EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of 20 and 21 Geo. 5. c. 34, ss. 5 and 8.)

HC Deb 14 February 1938 vol 331 cc1566-609

4.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

I beg to move, in page 79, line 40, to leave out paragraph I, and to insert: 1. For Sub-section (2) of Section five there shall be substituted the following Subsection: (2) The chairman and other members of every committee of investigation shall be persons appointed by the Board of Trade and the Board shall appoint as chairman a member of the legal profession and as other members persons who appear to the Board to be substantially independent of the coal industry or of any other industry in which large quantities of coal are used and who are not members or officers or servants of an organisation of employers or workpeople in the coal-mining industry, practising mining engineers, or in any other manner directly connected with that industry.

This Amendment is, of course, an Amendment of the principal Act, the Coal Mines Act, 1930. In view of the fact that this is in the nature of legislation by reference, and not too easy to follow, I might read one or two paragraphs of the principal Act dealing with the constitution and setting up of the national committee of investigation. The Act says: There shall be constituted a national committee of investigation consisting of nine members, which shall be charged with the duty of investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of the central scheme, and there shall also be constituted for every district a district committee of investigation consisting of five members.…

Sub-section (2), which we are specifically seeking to amend, reads: The chairman and other members of every committee of investigation shall be persons appointed by the Board of Trade, and, of the members of the committee other than the chairman, one half shall be persons appointed to represent the interests of consumers of coal.…

The Schedule does, to some extent, amend this Section by inserting the words: the person to be appointed as chairman shall be a member of the legal profession.

We are carrying that a little further, and hope to constitute an entirely impartial Committee of Investigation by ensuring that none of the people appointed to it shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the coal trade. We admit that we are, to some extent, laying ourselves open to the charge that we are providing for the nomination of people to the Commission who know nothing of the business, but we have Government sanction for that, because the Government are appointing a Central Appeal Tribunal with a membership appointed more or less on those lines. I should like to read what the Government have to say with regard to the appointment of that tribunal: …the Board shall appoint as chairman a member of the legal profession and as the other members persons who appear to the Board to he substantially independent of the coal industry or of any other industry in which large quantities of coal are used, and who are not members, or officers or servants, of an organisation of employers or workpeople in the coal-mining industry, practising mining engineers, or in any other manner directly connected with that industry.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and, if it is a good thing for the Central Appeal Tribunal to be constituted on those lines, it is a good thing that this other body should be similarly constituted. It is an open secret that hitherto the Committee of Investigation has not succeeded in safeguarding the interests of the consumer to a really appreciable extent. What has happened? It is laid down that half the committee should consist of those who are supposed to safeguard the interests of the consumer, and it usually means that the other half of the committee represent mine-owners and the workers in the industry. They have formed one side, and those who have been attempting to look after the consumers have formed the other side. To all intents and purposes it has become such a dead letter that many consumers have not thought it worth while to take their case before the investigation committee. In view of that fact, and of the very serious increases in prices which have taken place since the principal Act of 1930 has been in operation, we feel that it is essential that a more efficient body should be appointed to look after the interests of the consumer.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist the Amendment, because if the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir L. Ward) desires to strengthen the committee's investigations, as I understand it is his desire to do, this is the worst way of doing it. He spoke of the need of a committee of investigation of an impartial character. It is quite clear that no committee can be completely impartial. The chairman himself and these independent persons are necessarily consumers of coal, and certainly, in coming to a decision, they could hardly be regarded as impartial in the coal consuming interest. The Act of 1930 recognised that there should be on a committee of investigation persons acquainted with the business concerned. The representative of the Mine-owners' Association, and the representative of the mineworkers act in the nature of assessors to advise on technical questions, with which the chairman as an independent person, cannot be familiar. For that reason this would be a most objectionable provision to insert in the Bill.

The hon. and gallant Member called upon the Government to accept the Amendment on the ground that a provision of this kind had been inserted in the Schedule in relation to the Appeal Tribunal. The case is not on all fours. The Appeal Tribunal are not called upon to examine the expert evidence that is submitted by the aggrieved consumer, but to weigh the evidence presented to them by the consumer, plus the evidence presented to them by the committee of investigation. They are, in fact, a court of appeal and are in quite a different position from the committee of investigation, and on those grounds, and more particularly because it is the desire to strengthen the committees of investigation and not to weaken them, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to resist the Amendment.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald

I, also, appeal to the Secretary for Mines to refuse to accept the Amendment. We are anxious that the interests of the consumers should be adequately safeguarded, and do not want any advantage from the committees of investigation, but we feel that the machinery set up under the Act of 1930 is the right kind of machinery. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to suggest that the colliery interests represented vitiated this machinery. I would like him to understand clearly that the miner knows nothing about the fixing of prices. The owner may know something about them and be an interested party. The miner is there and knows as little as any representative of the consumers, and he is interested in the prices, as he ought to be, as his wages are determined by the prices. The Secretary for Mines should remember that we fear the possibility of prices being used in the interests of colliery owners who have investments in industries which use coal. We fear what may happen in the future. We have seen in the past that the colliery owner can lose on his colliery and regain his losses later on from moneys invested in some coal-using concern. Therefore, the miner is entitled to be there to safeguard his own interests.

There is to be an independent chairman who from now on, as, I think, has been the case in the past, is to be a member of the legal profession in the main. You have two consumers, one colliery owner and one miner. Can anyone suggest that such a committee cannot deal with the cases brought before the in- vestigation committee? What are to be the cases? Sometimes prices, sometimes quality, supplies not arriving as they should, and the kind of service meted out. I suggest that these committees, constituted as they are, will be able to investigate these cases. We resent the suggestion that because there will be representatives from the mining industry upon these committees, it will prevent the consumer from getting a fair deal. Frankly, the miners of this country realise that it is far better that the consumer of coal should know that he is getting a fair deal, and that is why we have not opposed the setting up of adequate machinery for investigation. The machinery as constituted under the Act of 1930 is preferable from the point of view of the consumer to machinery constituted under the terms of this Amendment.

4.52 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I agree with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in saying that there is a difference between the composition of the Appeal Tribunal and the Regional Committees of Investigation, and that, because the Central Appeal Tribunal is proposed in the Bill to be entirely independent, there is no reason at all why there should necessarily be an alteration in the composition of committees of investigation. The hon. Baronet, I presume, moved the Amendment in the interests of the consumers of coal in order that the problem might be ventilated, but I say quite definitely, that the view he put forward is by no means the universally held view, even of representative bodies who purport to speak for organised consumers of coal. This matter has been under the consideration of the Government for a long time. The Committee will remember, as I said earlier on in these Debates, that in 1936, when the Government decided to try to secure that the chairmen of these committees should be legal gentlemen, it was also agreed at that time between the colliery interests and the representatives of certain of the consuming interests that the kind of Amendments that we were putting down in the Bill would meet both cases. We have had to go a little further since then because of the diverse views which were put in front of us, and we have come to the conclusion quite definitely that, bear- ing in mind that the committees are committees of investigation to try to find out the facts, the most effective kind of body to do that is one on which there should be representatives both of coal interests and of the consuming interests. That is why we are definite that it should be in the form in which it is under the Act of 1930.

We feel that there is a definite advantage to be found in having round a table those who can speak for coal and those who can speak for coal consumption. If the Amendment of the hon. Baronet is carried, these representatives would also disappear from the committees of investigation. I feel that, on matters of carrying on an investigation, no doubt, in their private deliberations, the chairman feels that he can get very much help by having with him those who can speak with personal and intimate knowledge. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the committees cannot work in favour of the consumers. I would remind him and the Committee once again that a considerable number of cases have been taken for one reason or another before committees of investigation, and if the decisions of the committees were not such as were desirable—that is to say, from the consumers' point of view, such as the consumers were desirous of receiving—it might very well have nothing to do with the decision of the committee, but might very well be a bad case. That is always overlooked in these criticisms. We certainly do not propose to ask the Committee to alter the proposals in the Bill or to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, and I hope, therefore, the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Levy

I rise only to ask a question. The hon. Gentleman has stated quite clearly that the investigation committee will have the right to investigate with regard to prices. Having arrived at the decision, by what statutory authority can they enforce it?

Amendment negatived.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald

I beg to move, in page 80, line 29, to leave out from the beginning, to "Any," in line 33.

