§
Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 11, leave out from "obligation" to the end of line 15, and insert:
either—
(a) to pay proper compensation for damage arising from such working to that land; or
(b) with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to claim compensation for that damage, to make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him;
which obligation shall extend to buildings and works on that land whether constructed before or after the vesting date."
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first of a series dealing with the subsidence problem. Under the Bill 721 as it left us there passed to the Commission the right to withdraw support. That was subject to the obligation of making good or of paying proper compensation for damage. The question whether damage should be made good or compensation paid rested within the discretion of the colliery undertaking. In many cases is was a convenience, because they had their own staff of repairers. A good many complaints were made by hon. Members opposite that very often, especially in the case of small properties, these alleged repairs were not always satisfactory. The effect of this Amendment is exactly the same about the obligation of making good or paying proper compensation, but it is put the other way round, that the consent to have the damage made good rests with the surface owner instead of the colliery undertaking. It is a desirable Amendment from the point of view of those who suffer damage.
§ 9.34 P.m.
§ Mr. SpensI should be less than human if I did not say a few words on this Amendment. I am delighted that this alteration has been made. I have long held, from such experience as I have had, that the right to make good is a fictitious and artificial right. The primary right of anybody who suffers from subsidence is that his loss should be made good by a monetary payment. Only he knows what repairs are required to his house or his property, and his primary right is to have money paid to him by the person who does the damage so that he may make it good in the way in which he wants it made good. I agree that there are a number of cases where possibly a very small and passing damage is done to the structure, where the owner may be willing that the person causing it should come in and do the repairs. These cases are the exception, and my criticism of the original Schedule was that the owner of the houses on the surface had to submit against his will to the Commission coming in and propping up his houses or binding them together or employing the hundred and one devices that have been employed by persons responsible for subsidence in trying to make good damage. This is an Amendment of major substance in favour of those who will suffer from the subsidence which comes within the provisions of this 722 Clause, and I hope that the House will realise that it is an Amendment designed to benefit a vast number of people.
§ 9.37 P.m.
§ Mr. A. HendersonI hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will be able to support the Amendment. Although it is in accordance with their interests as landlords that the other place is prepared to take action of this nature, I think that hon. Members on this side will be prepared to accept the Amendment because it secures a measure of justice to the unfortunate victims of mining subsidence. This matter was thoroughly discussed on the Committee stage in this House, and an attempt was made to secure some measure of compensation for those who had suffered as a result of subsidence prior to the coming into force of this Bill. That proposal was unfortunately rejected by the Committee, and therefore it is something to have obtained an Amendment of this nature. It is an advance on the present law and to that extent it is to be welcomed.
§ 9.39 P.m.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsI hesitate to say a word against helping people who have suffered subsidence, but I ought to offer a word of warning that we are saddling the Commission with a burden that might wreck it. Responsibility is now to be placed on the Commission to accept full responsibility for subsidence. There have been many hard cases in the past and in many of them the royalty owners have been able to pass the responsibility on to the coal-mining industry. Colliery companies, many of them small struggling concerns, have had to bear it. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said that he was delighted with this Amendment, but I do not share his delight. I look upon all these Amendments from another place with suspicion because they want to wreck the Commission. This is one of the first big experiments in public ownership. The nation is to become the owner of the coal, and we ought to guard against saddling the Commission, which will represent the nation, with responsibilities which the royalty owners have passed on to somebody else whenever they could. Will the Minister state whether the Commission, in granting a new lease to a colliery company, will be empowered to ask that 723 company to accept full responsibility for subsidence?
§ Captain CrookshankThere is another Amendment, to which we shall come in a few minutes, which deals with that point.
§ Mr. GriffithsAll I am concerned with is that the Commission is not given responsibilities which the royalty owners did not have.
§ 9.42 p.m.
§ Mr. RitsonI am rather suspicious of this Amendment because of the source from which it comes. This kind of thing can be abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has knowledge of a case where enormous claims for damage were made on a colliery company. The first call was made by a shipyard company which claimed £100,000 damages, and got it. That was immediately reflected by a large number of other claims and 600 men were dismissed from the colliery. I fear for the Commission if this responsibility is imposed upon them. The shipyard company which made this large claim never even stopped operations. It claimed merely because there had been a subsidence of three inches. Following that many other people began sniffing round to see if there were claims that they could make for damages, and one man even claimed damages for subsidence in a seam that was below the one where the action was taken. I know of a colliery in Durham which was most generous in the treatment of its men, but a lot of these claims came in and all the things that the firm had been doing for the employés were cut off. One of these claims was by a man who wanted £2,500 damages for his house, and he got it. He said he went to bed one night when everything was all right and that when he got up next morning he could not open the door. He got £2,500 damages. But that was only one claim; the sharks were no numerous you could not count them. All legal men are sharks. This man claimed £2,500 and got it, and two years afterwards he went back to the house and lived in it till he died. The point is that in these cases, where money is to be had, this Commission will find a draught as we did on that occasion.
Here is another case. The plasterers used to be paid after that for putting up 724 people's ceilings that were affected by subsidence. Subsidence was all that was responsible. It mattered not whether there were births, deaths, or marriages; if there was subsidence, that was all that was responsible. It was found, when the matter was taken to court, that every enterprising plasterer went round to houses and asked the people in them whether their ceilings were giving way. They were rather astonished at being so well attended to, and when they asked about it, he replied, "If I were you, I should go to the colliery and make a claim for your ceiling." The result was that he repaired the ceilings of everybody in the town, and the only people who did not grumble were the people in the cemeteries. This thing went on until it was found that not only the plasterers were getting their work paid for in this way, but the painters also, and even people who were carting furniture out of the houses.
I have joked about the matter, but I am very serious about it, and, as I say, I have seen 600 families who were removed because of the sheer greed of gold. We know from practical experience how claims are made for subsidence. If miners working 1,500 feet below the ground, with millions of tons of water running 600 feet below the surface, where were the miners to be, if these things were happening on the surface? Everything that anybody thought they could get they got—to this extent, that we were ruined for years—out of the most generous colliery that I have ever known. We knew that over a wide area in a large town we suffered to the extent of losing 600 men in the first instance, from a colliery company which was as generous as it could be, and the older men in the colliery felt it very keenly indeed.
I am afraid of the hon. and learned Gentleman over here, with that clever, incisive, kindly way of twisting your tail when you are not looking. I am never afraid of a blatant, threatening lawyer, but I am afraid of a kindly lawyer. I listened to the gentlemen in the other place till midnight. They can stay till midnight when they like. A Prayer Book or a Coal Bill will keep them up till any time in the morning. Prayer and property work together. But I am really anxious about this. I am convinced that if they are going to get rid of this capital, they see that there is going to be subsidence in 725 their land, and they say, "Let us have full compensation for such subsidence as we think there is, and we can provide a lawyer. The Commission will now have a State fund, and it is our turn now to milk the opportunities offered to us to the full." Whenever there is anything to be got for nothing, the gentlemen in the other House are as keen as men sometimes are at a poor soup kitchen, when they have been starved for a few weeks. It makes me rather doubtful when the hon. and learned Gentleman comes along and, with that invisible soap, says, "Thank God for this Amendment." It makes me, although I have to fall in with the majority, wish I had not to do it.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 15, at the end, insert:
(2) The Commission shall on the occasion of their first exercising, or granting to a lessee the benefit of, a right vested in them by this paragraph give public notice that they propose so to do by advertisement in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality.
(3) When the construction of any buildings or works is to be begun after the first publication of such a notice as aforesaid on land liable to be damaged by the exercise of the right to which the notice relates the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect—
(4) On granting to any person the right to withdraw support from any land the Commission shall require that person to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become payable as a result of the exercise of that right.
§ 9.53 P.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That the Lords Amendment be divided."
§
Lords Amendment: In page 54, 15, at the end, insert:
(2) The Commission shall on the occasion of their first exercising, or granting to a lessee
727
the benefit of, a right vested in them by this paragraph give public notice that they propose so to do by advertisement in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality.
