HL Deb 03 January 1918 vol 27 cc307-24

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL of KINTORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Confirmation of agreement.

1.—(1) The above-recited agreement of the twentieth day of July nineteen hundred and seventeen, together with all rights and powers conferred and all duties and obligations imposed thereby on the Controller of Coal Mines, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Board of Referees, or any other persons, is hereby confirmed, and the said agreement shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and shall be binding on the owners (including trustees) of any coal mine to which the said Regulation 9G is for the time being applied, and upon all persons whom the agreement affects.

(2) If after the date of the passing of this Act any person without reasonable cause fails as and when so required to give a return or to furnish any information or to produce or give facilities for the inspection of any books, plans, or documents which, under the said agreement, he may be liable to give, furnish, or produce, or knowingly gives any information which is false in any material particular, or knowingly discloses or makes use of, for any purpose other than for such purpose as is authorised by the said agreement, any information acquired by him under the said agreement, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine of ten pounds for each day during which the offence continues.

Where any such offence as aforesaid is committed by a company every director and manager of the company who knowingly authorises or permits the default, shall be liable to the same penalties as the company.

(3) Nothing in this Act or in the agreement confirmed thereby shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by the agreement, affect the general powers of the Board of Trade or the Controller of Coal Mines under the said regulation.

(4) References in the said agreement to the Controller of Coal Mines shall be deemed to include any person for the time being appointed to hold that office, and in the event of the office of Controller of Coal Mines being vacant or ceasing to exist shall be deemed to include the Board of Trade: Provided that nothing in this Act shall extend to apply the terms of the said agreement to the owners of any coal mine in respect of coke ovens or by-product plant belonging to them.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I move to add at the end of the proviso in subsection (4) the words "or in respect of any part of their undertaking other than the coal mine." In order to explain the object of this Amendment I must refer for a moment to what took place in the other House. Judging from what happened when this question was discussed there, I believe that the Government and I are substantially in agreement, and that the only difference which exists is in the actual words to be used so as to fulfil the intention of this Bill. In the Schedule definitions are given, and it is there stated that "undertaking" means "the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under the control of the Controller." The Solicitor-General admitted in another place that these words were capable of being construed in a manner which went beyond the intention of the Bill.

During the Committee Stage in the House of Commons, or at a later stage—I am not sure which—Sir Norton Griffiths moved that coke ovens or by-product plant should be excluded; and in the discussion upon this Amendment the Solicitor-General admitted the difficulty which the insertion of these words would create, because if the business of coke ovens and by-product plant were specifically excluded from the Bill it would naturally be asked why other industries that belonged to the owners of the collieries but were not really concerned with the raising of coal were not excluded also. Therefore I venture to think that, since the Amendment of Sir Norton Griffiths was accepted, it becomes even more necessary to have some words defining the absolute coal workings with which this Bill only deals; it should be limited to this, and should not extend to other industries.

After Sir Norton Griffiths's Amendment had been agreed to, General Hickman proposed the addition of words similar to the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper. The Solicitor-General, not liking the words proposed by General Hickman, undertook to endeavour at a later stage to find words to carry out what is undoubtedly the wish of everybody concerned. So far as I know, no words have yet been proposed by the Government which will meet the case. I believe that there have been discussions about the matter, but I am not aware that any form of words has been accepted, or, indeed, suggested. It is generally admitted, however, that some words must be included in the Bill which will prevent its being construed in a manner which goes beyond its whole intention, and limit it to the operations of coal mining.