This Amendment is designed to deal with the question as to who shall decide on the complaints that are made. In the first sentence of the paragraph it gives the power to decide entirely to the chairman. It simply means that the chairman shall decide in every case. It has been our desire to meet the complaints of the consumers in the past, and we fail to see why this provision should be put in this Schedule. It has been said repeatedly during these Debates that prices determine wages. The miners think that to put the question of prices in the hands of one person is an unfair way of dealing with wages. I expect that the argument from the Front Bench opposite will be that, in all probability, there will always be two representatives on one side and two on the other in making decisions, and that, therefore, it will be a case of the casting vote of the chairman. We have no objection to a decision by the casting vote of the chairman or to a decision by a majority of those present, but we take objection to the question being left entirely in the hands of one person. There might be occasions when the four members would agree, but because the chairman disagreed, he might turn down the decision of the four members.

It is because of that probability that we have put down this Amendment, and we ask the Secretary for Mines or the President of the Board of Trade, when replying, to agree to that which the President said last week. He said, in discussing a similar issue, that it was a grave and important issue and one upon which he felt that there ought to be a majority decision. That is all that we ask. If the Secretary for Mines can give reasons why it should not be a majority decision and can satisfy us I will willingly withdraw the Amendment. We are not satisfied that it is necessary to invest such great power in one individual, having in mind the fact that he decides prices. Prices decide wages. Therefore, the fortunes of the miners are seriously involved. I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion in our Amendment. We are willing, if need be, if there has to be a majority decision, to accept the casting vote of the chairman.

5.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

We have given this matter very careful consideration and we thought it wise that the chairman of this committee should be a completely independent person, of legal standing. As he will be the only independent person on the committee it seemed to us that if there is strong or violent disagreement it will be better to put the final decision in his hands, seeing that he has no axe to grind and no direct interest one way or the other. That was why we thought that in the event of there being no agreement the chairman should be put in a quasi-judicial position. That is not an unknown thing to occur in various committees dealing with coal. In the selling schemes, or the majority of them, there is an independent chairman, and if the members do not agree, the chairman takes a decision on their behalf. The hon. Member will also recollect that on conciliation boards affecting owners and men, if the parties do not agree they decide to leave the matter to the independent chairman to take a decision. It was that consideration which led us to think that if there arose a case in which there was complete difference of opinion the chairman, who could not be considered as favouring one side or the other, should take a decision on behalf of the committee. That is why in the Bill we have left the decision to him in such circumstances.

5.2 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I think the Secretary for Mines is going rather further than he has indicated he wants to go by the form of the Schedule as it stands. Let me envisage the position that may arise. He has been talking about a difference of interests, about the consumers' representatives as against, say, the mineowners' and mineworkers' representatives. That would be two and two. That is obviously the major cleavage that there is likely to be. In that case, obviously, the chairman would have the casting vote. That is possible without his having to override the majority of the rest of the committee. But this envisages a case in which the chairman disagrees with all four of the other representatives, who are agreed. It would seem rather strange that if the consumers, the mineowners and the miners are agreed that we should give the independent chairman the right to overrule the lot. That is what is happening here. By his own failure to be unanimous, the chairman can always give himself the right to determine the question. That seems to be going too far for any committee. It really makes the chairman a complete dictator of the entire tribunal. He can at any moment say: "I do not agree with you, and therefore what you say does not matter." Surely that is wrong. That is a bad atmosphere to have in any committee of investigation.

I appreciate the point that you may have a committee which consists of four representatives, one of whom may be absent, in which case you might have two and two, including the chairman, and some means of resolving that position has to be invented. Could not that be done by giving the chairman a casting vote in such a case, which would in fact mean that having voted in the normal way as chairman he would have the right to decide and determine the question by giving a second or casting vote, in order to bring the issue to a decision by a majority? I should have thought that that would have provided everything that was really necessary. The Minister may say that you might have the mineworker and the two consumers' representatives voting against the mineowner and the chairman. That is a possibility. In that case, if the consumers' representatives and the mine-worker are agreed against the mineowner and the chairman, is there any reason why their opinion should not prevail? There you would have two quite diverse interests who had been able to agree. Surely, that would be sufficient to give the majority the right to have their opinion put into operation. There might be a case in which the two consumers' representatives and the mineowner might be on one side and the miners' representative and the chairman on the other.

Mr. Stanley

You might not have identity of interests between the two consumers' representatives. You might have one consumers' representative out-voted by a combination of the mineowner and the miner, and the other consumers' representative not affected.

Sir S. Cripps

In that case you would have four different interests. You have to get some of them to come together to the majority view. Just because one representative, say, a consumer, does not like a decision, that is no reason for a decision not being made. If you have managed to get one consumers' representative, the mineworkers' representative and the mineowner agreeing, then merely because one consumers' representative, perhaps for some matter personal to his industry, does not agree, that does not seem to me to be any reason why the Government should say: "We take away from the complete committee the power to decide, and give it to the chairman." I should have thought that in those circumstances the decision you got from the majority would really be a sounder decision than that you would get from the legal chairman. I do not wish to decry the legal chairman, but this is not a legal matter; it is really a commercial matter which is being investigated. I should have thought that if on a commercial matter of this kind you could get three people on the committee, apart from the independent chairman, to come to an agreement, then you would be able to say that you had done the best you could to get a sound decision, and I should have said that that was a better and sounder decision on the whole than to leave the decision solely in the hands of the legal chairman. You would be more likely to get a satisfactory result in that way.

I suggest that the Government should look into this matter again between now and the Report stage with a view to seeing whether they cannot satisfactorily solve the matter by giving the chairman a second or casting vote in the event of there being an equality of votes. That does, in fact, give him, in certain instances, if one consumer is absent for any reason, the opportunity to put himself in as another consumer and then as chairman. He could in that way always be a substitute for one of the people absent and have his own vote as chairman. That would be a satisfactory solution, and I think my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would consider it a satisfactory compromise. I suggest that between now and the Report stage the Minister should look into the matter on those lines.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Peake

I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that the consumers' interests shall be adequately safeguarded, but I cannot share the view that the Amendment is designed to secure that object. On these committees, apart from the independent chairman, there are two representatives who are interested directly in coal, the coalowner and the miner. On the consumers' side there is almost always a clash of interests, because one represents the large industrial consumers and the other the small domestic consumers. When a complaint comes before the committee it has been sometimes found that in practice there were three parties on the committee who were in favour of the complaint not being upheld—the two representatives of the mining industry, because they thought that the price of coal would be higher, and where the complaint was, say, in respect of coal supplied to an electricity undertaking, the domestic consumer was shocked and horrified by the low price being charged to the undertaking and felt that it might very well be higher. On the other hand, where it was a case of domestic coal coming before the committee, the great public undertaking generating gas or electricity had a direct interest in the price of domestic coal being high, in order to secure a market for their gas or electricity; so you were likely to find that three out of the four members of the committee, other than the chairman, were prejudiced against the consumer from the start. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the chairman should be given a casting vote, would not meet that situation. The proper way to meet it is the method laid down in the Schedule, and that is, in the case of any disagreement to leave any decision in the hands of the chairman.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths

I support the Amendment. The argument of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) strengthens our position. The hon. Member is afraid that there might be occasions upon which the mineworkers' representatives on these committees would favour the poor consumer and that there might be a majority against the mineowner. I would urge the Secretary for Mines to accept the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member. For over two years I had the privilege of being a member of an investigation committee. We did not have much experience, because in two and a half years we had only one complaint. That, I suppose, is an indication that the South Wales mineowners had not been charging exorbitant prices. As the Schedule is worded, it means that the committee, according to the terms of reference, must come to a unanimous decision; otherwise the chairman will decide. If the voting results in a tie the chairman will give his casting vote and will decide. The committee will, therefore, enter upon their work with the knowledge that unless they come to a unanimous decision it will be a waste of time to discuss the matter. That will destroy the effectiveness of the work of the committee and in a large measure destroy the valuable discussions upon which the chairman might be able to arrive at a fair estimate on which to give his casting vote.

When these committees meet there is a complaint sent out from, say, a consumer, and there is a reply from the colliery company who have supplied the coal. These documents are submitted before the meeting to each member of the committee. The chairman must be a member of the legal profession and we may assume that his knowledge of the mining industry will be very little. He comes to the meeting with nothing before him except bald statements from either side. Unless the chairman can provoke the members of the committee to discuss whether the price is a fair one or not he will have very little material upon which to form a judgment.