(3) When the construction of any buildings or works is to be begun after the first publication of such a notice as aforesaid on land liable to be damaged by the exercise of the right to which the notice relates the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect—
§ 9.54 P.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
May I briefly remind the House of the Bill as it left us? Before I do that may I say that as yesterday I congratulated the hon. Member for Durham City (Mr. Ritson) upon the moving oration he then made, to-night my congratulations are offered to him for an extremely interesting and amusing one. As the Bill left us, the Commission, when they first exercised their right to grant a lease for coal which is at present unsevered from the surface, had to give public notice that they were going to grant it, and after that the obligation of either making good the damage or paying compensation in the case of subsidence was limited to damage which could not have been avoided by reasonable and proper precautions taken in the design and construction of buildings in order to minimise damage.
This was a point which the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) both discussed, and during the Debate the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) suggested that as it would be difficult to say what were reasonable and proper precautions it might be better to devise some code of what would be considered to be proper precautions, so that 729 there should be no trouble when the question arose. It was impossible at that moment to devise any code, but I have made investigations to see what could be done on the lines suggested. We found ourselves under a difficulty from the point of view of housing and Ministry of Health problems. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health pointed out that local authorities had powers regarding houses granted to them under local by-laws, and that it would not be practicable to insert in this Bill a sort of code of particular rules for houses in areas where subsidence might occur which would override the local by-laws. I think hon. Members will see the great difficulties which would arise.
The Amendment which has been inserted in the other place deals with a considerable part of the problem, and I will try to explain what it means. It provides that the first time the Commission is going to grant a lease for coal which at present is unsevered from the surface it must give public notice. That is the same condition as before. Then, at any time after that notice has been given, anybody who is proposing to build, whether a local authority or a private individual—the "building owner," as he is called—is to notify the Commission of his intention to build, and within 14 days of that, if the Commission ask him to do so, he is to make the plans of the building available to the Commission, that is, they can go and look at them. If the Commission ask to have copies supplied they must be supplied. In that way the Commission will know what the proposed building will be and the foundations which it is intended to put in. Then, within a period of 28 days, the Commission may say to the building owner that they think it is desirable, in order to minimise the possibility of damage in the event of subsidence, that he should put in foundations of a certain type. If they make those representations, and if such foundations are put in, then the liability subsequently to pay compensation for damage shall not extend to any damage which could have been avoided if those foundations had been put in as recommended by the Commission.
The next question is, Who is to know whether the foundations which are put in are foundations such as the Commission wanted. Paragraph (c) of the Amendement gives to the Commission the right 730 to have the foundations inspected when they are being put in, and if they then think they are not in accordance with what they have recommended they can say to the builder, "You are not putting in foundations in accordance with the specifications we approved." If the building owner disputes that contention the dispute can be arbitrated upon then and there, and that will settle once and for all the question whether the foundations are proper foundations.
Next the question naturally arises, Who is to pay for all this? If the Commission decides that it will be to their ultimate advantage—and they will, no doubt, have to strike a balance of advantages in any particular case—they have to pay to the building owner the extra cost of putting in these better foundations. It may be said that that will be expensive for the Commission, but, on the other side of the account, they will limit, if not entirely eliminate, claims which may ultimately be made upon them for damage from subsidence, because they will not be liable for damage which could have been avoided if those foundations had been put in. It will be a question for the Commission to decide whether, in view of those obligations, it is better worth while to spend money when building is taking place on a contribution towards the cost of better foundations than to do nothing and to be liable for compensation afterwards if the foundations which are put in without their having intervened are such that subsidence takes place. They will have to decide for themselves the balance of advantages. It is not mandatory; it is for the Commission to decide what it is best to do.
There is one other proviso to be taken into account. If the building owner fails to give notice that he intends to build, or if he fails to comply with any request made by the Commission, the obligation to pay compensation or to make good damage, shall be limited merely to the amount of damage which could not have been avoided if he had taken proper precautions. He is, therefore, in a worse position considerably than he would otherwise have been.
That is the effect of this new code. It is not the whole picture, because there is still another Amendment dealing with it to be considered, but this is the code 731 proposed and it is an optional code, leaving the Commission, if they think it is to their advantage, to pay for better foundations in the belief that it will save considerable expense later.
§ 10.5 p.m.
§ Sir S. CrippsI am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation. The real change which has been made in this Clause is to put upon the Commission a burden which they did not bear before. This is one of that group of Clauses which have been dealt with by their Lordships upon the basis that they no longer own the coal but now own the land, which will be their position after the vesting date. They are now busy, in the Clauses and Amendments with which we are dealing, protecting their position as landowners, no longer concerned with the position of the coal. Therefore, they now load everything on to the coalowners and no longer, as they used to do when they were coalowners, avoid all possible liabilities by passing them on to somebody else, and to the persons who worked the coal.
It is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that we made a number of criticisms upon the form of Part II, 6 (2) of the Second Schedule. Some of those matters have been put right by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (3) of the Schedule, as it will now be, especially the matter in paragraph (c) which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned. There will now be a method of determining, at the date when the foundations are put in, whether or not they are satisfactory foundations. When Sub-section (2) of paragraph 6 of the Schedule left this House with the blessing of His Majesty's Government the provision was that no compensation should be paid to any owner of land who built upon the surface of his land with the full knowledge that mining operations were about to start under them, unless he had employed such reasonable and proper precautions in the design and construction of the buildings as to minimise damage in the event of subsidence. The cost of those precautions was to be borne by the owner, he being the person who was, for some reason best known to himself, determined to build on the surface of land where, he knew, there was danger of subsidence. It was, therefore, said quite 732 logically that if he wanted to build in that way the extra cost of putting in proper foundations, or whatever it might be, should fall upon him.
After their Lordships have dealt with that proposal it comes back to us in the form that the Commission shall pay, first of all the costs reasonably incurred by the building owner in the production or furnishing of copies of plans and specifications. That is a curious thing to make the Commission pay for. The building owner must have plans and specifications to submit to the local authority. It is only just another item that I can see in the Bill which will be rendered in connection with this matter by the building owner's solicitors. In addition to that, the Commission have to pay the amount of any addition to the expenses incurred by the building owner in constructing the buildings or works, and attributable to giving effect to the Commission's proposals.
What that means is that if the Commission request or require for the purposes of safety that he shall take what was called in the original Sub-section
reasonable and proper precautions,the Commission shall pay for it. When this House and His Majesty's Government last parted with this Schedule they both recommended that the Commission should not pay for it. In addition to those things, the Commission have to pay forany postponement or interruption of the construction thereof consequent upon an allegation on the part of the Commission of a departure from plans and specifications which is determined not to have been well founded,and any question as to such liability is to be decided by arbitration. We do not see any justification for departing from that part of the Sub-section which laid down that the building owner should pay for the proper precautions to make his building safe, and for loading that cost on to the Commission. Indeed, these successive charges are to be placed upon a Commission who have paid for the royalties on the basis that those charges did not attach. If those charges had attached, the royalty would have been much less in extent than the price paid by the Commission.The arbitral committee, when it arrived at the valuation of the royalties, did not value them on the basis of the royalty 733 owner having to bear these charges and expenses. If they had, it is undoubted that a very considerable sum would have had to be deducted by way of allowances for these expenses from the amount of the royalties, and the global sum would have been a good deal smaller. If that had been done, it might have been fair and reasonable to say to the Commission that they, having paid a smaller sum for the royalties, must, of course, accept the obligations which had been calculated as a part of those obligations in the purchasing of the royalties; but when that has not been done, and when those obligations were not brought into account, it is not fair to the Commission to say afterwards: "You have paid the price for the royalties as if those obligations did not attach, and now we attach those further obligations to the price."
