Lords Sitting of 18 July 1918

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 2a.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 2a.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read 2a.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read 2a.

  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I rise to ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. Your Lordships will remember that we had yesterday a valuable and informing discussion on the question of concentrating in one authority the different health powers exercised by certain bodies; but on this occasion I have to ask you to increase the powers that are now exercised by the different local authorities. I think it was agreed in the discussion yesterday that, whatever might be the changes in the centre, the health powers, whether increased or otherwise, must certainly be exercised through the local authorities; and
  982
  I can therefore claim the sympathy of your Lordships for this measure.
  This Bill is in itself apparently a small one, being contained in five clauses. But I do not wish your Lordships to judge of the importance of the measure by the small number of the clauses; and I think it will be found, with regard to the general health of this country and to the welfare of the children of this country, that it will have far more value and far more result than many more resounding measures. The object of the Bill is to extend to England and Wales an enactment which is already applied in Scotland and in Ireland. Under that Act the local authorities may make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the respective Local Government Boards of those countries for attending to the health of expectant mothers and of their infants. This has been in operation now for some few years in Scotland, and I think it will be very useful if your Lordships will allow me to give a brief account of what is being done in Scotland under that Act bearing on the operations of this Bill if it becomes an Act in England.
  It has been the policy of the authorities in Scotland to encourage the local authorities to incorporate in their schemes the various voluntary institutions and agencies for maternity and child welfare in the area, and, where necessary, to contribute funds to extend and to develop their work. Great use has been made in that country of the voluntary agencies already existing for maternity and child welfare work, and schemes of a comprehensive nature have already been set on foot, chiefly, of course, in the larger centres, but there are also many operated by the smaller authorities. Where the smaller authorities do not wish to operate these schemes by themselves, they have often united together and carried out their duties by means of a joint committee.
  Under this particular scheme many different services have been instituted. I want to indicate only the nature of these services at the moment. They include the appointment of health visitors, inspectors of midwives, visiting nurses for home nursing; and then, more important even than these, the establishment of maternity and child welfare special treatment centres and clinics; the establishment of crèches and day nurseries, and children's hospitals, maternity homes and hospitals, provision of doctors, midwives, and nurses for attendance at homes; provision of milk and food

  983
  in necessitous cases for mothers and children; and a very important provision also is the establishment of teaching in hygiene for mothers and expectant mothers. Up to the present time in Scotland there have been fifty-five schemes covering the areas of seventy-two local authorities and embracing something like 1,500,000 of the population; and further schemes are under consideration for dealing with another 2,000,000. In fact, it may be said now that the schemes already approved in Scotland cover three-fourths of the whole population of that country.
  There is one more point in connection with Scotland to which I should like to allude—namely, a scheme for travelling exhibitions of child welfare work. These are subsidised partly by the local authorities, partly by the Carnegie Trust, and partly by voluntary donations, and they afford an opportunity of bringing together the local authorities and the voluntary bodies, thus securing the immense value of the enthusiasm and social energy aroused amongst those concerned with the conservation of child life. Such, briefly, is what has been done in the last three or four years in Scotland under the Act whose powers I ask your Lordships to give to the local authorities in this country. These powers of which I have spoken are not, of course, in force in England yet. All the powers we have here at present for maternity and child welfare are obtained under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, which, of course, was passed so long ago as to be before the time when the present scheme for maternity and child welfare were able to take shape.
  The movement is a valuable and beneficent one. It is now realised that much of the suffering and loss of life in motherhood and in infancy can be avoided if proper measures are taken; and although in the last few years the rate of mortality of infants has been largely decreased, it can be further immensely diminished if proper attention is paid to mothers and to children at an early stage. And this should be noted, that with the reduction in the rate of infant mortality comes a reduction in the rate of invalidity, and a great deal of suffering, waste, and loss is saved in the future life of those who are thus protected.
  It should also be noted that this is not at all a new movement in this country. For the last ten or more years local authorities have been developing work in this connection, frequently in combination
  984
  with voluntary assistance. You have had health visitors, improved midwifery service, infant welfare centres, where advice and assistance is given to mothers, the provision of pure milk, and other matters of that kind. All those things have already been done, and interest has grown so much during the last few years that we have seen baby week ceremonies annually devoted to the rousing of the public enthusiasm for the movement. Moreover, money has already been voted by the State for this purpose. Since 1914 the House of Commons has voted a grant to be dispensed by the Local Government Boards in the three countries towards approved expenditure upon maternity and child welfare services, whether by the local authorities or by voluntary agencies. The figures, which I should like to give to your Lordships, illustrate the progress which has been made in this work. In the year 1914–15 the grant amounted to £11,487; in 1915–16, to £41,465; in 1916–17, to £67,961; in 1917–18, to £122,285; and in the present year the estimate is for £230,000. I should like to add, although the sums in themselves may not seem very large, that an immense amount of valuable work can be done in this respect for comparatively small sums. Very important parts of the programme now authorised are not at present within the competence of the local authorities, and, this Bill is introduced to bring their powers up to the level of those already exercised and enjoyed by Scotland and Ireland.
  I should like to give your Lordships some idea of what powers may be exercised under this Bill, and to what schemes sanction has already been given by Treasury Regulations. They include such matters as the salaries and expenses of health visitors and nurses engaged in maternity and child welfare work; the provision for necessitous women of a midwife and doctor for illness connected with pregnancy; the expenses of centres providing medical supervision and advice for expectant and nursing mothers and for children under five years of age, and medical treatment at the centre for cases needing it; hospital treatment of various kinds for diseases contracted during pregnancy and afterwards; the cost of food for expectant and nursing mothers and for children under five years of age; the establishment of creches and day nurseries, and of other arrangements for attending to the health of children under five years of age whose mothers go out to