I suggest that the Schedule should stand as it is. If the committee meet with the knowledge that unless they are unanimous the chairman will decide, the result will be that if there is any indication that they are not likely to be unanimous they will chuck it up and leave the decision to the chairman, who will have to decide without having heard any discussion upon the particular case. From the standpoint of the consumer, industrial or domestic, this kind of committee of investigation is the poorest kind of protection they can have. The committee will be rendered useless unless they meet with the knowledge that they must hammer out a decision as a majority. Unless the committee are given some inducement to thrash out a problem there is no protection for the consumer. As it is at present there is every inducement for them to say that as they cannot be unanimous they will leave it to the chairman. We do not think a committee of investigation set up in this way is the best way to safeguard the consumers' interests.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Radford

I rise to support the Amendment and to reinforce a point put by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). There is more in this than the fact that the chairman is to have a final vote in case of a difference of opinion. He is one of five members and if the other four are unanimous and he does not like their view he has only to say that he takes a different view to the other four and he makes the decision. There is nothing unusual in giving a chairman a second or casting vote. It is the ordinary procedure in almost every limited company.

Mr. Stanley

I understood the suggestion was rather different, that the chairman should in any case have a second vote and if the voting was level he should have a casting vote as well.

Mr. Shinwell

The suggestion is that the chairman should have a vote as member of the committee and that in the event of the voting being level he should have a casting vote.

Mr. Radford

The committee is to consist of five members, but I understand that the whole of the five need not be present for business. If there are four members, including the chairman, present, and the chairman is to have a second or casting vote, it will enable the point of view of the chairman to prevail, but I think it is most undesirable to have a position in which the chairman has only to express a different opinion to all the other members to be able to make the decision. I am sure this position has only to be brought to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines to be rectified before the Report stage.

5.20 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I have said all through our Debates that any point raised will receive consideration before the Report stage. That is the object of having a debate. In the Schedule the chairman is the only person who has to be present at a meeting. Other members may not be present all through the proceedings or at any time during the proceedings. The quorum is to be three, and in making these arrangements we wish to be satisfied that we do not fall into the error of what would occur if all the members present were people of a particular point of view against those who were appealing. Supposing there was an appeal from the miners that the price of coal was too low. They may not be entirely satisfied to be in the hands of two persons who were definitely there as the representatives of the consumers, and similarly the consumers may not be satisfied if in the particular appeal they make there are no consumers' representatives present. The question is not quite so easy as hon. Members have pointed out. It was to get over a difficulty of that kind that we put into the Bill that the chairman should always be there whatever happened, and that he should take the decision.

Mr. Radford

But outside all questions as to the representation of consumers and coalowners what is the hon. and gallant Member's answer to this point? There is the old story of the one juryman who said that the other n jurymen were very obstinate. It is possible for an obstinate chairman of any committee of investigation to say on every occasion that his decision is to prevail. He has only to differ with his colleagues and he has the sole right to decide. I think such a position requires some definite undertaking that it will be considered by the Government with a view to rectification.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

The Secretary for Mines has said that he will consider the matter before Report stage. What does he mean by that? I think we want some more definite assurances. There has been no stated grievance in respect of the committee of investigation on this point. Something has been said about the inaccessibility of the committee of investigation and the need for appointing substitute members so as to have a quorum on every occasion to enable business to proceed. On this ground there have been grievances, but as far as I can gather no one has expressed a grievance on the ground that the chairman was not permitted to take a decision himself in the absence of unanimity on the part of his colleagues, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member will clarify the point.

5.25 p.m.

Sir John Withers

I know nothing about coal and I am a perfectly independent person, but I am astonished at the wording of this Schedule. In the whole of my experience I have never seen such a paragraph. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is perfectly right, and I hope the Government will consider the matter again and consider it in a favourable spirit. If it is not amended I am certain the public will think it is lunacy, and when it gets to another place it will be treated as lunacy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendment very favourably.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Jagger

I wonder whether the Minister realises the effect it will have on a committee of investigation if the committee knows that the chairman has power to overrule it. It will stultify any attempt at arriving at an accommodation among the four members, and one cannot conceive of such a proposal as this going through this House or through another place. I am speaking with the experience of arbitration and I am convinced that to let the chairman have a deciding vote of this kind will stultify the whole proceedings of the committee.

Captain Crookshank

That is certainly the last thing one wants to happen. I do not think I can carry it any further at the moment, but I do say that we will consider the matter before Report stage.

Mr. G. Macdonald

I take that as a promise that there will be some variation, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

I beg to move, in page 80, line 43, at the end, to insert: (3D) Any other question relating to the meetings or procedure of a committee of investigation shall be decided in accordance with directions issued by the Board of Trade for the purpose. I am moving this Amendment in order to ensure that no difficulty shall arise in carrying through the operations of any committee of investigation. An attempt is being made to strengthen these bodies and we are in cordial agreement with that, but there may be some emergency, some difficulty about calling a committee together, or some dispute on the committee of investigation itself, and we think that an appeal by a consumer may not be expeditiously carried through. We wish to ensure that the Board of Trade shall have the power to issue directions to enable the committees of investigation to proceed. It may be that by the provisions of the Schedule, this Amendment is not needed, but I have moved it in order to clarify the situation and in the hope of obtaining from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that nothing will stand in the way of the smooth working of the committees of investigation.

5.31 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

From the point of view of expedition, we are assisted by sub-paragraph (3B), which provides for substitute members. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) would have been more fortunate if he had not moved this Amendment. The last sentence of sub-paragraph (3B) reads: Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Subsection, the meetings and procedure of every committee of investigation shall be regulated in accordance with rules made by the Board of Trade for the purpose. As far as I can see, the Amendment says the same thing, and therefore I hope the hon. Member will not press it to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

I beg to move, in page 82, line 29, at the end, to insert: 7.—(1) There shall be constituted a Consumers Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Consumers Committee,") which shall consist of a chairman and not less than six other members who shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of consumers of coal. Such Committee shall be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on—

1. (i) the effect of any marketing scheme which is for the time being in force; and
2. (ii) any complaints made to the Committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal.

(2) If the Consumers Committee reports to the Minister that any provision of a marketing scheme or any act or omission of an executive board administering such a scheme is, in their opinion, contrary to the interests of consumers of coal or is contrary to the interests of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the Minister may, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report, refer the matter to the Central Appeal Tribunal to be constituted as hereinbefore provided for their consideration. (3) For the purpose of enabling the Committee or the Central Appeal Tribunal to consider any matter which it is their duty under this paragraph to consider the Council, or the Executive Board, administering the scheme to which the matter relates, shall furnish to the Committee or Tribunal such accounts and other information relating to the affairs of the Board as the Committee or Tribunal consider relevant, and shall be entitled to make repre- sentation to the Committee or Tribunal with respect to the matter in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister. (4) If the Central Appeal Tribunal reports to the Minister that any provision of a marketing scheme or any act or omission of a board administering such a scheme is contrary to the interests of consumers of coal or is contrary to the interests of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the Minister, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report—

1. (a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
2. (b) may by order revoke the scheme;
3. (c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the Board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order;

and it shall be the duty of the Board administering such a scheme to comply with any directions applying to that Board which are contained in an order under head (c) of this sub-paragraph. Provided that—

1. (i) every order under head (a) or head (c) of this sub-paragraph shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before Parliament and if either House of Parliament within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, it shall thereupon become void, without prejudice, however, to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order;
2. (ii) an order under head (b) of this subparagraph shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament; and
3. (iii) before taking any action under this sub-paragraph the Minister shall give the Board administering the scheme notice of the action which he proposes to take, and shall consider any representations made by the Board within fourteen days after the date of the notice."