It means in fact that you are making the Commission pay twice over for the same thing. It is not the viciousness of these actual provisions of which we complain so much as that the surfacer who has got the money for the royalties for his ownership, on the basis that these obligations did not attach to the royalty part of his ownership, is now to get the benefit of those obligations attaching to that royalty part, and so, twice over, to get payment in respect of those same obligations. That is clearly not fair upon the Commission, and it is not right that those owners of the surface and the minerals below should get this benefit in two different ways. That is the result of assessing the royalties on a certain basis, a factual basis, and then trying to impose upon the Commission afterwards further obligations which were not the obligations assumed by the persons who were receiving the royalties at the time.
We say, therefore, that it is too late to put upon the Commission this burden which, if it ever was to be put upon them—I am not now discussing whether it would be fair or not in the circumstances—ought to have been imposed notionally before they paid the global sum, but, they having paid the global sum, the only fair thing to do is to say that the Commission shall have no further or greater obligation than the people from whom they purchased the royalties, at the price which was paid.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. MacLarenThe President of the Board of Trade will remember that, when we were discussing the global sum, I called his attention to the fact that, while there was that global sum before the House, there was no sum that might be deemed to represent the total cost of the liabilities in operating the coal, and I asked whether, in coming to the agreement as to the global sum, the negotiators had in mind what would be the capital cost of possible liabilities in exploiting the coal. I was told that no estimate at all had been made of that cost, and the facts are now coming to light. A global sum has been agreed upon, but, if the cost of the liabilities imposed upon the Commission when it becomes the owner had been hypothetically assessed, the global sum might have been nothing like what it has now been agreed to pay.
It would be well to survey the situation. First of all, the Commission is to own the coal and exploit it to the best advantage. What of the hopes of those who advanced the theory that it was well that the coal royalties should be nationalised, and that the result would redound to the benefit of the wages of the miners and the better operation and exploitation of the coal? The Commission will have to pay off a capital sum to meet the burden of purchasing the entire coal royalties; they will have to pay all rates and taxes; and they are further charged, if they have any surplus in hand over their annual requirements, that it shall be used to reduce rents. I protested against that at the time on Clause 21. They have also to face damages incurred through subsidence. What these will amount to, nobody can tell at the moment. And now we have this latest proposal. What the cost of it will be, no one can say; it is an indeterminate sum. Recently, in the Potteries, we have been trying to extend the housing area, and the Ministry of Health has had to make certain concessions to us, at the expense of the taxpayer, because every house we build in that area has to be built on a specially constructed concrete raft. Now, when the miners are hoping that there will be a surplus to diffuse into the wages bill, the Commission will be faced with the new charge.
735 The real fact is that the Bill is an enormous hoax. When you attempt to deal with the land question by cutting it up into stratifications, giving the coal to A, keeping the surface for B, and giving to A, B, C, D, E and F the power to charge damages against anyone they meet, the result is as was described in the speech of one of my hon. Friends about everyone in the village charging up damages to the local mine. Nothing will come out of this Bill but disappointment, and the Amendment we are now discussing brings that fact fully to light. There is a whole list of charges that are levied against the Commission, and the Secretary for Mines and the President of the Board of Trade know that there will be no surplus left, after all those charges are met, to provide the fruits which the mining communities have been led to believe would come to them. I see no way out of the impasse. When the coal was in the private hands of the surface owners, there was not the same exactitude as to the provisions for the convenience of the surface owner. I am afraid I can add no counsel of wisdom to the perplexity which has fallen upon the House, and which I anticipated from the beginning. The miners are beginning to see how much they are going to get out of the Bill, or how much the State is going to get out of the Bill; and I hope that it will be one lesson, at least, to show the futility of attempting to deal with the land question in this piecemeal fashion.
§ 10.20 p.m.
§ Mr. SpensI would willingly follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in the speculations into which he invites the House to go, but I will turn to the actual substance of the Amendment. I would remind the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), as he reminded me in Committee, that this particular section of this Schedule refers solely to coal which was unworked at the valuation date. When I founded an argument on a wider view than that he properly brought me back to what we were dealing with. I would respectfully remind him and the House that we are dealing solely with coal unworked at the date of valuation, which at some date subsequent to that the Commission intend to work. On the surface, above that coal, there may be buildings of any sort. The 736 hon. Member who has just spoken reminded us that, as is often the case, on the surface, above that coal, there may be a building estate put up by a local authority for the houses of a great number of small persons.
What was the situation in the Schedule as it was originally before us in this House? It was that in any future building that was to be done those who were proposing to build were to take what the Schedule calls "reasonable precautions" against future subsidence, without any definition whatever as to what those reasonable precautions were to be. I, among others, pointed out that if the Schedule was left in that way, years after the buildings had been put up, and when the subsidence began to occur, there were bound to be disputes as to whether or not those reasonable precautions had been taken. I criticised this Schedule, saying in effect that it was really laying the ground for litigation years after the buildings were put up, when the subsidence began to occur. Therefore, I supported the proposal which came from hon. Members opposite, that we should have definite proposals in the Schedule as to what the reasonable precautions were to be. We have them in the Schedule now, and the only point on which I gather that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol really criticises the Schedule is this: An individual or a public authority may choose one of two options—either going on on their own and having no right to make the Commission liable for subsidence; or submitting their plans and taking precautions, and thereby being able to claim for subsidence years after if those precautions are not sufficient. The hon. and learned Member considers that the Commission should pay no part of the cost of getting out and submitting those plans and taking those additional precautions. It seems to me not a very great insurance premium to charge the Commission to do this, so that it shall not ultimately be liable to subsidence. If that is the only ground on which the Schedule can be criticised, I suggest that it is a very thin ground indeed; and I hope the House will have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment to the Schedule, which, in my opinion, does really put before the House a workable scheme to avoid a great deal of litigation in the future and to safeguard 737 all classes of the community from subsidence.
§ 10.26 p.m.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithMy hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has made our position quite clear in regard to this Amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on the previous Amendment stated the seriousness of this new policy with regard to the Commission. I want to support them, and, in addition, ask a few pointed questions of the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines, in order to make the position clearer to myself and to the people I represent. Some people tell me that one of my failings is that I am too prepared to take things at their face value, but, knowing something of the political history of this country, and having sat here during the whole of the proceedings in this Debate and heard my hon. Friends, one after another, indicating their suspicion of anything that comes from another place, despite my failing I am bound to feel suspicious of anything they do. My suspicion has been confirmed by a number of hon. Friends sitting round me who, while the Secretary for Mines was speaking, were making statements something to this effect, namely, that this is a typical example of gamekeepers turning poachers.
It is from that angle that I approach this question. We have to deal with things as they are. I hold fundamental principles, and I have had a training which convinces me that scientific training is the only hope for humanity, and that at some time and somehow it will have to be adopted. In the meantime, as practical men dealing with every-day affairs, and having to get the best out of things as they are within the limits of our opportunities, it behoves us, if we are to represent the people of this country, to get the best out of anything that is before us at any given time. That has been the attitude of the miners in connection with this Bill. The miners know full well that there is only one hope for the industry—and sooner or later the nation will have to come to it—and that is, the fullest possible nationalisation of the whole of the mining industry and its subsidiaries. The people of this country have not yet been prepared to support us in this policy, 738 although it is true that they are supporting us more and more in that direction. For the time being we have a Government who are satisfied with this Bill, but even this Bill has been handicapped by another place. Therefore, as practical men representing the men and women living in the localities from which we come, we have to remember that things are not as we would like them to be, and we have to deal with the situation as it is. Therefore, I want to ask a few questions upon this Amendment.