There was this specific undertaking given by the Solicitor-General in the House of Commons, and on the faith of this promise all further opposition on this point ceased, and the Third Reading was not opposed. Therefore I very strongly suggest to the Government that unless these words, or similar words really covering the case, are introduced into the Bill there will be a breach of faith in this matter. When an undertaking such as I have quoted is given, and when those who have been discussing the question agree to raise no further objection on the faith of such an undertaking, it is clear that the Government are bound to introduce some words which will cover the position.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 2, line 41, at the end insert ("or in respect of any part of their undertaking other than the coal mine").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl is quite accurate in his statement as to what took place in the other House on the occasion to which he has been referring, except, perhaps, in this respect. He spoke as if there had been an undertaking to introduce words. The undertaking of the Solicitor-General was that he would consider whether any words could be found which would meet the case. If I may refresh the noble Earl's memory, what was said will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of December 10, 1917, where in Column 914 it will be found that General Hickman said— May I propose, as an Amendment, at the end of the words just agreed to, to add the words 'and such-like works not directly concerned with the raining of coal'? Then what the Solicitor-General said was this— May I say that this matter is really not worthy of prolonged discussion. I personally do not like the words suggested by the hon. and gallant gentleman, but if he will leave the matter until a later stage we will endeavour to find such words as will carry out what is undoubtedly the policy common to everybody concerned. Now, my Lords, the matter has been most carefully considered, and up to the present time no satisfactory form of words has been devised; and I will state rather more fully, in a moment or two, the reasons which in the opinion of the Government make it quite impossible to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I will, however, say this at once, that we are prepared further to consider the matter between now and the Third Reading in order to see whether some form of words can be hit upon which will be free from objection either on the part of the Government or on the part of the coal-owners. We have given consideration to the matter already, but we are prepared to give it further and most careful consideration with a view to carrying out fully the promise of the Solicitor-General.

I cannot, however, on behalf of the Government, express any willingness to accept the form of words which is now proposed to the House. If that form of words were adopted, Clause 1 would run thus. At the end of the fourth subsection, after the reference to coke ovens or by-product plant being excluded, the proviso would go on "or in respect of any part of their undertaking other than the coal mine." I suggest to the noble Earl that those words would not do for this reason. The intention of the Agreement is perfectly clear. I will read the words of the definition in the first clause of the Agreement— 'Undertaking' means the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under control of the Controller, except such parts of the undertaking as are controlled establishments within the meaning of the Munitions of War Acts, 1915 and 1916, or are under the control of the Controller of Shipping, and such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operation of this Agreement. If the intention of these words was that the whole of the undertaking with reference to coal mines should be included and if the words now proposed were adopted, questions would arise whether a number of things incidental to the working of a colliery would not be excluded. Take the washery in connection with a coal mine, for the purpose of washing the coal. That is a very necessary part of the equipment of a properly equipped coal mine. Then you have in connection with a coal mine private wagons. Is it intended to exclude these? The words proposed are such as to suggest that the Agreement is to be strictly confined to the coal mine itself. Further than that, in every coal mine you want ponies, and it is necessary to have grazing ground on which to keep the ponies belonging to the colliery. It is ancillary to the coal mine, and it is necessary that it should come under the control of the Controller. Then I may mention also the case of cottages for workmen. That is not the coal mine itself, but it is ancillary to it. Then there is the case of ironstone. Of course, the working of the ironstone may be a separate matter, if the pits are separate, but in many cases the ironstone is brought up with the coal and is then separated and disposed of separately; but you could not keep the two things separate for the purpose of the control by the Controller under this Agreement, for up to a certain point, it is absolutely essential for the purpose of controlling the colliery to have control of the ironstone. Therefore I put it to the noble Earl that the words which he has proposed go a great deal too far and would make most serious inroads upon the Agreement.