This Amendment seeks to create what one might call a consumers' committee. The gist of the Amendment is that: There shall be constituted a consumers' committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'consumers' committee"), which shall consist of a chairman and not less than six other members who shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of consumers of coal. We have heard a good deal recently about the interests of the consumers. The Amendment would give to those who wish to render service to the consumers an opportunity of making good their words by setting up a committee which would have power to safeguard the interests of con- summers, but I am very much afraid that those who represent the coalowners and the mineworkers will see to it that the Amendment is turned down. The object of the Amendment is not altogether unknown to members of the Government. The Sea Fish Industry Bill, which is being considered in the Standing Committee at the present time, protects the interests of the consumers by constituting a consumers' committee. I do not pretend that the cases of coal and sea fish are absolutely analogous, but I suggest that if it be considered necessary that the consumers of sea fish should be protected from exploitation, it is equally necessary that the consumers of coal should be similarly protected. This Amendment gives considerable powers with a view to protecting those interests. It provides that the consumers' committee shall be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on—

1. (i) the effect of any marketing scheme which is for the time being in force; and
2. (ii) any complaints made to the committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal."

If the consumers' committee report to the Minister that the interests of the consumers are adversely affected, the course of action that shall be taken is laid down, and it goes to the length of providing that the Minister

1. "(a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;
2. (b) may by order revoke the scheme;
3. (c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify may by order direct the Board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order."

It will be seen that the powers of the consumers' committee would be very wide, but in my submission they would not be too wide for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the consumers of such a vital commodity as coal. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), in a speech which he made a short time ago, said that the consumers usually get a fair deal. Let us consider the sort of fair deal which they have been getting during the last two or three years, and on that basis judge whether or not a consumers' committee is necessary. I will deal first of all with the prices charged to public utility undertakings manufacturing electricity. I will specify certain contracts which they entered into, and the prices which they had to pay before the scheme was fully working, and the prices which they had to pay last year.

Mr. G. Macdonald

On a point of Order. For the purpose of being clear about previous Rulings on this matter, may I ask whether we are entitled to discuss prices beyond the first transaction?

The Chairman

No. I have given a Ruling on that point, and so far the hon. and gallant Member has not transgressed that Ruling. At the moment, he has said nothing, his Amendment says nothing, which goes beyond the first contract. He appears to have kept very carefully within my ruling.

Sir A. Lambert Ward

I am obliged to you for your Ruling, Sir, and I shall take the greatest care not to transgress it in any way. The prices to which I shall refer will be the prices of the first transaction, that is to say, the transaction of the electricity company which buys direct from the colliery. The first contract I will mention is one in which, in 1933, the electricity undertaking purchased coal at the pithead at 8s. 2d. per ton, whereas in 1937, the contract price had risen to 16s. 2d. per ton, an increase of nearly 100 per cent.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman please specify to what class of coal he refers, otherwise the figures are meaningless?

Sir A. Lambert Ward

The coal came from South Yorkshire pits, and the prices are for screened coal. In 1937, the undertaking obtained a quality of coal as similar as possible to that which it got in 1933. In another contract, the prices were similar. In 1933, the pithead price was 8s. 4d. and in 1937 it was 16s. 5d., an increase of 97 per cent. In the case of a contract for unscreened coal, in 1933 the price was 4s. 3d. per ton and in 1937, 12s. 6d. per ton, an increase of 173 per cent. That is the sort of fair deal which that electricity undertaking has been getting under the 1930 Coal Act. I come now to the worst case of all, a contract for slack coal. I admit that no doubt the price charged for the coal in 1933 was utterly and hopelessly an uneconomic one, but at the same time, I think that the increase of 212 per cent. which the undertaking has had to pay is excessive, and shows that very gross profiteering is taking place on the part of the coal-owning and coal-working interests.

Mr. G. Macdonald

What are the figures?

Sir A. Lambert Ward

In 1933, the contract price for this small coal was 3s. per ton pithead, whereas in 1937, it was 13s. 3d., an increase of 212 per cent. Let me now turn to another interest which is predominant in my constituency, that is to say, the fishing industry. The increase in price in the average contract in the present year as compared with two years ago is no less than 4s. per ton. Exactly the same thing applies to the shipping industry as a whole. We hear a great many complaints about unpatriotic Steamer owners changing their ships over from coal to oil. It is not merely a case of oil being cleaner and more convenient than coal, but a question of price. If coal is to be had at a price which is better than the price of oil, coal will continue to be used; but if that is not so, the owners, in their interest and in the national interest, must change over to oil. Let hon. Members not forget that the British shipping industry is open to world-wide competition, and that unless it can offer competitive rates, it will have to go under. My submission is that these arbitrary increases in the price of coal to which I have referred show that it is essential that adequate steps should be taken to protect the interests of consumers.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Muff

I ask the Committee seriously to consider this Amendment. I assure hon. Members that there is an uneasy feeling in the country that the consumer is not getting a square deal. I should like to amplify the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) with reference to the price of coal, by explaining that the price of 3s. 11d. per ton which he mentioned was the price of coal which had to go through a three-sixteenth mesh, and that the largest particle of coal was the size of a pea. I would also remind the Committee that only a few years ago certain colliery owners allowed people to take this slack coal away free. We have now got to the pitch that the corporation electricity and gas undertakings, which I am glad to say are limited in their profits, are asking not so much that the miners and mine-owners shall be beaten down in regard to the price of coal, but that they shall get much better service than they are getting at the present time. Prices have gone up and I would remind the Committee that when the Government made the proposal that the price should be increased by one shilling a ton on existing contracts, the municipal authorities of the country were the first to agree to that increase, on condition that the shilling went to the miner. Since that time question after question has been put to the Secretary of Mines to find out whether the shilling is going to the miner. There has been an uneasy feeling that the miner is not getting the shilling which the municipal authorities agreed to pay.

If this Amendment cannot be accepted, we appeal to the Government to make the central marketing scheme really operative. Again, I want to say that the municipal authorities, as one of their spokesmen told me only on Saturday, are not so much interested in a low price as in getting a much better service than that which they are at present receiving from the Mining Association of Great Britain. I share with the President of the Board of Trade the feeling that we cannot have much confidence in the Mining Association of Great Britain. Its history has been one chapter after another of incidents such as locking out the miners or trying to put pressure on the public—so much so that one might properly describe the Mining Association as Public Enemy No. 1. I agree that the terms of the Amendment have been "lifted" from the Sea Fish Bill and that they also appeared in a programme associated to some extent with one party of this House.

We do not trust the mineowners. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made a trenchant and powerful speech last week in which he said that the mineowner and the subsidiary company were members of the same team wearing d'fferent jerseys. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was full of scorn last week when he spoke of corporations and corporation committees and electricity and gas engineers getting coal down by a penny or twopence a ton, but those municipal committees have a duty to the ratepayers and to the consumers. If the mineowner exploits the consumer— and in the last analysis it is the mine-owner who does so—whether the consumer happens to be Mrs. Smith who lives in my street or the corporation to which I pay rates, all suffer in the long run. I appeal to this Committee to insist that we ought to have service if we can have nothing else from the Mining Association of Great Britain. It is all right for the Jacob of Leeds to speak here in his dulcet tones about giving fair play to the mineworker and the general public but while the voice is the voice of Jacob the hands are the hairy hands of the Esau of Wales—Esau Williams. We want some check even upon South Yorkshire and Yorkshire coalowners as to the price at which they are selling at the pithead, whether it is to Mrs. Smith or the Hull Electricity Committee.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Or the London Midland and Scottish.

Mr. Muff

Or the London Midland and Scottish, I agree, or the subsidiary company in which the mining undertaking is interested. Since 1930 all we have had is a "take it or leave it" attitude on the part of the Mining Association of Great Britain. If I were asked to suggest a coat of arms for the Mining Association of Great Britain, I should say that certainly a bar-sinister would be there, and the crest would probably be eight fingers and two thumbs, extended rampant and "cocking snooks" at the rest of the community.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Radford

I join with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir Lambert Ward) in asking the Government to consider this Amendment favourably. Members of the Committee will have seen that the committee of investigation which has been inquiring into the contract prices charged to the Lancashire cotton-spinning industry in 1938 has found that the proposed prices are excessive and that some increase was justifiable but not those proposed. Commercial and other consumers in some cases buy directly from the collieries, but in other cases they are so situated that they are compelled to buy from the coal merchants who have the handling of coal in their particular area. I wish to know whether your Ruling, Sir Dennis, which I have no wish to transgress, debars us from discussing the price charged to consumers who buy from coal merchants?

The Chairman

I think that is so. This Amendment deals only with the first contract between the coalowner and the first purchaser.