Am I correct in my understanding of the purpose of the Amendment? These are the three main points which I understand to be the object of the Amendment. First, it is to place a responsibility on the Commission which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said, the royalty owners have refused to accept in the past; second, the Commission may inspect plans of proposed alterations that they are prepared to pay for; and, third, the liability shall apply only in those cases where the Commission has been consulted prior to the building being carried out. If I understand the Amendment correctly, how will it be administered. The Lords Amendment on page 14 says:
The Commission shall on the occasion of their first exercising, etc.Then it goes on to state that an advertisement shall be placed in the London Gazette and in one or more of the newspapers circulating in the locality. Is it right and reasonable that that is all that should take place? Is it not reasonable to request that at least the local authority, representing the interests of the people living in the locality, should be informed by the Secretary for Mines that this may apply to their district? The second point arises on page 15, in paragraph (b), which says:The Commission may make such proposals as to the materials for and method of construction of the foundations as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence.I should like to ask a question as to the cost of the precautions to be taken to minimise subsidence. Later on, there is the provision that a person may inspect the foundations to ascertain whether the construction is being carried out on the basis of reasonable precautions being taken. When it comes to a matter of administration, the question of what is 739 reasonable becomes a matter of opinion, and the matter of opinion is to be determined by arbitration. Some of us have had experience of arbitration, and we know the legal quibbling that constantly takes place where questions are referred to arbitration. On the one hand we shall find that the case will be prepared by well trained legal people. Probably some of the finest legal minds in the country will prepare the case for arbitration on one side, while on the other side poor people, who cannot afford to pay for their case to be submitted to arbitration, will be affected. Therefore, I would ask what will be the attitude of the Secretary for Mines in connection with the question of arbitration. Can he assure us that there will be equal opportunities for submitting the case to arbitration, and that it will not be weighted on one side by great financial interests, while poor people will not have the same opportunity for the preparation of their case? I hope the Secretary for Mines will reply to these pertinent questions so that when this Bill becomes an Act the people in the districts we represent will have on record what their position is.
§ 10.35 p.m.
§ Mr. E. J. WilliamsThere are two speeches on which I should like to make a comment. The first is the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) who seemed to look upon this as a very beneficial matter. Hon. Members would have been more convinced if the Lords had been prepared to include in the Amendment a proposal to take a much less sum than the global sum which is recommended. Most hon. Members will appreciate the fact that if what the hon. and learned Member has said had been practised by royalty owners in the past the global sum would have been considerably less. It is rather significant that landlords should suggest that the sum should be substantially larger and at the same time endeavour to place greater obligations on the Commission itself. It is something that they have not practised in the past, it is something in violation of the tenets they have held in the past whenever we have endeavoured to place financial obligations upon them for subsidences which have occurred in mining valleys and elsewhere.
The other speech upon which I should like to comment is that of the hon. Member 740 for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). I should like to tell him that it is not necessary to convince mining Members in this House that the Bill is a bad Measure. The miners fully appreciate the purposes of the Bill. To-day hon. Members and myself had occasion to visit the Minister of Labour and the Chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board upon the application of the new regulations in South Wales and other parts of the country, and we listened to a statement in which statistics were used showing the enormous reduction in the number of collieries in commission to-day as compared with 1920.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is getting rather far away from the actual Amendment.
§ Mr. E. J. WilliamsI was commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and using it as an illustration. The number of pits which are in commission are slightly more than 400 as compared with 600 in 1920. It is pretty obvious that the royalty owners realise that this contraction is likely to continue and that it will inevitably lead to an enormous contraction in royalty payments. We suggest that they have got a very good deal in the global sum which will be paid and, particularly, as they are to draw royalties for a few years to come. The miners are conscious of and appreciate all that. I want my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem to realise that we were conscious of that on the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Bill. We know that it is really a bad Bill as such, but we are amazed to find that the landowners in the other place, having for centuries drawn from the mining industry enormous sums of money which have had to be paid out of the bone and marrow and heavy casualties of the miners, should have the impertinence to suggest in this Amendment that a responsibility should devolve upon the Commission which they themselves have never been prepared to bear.
I suggest that there is one reason for this, apart entirely from the financial reasons. They are out to wreck the functions of the Commission; they are out to demonstrate, if possible, that nationalisation cannot work; they are out to cripple the Commission by placing upon it a financial obligation which even the Government were not prepared to permit them 741 to bear. That is the reason for this Amendment. They want to wreck the whole scheme by making it impossible for the Commission to function properly owing to the financial obligations which they will have to bear as a result of the Amendments that are suggested by the other place. I rose to speak in order to make those comments on the two speeches we have heard on this Amendment, and to show that the time has certainly arrived when the people of this country ought at last to be convinced that the other place simply represents vested interests, and that they are prepared even to violate good public intentions that may by accident come from the present Government in order that their own vested interests may be preserved.
§ 10.43 p.m.
§ Mr. A. JenkinsMy hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) said that the other place is a House of vested interests. I do not think there can be very much doubt about that when we look at the Amendments they have made to this Bill. They are the people who, together with their ancestors, have taken out of the mining industry in royalties a sum of not less than £300,000,000. That is the contribution they have extracted from the miners of this country during the last two or three centuries. Now they are asking, in this Amendment, that the Commission shall undertake a responsibility which they themselves have never borne. I do not intend to make a long speech on this matter. I confess that I am tired of looking at these Amendments. I said last night, and I repeat, that I am in very much the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I would have liked to make the Amendments to this Bill a matter of principle in the country. What we have seen in regard to these Amendments, including this one, is that, with a very small number of votes in the other place, they have done their utmost to destroy what little good there might be in this Measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) rather conveyed the impression that the miners thought they were going to derive very substantial advantages from this Measure. He is entirely wrong. We have recognised the value of this Bill from the beginning. It has had a chequered career. The little 742 advantages which might have accrued to the miners from it are now being taken away. I wish to ask the Minister a question which I hope he will answer. Has he or any other person made an estimate of the cost that will be involved in transferring this burden to the Commission? We know that damage has been done by subsidence over a long period and on many occasions we have suggested that much of that damage was preventable if proper packing were carried out in the mines. The divisional inspector for South Wales has suggested to the Department every year for the past seven years that mines should be properly packed. Not only subsidences but on occasion explosions could be avoided, if proper care were taken in that way. Only yesterday we considered an Amendment dealing with the right of the Commission to determine methods of working the mines. The other place have taken away that right from the Commission. Then they were acting for the coalowners. In this case they are acting for the landowners. Practically every Amendment made in the other place has been made with the direct object of benefiting either coalowners or landowners.
It may be that colliery owners will continue to carry on mining as they have done in the past. I do not know what the Royal Commission will do about it, but if mining continues to be carried on as in the past then we shall have the same amount of subsidence and in years to come millions of pounds worth of damage will have been done. If the Commission has to bear the cost it will be so crippled that not only will there be no reduction in the rents and royalties charged, but very likely there will be an increase. That is the danger which underlies this proposition. An hon. Friend of mine beside me suggests that it will be taken out of wages. Of course, that is what is intended. It will be part of the "other costs" which come into calculation and wages will be reduced in proportion to the expenditure incurred in this way. That is why I ask the Minister for an estimate. If he has not an estimate, why does he accept this proposal without knowing the liability involved? This Amendment ought to be resisted. If there is a liability to be borne in respect of subsidence the people who have been responsible in the past and have not carried out mining according to 743 the best practices, are the people who ought to bear it and not the Commission. This Amendment means that more of the power of the Commission will be taken from it and eventually it will be left without power, without authority, without the financial ability to reduce rents and even though we get nationalisation or socialisation of coal-mining royalties, the mine workers will not be a penny the better. It may be, indeed, that they will have a reduction in their wages as a consequence of this liability being imposed on the Commission.
§ 10.49 p.m.
§ Mr. PalingIt is ironical that a proposal of this description should have come from the other place. The Members in another place have, with great care, set out in detail all the things that have to be done by the Commission to protect property against subsidence. Yet these are the very people who have been royalty owners themselves, and who for centuries past, ever since coal was worked in this country, have repudiated every obligation of that kind. Stories were told during the Committee stage of what had happened in Stoke and in Lancashire and in various places and of the efforts which had been made to secure some justice in respect of damage to the property of small owners caused by subsidence. The amount of justice that people got was ridiculously small. Now the Commission is the owner and the previous owners have been paid in full. There has been no reduction in the amount paid to the royalty owners because of this obligation. Having been paid in full, they are going to see that the future owner does the right thing.