  985
  work—and I need hardly remind your Lordships what an immense necessity there is for the establishment of creches and day nurseries, especially at the present time when so many women are working in factories and on munition work—the provision of accommodation in convalescent homes for nursing mothers and for children under five years; the provision of homes and other arrangements for attending to the health of children (under five years of age) of widows and deserted and unmarried mothers; and there is provision also for instruction in hygiene of mothers and expectant mothers. Also, under certain regulations, about which I need not delay your Lordships, grants will be made to voluntary agencies that fulfil certain conditions. So I think your Lordships will see that, although the Bill is apparently small, its scope is large, and that the advantages gained from it may be immense for the health of future generations.
  I will now deal briefly with the machinery of the Bill to show how these matters are carried out. First of all take Clause 1. This clause gives to the county councils (except the London County Council), borough councils, urban and rural district councils, powers to make arrangements under it. They will proceed by schemes. These schemes will be approved by the Local Government Board, and it has been the policy of the Local Government Board, and will continue to be their policy, to encourage the county councils to cover the the whole of their areas with schemes. It will be seen that in some cases smaller authorities will be able to deal with these questions. As the Bill was originally introduced in another place schemes were limited to the larger authorities, but the general feeling was in favour of allowing small authorities, where they could usefully do so, to join in the work and take part in it. The London County Council was omitted from the scheme of the Bill because it is also omitted from the Notification of Births Acts, 1907 and 1915, and therefore is not an authority under the Act, the work being performed by the great London borough councils.
  Clause 2 deals with the machinery by which the Bill is carried out under the local authorities. It sets up committees of the councils, and in this way modifies the existing law, but the powers are wide and a good deal of latitude is allowed to the local authorities themselves. If your
  986
  Lordships look at Clause 2 you will see that the local authorities who exercise their powers must do so and act through committees. These committees may be appointed for the special purpose or may be existing committees or sub-committees of existing committees. They may appoint persons who are not members of the council, but they must appoint at least two-thirds from members of the council, in order to preserve financial control. Then at least two women must be appointed on every maternity and child welfare committee. So much for the machinery. Clause 3 deals with the method of raising money for the expenses, and in certain cases where the smaller local authorities have adopted schemes similar to those in the rest of the county they are allowed to receive from the county council the money raised in their area for the purpose of their own scheme. Certain borrowing powers are also given. Clause 4 relates only to Scotland and affects the powers of borrowing of local authorities there.
  Such is the simple and not complicated machinery by which the very large lowers are to be carried out, and I should like to make an appeal to the local authorities to enter into a healthy rivalry to produce the best possible scheme under the Bill. Much, as I have said, has been done already, and I should like to allude, in passing, to the very admirable schemes which have already been set on foot by such places as Lewisham amongst the London boroughs, and Huddersfield and Liverpool in the North of England. If the powers under this Bill are fully utilised—and there is every reason to believe that they will be, because in all the deputations which have come before the Local Government Board on this question there has been wonderful zeal on the part of local authorities to put these powers into force as soon as possible, and we know there is behind the local authorities a great force of public opinion which feels the necessity of providing for the waste caused by the war—if the schemes are carried fully into effect, I believe a great deal will be done in the future to diminish the death rate among children and to repair the terrible ravages which hare been made in our population by the war.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Peel.)
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will be dis-

