222.]	AYES.	[11.40 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Duckworth, G. A. V.
Albery, Irving James	Butler, R. A.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Carver, Major W. H.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)	Castle Stewart, Earl of	Eden, Captain Anthony
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Elliot, Major Walter E.
Aske, Sir Robert	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Elmley, Viscount
Atholl, Duchess of	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm"W.)	England, Colonel A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Chapman, Sir S.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Christle, J. A.	Everard, W. Lindsay
Balniel, Lord	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Colville, Major D. J.	Ferguson, Sir John
Beaumont, M. W.	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Fielden, E. B.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Crichton-Stuart, Lard C.	Foot, Isaac
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Ford, Sir P. J.
Bird, Ernest Roy	Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Boyce, H. L.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Bracken, B.	Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Glassey, A. E.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Briscoe, Richard George	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Gower, Sir Robert
Brown Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Granville, E.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Gray, Milner
Greene, W. P. Crawford	McConnell, Sir Joseph	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Savery, S. S.
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Scott, James
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Mond, Hon. Henry	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Skelton, A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Muirhead, A. J.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hanbury, C.	Nathan, Major H. L.	Smithers, Waldron
Harbord, A.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Somerset, Thomas
Hartington, Marquess of	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Haslam, Henry C.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	O'Neill, Sir H.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Tinne, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.	Peake, Captain Osbert	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hunt, Sir Gerald B.	Penny, Sir George	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Train, J.
Iveagh, Countess of	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Power, Sir John Cecil	Wallace, Capt. D. E (Hornsey)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Purbrick, R.	Wardlaw-Mline, J. S
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Pybus, Percy John	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Wayland, Sir William A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.	Ramsbotham, H.	Wells, Sydney R.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	White, H. G.
Lamb, Sir J. O.	Remer, John R.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Windsor-Clie, Lieut-Colonel George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ross, Major Ronald D.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Ruggles-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Llewellin, Major J. J.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Womersley, W. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)	Salmon, Major I.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Long, Major Eric	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Major Sir George Hennessy and
Lymington, Viscount	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Sir Victor Warrender.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Church, Major A. G.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Clarke, J. S.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Cluse, W. S.	Haycock, A. W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Cocks, Frederick Seymour.	Hayday, Arthur
Alpass, J. H.	Compton, Joseph	Hayes, John Henry
Ammon, Charles George	Daggar, George	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Angell, Norman	Dallas, George	Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Arnott, John	Dalton, Hugh	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Ayles, Walter	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Herriotts, J.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Devlin, Joseph	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Barnes, Alfred John	Dukes, C.	Hoffman, P. C.
Batey, Joseph	Duncan, Charles	Hollins, A.
Bellamy, Albert	Ede, James Chuter	Hopkin, Daniel
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Edmunds, J. E.	Horrabin, J. F.
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Egan, W. H.	Isaacs, George
Benson, G.	Forgan, Dr. Robert	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel	Freeman, Peter	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Johnston, Thomas
Bowen, J. W.	Gibbins, Joseph	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Gill, T. H.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Gillett, George M.	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bromfield, William	Gossling, A. G.	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Bromley, J.	Gould, F.	Kelly, W. T.
Brooke, W.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Kennedy, Thomas
Brothers, M.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Kinley, J.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Lang, Gordon
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lathan, G.
Buchanan, G.	Groves, Thomas E.	Law, Albert (Bolton)
Burgess, F. G.	Grundy, Thomas W.	Law, A. (Rosendale)
Caine, Derwent Hall-	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Lawrence, Susan
Cameron, A. G.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Cape, Thomas	Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)	Lawson, John James
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Charleton, H. C.	Harbison, T. J.	Leach, W.
Chater, Daniel	Hardie, George D.	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Palin, John Henry	Sorenson, R.
Lees, J.	Paling, Wilfrid	Stamford, Thomas W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Stephen, Campbell
Lindley, Fred W.	Perry, S. F.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Logan, David Gilbert	Phillips, Dr. Marlon	Strauss, G. R.
Longbottom, A. W.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Sullivan, J.
Longden, F.	Potts, John S.	Sutton, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Price, M. P.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Lunn, William	Quibell, D. J. K.	Taylor, W. B. (Norlolk, S. W.)
Macdonald, Gordon (ince)	Raynes, W. R.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Richards, R.	Thurtle, Ernest
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Tillett, Ben
McElwee, A.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	Tinker, John Joseph
McEntee, V. L.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Toole, Joseph
McKinlay, A.	Ritson, J.	Tout, W. J.
MacLaren, Andrew	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Townend, A. E.
McShane, John James	Romerll, H. G.	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Turner, B.
Mansfield, W.	Rowson, Guy	Vaughan, D. J.
Marcus, M.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Viant, S. P.
Markham, S. F.	Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)	Walker, J.
Marley, J.	Sanders, W. S.	Wallace, H. W.
Marshall, Fred	Sandham, E.	Watkins, F. C.
Mathers, George	Sawyer, G. F.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Matters, L. W.	Scrymgeour, E.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Melville, Sir James	Scurr, John	Wellock, Wilfred
Messer, Fred	Sexton, James	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Middleton, G.	Shaw, Rt. Hon Thomas (Preston)	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Mills, J. E.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	West, F. R.
Milner, J.	Sherwood, G. H.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Montague, Frederick	Shield, George William	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Morley, Ralph	Shillaker, J. F.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)	Shinwell, E.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mort, D. L.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Moses, J. J. H.	Simmons, C. J.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Sinkinson, George	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercllffe)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)	Sitch, Charles H.	Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Muff, G.	Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)	Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gn)
Murnin, Hugh	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Wise, E. F.
Naylor, T. E.	Smith, Frank (Nuncaton)	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Smith, Renale (Penistone)
Noel Baker, P. J.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Oldfield, J. R.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Snell, Harry