It is ironical, but it is tragic at the same time, because the miners in the long run are the people who will suffer the cost of it. One could have understood this better if the Commission had been given the right to do the things that can be done in order to mitigate subsidence and damage to property, but they have even been refused that. All they have to do in the future is to pay at the behest of those who always refused to pay when they were the owners. The people who have done this are still the owners of the surface. In the past land has been of less value if it was subject to coal being worked below it, but the owners will get full value in the future. They will say to a purchaser, "If subsidence 744 occurs, the Commission will have to pay you for the damage. If you submit plans to the Commission they will have to pay for that. If they suggest any alteration they will have to pay for everything." If, after all that subsidence occurs, they will have to pay for that also. The land will be worth even more than it was previously. What a glorious bargain the Lords have made for themselves. It is another illustration of the fact that the sooner they are abolished the better.
§ 10.54 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankMay I remind the House that what we are discussing is an Amendment? From the speeches that have been made one might think we were discussing something quite different. If we do not accept this Amendment, the Bill will remain as it now is. It will not contain any of the provisions which some Members have adumbrated. We have passed that stage. It is merely an alternative proposition. Is the House prepared to accept the code laid down in the Amendment or does it prefer that we should stick to the Bill as it was before, and that, when the Commission intend to give a lease in an area where coal has previously not been worked, it should give public notice and the obligation to make good or to pay compensation shall be limited to damage which would have been prevented by reasonable and proper precautions?
The only issue before us is whether that is a better way of doing it than to lay down as this Amendment does a procedure which is not compulsory on the Commission. I would again remind hon. Members of that because they spoke as if we were placing a compulsory burden on them. The Commission need not take this responsibility unless they choose to accept it. They will take a long view of these matters and, if they consider, generally speaking, that it is better to have these foundations put in at their own expense rather than run the risk of subsequent claims, they should be permitted to do so. We are dealing with a far narrower point than those who have heard the discussion might think. Hon. Gentlemen might think it ought to go a good deal further, but that is not the question on which the House has to make up its mind at the moment.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) asked whether it was enough that 745 these notices should appear in the London Gazette and the local paper and whether the local authorities should not be informed. These words are exactly as they were in the Clause when it left this House. We then considered that it was sufficient. I think that in practice what the hon. Member has in mind is generally covered, because most local authorities take the London Gazette as that is the normal place in which appear a great many official announcements which must interest them. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) asked whether there was any estimate of the cost of this. There cannot be any estimate because the Commission do not have to pay for these extra precautions. How can anybody say what will be the building developments in an area where coal is not at present being developed, and where at some future date it may be developed? I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see that it is impossible to make an estimate because nobody can tell what action the Commission will take in the circumstances at the time.
§ Mr. JenkinsIs there any estimate of the damage already done during the last
§ 10 years, and could that be taken as any indication of what the cost will be?
§ Captain CrookshankI do not think it could be, but anyhow I do not know the answer to that question in the middle of a speech. There was a third question the drift of which I could not quite understand. The hon. Member hoped that if there was a dispute and it had to go to arbitration it would not be too expensive. The only occasion under this Amendment when there is likely to be arbitration is a dispute between the Commission and the builders, whoever they may be, as to whether the foundations are being constructed according to specifications. I should have thought that that was a dispute which could not possibly run into any great expenditure. One obviously could not say what the cost would be, for it would depend on the circumstances of the dispute.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 196, Noes, 129.
747| Division No. 286.] | AYES. | [11.1 p.m. |
| Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) | Conant, Captain R. J. E. | Grant-Ferris, R. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) | Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) |
| Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) | Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. | Gridley, Sir A. B. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Cox, H. B. Trevor | Grigg, Sir E. W. M. |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) | Craven-Ellis, W. | Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. | Crooke, Sir J. Smedley | Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. |
| Apsley, Lord | Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. | Hambro, A. V. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Hannah, I. C |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Crowder, J. F. E. | Harris, Sir P. A. |
| Baillie, Sir A. W. M. | Culverwell, C. T. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) |
| Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. | Davies, C. (Montgomery) | Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) |
| Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) | Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. |
| Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. | De la Bère, R. | Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. |
| Beauchamp, Sir B. C. | Denville, Alfred | Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Porism'h) | Doland, G. F. | Herbort, Major J. A. (Monmouth) |
| Bernays, R. H. | Donner, P. W. | Higgs, W. F. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. | Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. | Holdsworth, H. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) | Holmes, J. S. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Dugdale, Captain T. L. | Horsbrugh, Florence |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Duncan, J. A. L. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) |
| Brisooe, Capt. R. G. | Eastwood, J. F. | Hulbert, N. J. |
| Broadbridge, Sir G. T. | Ellis, Sir G. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) | Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Joel, D. J. B. |
| Bullock, Capt. M. | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) |
| Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. | Entwistle, Sir C. F. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
| Butcher, H. W. | Errington, E. | Latham, Sir P. |
| Butler, R. A. | Erskine-Hill, A. G. | Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) |
| Cartland, J. R. H. | Everard, W. L. | Leoch, Sir J. W. |
| Cary, R. A. | Foot, D. M. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Fox, Sir G. W. G. | Liddall, W. S. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) | Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Little, Sir E. Graham- |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) | Furness, S. N. | Loftus. P. C. |
| Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Lyons, A. M. |
| Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Gledhill, G. | MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. |
| Clany, Sir Reginald | Gluckstein, L. H. | M'Connell, Sir J. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. | McCorquodale, M. S. |
| Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) | Goldie, N. B. | Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) |
| Colville, Rt. Hon. John | Gower, Sir R. V. | McKie, J. H. |
| Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Rayner, Major R. H. | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) |
| Macnamara, Major J. R. L. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest | Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. |
| Marsden, Commander A. | Remer, J. R. | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Rickards, G. W, (Skipton) | Touche, G. C. |
| Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) | Turton, R. H. |
| Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Ropner, Colonel L. | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Moreing, A. C. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Morgan, R. H. | Russell, Sir Alexander | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. |
| Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) | Salmon, Sir I. | Wayland, Sir W. A. |
| Munro, P. | Salt, E. W. | Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. | Samuel, M. R. A. | White, H. Graham |
| Nicholson, G. (Farnham) | Sanderson, Sir F. B. | Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham) |
| Nicolson, Hon. H. G. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P. | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Owen, Major G. | Selley, H. R. | Wilson, Lt.-Col. sir A. T. (Hitchin) |
| Palmer, G. E. H. | Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G. |
| Patrick, C. M. | Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Peters, Dr. S. J. | Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) | Wood, Hon. C. I. C. |
| Petherick, M. | Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald | Wragg, H. |
| Plugge, Capt. L. F. | Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. | Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. |
| Procter, Major H. A. | Spens, W. P. | |
| Radford, E. A. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Raikes, H. V. A. M. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) | Major Sir James Edmondson |
| Ramsbotham, H. | Storey, S. | and Major Harvie Watt. |
| Rankin, Sir R. | Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Groves, T. E. | Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) | Poole, C. C. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Price, M. P. |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Pritt, D. N. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Hardie, Agnes | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Hayday, A. | Richards, R. (Wrexham) |
| Barnes, A. J. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Ridley, G. |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Riley, B. |
| Batey, J. | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Ritson, J. |
| Bellenger F. J. | Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. | Hollins, A. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Broad, F. A. | Hopkin, D. | Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey) |
| Bromfield, W. | Jagger, J. | Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.) |
| Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Sexton, T. M. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Silkin, L. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Silverman, S. S. |
| Burke, W. A. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Simpson, F. B. |
| Cape, T. | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Chater, D. | Kirby, B. V. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. | Stephen, C. |
| Cocks, F. S. | Lathan, G. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Collindridge, F. | Lawson, J. J. | Stokes, R. R. |
| Cove, W. G. | Leach, W. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Lee, F. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Daggar, G. | Leslie, J. R. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Dalton, H. | Lunn, W. | Thurtle, E. |
| Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Tinker, J. J. |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | McEntee, V. La T. | Tomlinson, G. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | McGhee, H. G. | Viant, S. P. |
| Day, H. | MacLaren, A. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Dobbie, W. | Marshall, F. | Walker, J. |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Mathers, G. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Ede, J. C. | Maxton, J. | Westwood, J. |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Messer, F. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Milner, Major J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Gardner, B. W. | Montague, F. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Gibson, R. (Greenock) | Noel-Baker, P. J. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Oliver, G. H. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Paling, W. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R. | Parker, J. | |
| Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Parkinson, J. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Pearson, A. | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. John. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 15, at the end, insert:
(4) On granting to any person the right to withdraw support from any land the Commission shall require that person to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become payable as a result of the exercise of that right.