  987
  posed to give a Second Reading to this Bill without any prolonged discussion, and I have no desire whatever to do more than express thanks to the Government for having introduced this important and far-reaching, though simple, measure. When our present systems of local government were brought into being during the last thirty or forty years, there was, I think, a certain tendency in public opinion to confine all the operations of local government to purely elected bodies, and to regard with some suspicion the inclusion of co-opted or non-elected persons for certain activities; but in later years it has been understood that for certain purposes the system of co-opting people of special experience and particular good will to the elected members of local authorities has very many advantages. It has been found of great advantage in the administration of education by county councils. It has been found a particular advantage in rural districts, in connection both with agricultural education and with other operations, such as the creation of small holdings. Whereas some years ago it might have been made a matter of reproach that we were less active than many countries in Europe in utilising outside agencies in combination with the elected authorities, I do not think that that charge could possibly be brought against us now; and, clearly, there is no field in which the assistance of experienced and benevolent people could be more profitably or fruitfully utilised than in these questions of maternity and child welfare.
  1 hope, therefore, that all over the country prompt advantage will be taken of the facilities which are offered by this measure. My noble friend opposite, the noble Viscount, has mentioned two or three instances in which peculiar success has already attended the efforts of local authorities. I hope his words will be widely circulated, and that encouragement will be given to others to emulate what has been done in certain picked instances. Almost the only criticism, I think, that has been directed against this Bill was owing to a misapprehension, which was dissipated on the occasion of Lord Willoughby de Broke's Motion regarding a Ministry of Health—namely, that this Bill was to be regarded as a substitute, or even an evasive substitute, for a general measure dealing with the public health. That supposition was entirely disavowed by noble Lords opposite, and it is quite clear that the two things, though obviously related, are in
  988
  no sense dependent the one upon the other.
  The only other point on which I think, some comment may have been made is as to the relation of the education authorities of the country to this particular scheme. There was a time when some people desired that all work of this sort should be conducted through the local education authorities. The child ought to be regarded, they thought, as the special care of the education authority, even before he or she reached an age when the most elementary instruction appeared to be possible. But I understand that a harmonious arrangement has been arrived at as between the Local Government Board and the Board of Education on this matter, and I think it may be assumed that locally the services of a great many of those, both men and women, specially interested and concerned with education will be utilised for this special question of child welfare and the welfare of mothers. The people who are interested in one will, in many cases certainly, be deeply interested in the other, and it would be the greatest misfortune if it were to be supposed that there was any rivalry or incompatibility between the two sets of people, the one concerned with maternity and child welfare and the other concerned with education even in the form of the most elementary education—that conducted in nursery schools. I hope, therefore, that no friction of that sort is likely to arise, that the local administration of this measure will prove to be straightforward, and that the results may attain the highest hopes which the noble Viscount opposite or any well-wisher of the Bill could entertain.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, under the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1883 district councils in Ireland purchase land and erect cottages for labourers living in their neighbourhood. Section 15 of that Act requires that in the event of the district council within two years of securing the land not having exercised their powers effectively, the land shall revert to it original owner at the price paid for i

  989
  Owing to the war, finance is not forthcoming, and, even if finance were forthcoming, neither labour nor materials are available for erecting these cottages; and the proposal before your Lordships is that the operation of Section 15 shall be suspended until one year after the end of the war. Otherwise a number of schemes which are now pending—now actually in process of completion—will be destroyed, money will be wasted, these authorities will be discouraged from the excellent work they are doing, and, generally speaking, the whole operation of the Act will be dislocated. I do not suggest that the section should be repealed, but merely that its operation should be postponed, and I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Crawford.)
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, perhaps as an Irish landlord, and as one who was rather afraid when the original Act was passed that we were enacting a form of socialistic legislation, I may be allowed to say that I have come round completely to the view that although there is no doubt that the original Act does carry out socialistic principles it is one that has done an enormous amount of good in Ireland. If you travel through Ireland now you will find that there are more decent dwellings of the working class than there are in this country in proportion to population, and on the whole the Act has not been a grievance, which at one time landlords thought it would be. I think support should be given to the Government, so that after the war these local authorities may be able to continue the beneficent work which they have carried out up to the present.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this is a Bill which is usually brought in at this period of the session. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Hylton.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, real.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for my absence when the Second Reading was taken. I was the subject of a mishap which not only prevented my attendance here but prevented me from communicating with my noble friend Lord Hylton inviting him to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill. I desire to assure you that my absence was not a "clear want of respect to this House," as stated by a noble Lord, who expressed the hope that if your Lordships gave a Second Reading to the Bill you would make it clear that "you would not tolerate such treatment" in future. I have always done my utmost to support the dignity of this House, and much of my political life has been spent in trying to make certain that this House shall be an integral part of the British legislature.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without amendment.

