HL Deb 01 December 1925 vol 62 cc1005-7

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.


My Lords, the

hope that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, will be upheld.


I should like to divide on this matter, because I think, unless some strong action is taken, we shall go on from year to year without any legislation whatever. We have been told for the last five years that all that was necessary was to continue the Act for one year, and that then the Government would bring in legislation. They have not done so. Supposing we go back to 1912–13, we were not so badly off then, and what I venture to say we want are not regulations as to how little we can work, but regulations to enable everyone in this country to work as long and as hard as they possibly can.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Schedule?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not Contents, 9.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore) Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Kilmaine, L.
Lansdowne, M. Peel, V. Kylsant, L.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) Merrivale, L.
Arnold, L. Morris, L.
Ashton of Hyde, L. Olivier, L.
Beauchamp, E. Askwith, L. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Clarendon, E. Biddulph, L. Parmoor, L.
Eldon, E. Buckmaster, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Kimberley, E. Charnwood, L. Sandhurst, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller] Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) Saye and Sele, L.
Plymouth, E. [Teller.] Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Shandon, L.
Russell, E. Somers, L.
Spencer, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Southwark, L.
Desborough, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Bertie of Thame, V. Digby, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V. Dynevor, L. Stanmore, L.
Devonport, V. FitzWalter, L. Strachie, L.
Haldane, V. Glenarthur, L. Templemore, L.
Falkland, V. Lawrence, L. Raglan, L. [Teller.]
Lawrence of Kingsgate, L. Stewart of Garlies, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller] Muskerry, L. Wyfold, L.
Newton, L.

object of this Bill, which has been agreed to by both sides of the mining industry, is to extend the operation of what is known as the "levy" for a further period of five years; that is to say, until December 31, 1930, and to add to the Allocating Committee—that is the committee which distributes this fund—a second member representing the miners and a second member representing the owners. Your Lordships will remember that this fund was established by Sec- tion 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, by means of a levy upon all colliery owners of one penny per ton on output, and the section provides that the fund is to be applied for such purposes connected with the social well being, recreation, and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines and with mining education and research as the Board of Trade, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, may approve. This Allocating Committee at present consists of five persons, with the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, as the Chairman. Already there is one representative of the Mining Association and one representative of the Miners' Federation on the Committee, and it is proposed for convenience to add another member to represent the Association and another to represent the Federation. The Bill passed through another place without any amendment, and as it has been agreed to by both sides of the industry, probably your Lordships will not be disposed to offer any opposition to it. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)


My Lords, this Bill is not only a very proper measure but a very useful one as well. The Committee has discharged its functions as well as it could, and has administered very considerable and increasing sums derived from the levy. The expenditure has been on all kinds of useful purposes and is designed to smooth over certain difficulties which have arisen between the miners and those who employ them. The fund has been put to many useful purposes, and may be put to more useful purposes still, especially as it is an increasing fund and the scope of its activity is also increasing. I cannot think that any member of this House is likely to offer any real opposition to this measure which is desired, as far as I know, by everyone.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Back to