The Agreement is perfectly specific in saying that the "undertaking," which is the word used throughout the Agreement, means "the whole of the undertaking of the owner of a coal mine which is for the time being under control of the Controller." The Order made under the Defence of the Realm Acts is for the control of coal mines, and the Agreement deals with the undertaking of the owner of the coal mines of which control is taken. I put it to the House that this means obviously things connected with the mine, but nothing which is independent of the mine. For this reason I submit that it might make serious inroads upon the terms of the Agreement if the wider words which are now proposed were inserted in the Bill. It will be observed that in defining "undertaking" certain exceptions are made from the undertaking of the owner of the coal mine; and the last of these is "such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operations of this Agreement." I think I may say, on behalf of the Government, that this power of exception will be most carefully exercised by the Controller for the purpose of preventing the control extending to anything except what is really ancillary to the coal mine and must be controlled in order that the control may be effective. For these reasons I am quite unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, and I hope I have satisfied him that very considerable difficulty might arise if the words which he proposes were adopted. But, as I have said, the Government, having already considered the matter very carefully, will consider it further and give sufficient time between Committee and the Third Reading in order to see whether some form of words cannot be devised which would meet the case. I am not at all sure that if we rush too hastily into a form of words it might not be regarded as rather prejudicial in some respects possibly to the coal-owners.

What I wish to indicate in the most general terms is the view of the Government as to what will be essential. In the first place, there must be power of control with regard to anything that is in any way ancillary to the coal mine. In order to be exempt from the powers of control a business must be a separate and independent business, and it ought to be carried on at a separate establishment. From the practical working of the Agreement it is of extreme importance that the books relating to that separate business should have been kept at the time when the standard is to be ascertained, and must have been kept in such a way as to show clearly what portion of the profit is attributable to that particular business as distinguished from the rest of the general undertaking. I have indicated these points in order that they might possibly help the consideration which I have no doubt will be given to this mutter before the Third Reading, and I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that it is not from any reluctance at all to meet the point raised that I express my inability to assent to the words which he has proposed.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

The noble and learned Lord has convinced me of one thing, and that is the extreme importance and necessity of getting a form of words of some kind which will clearly carry out the intentions of the Government in this Bill. There are many eases that one can call to mind—I recall one now—of colliery undertakings in which the business of a coal merchant forms a very large part of the undertaking of the colliery, although the colliery itself is a very important one. It is combined with depôts all over the world. In this case I am not at all sure—in fact, I should think it is probably quite the reverse—that these two businesses are worked from different offices or with different staffs. No doubt they are all working together. But it would be absolutely unfair that a large coal merchant's business, because it was connected with a colliery, should be subject to this control, while other large coal merchants' businesses, no more important perhaps than this one, should be exempt altogether from the conditions of the Bill because they were not connected with collieries. That seems to me to be quite clear; and I would impress upon the noble and learned Lord, who is good enough to tell me that he will give most careful consideration to this problem before the next stage of this Bill—and I am much obliged to him for giving me that assurance—the absolute necessity of finding some form of words (which, after all, the Government draftsman cannot be incapable of finding) that will carry out the intentions of the Bill and only those intentions, and will not allow some interpretation which may be made by some future Controller to rope in (if I may use the expression) undertakings and industries which Parliament does not intend to be part of this Bill.

Although the noble and learned Lord explained to me that the difficulties of finding words were so great that it had been impossible for the Government to carry out the whole of the promise—I will put it no higher than that—the promise of an endeavour by the Solicitor-General to find words, still I must repeat that the words which the noble and learned Lord read out were of a very definite character and clearly led those who were pressing in another place for some such Amendment as I have on the Paper to withdraw all opposition to the Bill.

There is only one other word I would say, and that is to make reference to the words quoted by the noble and learned Lord at the, end of the paragraph defining the undertakings to be controlled, and excepting "such other parts (if any) as the Controller may exclude from the operation of this Agreement." As to that, I would say this. I have no doubt of the present Controller's intention. I have no doubt it is an excellent intention to exclude those industries that are not closely connected with the colliery. We cannot, however, rely on a Controller's intention. The place of the present Controller may be taken by some one else; and in such a Bill as this I venture to say that the position of those who are being drawn within the operations of the Bill by an Agreement which has never been agreed to by them, and in which they have had no say whatever, should be carefully safeguarded and the actual intentions of Parliament clearly stated in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Accounts and audit.

3.—(1) Sums collected by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the said Agreement shall be paid into such account as the Controller may direct.