  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (The Earl of Crawford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Further postponement of local elections.
  2.—(1) The next statutory elections of county and borough councillors, district councillors, guardians, and parish councillors shall, subject to the limitations hereinafter contained, be post-

  991
  poned, or, in the case of elections already postponed under the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1917, or the Parliament and Local Elections (No. 2) Act, 1917, further postponed, for a year; and the term of office of the existing councillors and guardians shall accordingly be extended, or further extended, by one year.
  This provision shall apply only where the next statutory election (whether a postponed election or not) would take place before the first day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen.
  (2) Section two of the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, and paragraphs (2) to (10) (inclusive) of the Schedule to the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1917, subject to the substitution in paragraph (7) of four years for three years as the period by which the term of office of an alderman of a municipal borough is extended, and except the provisions of paragraph (10) relating to the revision of jurors lists in Ireland, shall be deemed to be incorporated in this section as though they were set out therein, and expressly made applicable to the provisions thereof.
  LORD ARMAGHDALE LORD ARMAGHDALE moved the addition, at the end of subsection (1), of the words "in Great Britain, and before the fifteenth day of March, 1919, in Ireland." The noble Lord said: This is quite a small Amendment which does not raise any question of principle. It relates only to Ireland and affects only one election in Ireland; but it is a matter of considerable importance to the city of Belfast. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill provides for the postponement for one year of all local elections due to take place before the 1st of March next. In point of fact, the Bill draws a distinction between elections in urban areas and elections in county areas. County and rural elections are not affected by the Bill, and so far as Ireland is concerned we have the somewhat singular result that all the urban elections will be postponed, with only one exception, and that exception is that of the Belfast Water Commissioners, which is due to be held on the second Tuesday in March. These Commissioners are a branch of the municipal administration of Belfast. They are elected on the same franchise as the members of the City Corporation, and by the same electorate. It is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to propose that, when the election of the town council is being postponed for another year, the election of the Water Commissioners should also be postponed.
  But there is another and a more practical reason why this Amendment should be adopted. The Belfast Corporation has, up till now, provided all the plant and
  992
  machinery for conducting the election of the Water Commissioners without any charge to the Commissioners. The existing equipment, as your Lordships will easily realise, will not be nearly sufficient in the future, having regard to the great increase in the electorate. As the Belfast municipal elections are postponed until January, 1920, the Corporation will not require to provide any additional election machinery until the end of next year, 1919. Consequently, unless the election of the Water Commissioners is also postponed, that body will be obliged to provide its own election machinery for next March. The officials of the Belfast Water Commissioners have had no previous experience in conducting elections, and it would he necessary for them to engage a considerable staff for this very temporary purpose. It would also be necessary to purchase materials, and to provide the labour for fitting the polling places, and it is estimated that this would involve the ratepayers of Belfast in an expenditure of somewhere about £1,000. I submit that this would be an absolutely useless expenditure, and I think it is very desirable that it should be avoided, especially when this can be done by the simple change of date which I propose. If the 15th of March is substituted for the 1st of March in Ireland it will make it possible for the election of the Belfast Water Commissioners to be postponed for another year, and it will not affect any other local authority in Ireland. The Amendment, of course, does not refer to Great Britain at all. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be good enough to accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert ("in Great Britain, and before the fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in Ireland").—(Lord Armaghdale.)
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have listened with interest to my noble friend, and I am sure he has convinced your Lordships as completely as he has convinced me. I propose to accept the Amendment, as I gather from him that it is the general view of Irish Members that the Amendment should be made, and that it will not, therefore, produce serious controversy elsewhere. I also understand that it applies only to the single case to which the noble Lord referred.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.