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 251.

Division No. 223.]	AYES.	[11.50 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Foot, Isaac
Albery, Irving James	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Ford, Sir P. J.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)	Chapman, Sir S.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)	Christie, J. A.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Aske, Sir Robert	Colville, Major D. J.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Atholl, Duchess of	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Glassey, A. E.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Gower, Sir Robert
Balniel, Lord	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Granville, E.
Beaumont, M. W.	Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Gray, Milner
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Bird, Ernest Roy	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Gritten, W. G. Howard
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Davies, Maj, Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Duckworth, G. A. V.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Boyce, H. L.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Bracken, B.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Brass, Captain Sir William	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Briscoe, Richard George	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Elmley, Viscount	Hanbury, C.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.	England, Colonel A.	Hartington, Marquess of
Butler, R. A.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Haslam, Henry C.
Carver, Major W. H.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Ferguson, Sir John	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Fielden, E. B.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Hurd, Percy A.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Smith, Carington, Neville W.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	O'Neill, Sir H.	Smithers, Waldron
Iveagh, Countess of	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Somerset, Thomas
Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Peake, Captain Osbert	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Penny, Sir George	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Power, Sir John Cecil	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lamnert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Purbrick, R.	Tinne, J. A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Pybus, Percy John	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Train, J.
Lleweilln, Major J. J.	Ramsbotham, H.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)	Remer, John R.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Long, Major Eric	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.
Lymington, Viscount	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Warrender, Sir Victor
McConnell, Sir Joseph	Ross, Major Ronald D.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.	Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wells, Sydney R.
Margesson, Captain H. D.	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	White, H. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Salmon, Major I.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mond, Hon. Henry	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Winterton, M Rt. Hon. Earl
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.	Womersley, W. J.
Muirhead, A. J.	Savery, S. S.
Nathan, Major H. L.	Scott, James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome	Major-Ceneral Sir Robert Hutchison
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Skelton, A. N.	and Major Owen.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Isaacs, George
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Devlin, Joseph	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Dukes, C.	Johnston, Thomas
Alpass, J. H.	Duncan, Charles	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ammon, Charles George	Ede, James Chuter	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Angell, Norman	Edmunds, J. E.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Arnott, John	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ayles, Walter	Egan, W. H.	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Forgan, Dr. Robert	Kelly, W. T.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Freeman, Peter	Kennedy, Thomas
Barnes, Alfred John	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Kinley, J.
Batey, Joseph	Gibbins, Joseph	Lang, Gordon
Bellamy, Albert	Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Gill, T. H.	Lathan, G.
Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)	Gillett, George M.	Law, Albert (Bolton)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Gossling, A. G.	Law, A. (Rosendale)
Benson, G.	Gould, F.	Lawrence, Susan
Bentham, Dr. Ethel	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)	Lawson, John James
Bowen, J. W.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Leach, W.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Groves, Thomas E.	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Bromfileld, William	Grundy, Thomas W.	Lees, J.
Bromley, J.	Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)	Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Brooke, W.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Lindley, Fred W.
Brothers, M.	Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)	Lloyd, C. Ellis
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Logan, David Gilbert
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Harbison, T. J.	Longbottom, A. W.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Hardie, George D.	Longden, F.
Buchanan, G.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Burgess, F. G.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Lunn, William
Calne, Derwent Hall.	Haycock, A. W.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Cameron, A. G.	Hayday, Arthur	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Cape, Thomas	Hayes, John Henry	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	McElwee, A.
Charleton, H. C.	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	McEntee, V. L.
Chater, Daniel	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	McKinlay, A.
Church, Major A. G.	Herrlotts, J.	MacLaren, Andrew
Clarke, J. S.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	McShane, John James
Cluse, W. S.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hoffman, P. C.	Mansfield, W.
Compton, Joseph	Hollins, A.	Marcus, M.
Daggar, George	Hopkin, Daniel	Marley, J.
Dallas, George	Horrabin, J. F.	Marshall, Fred
Dalton, Hugh	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Mathers, George