Mr. Radford

The committee of investigation having reported that these prices which are now being charged to various units in the cotton industry are excessive, and an undertaking having been given by the Central Coalowning Association to my right hon. Friend that they would go into these matters to ensure that supplies of the same quality can be secured by consumers at the finally agreed price, the position may well arise that while some cotton mills, which buy directly from a colliery, will have protection, those which, owing to their location, are compelled to buy from coal merchants, will be denied that protection. It was a great disappointment to me and I am sure to many hon. Members in all parts of the Committee when it was made clear both from the Chair and from the Front Bench that only what was described as the first purchaser was to be protected. For the life of me I cannot see why that should be so. I agree that if the same consignment of coal changed hands from one merchant to another it would be impossible to trace it to its final destination, but when a commercial undertaking which is compelled by circumstances to buy from the merchant who sells in its area is denied protection, then such a consumers' protection committee as this Amendment seeks to have established is highly desirable. I cannot help noticing that when there is any talk about consumers and prices it seems to cramp the style of hon. Members opposite. They are torn by conflicting emotions. With their own fair-mindedness they sympathise with the consumer who is being exploited—

Mr. J. Griffiths

Would the hon. Member justify prices of 8s. 2d. and 8s. 4d. at the pithead for screened coal in 1933, or 3s. 11d. for slack? That is the reason why we have been hammering at the coal-owners for years. They have been throwing away the coal at the expense of the poor miners.

The Chairman

Thereference made earlier to those figures was relevant to the question under discussion, in so far as it was a matter of comparison with other figures, but I do not think it would be in order to discuss whether these prices are adequate or not.

Mr. Radford

My technical knowledge is inadequate to reply fully to the hon. Member but when he talks about screened coal I take it that the type of coal resulting from the screening, depends on the size of the mesh.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is now going into the matter which I have just intimated is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Mr. Radford

I shall not pursue it any further, and I was only going to say to hon. Members opposite that, bearing in mind this question of the first purchase, they ought not to be unduly nervous about espousing the cause of the consumer, particularly when, in many cases, the first purchaser is a subsidiary concern owned by the colliery proprietor. In such cases the miners' wages, about which they are so solicitous, will not benefit by any additional price put on by the selling agency.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

There will be general agreement in the Committee that if consumers have grievances those grievances ought to be remedied, but it is clear that if we are seeking to protect the interests of the consumers as a whole, and not the first consumer only, the Amendment is completely innocuous. It relates only to the first price. It can do no more because of the restricted nature of the Bill. It may be that at a subsequent stage the right hon. Gentleman may consider it expedient to set up a public or departmental inquiry to consider the price to the ultimate consumer and indeed the whole question of distribution. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman regards that as a matter which is important arising out of this Measure, but it certainly is important from the standpoint of the consumers who fail utterly to comprehend why the pithead price should be comparatively low and the retail price excessively high. I am aware that on previous occasions committees of inquiry have thoroughly investigated these matters but unfortunately no legislative enactments have followed those inquiries. I throw out that suggested to the right hon. Gentleman because of the discussions that have taken place in this Committee.

Undoubtedly the consumers in this Bill have grievances. They complain that the price is too high, they complain about irregularity of supply, and they also complain about the quality of coal with which they are supplied. Before I proceed to deal with these matters, let me say that the fact that the Lancashire Committee of Investigation have recently had many cases submitted to them in their district is conclusive evidence that grievances exist. The blame cannot be laid at the door of the mineworker, who is as suspicious as the consumer about the first price. He fails to understand why prices should have risen to the height mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). The proceeds do not find their way into the ascertainment so far as it affects the miners' wages. These, however, are matters which we cannot discuss on this Schedule, except to say that the consumers have grievances, but so have the mineworkers, and while the mineworkers sympathise with the grievance of the consumers, the consumers might very properly sympathise in a practical fashion with the grievances of the mineworkers. I leave it there. Recently we have been able to obtain some evidence about alleged grievances in respect of the first price. I have had placed in my hands several documents prepared by public utility undertakings and municipal bodies. I find, for example, that in the case of Scotland both Glasgow and Edinburgh Corporations have been compelled to pay excessively increased prices over the past year, about which they raise small complaint, because they recognise that prices were much too low in the years of depression; and that is a complete answer to the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull, who referred to the disparity in prices in recent years. But what they do complain of is the difficulty in obtaining necessary supplies to carry on their operations. For example, in the case of the Glasgow Corporation, they ordered, in the last three months of 1937, 230,000 tons, but there were only delivered to them 190,000 tons, leaving a shortage of 40,000 tons; and in the case of the Edinburgh gas undertaking, which ordered 91,900 tons, only 71,000 tons were delivered.

That complaint is typical of the com-plants now made by public utility undertakings. It may be that demand is over- taking supply, which is quite unusual for the mining industry, at any rate during the last half-dozen years. Nevertheless, it imposes serious hardships on those responsible for the administration of these undertakings. They must retain stocks, and when stocks become depleted they are at their wits' end as to how to carry on. I am well aware that they have the right to apply to the committees of investigation, submit evidence, and have their case investigated, upon which steps may be taken within the 1930 Act, and similarly they will have he power under this Bill, when it is on the Statute Book, to have their case investigated, and directions will be issued in order to meet their grievances, but the difficulty is inaccessibility. When the committees of investigation were established in 1931 the intention was to have not only a committee of investigation in each of the districts—and there are 21—but a secretariat associated with the committees of investigation.

It was, however, found that, owing to the paucity of complaints—there were few complaints in the months, indeed years, following the passing of the 1930 Bill—fewer secretaries and staffs were required, and the result is that if Edinburgh or Glasgow has a complaint to make to a committee of investigation in its area, it must go through the Sheffield office. When complaints are few, that matters little—the Sheffield secretary can dispose of them expeditiously—but when complaints are numerous, as, they have become of late, obstacles arise, and in consequence considerable time elapses before the complaints are investigated. In the meantime these undertakings are unable to find the necessary stocks to carry on their operations. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman might consider, as a purely temporary expedient—I do not go further than that—the establishment of a secretariat in each district, so that instead of public utility undertakings having to apply to a secretary 300 or 400 miles away, or even 200 miles away, and finding the passages completely blocked at a time of stress and pressure, it would be possible to have the cases more expeditiously investigated. As the complaints diminished, it would be possible to have a diminution in the number of secretariats. I make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman because it would meet the grievances of consumers who complain about inaccessibility and the lack of expedition in hearing their cases.

I pass to another matter which bears on this Amendment, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions which arise out of the assurances that he gave the other day in respect of complaints of consumers and the method of remedying those complaints. He gave the Committee an assurance that the Central Council of Coalowners were offering guarantees, which might be regarded by the Committee as adequate, for the purpose of remedying grievances. On these matters I venture to ask him a few questions: first of all, as regards the first assurance, which is that arrangements would be made in all the districts whereby a purchaser—that is, a first purchaser; it always is the first purchaser under the terms of this Bill—would be enabled to refer to a committee of investigation a complaint in respect of any price quoted to him. That we understand, but if in any district—Yorkshire, Durham, Scotland, South Wales, North Wales, as the case may be—there is established by the colliery undertakings a unified selling agency as a subsidiary concern, so as to prevent any single colliery undertaking disposing of its coal to a first purchaser, how far does that assurance carry us in dealing with the grievances of consumers?

Let me furnish an example, a hypothetical case, but I think it relates to the facts. Suppose the first purchase price at the pithead is 17s. a ton for a particular category of coal. As the coal is not sold in that way at the pithead, but is disposed of through a unified selling agency, a subsidiary concern, you have thereby no other means of purchasing the coal, then obviously we are considering not merely the first purchase, but a secondary purchase, and on that issue I should like to be advised by the right hon. Gentleman whether the assurance to which I have referred will enable legitimate grievances to be attended to. The first price may be 17s., but the real price, the actual price paid by the consumer, may be 24s. On that, I think we require some further assurance; and may I say, in passing, that the mineworker gains nothing by this secondary price? The man's wages are determined by the first price, and yet that may be a figment, a purely fictitious price. I do not say that it applies all round, but there may be cases of that kind.

Captain Crookshank

I would like your guidance, Sir Dennis, whether it will be in order to discuss all these matters that we discussed the other day on the Clause extending the operation of the Bill, because this Amendment only deals with setting up a consumers' committee.