§ 11.9 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment says that on the grant of a right to withdraw support from any 749 land the Commission shall require adequate security for the payment of compensation which may become payable. Of course, it is a completely unworkable proposition, and anyway it is unnecessary because later I shall ask the House to agree to an Amendment dealing with much the same point.
§ 11.10 p.m.
§ Sir S. CrippsI liked the nice phraseology of the Secretary for Mines: "Of course, it is completely unworkable." Of course, coming from their Lordships' House, it would be. We are getting a choice collection of phrases, starting with the "mischances" of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and we shall find a very fine list of criticisms of their Lordships from the Government front bench. Of course, we agree that this is entirely unworkable, and we are very glad that the Government are asking the House to disagree. It is a little interesting to notice the selection of the Amendments upon which we are asked to disagree. Here there is just a nice balance between two vested interests that support His Majesty's Government, the royalty owners and the coalowners. This would be a grave incubus upon the coalowners, and this time they have won.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsAnd not for the first time.
§ 11.11 p.m.
§ Major MilnerThe House ought to appreciate that this Amendment was carried against the Government in the House of Lords. As I understand, it was really put forward at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations in the first instance. In 99 cases out of 100 it may be a very practical and workable proposition, with all respect to my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, to ensure that a private company to whom a lease is given of mines where there is a likelihood of subsidence, shall be compelled to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become possible as a result of the withdrawal of support. It is all very well to say that that proposal is unworkable. I quite recognise that if the case were one of withdrawal of support from a whole town very large sums of money might be involved, but I do not think that the House should at once disagree with their Lordships on a matter in which their Lordships have 750 disagreed with the Government, and which insists that private companies shall give security for possible withdrawal of support.
This Amendment was introduced into the House of Lords under very responsible auspices, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I think it should be a little further explored before we disagree with their Lordships. If we permit a private company to withdraw support, that company will have no obligation to give security for such withdrawal. It may be that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us an absolute security that in some future Amendment some guarantee is given.
§ Captain CrookshankI have already said that the matter is largely dealt with in a subsequent Amendment.
§ Major MilnerThe House would be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be more detailed and give the precise proposal which will be in that later Amendment. If he gives the security which I ask, for the local authorities in particular, I shall be very glad to withdraw my opposition.
§ 11.14 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI do not think that this matter is limited to the local authorities. I do not know on what representations this Amendment was inserted; it does not really have anything to do with local authorities at all. The suggestion in it is that the Commission should first grant to a colliery undertaking which is going to work the coal a right to withdraw support, and should at that time secure from that undertaking adequate security, I presume in the form of some large cash provision, for any compensation likely to become payable at any time, as a result of their working the coal. The hon. Gentleman may say that it is a practical proposition, but I cannot imagine on what basis the Commission could possibly estimate what would be an adequate security against possible claims for compensation over the whole period of the working of the coal. As I have said, there is another Amendment which deals with the same point, but this Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, was carried against the Government in another place, and I cannot see that we are under any obligation to accept it now.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 3, at the end, insert:
and such restrictions may be so imposed on the application of, and so as to vest the right to enforce the restrictions in, any company or other body or person carrying on an undertaking primarily for the supply of gas, electricity, water or hydraulic power for public purposes or to members of the public.
7.—(1) Any person interested in land damaged by the working of coal in exercise of a right to withdraw support therefrom which vests in the Commission under either of the two preceding paragraphs subject to an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage arising from such working, and which has been granted by the Commission to a lessee, shall be entitled to enforce against the Commission any liability to pay proper compensation for or to make good that damage pursuant to that obligation which the lessee fails to discharge:
Provided that nothing in this sub-paragraph shall be construed as rendering invalid any provision contained in a lease granted by the Commission requiring the lessee to indemnify the Commission against liability in respect of any such obligation as aforesaid, and the Commission may require the inclusion of such a provision in a lease which they are under obligation by virtue of Section twelve of this Act to grant.
(2) Any question as to the subsistence by virtue of either of the two preceding paragraphs of an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage to any land, or as to the rights or liabilities of any person in respect of the enforcement of such an obligation so subsisting, shall be determined by arbitration.
§ 11.17 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That the Lords Amendment be divided."
§
Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 3, at the end, insert:
and such restrictions may be so imposed on the application of, and so as to vest the right to enforce the restrictions in, any company or other body or person carrying on an undertaking primarily for the supply of gas, electricity, water or hydraulic power for public purposes or to members of the public.
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Paragraph 6 (4) of the Schedule as it left us required undertakings which had 752 statutory rights for the mining of coal to apply under the working facilities legislation for restrictions on the working of coal required for their undertakings, and no exception was taken to that provision. These words extend the same power of application to the Railway and Canal Commission for that kind of support to what may briefly be described as non-statutory public undertakings. The point was not raised in this House at all, but in another place attention was called to the fact that, particularly in Scotland, there were various small undertakings which were not in possession of full statutory rights, but existed primarily for the supply of gas, electricity, water or hydraulic power. I hope the House will agree with this very reasonable Amendment.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 3, at the end, insert:
7.—(1) Any person interested in land damaged by the working of coal in exercise of a right to withdraw support therefrom which vests in the Commission under either of the two preceding paragraphs subject to an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage arising from such working, and which has been granted by the Commission to a lessee, shall be entitled to enforce against the Commission any liability to pay proper compensation for or to make good that damage pursuant to that obligation which the lessee fails to discharge:
Provided that nothing in this sub-paragraph shall be construed as rendering invalid any provision contained in a lease granted by the Commission requiring the lessee to indemnify the Commission against liability in respect of any such obligation as aforesaid, and the Commission may require the inclusion of such a provision in a lease which they are under obligation by virtue of Section twelve of this Act to grant.
(2) Any question as to the subsistence by virtue of either of the two preceding paragraphs of an obligation to pay proper compensation for or to make good damage to any land, or as to the rights or liabilities of any person in respect of the enforcement of such an obligation so subsisting, shall be determined by arbitration.
§ 11.19 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides that any person interested in land damaged by the working of coal in the exercise of a right which is vested in the Commission subject to an obligation to pay compensation for damage arising from the working, and 753 which has been granted by the Commission to a lessee, shall be entitled to enforce against the Commission any liability to pay proper compensation, with the proviso, which is important, that this must not be taken as making invalid any provision which the Commission may make for passing on that responsibility to its lessee. This only concerns existing leases the rights under which as between the present surface owners and the present lessees pass, for the duration of the lease, to the Commission, merely with the substitution of the Commission for the actual coalowner. So they are not affected. This deals with the case of all fresh leases made by the Commission. When the matter was raised before, it was pointed out that sometimes damage occurred and the colliery company had, perhaps, ceased working, disappeared, or gone bankrupt; at any rate, for some reason, the damage could not be recovered; and that was a great hardship to the people who had suffered from the subsidence.
Another point made by hon. Members was that sometimes it could not be found out who had caused the subsidence, as there were two or three undertakings working in close proximity. In the interests of all likely to suffer damage, this Amendment suggests that in the first instance the right should lie against the Commission, but there is no reason why the Commission should not do exactly what has been normally done in the past—that is, pass on the liability to the undertaking—and the proviso enables that to happen. There is nothing in the paragraph which renders invalid any provision which the Commission may make with its lessee in order to indemnify the Commission against such claims. To that extent, I think it meets the point that the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made earlier on; and it provides, in the second part, that any questions in regard to the existence of obligation to pay compensation or not shall be settled by arbitration. That, again, takes up the point made earlier on, that some difficulties were experienced in pursuing this question owing to the high costs. It is in order to meet those points that I recommend that this Amendment should be agreed to.