  CORN PRODUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
  Read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.

  THE PRICE OF COAL.
  EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the recent advances in the price of coal, and to ask His Majesty's Government for an explanation thereof, and whether it is the fact that the majority of coal pits are working only one day or two days a week, and what justification exists for this wasteful employment of labour.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I had occasion the other day to order some coal for ordinary domestic use, in common, I dare say, with many of your Lordships, and, as is not unusual, the execution of the order was delayed. I received in the course of a very short period no less than to o circulars from my coal merchants. The first informed me that the price had been raised 2s. 6d. a ton. The second, following at an interval of, I think, not more than a fortnight or three weeks, informed me that the price had been raised a further 1s. 6d. a ton.
  This is, of course, a time of year when in normal circumstances one rather expects the price of coal to he reduced. We remember that before the war at this time of year we used to receive innumerable circulars quoting the lowest summer prices; but for some reason—as to which I desire to ask His Majesty's Government for an explanation—at this particular period of the year now the price of coal is being raised. I think that this is a matter which requires some explanation, and as one of the persons who in this matter, in common I expect with most of your Lordships, is suffering from the rise in price, I should like to inquire who it is that is making the profit on this increase. Does any part of it go to the owner of the coal, or does any pare go to the Government? Or is the
  994
  increased price entirely due to increased wages, or to the increased cost of transport? These are questions to which probably it will be interesting to have an answer.
  Driven by these circumstances, having ordered the coal somewhere about May and being informed before I got it that there was an extra 4s. a ton to be paid on it, I was interested to make some further inquiries, and I learned from some very reliable friends, much to my surprise, that in a great many coal pits it is said to be the habit at present to work not more than two or three or four shifts a week, and that during the rest of the week the coal pit is not worked. A particular instance was given me by a gentleman connected with some mechanical works near Swansea. He informed me that these coal miners who were turned adrift during several days of the week came and made up the week in his works, because their pit was closed and they were not allowed to work. I pursued my inquiries as well as I could further, but without applying, I admit, to any Government Department, and some one who professed to know told me that it was part of a policy of fairness among different coal-owners, that various pits should be worked an equivalent amount of time. That may be all very well as a matter of fairness, but if till statement that was made to me that there are pits in the country which have been worked only for a small number of shifts per week is true, I think it will be obvious to every member of the House—and I am sure that His Majesty's Government will at once admit it—that this is an uneconomical way of employing labour. We are, as we all know, extremely short, of man-power in this country, and we have none to waste. If it be true that there are coal miners who are employed for a fraction of a week only, and who are idle—or, at any rate, idle as far as their proper job is concerned—for the rest of the week, we are not using efficiency in the getting of coal, and we are not employing our man-power to the best advantage.
  I think, therefore, it would be interesting to inquire whether there is any truth in these assertions which were confidently made to me. If there be any truth in them, what is the reason, and could it not be arranged—even still preserving fairness as among the owners, if there is anything of that sort at the bottom of it—that at arty