(2) Payments into and out of the said account shall be made, and all other matters relating to the administration of that account and to the money standing to the credit of the account (including the investment of any such money) shall be regulated in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

(3) At the end of every financial year accounts of the payments into and the expenditure defrayed out of the said account shall be made up in such form and with such particulars as may be directed by the Treasury, and shall be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General as public accounts in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury may make, and shall be laid before Parliament with a report thereon.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to add to Clause 3 a new subsection providing that "any sum falling to be paid under Clause 4 of the scheduled Agreement shall be paid to the owner each month by the Controller, subject to final adjustment at the termination of the accounting period." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really to put the colliery owner on the same footing as the railway companies, which are being controlled by the Government, are put. It is to safeguard the owner of the colliery in financing his own business. The payments in weekly wages of a colliery owner are larger probably than would be imagined by those who have no knowledge of the subject. There are collieries which pay something like £50,000 a week in wages. It is obvious that if any considerable sum of money which is due to the owner of a colliery is held up pending an audit or pending the time when the exact figure can be made out, he will be placed in so awkward a position that it will be impossible for him to finance his business. I think that is quite clear. I propose this Amendment so that a certain proportion and a very large proportion of the amount due to him shall be paid monthly. The figures might be accurately balanced after the audit has taken place. I hope that the Government will see the justice of giving some undertaking of this sort and of accepting the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Clause 3, page 3, after line 17, insert as a new Subsection: ( ) Any sum falling to be paid under Clause 4 of the scheduled Agreement shall be paid to the owner each month by the Controller, subject to final adjustment at the termination of the accounting period."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I quite appreciate the reasons which have led the noble Earl to propose this Amendment. I regret that the Government do not see their way to accept it, for two reasons. In the first place, it would require the making up of accounts every month. That would involve an enormous amount of trouble. Most accounts are made up annually. In some cases they are made up every six months, sometimes every three months, but those cases are extremely rare, and to do it monthly would involve an enormous amount of work. I am told that in practice it would really be impossible. The effect of the Agreement as it stands is this—that the Coal Controller will be liable to pay over the amounts as soon as the accounts are ready, and I trust there will be no undue delay in getting out the accounts. But to require that it should be done every month would, I am afraid, impose a burden on the Controller greater than could be borne. Looking at it from a business point of view it is not desirable that this Amendment should be made.

But there is another reason—and I submit it is a conclusive reason—against it. This Bill is one to give effect to the Agreement arrived at after most mature and prolonged consideration between the Coal Controller and the Mining Association, The Mining Association, of course, have no legal authority to bind the various mine owners who are members of the Association, but their entering into the Agreement was a pledge that they considered that it was a fair Agreement, and, practically speaking, it carried with it the assurance that the great majority of those whom it represented would concur. That, of course, was enough for the purpose of the Controller, and this Bill was necessary for the reasons which were explained on the Second Reading. It is obvious that the whole scope of the Bill is to give effect to the Agreement which has been arrived at, and the Amendment would be a varying of that Agreement in a most material particular. I submit that it would be really making a new Agreement, and you cannot, when you are legislating to give effect to an Agreement, say we will make a new bargain for the parties. The whole basis of the Bill would be gone. For these two reasons I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord has not in the least convinced me that this is an unreasonable Amendment. May I draw his attention to the fact—no doubt he knows it perfectly well—that the Controller under Regulation 9G, which is so constantly quoted, has to furnish a monthly return; a monthly balance sheet. There he has all the information. Let me remind him also that the Ministry of Munitions, where subsidies are made, pays monthly 80 per cent. of the amounts due, subject to an audit. I do not ask that the accounts should be accurately made out every month. That, of course, is impossible, but I cannot see any more difficulty in paying a large proportion of the amount due monthly to colliery owners than to such businesses as are subsidised by the Ministry of Munitions. All that I say is that the colliery owner requires it more than the other industries, because 20 per cent. is, I should say, too much to retain in the case of a colliery company where the weekly wages cover such an enormous sum. It ought to be a smaller amount than that which is withheld. I cannot see that this Amendment would be overburdening a Government Department with work, because the facts that the Controller will obtain from the colliery owner in the monthly returns and balance sheets will practically give him all the information he wants in order to enable him to give back a fair amount of the money due, without keeping the colliery owner waiting so long, practically bankrupt and unable to finance his business.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