Mr. Shinwell

On that point of Order. I was raising this question of assurances in order to have the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and gallant Friend before advising my hon. Friends as to the line that they should take on this Amendment. If the assurances are sufficient for our purpose, it will be unnecessary to support the Amendment, and that is why I was elaborating this point.

The Chairman

I have been trying to follow this very carefully, and until his last two sentences I had not thought the hon. Member had gone beyond what was in order, but when he came to the question of the position of the second purchase, I began to listen more carefully. I did not interrupt him then, because I thought the Minister had made reference to that assurance and that perhaps it was legitimate to ask that question; but on this Amendment these assurances must not be discussed except in so far as they may deal with matters which this Amendment contemplates should be dealt with by the committee which it proposes to set up.

Mr. Shinwell

I am obliged, Sir Dennis, because I think it was the intention of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull to set up a body which would deal with this matter, but I am not dealing with the second purchaser at all. I am dealing, in asking these questions about this specific assurance, with what may be in fact the first actual purchase price, but yet not the pithead price. The pithead price may be 17s. but the actual price at which the first consumer is purchasing the coal may be different.

The Chairman

I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's distinction. These assurances are not matters which can be discussed fully on this Amendment. They can only be referred to in so far as they may be said to relate to a specific matter which it is contemplated would be investigated and reported upon by the consumers' committee.

Mr. Shinwell

In the Amendment the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks that the committee should be charged with the duty of considering and of reporting to the Minister the effect of a marketing scheme which is for the time being in force. That, of course, refers to prices. He also asks that the Committee should report on any complaints made to the Committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal. These terms are very wide. I shall try to keep within the terms of your Ruling and not elaborate these points unduly. I turn to another assurance which bears on the demand made in this Amendment. The third assurance says that in all districts the executive boards will be prepared to meet representative bodies of consumers and discuss general questions appertaining to the supply of coal arising out of the selling scheme. That is a very desirable means of dealing with this matter; but suppose no settlement ensues, suppose representative bodies of consumers approach the executive boards, which represent the central council of coal-owners—

The Chairman

That is outside the scope of the Amendment because such a proceeding would be subsequent to the first arrangement under a selling scheme.

Mr. Shinwell

I presume that I may be allowed to discuss this on the question that the Schedule stand part?

The Chairman

I do not think so. I think this it out of order altogether either on this Amendment or on the Schedule.

Mr. Shinwell

Do I understand that this is out of order because the assurances were out of order?

The Chairman

No. Perhaps I used a wrong phrase. It is out of order because we have passed beyond the part of the Bill on which the question of the assurances arose. We have passed that now and we cannot re-open it.

Mr. Shinwell

I will put it in a more general form and will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he regards the assurances which he referred to the other day in Committee as sufficient to meet the grievances of consumers. If he can give a general reply it may be possible to make up our minds as to the advisability of supporting the Amendment. In this Bill we are dealing with something different from the Sea Fish Bill. Selling schemes have been in operation for some time for coal. This is not a new marketing scheme. The basis of a marketing scheme has been operating since 1930. In the case of the Sea Fish Bill we are dealing with something that is contemplated and it is doubtful whether the consumers of fish will be properly protected. Our objection to this Amendment is based primarily on the fact, which I believe has been established, that wherever consumers' committees have been set up they have been of little value. In the case of the Food Council, which is an analogous body, we know a little of its investigations and of their consequences. It is doubtful whether this is the best remedy.

My view is that the best remedy, if we are to deal with the grievances of consumers, is to be sought in committees of investigation. I am speaking of the first consumer, although I should much like to deal with the ultimate consumer. I would only remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said about a possible public inquiry. I have a belief in committees of investigation if they are properly used. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment spoke of the grievances of the Hull Corporation and of the public utility companies in the district, but did he inquire whether those bodies had approached the committee of investigation? I doubt whether they did. If they did—and they had a right to do it—what was the result?

Sir A. Lambert Ward

They did not.

Mr. Shinwell

That completely disposes of the case. They had a right to approach the committee of investigation but they failed to do it. They may have had no faith in the committee, but they ought to have tried it out. If consumers have grievances, their best method is to approach the committees of investigation and to use them, as they are entitled to do under the 1930 Act. If it is found that the committees have failed in remedying the grievances of consumers, it will clearly be a duty imposed on the right hon. Gentleman to introduce amending legislation. For those reasons I am afraid that hon. Members on this side will not find it possible to support the Amendment.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Peake

I rise to say a word about a point about which there seems to be some misunderstanding in several quarters of the Committee. It is assumed that the safeguards provided under this Bill and under the 1930 Act are a fraud and a delusion because a colliery has only to sell to a subsidiary undertaking to avoid the provision in regard to committees of investigation. That idea is a complete delusion. Nobody in this country is compelled to buy coal from a subsidiary of a colliery concern. This is still a comparatively free country and customers are free to get quotations, if they do not like the quotations given by subsidiary undertakings, from the colliery concerns themselves. Two sorts of schemes for selling coal are established under the 1930 Act. One is the central selling scheme under which all the coal is sold by the central organisation. The other is a controlled selling scheme where collieries continue to sell their own coal under central direction. Under either of these schemes it is open to a customer to obtain quotations from the coal-selling authority, whether it be a colliery concern or the central selling organisation. I can think of no better complaint to be taken to a committee of investigation under the provisions of this Bill than a complaint that the colliery or the central selling organisation has refused to quote for coal. I can well imagine that if any complaint of that sort were brought forward and proved, my hon. and gallant Friend would be quick to see that the complaints were remedied immediately or that the schemes were dissolved, as he has power to dissolve them, because the powers given to the coal industry were being grossly abused.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths

May I put a question to the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)? We want to be perfectly frank with each other about this matter. Take the case of a colliery company who does not sell to anybody but whose coal is handled by a subsidiary company so that anybody who wants a quotation has to make application to a subsidiary. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that in that case a consumer can take to the committee of investigation a complaint against a price offered by a subsidiary company?

Mr. Peake

No. I suggest that a consumer who is dissatisfied should ask the colliery concerned to give him a quotation, and if it refuses, he has a clear case to go before a committee of investigation.

Mr. Griffiths

Such a case would be very interesting. In South Wales and other places the practice has been growing for colliery companies to constitute selling agencies. In some cases they have bought up old-established selling agencies and used the organisation to dispose of every ton of their coal. There are powerful colliery companies which, as such, do not quote any prices to inquirers.

The Chairman

What the hon. Member is saying looks as if he is getting beyond what is dealt with by the Bill, namely, the first contract. We cannot now deal with the next party who has to go to a selling organisation.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Member for North Leeds, to whom we all listen carefully, for he has been accepted generally as the spokesman of the coalowners, made a suggestion, and I was attempting to reply to it. Speaking for my colleagues and myself, I do not accept the position as the hon. Gentleman stated it. When the hon. and gallant Baronet was moving the Amendment some of us interjected, and another hon. Member thought that we had been touched on the raw. We had. As we have said so many times, the position in the coal industry is this: We have a price level fixed in the years of depression which everybody uses now as a comparison. They take the prices for 1933 and the years before, when there was a large surplus of coal on the market, and the consumers were able to pit colliery against colliery and district against district and depress prices to a low level, which, in turn, led to a low level of wages for the miners. Miners earning 30s. and 35s. are not able to get one penny increase, because the owners say they are unable to get any more for their coal.

The Chairman

That is a matter on which I have already tried to stop debate.

Mr. Griffiths

I will merely remark that this method of comparison is not fair. The prices then were too low for any real comparison. My colleagues and I, if we thought that the procedure of a consumers' council set up in this Amendment would be a real safeguard for all consumers, would support it, but I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in saying that we think the best safeguards are those already established under the investigation committees. Let those be used to the full, with the procedure amended in the way referred to earlier, so that full discussion can take place. I believe I am correct in saying that a complaint of this kind is to be heard in public and that will be the best safeguard of all. Let the whole of the discussions take place in public. Let in some fresh air. It is secrecy which has led to uneasiness and apprehension in the public mind. The miners do not want this secrecy. They want the fullest publicity. What they have complained of is that there is never that publicity which ought to be given to the internal management of the industry.