§ 11.22 p.m.
§ Sir S. CrippsIt is amazing how His Majesty's Government are discovering 754 what is fair as regards surface owners. It is now fair that they should have the first right against royalty owners whatever the provisions of the lease. It is a pity they did not discover that 20 years ago. Again, it is a complete alteration of the conditions on which the global sum was paid. It may be a good alteration or a bad alteration, but it is a complete alteration. Again, it is putting into the hands of the surface owner who has sold his coal a better chance of recovering any damage than he would have had in other circumstances. It is, again, in favour of the landowner and against the Commission. It is, again, liable to cripple the Commission in carrying out its work, so far as it has any effect at all. We object to the representatives of the royalty owners coming forward and saying, "This which we refused to do for the last century is really the only fair and proper thing to be done." Directly they have divested themselves of their ownership of the coal and got the cash, they are prepared to load any burdens on the person who has got the coal. It is for that reason that we object strongly to this increase of charge on the Commission.
§ 11.23 p.m.
§ Mr. BateyThere is a difference between this Amendment and the former Amendment which the House discussed. On the former Amendment some of my colleagues complained that there was a danger of piling up expenditure against the Commission, so that the Commission might be damaged in their work. They felt during that debate that, after all, there was a little something in it because houses might be damaged. This Amendment does not deal with damage to houses but simply with land. The royalty owners have sold the coal and got the royalty rents, and now, as landowners, they are dealing with the land.
§ Captain CrookshankIt includes houses.
§ Mr. BateyWhere are the houses? Will the Secretary for Mines point out in this Amendment where the houses are? There is not a word in the Amendment that deals with houses. It really means that the royalty owners have got paid for the coal, and now they are the landowners they want to be paid for any damage that is done to the land. The royalty owners say that the Government have forced them to accept a price they do not like 755 for the sale of their coal, and now they intend to do everything they possibly can to ruin the Commission. This is one of the ways to ruin the Commission. I do not believe that for the next 25 years the miners will get any relief from the transference of the royalties from the present royalty owners to the Commission. The way that the Government are accepting these Amendments from another place will cause the expenditure of the Commission to pile up, so that they will have to increase the rents. Bad as is the position of the miners at the present time, the proposals from another place which the Government are accepting will make their position worse than it is at the present time.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI only intervene to assure the hon. Gentleman that "land" does include the buildings on the land.
§ 11.28 p.m.
§ Sir S. CrippsI do not know whether the learned Attorney-General has noticed one thing about the Schedule. It might be said generally that that was the case, but in this case—page 14 of the Lords Amendments, he will notice that where that is intended, in this Schedule it is specifically stated, where it sets out,
which obligation shall extend to buildings and works on that landwhen constructed before a certain date. Therefore, there, land clearly does not include buildings, because it is intended by the definition only to apply to buildings built after a certain date, and would not cover buildings before that date. It is open to doubt as to whether a Clause appearing in the same Schedule using the word "land" will not be held to have the same meaning as land clearly must have in the first part of that Schedule. I suggest that it is by no means certain in this particular text in view of that definition in (b), that land will include works and buildings.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong, and I have assured the House that the use of the word here does include buildings.
§ Sir S. CrippsWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain it?
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. PrittIt is no good the Attorney-General telling us that we can accept that assurance from him. He must give us some reasons. Even Law Officers have been wrong in times past. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has given a very cogent argument, but the Attorney-General says we can accept it from him that that argument is wrong. That is a much bigger answer than we have had before. The policy has been to sit still in the firm conviction that anything they did say would be wrong. Everybody knows that land, ordinarily speaking, includes everything on it, even when it is inserted in the Statute at the instance of gentlemen who are generally only interested in land and not in buildings that people put on the land. In one part of the Schedule "land" is defined to include "buildings and works" and on the next page we get the word "land" put in quite simply. There is grave danger of the court construing that as land without buildings, but the Attorney-General seeks to assure us that that is not so.
§ 11.32 p.m.
§ The Attorney-GeneralIf the hon. and learned Member would look again at it he would see that the emphasis is on the words "constructed before or after the vesting date." Those words make it quite clear that "land" does include buildings and works, otherwise they would not draw the distinction as to whether they were constructed before or after that date. I think it is clear that "land" does include buildings.
§ 11.33 p.m.
§ Mr. StokesI have been amazed at the number of amendments we have accepted which are going to fritter away the revenue of the Commission. One hon. Member pointed out that the Commission can pass subsidence expenses on to the lessee. That is true, but from the lessee they must go straight to the wage earner. Before we vote on this Amendment I should like the House to realise what we are doing. We are taking £66,000,000 of the hard-won earnings of the workers and handing it over to people who have been milking the country for years, and we are doing that in order to get back for the people what already morally belongs to them. I have been racking my brains to find a suitable simile 757 —I do not think hon. Members opposite would accept my statement—for what is happening, and the only thing I can think of is the story of the famous pirate Captain Kidd, who lived in the Middle Ages, and who amassed huge wealth by sinking ships at sea. Instead of burying his wealth as he used to do, suppose he had formed a limited liability company and got a monopoly of piracy and handed the right on to his heirs and successors. And suppose that public opinion rose in revolt and said that piracy must stop, would this House solemnly sit down and decide what sum it should pay to buy back the monopoly.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne)The hon. Member cannot raise that point in this Amendment.
§ Mr. StokesIn conclusion, I will only say that surely this is one of the worst forms of subterranean piracy, and I hope that no more concessions will be made.
§ 11.37 p.m.
Mr. AclandI want to put a point with regard to existing leases which contain a clause that the lessee shall be solely liable for subsidence. I want to ask what happens when that particular lease expires, or when the company which is the lessee is wound up or goes bankrupt, and it is a question of drawing up a new lease to the same company or some other company in respect of the existing mine? Will it be competent for the Commission to draw up a new lease containing the same clause in the lease which existed placing the whole liability for subsidence upon the lessee, exonerating the Commission entirely from all liability, or will the Commission be compelled, when granting a new lease to accept the liability for subsidence? If it is possible for the Commission to insist on the same terms which are now attached to that particular mine continuing in all future leases they are getting precisely what they claim, and are not being asked to undertake any new obligation. If, on the other hand, it is the other way round, if on granting a new lease to a new company, or a new lease to the existing company, they will be compelled to take over the whole liability for subsidence, then they are being asked to take on a burden for which they never bargained.
§ 11.39 p.m.
§ Mr. R. J. TaylorA great deal has been said in this discussion about houses; apparently 758 they are concerned as well. This is another instance of the many we have had already of the policy which is being pursued in another place of extracting the uttermost of the amount of money which they expect to get or were disappointed with not getting in the global sum. That is the position. If I wanted any confirmation of that I have only to quote from a speech made by a noble Lord or Duke in another place. He pointed out that—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman may not quote what was said in the Debate in another place.
§ Mr. TaylorIt is evident from the temper in which they have approached these Amendments, that they have had a savage determination to get their own back on the Greene Committee for not fixing as large a sum as they thought ought to have been fixed. One hears complaints about the method in which the Greene Committee committed the royalty owners to that sum of money. One hears and reads comments and opinions expressed that if the sum was too small, it had to be accepted, and if it was too large, the Government could resist paying it. But they said they had better accept it, as there might be another Government coming into power which would pass legislation paying much less than £66,500,000. They said, "There is a far, far better way—let us get it by the Amendments." I want to point out that the landlord who now ceases to be the mineral owner will, by these Amendments, be most handsomely safeguarded and most liberally rewarded.