May I remind the noble Earl that the fourth clause of the Agreement to which the Amendment refers provides that— Where as respects any accounting period the profits of any undertaking retained by the owner are loss than the guaranteed standard as hereinafter defined, or if there is a loss or the loss is greater than the guaranteed standard, when that standard is a negative quantity, such sum as may be required to make up the guaranteed standard shall, subject to the provisions of Clause 13, be paid to the owner by the Controller. That is a definite statement, and the Agreement is quite specific about it. The Amendment proposed has no reference to the payment on account at all. If it were carried it would have the effect that any sum falling to be paid under Clause 4 should be paid to the owner each month by the Controller. The sum does not fall to be due in respect of the accounting period under the Agreement, and until you know what the state of things is on the accounting period you have not got a sum falling to be paid. The noble Earl said it would be a reasonable thing that something should be paid on account. That, of course, is a matter of agreement. I cannot say anything about it. But I submit that it is impossible to indicate, in the face of the terms of this Agreement, that the sums should be paid over monthly.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I shall ask to be allowed to bring this matter up at a later stage to see whether anything can be done to meet this point. I will not press the Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I have on the Paper two new clauses which I move to insert after Clause 6. The first one reads: "Nothing done or omitted to be done before the passing of this Act or within ninety days thereafter shall prejudice the right of any coal-owner to a substituted standard or any other right conferred on him under the Agreement." This is really a small point, but an important one. I understand that in some cases the Controller has fixed the period within which application for the substituted standard has to be made, and now the Agreement is made binding on a new set of people who have not been parties to it. I do not imagine for a moment that this is meant to be retrospective in its action, but that the period fixed by the Controller should date from the passing of this Act, because certain persons will only, after the passing of the Act, be invited to apply for a substituted standard. I hope that this Amendment will not have the fate of the other two.

Amendment moved— After Clause 6 insert the following new clause: .Nothing done or omitted to be done before the passing of this Act or within ninety days there-alter shall prejudice the right of any coal-owner to a substituted standard or any other light conferred on him under the agreement."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should be extremely glad if I could accept this Amendment, but I really cannot do so. The Amendment enacts that nothing done or omitted to be done before the passing of this Bill or within ninety days thereafter shall prejudice the right of any coal-owner to a substituted standard or any other right conferred on him under the Agreement. It is very difficult to say what the scope of this Amendment would be. The words would cover, I suppose, the case where the coal-owner had voluntarily shut down his mine. That would be something done before the passing of the Act. The noble Earl said there had been some time fixed by the Controller with the mine owners who are parties with those mine owners who might be taken to be represented by the Mining Association, as to the date, but this Amendment goes very far beyond that. It is so extensive in its terms that I do not know what I should be dealing with in accepting it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will accept the expression of my great regret that I am not able to take any other course than that which I have indicated in regard to the other Amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

The other new clause that I wish to move reads: "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to deprive the owner of any coal mine who is entitled to a percentage standard under the Act of his right to retain in respect of any accounting period any profits which he would be entitled to retain under the Act, so far as such profits are not in excess of his percentage standard thereunder plus £200." This clause is on the question of the standard on which the excess profits are calculated.

Under the Finance Act No. 2 the owner was given the choice of (a) a pre-war standard and (b) a percentage standard calculated on his capital outlay. The effect of Clause 3 in this Bill is to deprive him of this choice. In turning to the Schedule, page 4, we read: "Profits standard" means the profits standard determined in accordance with the Act, and the percentage standard shall in no case be taken to be the standard for the purposes of this Agreement. This, therefore, obliges the colliery owner to have his excess profits calculated on the pre-war profits standard. There are cases of collieries which have no pre-war profits. They may have invested considerable sums of money before the war in enlarging the business of the colliery and no return from this invested money might have been looked for until perhaps within the last three years; and yet this is not to be taken into account. The colliery owners cannot have a percentage standard on their capital outlay, and they are obliged to accept the pre-war standard which would take away from them, not only excess profits equal to 95 per cent., to which they do not object—I draw the attention of the House to the fact that no Amendment was moved in another place to alter this, and no objection was taken to it—but would also take away all other profits which the colliery owner may have made since the pre-war profits standard.