  995
  rate some pits should be worked full time alternate weeks or alternate months. I cannot imagine that it would be an economical way of working a coal pit—I do not profess to know anything about working coal pits—or any other business to work it only a small fraction of a week and leave it idle for the rest. If the reply be that I am misinformed, that would be the answer that I should be most pleased to receive; but if it be true that the pits are worked only a fraction of a week, I hope that steps will be taken to alter the system, because I am convinced that it must be an unecomical method of working.
  LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I will reply as fully as I can to the Question of the noble Earl, which may, I think, be divided into two parts. In regard to the first, as to the recent advance in the price of coal, I think that the explanation may be considered, if not satisfactory, at all events to a certain extent satisfactory, which is as far as we can generally get. There have been two recent increases in the price of coal at the pits' mouth. The first—2s. 6d. per ton as from June 24, 1918—was put on to meet the increased cost of production due to the largely enhanced cost of equipment, materials, &c. The second—1s. 6d. per ton as from July 8, 1918—is calculated to be necesary to meet the increased war wage granted by the Government to mine workers. With regard to the increase of 2s. 6d. per ton to meet increased cost of materials, &c., it should be borne in mind that this is the first increase since July, 1914, except in order to meet increases of wages, so that no previous provision in the way of increased prices has been made to meet the greatly enhanced costs of all equipment and materials. With respect to the 1s. 6d. increase this is worked out as far as possible to cover the increased war wage of 1s. 6d. a day which has been granted to the miners.
  The whole question of the sum necessary in the way of addition to price in order to cover the increased war wage is extremely complicated, and has to be worked out with regard to the number of miners working and the number of days' work done by them, the various differences of wage and work done by different grades of labour, and the actual output of coal sold, exclusive of coal used in the working of the mine or supplied to the miners. In any case, should any profit accrue as a result of the increase, such profit would go to the Treasury and not to the mine owners.
  996
  Many people have standing orders with their coal merchants for the supply of so much coal per month, according to the capacity of their cellars. In this case, if the principle was to be admitted that because coal had been ordered it could be charged only at the current price at the date of order and not at the date of delivery, serious injustice would be done to the coal suppliers. Furthermore, people who are unable to store coal in considerable quantities, such as the small householders amid poorer classes, have to pay the price when they can accept delivery, and I do not think it would be fair that people who are presumably wealthier, as those who live in larger houses, should have this advantage over the poorer classes. The official form for ordering coal states clearly that the price to be paid is the price "current at date of delivery."
  When the time comes for the price of coal to be reduced the consumer will get the advantage then; and instructions generally to the merchants are that large orders should not of necessity be completed unless all the orders they have on hand have received a fair proportion of the order so as to divide the available supply of coal fairly among the consumers. This answers the first part of the Question as thoroughly as I can answer it.
  With regard to the second part, I may say that the latest statistics available show that for the four weeks ended May 25, 1918, the coal pits situated in England wound coal on 5·30 days of each week, in Wales on 5·34 days in each week, and in Scotland on 5·44 days in each week. With regard to the Swansea district, to which the noble Earl alluded, I do not think it would be quite correct to say that the men are working there now only two or three shifts a week. "Swansea district" may, of course, include part of Carmarthenshire and part of Glamorganshire. The average number of days upon which pits wound coal in the period I have given in Carmarthenshire was 4·85 and in Glamorganshire 5·37 per week. It may have been true a few months ago that the Swansea district was not so busy, but things have changed entirely, and only in the anthracite district is there any degree of slackness in the trade at all, and with the orders which are now coming in from abroad for anthracite this state of affairs is not likely to continue. I trust that I have now answered the Question in every detail.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, this question raises a matter of great importance to the country, and I think that the reply which the noble Lord opposite has given answers the particular points raised by the noble Earl behind me. It cannot be disputed, of course, that these rises in the price of coal have caused no small uneasiness in the mind of the public. The figure has now become an exceedingly formidable one, particularly to the small consumer of coal, and the hardship is not greatly mitigated by the prospect of not being able to receive even the moderate supply which the smaller consumer would like to have at his disposal during a winter which may be severe.
  There is one minor point in connection with this on which I should like to say a word. The position of the royalty owner is in some cases affected by these advances in the price of coal. In many cases the royalty owner receives his share per ton obtained, either on a tonnage rate or sometimes on an acreage rate, or at a rate per foot per acre—a flat rate in either case. But there are other instances in which the royalty rises with the average price obtained for coal at the pit mouth. I cannot help feeling, in the case of this last rise, made in consideration of an additional wage which it is necessary to give to the men, and fortified as it is by the fixing of prices for coal, that it is not right that the royalty owner should receive the full benefit of so considerable a rise as this; and my impression is that it will be found that at any rate a great number of the owners of mineral royalties, iron as well as coal, throughout the country, will desire not to take advantage of the very remarkable profits which they might obtain under such a rise as this. It is the fact, of course, that in such a case a considerable proportion of the extra profit falls under the Excess Profits Tax and is paid to the State. But it will be found, I think, that in a great many instances the royalty owner will not desire to take advantage of these quite exceptional circumstances to draw so large an amount from the profits of the concern. It must be remembered—and it is only fair to state this on behalf of the not entirely popular class of royalty owner—that the payment of a royalty forms an almost infinitesimal point of consideration among the outgoings that have to be met by those who work the mine—that the tax imposed on the industry by the existence
  998
  of the royalty is, in fact, an exceedingly small one.
  Then as regard the hours worked it was clearly a misapprehension, or at any rate an over-statement, of the noble Earl that the majority of coal pits are working only one or two days a week. As a matter of fact, as has been explained by my noble friend opposite, the pits are working in some cases for six days, and in most cases for five days a week. But it is, unfortunately, the fact that the number of miners who are working full time is comparatively small—there is a percentage, varying in different parts of England, but in some cases of over 20 per cent. of shortage, and in many other cases up to 15 per cent. of shortage of anything like a full week's work. I think it is reasonable to state that if the average week's work was anything approaching a full week there would have been no drop in the output of coal such as has so unfortunately taken place within the last year.
  It is right, I think, that all those who are interested in the industry should combine to make as strong an appeal as they can to the men to put in a full week's work, just as their brothers and sisters do in the munition factories and in many other heavy industries of all kinds. It has, as you know, always been the custom or the privilege of the coal miner to work as and when he pleases. Coal mining has always been one of the very few trades in which it has never been expected that a man should work regular hours. There are only one or two trades in the country of which the same can be said, where a man has stayed away, without any real danger of penalty, when it has suited him. Those who remember the business for a long time can recall that during the periods of great prosperity in the coal trade—occurring, perhaps, about once in a decade—individual miners at those times seldom worked more than four days, and often less. It is difficult for an industry to change its point of view, and it is no doubt not a simple matter in these times for men to put in a full week's work when, in similar circumstances in peace time, they would certainly not have done so; and all that can be done is to make a sort of moral appeal to them not merely to earn as much money as they can—which everybody is exceedingly glad they should do—but to regard the matter from the point of view of public duty; incidentally, as one is glad to think, to their own profit, but as performing a real piece