Matten, L. W.	Romerll, H. G.	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Melville, Sir James	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Messer, Fred	Rowson, Guy	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Middleton, G.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Thurtle, Ernest
Mills, J. E.	Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)	Tillett, Ben
Milner, J.	Sanders, W. S.	Tinker, John Joseph
Montague, Frederick	Sandham, E.	Toole, Joseph
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sawyer, G. F.	Tout, W. J.
Morley, Ralph	Scrymgeour, E.	Townend, A. E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)	Scurr, John	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Mort, D. L.	Sexton, James	Turner, B.
Moses, J. J. H.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Vaughan, D. J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Viant, S. P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)	Sherwood, G. H.	Walker, J.
Muff, G.	Shield, George William	Wallace, H. W.
Murnin, Hugh	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Watkins, F. C.
Naylor, T. E.	Shillaker, J. F.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Shinwell, E.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Noel Baker, P. J.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Wellock, Wilfred
Oldfield, J. R.	Simmons, C. J.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Sinkinson, George	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Palin, John Henry	Sitch, Charles H.	West, F. R.
Paling, Wilfrid	Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Perry, S. F.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Smith, Rennte (Penistone)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Picton-Tubervill, Edith	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Potts, John S.	Snell, Harry	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Price, M. P.	Sorensen, R.	Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Quibell, D. J. K.	Stamford, Thomas W.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Raynes, W. R.	Stephen, Campbell	Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Richards, R.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)	Wise, E. F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Strachey, E. J. St. Loe	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	Strauss, G. R.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Sullivan, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ritson, J.	Sutton, J. E.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. C. DAVIES

I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, after the word "district," to insert the words: Provided that in any district a company or person owning a single colliery undertaking shall have such allowance added to their quota as may be reasonably required to prevent such company being placed by the operation of the quota at an undue disadvantage in respect of the cost of production as compared with a company owning several colliery undertakings. Any owner who is dissatisfied with the decision of an executive board in regard to this proviso may appeal to the Judicial Commissioners whose decision shall be final and binding on the executive board. At this late hour I only propose to explain the Amendment briefly. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite desire to stay here, I am prepared—[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN

Order! Order!

12.0 m.

Mr. DAVIES

The purpose of the Amendment is to provide protection for single collieries, so that they shall not be at the mercy of com-bines which, apparently, are favoured by some hon. Members on the other side, but shall have protection in the quota allocated to single collieries. I move this Amendment because in the South Wales voluntary marketing scheme an arrangement was made that extra protection should be given to single collieries, so that they should not suffer when the quota system came into operation under the voluntary system. May I illustrate the position in a few words? Suppose that a single colliery produces 700,000 tons of coal per annum, and the quota reduces its production by 15 per cent. Under those circumstances, when it is barely paying its way on 700,000 tons per annum, it gets into difficulties; the 15 per cent. reduction will mean an extra cost of 1s. to 1s. 6d. a ton on the amount of coal produced, which will probably mean disaster to the colliery. What is the position in regard to a combine which is producing, say, 4,000,000 tons of coal per year? It is reduced by 15 per cent., but the quota will be the same, and that combine can close the inefficient pits and work the efficient ones, and it will not suffer in the slightest degree. The object of the Amendment is to secure that the single colliery shall receive Parliamentary protection and not be left to the mercy of those outside this House who seem to have supplied the terms of this Bill.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

It is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. It is quite true, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that in the South Wales scheme a provision was made for single pits, but the position is quite different when we are legislating for the country as a whole and providing safeguards for all undertakings in the executive bodies in the districts. It would be quite impossible in a scheme of this kind to put single pits in a different position from an undertaking which comprise two or more pits. There is an arrangement for fixing standard tonnage and quota in terms of any representation which will be made to the executive body of a district, and, beyond that, for arbitration if an individual pit owner is affected. The safeguards are adequate.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

There was an understanding that we should complete the Committee stage of this Bill in two days. One day remains, and I think it will be for the general convenience of hon. Members if we devote one more day to the rest of the Committee stage. The next day for the Committee stage will be announced on Thursday. When we meet again I hope we shall be able to proceed immediately to the discussion of the price regulation under this part of the Bill. I do not think it will be necessary to sit very late to complete the Committee stage, and I hope we shall be able to complete the Committee stage somewhere round about 12 o'clock.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I do not think the President of the Board of Trade will find any obstruction on this side of the House in regard to the suggestion which he has just made. I can assure him that the speeches on this side of the House will not be of undue length providing that the speeches of hon. Members opposite are not so long as they have been to-day. I hope we shall be able to complete the Committee stage at a reasonable hour.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.