Clause 8, it is true, enables the Controller to fix a substituted standard in special cases, but it must be observed that it will be somewhat different from the percentage standard. It is stated that "the percentage standard shall in no case be taken to be the standard for the purposes of this Agreement." The Bill only leaves the owner the 5 per cent. difference between his present profits and his profits standard. He may have no pre-war profits. Why, I ask, is he to be deprived of what every one else is allowed under the Finance Act—that is, a choice as to the standard on which it shall be calculated? That is a reasonable choice to give to other industries, and I cannot see why it is unreasonable in the case of colliery owners. I agree that the whole subject is a very complicated one, and that it is very difficult to make the form of the Bill perfectly fair to all concerned, but I must make this protest against the position in which the colliery proprietors are being placed—a position which is much worse than that held by those who are the great leaders of other industries. It does not seem to me fair that a method of calculating excess war profits should be based upon a pre-war percentage standard when there are collieries which can show that they had no profits whatever before the war, and the profits during the war cannot be called war-profits, but are due to the amount of capital which was spent in pre-war times in enlarging their undertaking.

Amendment moved— After Clause 6 insert the following new clause: .Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to deprive the owner of any coal mine who is entitled to a percentage standard under the Act of his right to retain in respect of any accounting period any profits which he would be entitled to retain under the Act, so far as such profits are not in excess of his percentage standard thereunder plus two hundred pounds."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I feel myself very unfortunate in not being able to accept this Amendment. The reasons are these. This Bill is to give effect to the Agreement of the parties—namely, the Mining Association on the one hand, and the Controller on the other. They considered this subject most maturely, and the Agreement, to give effect to which the Bill is introduced, provides that the "profits standard" means the profits standard determined in accordance with the Act, and that the percentage standard shall in no case be taken to be the standard for the purposes of this Agreement. If it were a case of proposing by legislation to supersede the percentage standard, the observations made by the noble Earl would deserve serious consideration; but this is what the Mining Association agreed to in conference with the Controller, after the most mature consideration, and it would upset the whole matter if this alteration were made.

It is not right to say that no adequate provision is made for securing that justice is done. The circumstances were such that the Mining Association and the Controller both thought that the special standard was not applicable, but they have provided by Clause 8, to which the noble Earl did refer, that— If at any time, in the case of any undertaking, it appears to the Controller, either on his own motion or on the motion of the owner, that there is no profits standard or that the profits standard as ascertained under the Act cannot fairly be applied, the Controller shall fix, for the purpose of ascertaining the guaranteed standard, or the special standard, as a substitute for the profits standard, a sum equal to the average annual profits which might have been actually earned during the standard period. That is what the parties agreed upon after prolonged conference; and Clause 11 gives an appeal from the decision of the Controller.

If the noble Earl will look at Clause 11 he will see that the Controller is not left unchecked in discharging his duty under Clause 8, because Clause 11 provides that— If the owner of any undertaking feels aggrieved at the refusal of the Controller to fix a substitute for the profits standard under sub-clause (1) of Clause 8, or at the amount fixed by him under either sub-clauses (1) or (2) of Clause 8, or under Clause 10, he may appeal to the Board of Referees appointed under the Act, who shall determine their procedure in hearing and disposing of any such appeal, and that Board may either confirm or revoke the decision of the Controller, or, where an amount has been fixed by the Controller, may vary," and so on. I submit that in these circumstances it would be a very startling thing indeed to set aside the whole Agreement at which, after most elaborate consideration, all parties arrived.