I do not want to transgress your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I want to make sure that at some stage we can raise the question of the assurances which have been given. Since those assurances were read out by the President of the Board of Trade we have been able to study them. The assurances have been accepted by the Government, and therefore, in effect, if not in words, they have become a part of this scheme. They will not appear in the Bill, and I do not know whether they will appear in the Parliamentary record, but they have been accepted, and surely there ought to be an opportunity for us to discuss them before we part with this Bill. If this is not the appropriate moment can we raise the matter on the Report stage or on Third Reading? We have had an opportunity of looking at them carefully, and there are certain questions we want to ask. Speaking for myself and some of my colleagues, I may say that we do not altogether like those assurances. If it is not possible to discuss them, then hon. Members will be placed in a difficult position, because the assurances will become part of the scheme without having been discussed.

The Chairman

So far as the Committee stage is concerned, I am quite clear that they cannot be discussed either on this Amendment or on the Question, "That this be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill." As regards raising the matter on the Report stage or Third Reading, as the hon. Member knows, that question does not lie with me, and, therefore, although most people might be able to form an opinion, it would be improper for me to give one.

6.35 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

Perhaps it would be convenient if I said a few words on the actual Amendment, this all-party Amendment which emanates from Hull.

Mr. J. Griffiths

From where?

Captain Crookshank

From Hull. I agree entirely with the view of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that the best remedy, if grievances there are, would be to have them submitted to the committees of investigation under their revised procedure, and that that method ought to be tried out. It is because we think that the new arrangements made in this Schedule will be effective that I ask the Committee not to accept the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-west Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). As I read the Amendment, the idea is that there should be a consumers' committee which should report direct to the Minister, and that the Minister, if he thinks right, should refer the matter to the Central Appeal Tribunal, and after that certain consequences might flow in the way of making Orders and the like. That would be procedure somewhat parallel to that envisaged in the Bill. Under the Bill, if the consumer has a grievance he may take it to a committee of investigation, and if he does not get what he considers to be satisfaction he may go to the Central Appeal Tribunal. So there would be two channels for complaints to reach that body. Under the Schedule as it stands the Central Appeal Tribunal has to meet almost immediately after a case is referred to it, and to decide the case with all possible speed, because, as is sometimes overlooked, in the commercial as well as the colliery's interests, one wants to get speed of decision and finality. Otherwise, business obviously would be held up.

As the Amendment reads, this consumers' committee would consist entirely of spokesmen for consuming interests. There is to be an independent chairman, but it would be a consumers' body, and it would only take up matters which it thought were contrary to the interests of consumers of coal. Their only locus would arise from the consuming point of view, whereas the committees of investigation have a rather wider purview. They have to consider complaints about proceedings: which are having or are likely to have an effect contrary to the public interest or ought not to be permitted on the ground that they are unfair or inequitable.

Mr. H. G. Williams

"Public interest" occurs in this Amendment.

Captain Crookshank

Yes, but its purpose is directed primarily to the interests of the consumers. It has a bias in that direction. I suggest that the procedure in the Bill is much better for dealing with this type of complaint. The case has been put to us of the prices charged to the Hull Corporation, and the prices in 1933 have been contrasted with the prices in 1937. The first observation I would make is that the selling schemes did not come into effect until 1936, and so any change in prices between 1933 and 1936—and I do not know how far there had been any change in those years—has nothing to do with what we are now discussing. I would also remind the Committee that the reason why the selling schemes were ever instituted was that the price of coal had reached such an uneconomic level from the point of view of industry as a whole, whether from the point of view of those who sink their capital in it or those—

Mr. J. Griffiths

Who sink their lives.

Captain Crookshank

—if the hon. Member likes to put it in that way—who devote all their lives to it and earn their wages in it. I think it was the fact that in many cases these strong buyers were able to depress prices against the coal industry, and while the hon. Baronet quoted cases in which unscreened slack was sold in 1933 at 3s. 11d. to 4s. 11d., I should think all the other municipalities must have been surprised when they heard that anyone was able to buy at that price, because I should think that was just about the lowest figure that anyone got down to. It has come out during the Debate that in spite of the rise in price of which they complain, the Hull Corporation did not take a case to a committee of investigation. They started to do so, but withdrew it.

Sir A. Lambert Ward

Because they found the procedure to be thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Captain Crookshank

How could they find out unless they tried it?

Sir A. Lambert Ward

Others had tried it.

Captain Crookshank

How, therefore, can it be said that this new price is unfair? It is just as likely to be the case that the price in 1933 was grossly unfair, and that the present price is the one which ought to have been charged. His colleague in the representation of Hull made the point that years ago this type of slack was sold for very little—thrown away, given way, he said. Nowadays, for one reason or another, it fetches a price, the laws of supply and demand come into play, and if there is a great demand for a particular commodity which years ago they could sell for very little, I do not see how we can blame people for getting the best price they can for it, because it all goes towards making up the general average of pithead prices.

I do not think a case has been made out that the new procedure suggested would improve the situation. We hold that the committees of investigation are the real avenue which should be taken by consumers if they have complaints. An hon. Member also made the point that the secretariat is largely centred in Sheffield, and that there might be difficulties in the matter of accessibility, and asked whether the secretariat could be extended. The answer to that is that when the Act of 1930 was put on the Statute Book an organisation was set up covering the country, but no complaint was made for a very long period, and we cannot afford to keep people all over the country doing nothing. Therefore, their numbers were gradually reduced. But the converse will hold good: as and when the demand for the services of the secretariat and staff increase, so they will be increased, because it is important that there should be no undue delay in investigating complaints.

On another question which was addressed to me debate was ruled out of order, but perhaps I might answer it. I was asked whether I regarded the assurances which have been given as sufficient for meeting the grievances of consumers. The answer would be, "Yes; coupled with the improvements in the committees of investigation, those assurances cover practically every point which has been brought to our notice of recent months." Therefore, my right hon. Friend and I recommend that this proposal for an extra committee over and above what is provided—and what has been provided under the law for some years past—should be rejected, because it would not add anything to the ease with which consumers can make their representations, but might very well have a contrary effect, and by complicating the situation make it more difficult for them to secure proper redress when they have genuine grievances.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

The Minister does not yet seem to appreciate that the reason why this Amendment has attracted support is because what he has said just now is not yet accepted by the majority of affected persons. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), an hon. Member opposite and the Minister have all just said the same thing, Why not try the committees of investigation? The answer is that a large number of people have tried them and are profoundly dissatisfied.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I said that I had served upon a South Wales committee for some years, and that we had had one case in two and a half years. Does the hon. Member suggest that on a basis of one case in two and a half years it is fair to suggest that this is a useful procedure?

Mr. Williams

It may very well be a case of not many appeals coming from South Wales. I know of over 48, but all of them have been non-suited on the ground that many of our speeches this evening have been ruled out of order. The issue in question cannot be tried.

The Chairman

The hon. Member has given his own case away. With regard to the point that he has raised, I did not make any special statement as to what could be discussed on this Amendment, except that when the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) rose to a point of Order, I made it clear, and the hon. and gallant Baronet who moved the Amendment also made it clear, that the Amendment was so carefully drawn as to avoid going beyond the particular question of the first cost. If the hon. Member now wishes to discuss the general question of the distribution of coal, he is out of order, because it is irrelevant to an Amendment which does not deal with that more general question.

Mr. Williams

I apologise if I expressed myself in a manner which was out of order, but I was led into it by the last three speakers, and even by the Minister, all of whom said that if we would only try the committees of investigation, everything would be all right. We are reproached, and so is my hon. and gallant Friend, whose corporation did not try. I presume they had watched what happened to the other people. I have met representatives of many of these eminent corporations. I think Birmingham was one; they spent a great deal of money and went before a committee of investigation, but they had no more luck than most of us, because they were permitted to discuss only the first price. That is the trouble. Therefore, it is no use for the Minister to keep repeating that an investigation into the first price by these committees of investigation with their new powers solves the problem, because it does not.

I had a letter from an old friend of mine who lives in the West Country. It indicates the point of view of many people and says: I am very glad to see you are taking up this question of coal. I do not like the present arrangement at all. We had a nasty shock a fortnight ago. Our contracts with two well-known Welsh firms are up in March, and they have informed us that the price of the new contracts will be 3s. a ton more than we now pay. When we complained "—

Mr. J. Griffiths

What are they now paying?

Mr. Williams

I do not know.

Mr. Mainwaring

That is enlightening.

Mr. Williams

I might just as well finish off the letter: When we complained to them, they replied that they could do nothing, because they had to take their instructions from the coal controller.