A large colliery company in Northumberland has raised this point with the Secretary for Mines, and they have been woefully disappointed. They were under the impression, when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, that something would be done to deal with the leases granted by landowners to colliery companies. The expenses that may come against the Commission can be of a very important nature. Let us assume this position. A landowner has leased 36 acres to a colliery company. The company has no houses, but there is a railway line upon which the company runs its coal. That colliery company and another one are amalgamated: the time during which the two companies were separate, and the time during which they 759 were amalgamated, comes to 62 years; during that time they have paid £411,548 in charges for running their coal over 36 acres—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI cannot see that that has anything to do with the Amendment.
§ Mr. TaylorI am using that as an illustration to show that, if there is damage to that land or to that railway line, apart from houses, a tremendous charge will have to be borne by the Commission. And whether hon. Members opposite know it or not, that will all come from the miners. Never mind who pays it—it will come from the people who go down into the bowels of the earth day after day to produce the coal. For that reason, I resist this Amendment, and I hope the House will not accept it.
§ 11.45 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankA question was asked with regard to a lease coming to an end. The answer is that the Commission would be liable in the terms of this Subsection, but it would be lawful to pass the liability on.
§ Mr. S. O. DaviesWhat would be the position of a colliery company which was in liquidation? Would the burden not then fall on the Commission?
§ Captain CrookshankI was dealing with a new lease. If a colliery company is liquidated, I suppose it will have some obligations outstanding in all directions. If a company goes into liquidation and production ceases, liability to damages is proverbially very great.
§ 11.46 p.m.
§ Mr. DaviesYes, and that liability if there were no realisable assets, would fall on the Commission, and I cannot understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman is circumnavigating round a very simple point. As I am on my feet, may I express my opinion on this Amendment, which is one of a whole series of Amendments every one of which reveals to the House the ignominious capitulation which the Government have made to the peremptory demands and threats coming from another place. It has been said more than once from these Benches that undoubtedly the first preoccupation of the other House was to wreck this Bill, but, 760 if that could not be done, then to make the work of the Commission the laughing stock of this country. The Amendments that this House has considered this evening present a pitiable spectacle, both of the attitude of this Government and of the noble Lords who have compelled us to consider these demands at this time of night.
Let us realise how meticulous the other House has been in its attack upon all the details of this Bill. According to this last Amendment, if a piece of land has on it a spring of water that might be of the least public utility or use to an individual, and if in the working of the colliery that water dried up, the Commission would have to pay compensation even for that. It is no good the hon. and gallant Gentleman telling us that in this Amendment we are protecting the Commission. Figures have come from these Benches as to the large number of collieries that have closed down even in South Wales—nearly 250 in a very few years—and most of them have filed their petition. Then what is the use of tabling an Amendment of this kind, saying that the Commission can transfer its potential liabilities under this Bill to the colliery companies? We know of a number of bankruptcies that have been deliberately and fictitiously staged in order that certain individuals might shed themselves of legal responsibilities that they had assumed. The Noble Lords know the game as well if not better than this House does. We have seen the victims of vicious practices of that kind. We are protesting against this open, blatant, brazen exploitation of the people. Hon. Members do not like this picture of ignominy and shame. This is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated in this House for a long time. We have got used to some millions of pounds being doled out—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThe hon. Member is getting rather far from the Amendment.
§ Mr. DaviesI have not obtruded upon these debates until this moment but the Amendment has given me the opportunity of expressing my protest against this meticulous pursuing of what might have been a great idea by pettifogging and ignominious Amendments of this kind. I only wish the Government had had the courage to act upon the advice of a noble Lord who urged—
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerIt is not in order to refer to what took place in another place.
§ Mr. DaviesI do not apologise for associating myself with the protest that has been made from these benches. We will continue to protest and to expose the shameful position that the Government
§ have assumed in a grave and serious piece of public exploitation.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 105.—[Special Entry.]
763| Division No. 287.] | AYES. | [11.54 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Emmott, C. E. G. C. | Morgan, R. H. |
| Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) | Entwistle, Sir C. F. | Munro, P. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Errington, E. | Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) | Erskine-Hill, A. G. | Nicholson, G. (Farnham) |
| Apsley, Lord | Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Nicolson, Hon. H. G. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Everard, W. L. | Palmer, G. E. H. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Fox, Sir G. W. G. | Patrick, C. M. |
| Baillie, Sir A. W. M. | Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Peake, O. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. | Gledhill, G. | Procter, Major H. A. |
| Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. | Gluckstein, L. H. | Radford, E. A. |
| Beauchamp, Sir B. C. | Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) | Goldie, N. B. | Rankin, Sir R. |
| Bernays, R. H. | Gower, Sir R. V. | Rayner, Major R. H. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. | Grant-Ferris, R. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) | Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Gridley, Sir A. B. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Grigg, Sir E. W. M. | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) |
| Bracken, B. | Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) |
| Brisooe, Capt. R. G. | Hambro, A. V. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Broadbridge, Sir G. T. | Hannah, I. C. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. |
| Bullock, Capt. M. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. |
| Butcher, H. W. | Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) | Salmon, Sir I. |
| Butler, R. A. | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Salt, E. W. |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. | Samuel, M. R. A. |
| Cartland, J. R. H. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. | Scott, Lord William |
| Cary, R. A. | Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- | Selley, H. R. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) | Higgs, W. F. | Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) |
| Channon, H. | Holdsworth, H. | Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald |
| Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | Holmes, J. S. | Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. |
| Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Horsbrugh. Florence | Spens, W. P. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) |
| Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) | Hulbert, N. J. | Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. |
| Colville, Rt. Hon. John | Joel, D. J. B. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Conant, Captain R. J. E. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. |
| Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. | Latham, Sir P. | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Cox, H. B. Trevor | Law, Sir A. J.(High Peak) | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Craven-Ellis, W. | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Touche, G. C. |
| Crooke, Sir J. Smedley | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. | Little, Sir E. Graham- | Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Loftus, P. C. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Crossley, A. C. | Lyons, A. M. | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. |
| Culverwell, C. T. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Watt Major G. S. Harvie |
| Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) | M'Connell, Sir J. | Wayland, Sir W. A |
| De la Bére, R. | MoCorquodale, M. S. | Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. | Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) | Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham) |
| Doland, G. F. | Mokie, J. H. | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Donner, P. W. | Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. | Macnamara, Major J. R. J. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Drewe, C. | Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernesl | Wood, Hon. C. I. C. |
| Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R. | Wragg, H. |
| Duncan, J. A. L. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. |
| Eastwood, J. F. | Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | |
| Edmondson, Major Sir J. | Mills Major J. D. (New Forest) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ellis, Sir G. | Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) | Captain Dugdale and Mr. Furness. |
| Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Moreing, A. C. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) | Bellenger, F. J. | Daggar, G. |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. | Dalton, H. |
| Adamson, W. M. | Bromfield, W. | Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Burke, W. A. | Dobbie, W. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Cape, T. | Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) |
| Barnes, A. J. | Cluse, W. S. | Ede, J. C. |
| Barr, J. | Collindridge, F. | Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) |
| Batey, J. | Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. |
| Frankel, D. | Leach, W. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Lee, F. | Sexton, T. M. |
| Gibson, R. (Greenock) | Leslie, J. R. | Silkin, L. |
| Grenfell, D. R. | Lunn, W. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Simpson, F. B. |
| Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | McEntee, V. La T. | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Groves, T. E. | McGhee, H. G. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) | MacLaren, A. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Marshall, F. | Stephen, C. |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Maxton, J. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Harris, Sir P. A. | Messer, F. | Stokes, R. R. |
| Hayday, A. | Milner, Major J. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Thurtle, E. |
| Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Noel-Baker, P. J. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Oliver, G. H. | Tomlinson, G. |
| Hollins, A. | Paling, W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Hopkin, D. | Parker, J. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Jagger, J. | Parkinson, J. A. | Westwood, J. |
| Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Pearson, A. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| John, W. | Poole, C. C. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Price, M. P. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Pritt, D. N. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Kelly, W. T. | Richards, R. (Wrexham) | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Kirby, B. V. | Ridley, G. | |
| Lathan, G. | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Lawson, J. J. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers. |