The Bill is necessary because the dissenting minority do not concur in what the representatives of the Mining Association agreed to in the sense, not of making it binding Agreement—because I entirely agree that the Mining Association had no legal authority whatever to bind their members to such an Agreement—but they have authority and they say that they regard this as a fair thing, and in practice it would in all probability go through so far as the vast majority of the members of the Association are concerned. But the matter does not quite rest there, because in another place both the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees ruled that any alteration of the Agreement would be out of order, being entirely contrary to the whole scope of the Bill, which is to confirm this Agreement and make it binding upon those who do not come under it. That being so, I hope that on this occasion I may have been fortunate enough to convince the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I am afraid that if I have utterly failed to convince the noble and learned Lord he has not succeeded in convincing me either. He has explained to us the position in which this Bill has been presented to Parliament, and it establishes a most unfortunate precedent. Here is a Bill to which certain officers of the Mining Association have been party, but about which I think a very large number of other members of the Association have known nothing whatever, and to which they have never been parties in any sense. And then the noble and learned Lord says that it is a Bill to force within its operation persons who were not parties to this Agreement, and that because this Agreement has been made with certain other persons it is incompetent for Parliament to make any alterations in it. He quoted the Speaker's ruling. I do not think that we in this House are bound by the Speaker's ruling. I venture to say, if the Government can come to an Agreement with certain individuals and then can come down and make many other people parties to that Agreement when they have not agreed to it and did not previously know what the Agreement contained, that this is enabling the Government to do outside Parliament what it ought never to be allowed to do. Let me remind your Lordships that every Private Bill has a clause in it that the agreement which is arrived at shall be subject to any alterations or amendments that Parliament may think it right to make in it. Yet the Government say that Parliament has no right to alter this particular Agreement. Of course, I cannot persist in my Amendment. But I regret very much that the Government have not seen fit to deal with more fairness—I must use that word—with the colliery owners who were not in any sense bound by these conferences and agreements.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule:

VISCOUNT GALWAY

I do not propose to move an Amendment to the. Schedule, but before it is passed I should like to call attention to a matter which is in my opinion of national importance. Clause 14 of the Schedule states that in certain circumstances a mine can be closed or even abandoned. I do not see anything in this clause, however, to make it obligatory on every party concerned to take care that the water is pumped out of the mine during the period it is closed so that when better times come the mine can be opened again. Your Lordships are aware that if pumping ceases in a mine the mine gets flooded, and it is a very expensive and tedious business to get rid of the water, and a great deal of damage is done to the property. I am aware that Clause 21 says that the expenses for reinstating and reopening a mine may be provided practically out of what remains of the Excess Profits Duty. I should like to call the noble and learned Lord's attention to the fact that it is of national importance that no seam of coal should be allowed to deteriorate or that any colliery should be prevented from resuming work as soon as possible after the war. I do not know whether it is possible to put in a recommendation that whenever the Controller closes a colliery he should be obliged to see that the water is constantly pumped out. I trust that it may be possible to insert that provision in the Bill at the next stage without interfering with this Agreement. In any event I would ask the noble and learned Lord to take the matter into consideration, because it is most important that valuable national property should not deteriorate through a mine being allowed to be flooded during the period of the war, which period, let us hope, may be a short one.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I appreciate the importance of the point to which the noble Viscount has called attention. He may rely upon it that the Controller, when closing a mine, will see that nothing is done which will result in such evil consequences as those to which the attention of the House has been called. The noble Viscount is, of course, aware that Clause 21 of the Agreement makes provision for a levy, which is called a voluntary levy but which may be made at the request of the Mining Association, for the purposes of maintaining, reinstating, and reopening any mine which may be closed by the Controller. This shows that the question of maintaining mines was well in view when the Agreement was settled. In any event, I trust that we may depend upon the Controller not to order a mine to be closed without taking care to guard against such serious consequences as might result from flooding. The matter is one of importance, and I shall certainly consider what has been said by the noble Viscount.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.