  999
  of national work in putting in a full week's labour at the face of the coal.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord opposite for his very full and adequate answer, which I think entirely met the points that I raised. But there is one thing about which I was not clear, although I think it might fairly come by implication from what he said. I understood the noble Lord to give the average of what these pits had worked, and to state that although possibly something of the kind might have been true in the Swansea district it was true no longer. I also understood him to mean, although he did not actually say it, that it was not and never had been and would not be the policy to work any pit except for a full week's work whenever possible. Although he did not actually say that, perhaps I am right in putting that construction upon his remarks.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, although the noble Earl who raised this debate is satisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord, I am not sure that the noble Lord has really taken us fully into his confidence or told us exactly the facts of the case. Lord Somerleyton has given us some figures which show that the pits have been working four or five days, or other fractions of a week, throughout the country. That is a figure which may give a great deal of satisfaction to some people, but it is one which is open to a great deal of question; and I think the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, touched the point clearly when he said that the real figure we have to get at is the number of hours worked by each man.
  I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is aware of the many difficulties with which we have to contend. There are shipping difficulties, and the difficulties of railway transport, it is not my business to-day to make any attack, or even to offer any criticism, on the way in which the Government have handled these matters under the Shipping Controller and under the Coal Controller; but I should not like your Lordships to think that there is any degree of satisfaction about the way in which these matters have been handled. It is true that while you can say the pits have been working, it has been work of a very irregular character. The coal mines situated near the sea, and, therefore, dependent on shipping for the carrying of their coal, have had to work in a very
  1000
  irregular way, and have had to cease working altogether when those shipping facilities have been absent.
  The other point, which I think is one of considerable importance but which touches a far larger question, is the curious phenomenon, if I may use the expression, that by the rate at which you raise wages by so much does production decrease. That is one of the features of our public life to which we shall have to turn our attention after the war or we shall have no power of possibility of competing with foreign nations. It is not for me to go into details on that point to-day; but I certainly think that, when the noble Lord who answered this question and gave figures which on the face of them sounded satisfactory, it would be a far better index if he had been able to give us the figure of excess profits on which coal-owners are going to pay this year—because I do not think that this figure will be a very large one; and also if he had given us what the output of coal is this year compared with what it was last year. Those are the figures at which we want to arrive, and which it is necessary we should maintain, if we want to show that the industry of coal mining in this country is in a satisfactory condition.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]

    SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL. [H.L.]
    Message from the Commons having been received yesterday, That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 7th of May last, that it is desirable that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [H.L.] and the Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, as desired by this House—
    Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bills.
    That the Lords following be named of the Committee—

    E. Beauchamp.

    E. Strafford.

    V. Sandhurst.

    L. Desart (E. Desert).

    L. Muir Mackenzie.

    That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.— (Viscount Sandhurst.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.