Mr. Shinwell

Who is the coal controller?

Mr. Williams

That is what I would like to know. I agree that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes in this Amendment that we should consider the effect of any marketing scheme which is for the time being in force and any complaints made to the Committee as to the effect of any such scheme on consumers of coal.

Mr. Shinwell

Who is the consumer?

Mr. Williams

The consumer referred to in the Amendment. I had the pleasure of watching the hon. Member's difficulties, so I shall do my best to keep out of them. These people have been told by somebody. They are complaining, and the collieries are complaining, obviously as to the first transaction. They say: "It is outside our control." Therefore, here is a case which might be looked into by this independent body. It is independent of the collieries and of the Mining Association. The committee of investigation, by its composition, is in part a biased body. Certain people are there to do all they can to prevent any investigation being as satisfactory as it might be. I do not blame them. One member of the committee is a coalowner and another is a miner. Therefore they are in agreement, however much they might disagree later as to the division of the swag. They are in alliance.

Mr. Shinwell

There is a considerable difference of opinion on the point which the hon. Member is heroically trying to raise, the difference between the first price and the second price.

The Chairman

I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who, I say with all respect, is trying very ably to keep in order, is rather wasting his breath. He is trying very hard not to get out of order in discussing a matter which is entirely out of order. The Amendment which the hon. and gallant Baronet has proposed would not have been in order if it had been an Amendment which could deal with these complaints of people subsequent to the first person. As far as I have been able to read, the proposed Amendment would not give these so-called consumers' committees the slightest power to interfere with the general question of distribution of coal after the first purchase. Therefore, although I have not felt a need to pull up the hon. Member so far, I was beginning to wonder how long he could go on without my doing so.

Mr. Williams

The hon. Member opposite intervened and drew your attention to the one point in my speech in which curiously enough, I was strictly in order, because I was seeking to compare the action of the committee which it is proposed to set up in the Amendment with the action of the existing committees of investigation which are allowed to deal only with the first price.

Mr. Stanley

Is it proposed that this consumers' council should be able to deal with more than the first person?

Mr. Williams

No, but I am saying that it might be a more satisfactory body to deal with the first person, than a body which can deal with the first price, but who are interested, as coalowner and coal miner, in getting as much as they can for the coal in the first price. The proposed body, on the other hand, will have to take into account certain things which the investigation committees need not take into account, such as the interests of the consumers of coal. They have also to take into account whether anything is contrary to the interests of any person affected by the scheme and to the public interests. When they have done that—

The Chairman

I may tell the hon. Member that these are the words which caused me a little thought when I was considering whether this Amendment was in order or not: but these committees considering the interests of the consumers are able to do so only in connection with a marketing scheme, and they do not go over the whole range of consumers.

Mr. Williams

I agree, but so far as public interest comes into the matter, the committee is able to do the various things mentioned in lines 28–31—or the Minister may do them—that is to say, may by order make such Amendments in the scheme as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter; may by order revoke the scheme; in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the Board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order. If we try to understand the new Schedule—which is not too easy because it is a matter of Amendment by reference, a substantial amount of matter being taken out of the old Bill and new matter put into the new Bill—it seems that these are powers more considerable than those which will be enjoyed by the committees of investigation. So far as that is the case, there appear to be matters of substance in this Amendment which call for support.

Mr. J. Griffiths

One of the complaints against the committees of investigation and their methods was that of delay. An assurance has been given that it will be remedied. May I ask the hon. Member whether the method of the committee of investigation or the method in the Amendment will be the quicker?

Mr. Williams

The method of the Amendment is likely to be quicker, for the obvious reason that everybody on the committee will be anxious to make a decision, whereas on the committees of investigation there will be at least two persons whose interest it will be to delay as long as possible.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Fleming

I will try to keep out of my mind the matters raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and keep to the first contract. In saying that, I am reminded of some correspondence which I have received from the Manchester Corporation in regard to first contracts. There is no doubt that they have ground for complaint from their point of view as to the rising cost of coal. I agree with the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that there is a great deal to be said about prices in days gone by, but that point would be out of order, so I will leave it there. In regard to the Amendment, the Committee should thank the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) because it gives us a chance of considering some alternative schemes to the scheme proposed in the Bill. To my mind, the Amendment is too narrow, because it will leave out entirely, as you have already ruled, Sir Dennis, the great bulk of the people whom I represent in the Withington Division. They are not utility companies, but are small householders, and they would not be affected.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is now arguing against the Amendment because it is in order. I am afraid that he cannot develop the argument which he wants to develop, on what an Amendment which would have been out of order would have done.

Mr. Fleming

If you had gone a few words further, the Committee might have seen that the reason why I cannot support the Amendment is because it is too narrow. It affects only one type of con- sumer, and as you have already rightly ruled, that is the first contractor or first purchaser, who might not be a consumer at all. That is why I advise the Committee not to support the Amendment, although I have great sympathy with this type of Amendment if it is wide enough. It might mislead the Committee into thinking that they were helping the great bulk of the people whom they represent. I have no great respect for what has happened in days gone by in the committees of investigation, but I certainly think that with the assurance of the Government and with the committees' reformed procedure, there will be a better opportunity than in the council of consumers proposed in the Amendment. That is why I do not propose to support the Amendment.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

In addressing the Committee on this question, I feel like the Irishman who said: "Is this a private fight, or may anyone join in?" I recognise that my knowledge on this question is exceedingly limited, and I had intended to wait until the Schedule was put to the Committee before raising the point I have in mind, but as it has already been raised on this Amendment, perhaps I should save the time of the Committee if I dealt with it now. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham Harbour (Mr. Shinwell) has spoken of the Scottish position. There is no question, you will be glad to hear, Sir Dennis, of this matter being outside the rules of order, or that the Edinburgh Corporation is not first purchaser in buying from the colliery company, but the complaint which the Edinburgh Corporation has to make is of the service of the supply. They are not raising the question of price, in spite of the very considerable increase which they have to pay; they are raising the service, and the points to which they direct attention are three.

In the first place, they say that, in spite of any contract, they do not get the same quality of coal that they got before, and the specification which brought one type of coal in days gone by brings an entirely different and inferior type of coal at the present time—one which does not result in the same gas being obtained or the same thermal requirements. In the second place, they do not get regularity of supply, and when they have to deal with the very large quantity with which they are concerned for the purposes of the corporation, it is very inconvenient for the quantities to be delivered with the complete irregularity that prevails at the present time. Over one month they will get a very large supply, and over the next month they will get hardly any supply at all. This means great difficulty in storage, and very considerable expense. Then, finally, there is this difficulty already mentioned with regard to the committees of investigation. I have brought this point forward now only in order to say that we on these benches are not going to support the Amendment, but I do ask that, in view of the very great inconvenience which is being caused to certain consumers like the Corporation of Edinburgh the right hon. Gentleman will go into the question carefully and see whether he can make such provisions that these committees of investigation shall be a real safeguard to the purchasers of coal and prevent the abuse which is springing up, and which the mineowners do not remedy by personal attention in the way that they used to do before this scheme came into operation.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill."

7.5 p.m.

Mr. A. Reed

Before we part with this Schedule I think it should be on record precisely where we have arrived, because when this Schedule was first under consideration it was supposed to be another great safeguard, but we now find—and I refer especially to the Minister's remark to-day that if the consumer has a grievance he has both the committee of investigation and the appeal tribunal to rely on—that the only matter the committee of investigation can look at is the first transaction in coal from the colliery: I understand that that is the only matter which can go to the appeal tribunal. We also know quite well that in many districts in this country no coal can be purchased from a colliery company by anybody except its agents or its associated companies, and therefore in actual fact this enormous concession which was supposed to be given in the Eighth Schedule is worth absolutely nothing. We have had it stated this afternoon that in South Wales, for instance, there has been only one case before the committee of investigation. That is perfectly true, because those who are buying South Wales coal know that they cannot take a case to the committee of investigation and get it investigated. It will be the same with the appeal tribunal. I do urge upon the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Mines to consider this matter carefully. The public are beginning to realise that these safeguards which are supposed to be for their benefit are no safeguards at all. It is not only South Wales that is concerned, but other districts as well. In fact, there are only two districts in this country where a coal transaction can be investigated by the committee of investigation.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]