Lords Sitting of 22 May 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know if it would be convenient for the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, to give us some information as to what course he proposes to pursue with regard to business during the next few days, and especially with regard to the approaching Whitsuntide Recess?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for asking me that Question. It sems to me that we may reasonably be expected to have finished all the work that we have in hand by the Wednesday before Whitsuntide, and then we might adjourn on that day—we shall have to make some arrangements as to a Royal Commission and so on, but I do not want to go into details now—until the following Tuesday week, which will be an ordinary Whitsuntide vacation. I am not quite certain how long we shall be away, but when we come back there will undoubtedly be some very hard work for your Lordships' House to do in order to get through the rest of the programme before the end of July. I cannot say more at present, but I think this sufficiently answers the noble and learned Viscount's Question.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Your Lordships are not unaccustomed to being asked to work rather hard in the summer towards the end of the Session.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEXHAM) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COQUET FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DOCKS) BILL.
Read 2a.
KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 2a.
ROCHDALE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a.

COAL MINES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Provisions of central scheme.
(2) The central scheme shall further provide for the following matters—
(b) for the allocation to each district by the council, after consultation with the executive board for the district, at such times and for such periods as the council thinks fit, of a maximum output for the district (in this Act referred to as "the district allocation") such maximum not to be less than the ascertained home consumption of that district;
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON) moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "at such times and for such periods as the council thinks fit." The noble and gallant Lord said: The object of this Amendment is the deletion of these words, which are re-inserted in a later Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out from ("district") to ("of") in line 34.—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL OF DUDLEY The EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "such maximum not to be less than the ascertained home consumption of that district "and to insert" such maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein." The noble Earl said:

1025
My Lords, you will recollect that when this Bill was in Committee I moved an Amendment, the main object of which was to safeguard manufacturers from being obliged to obtain the fuel that they required from outside districts when they possessed at their own doors a much better and cheaper supply. A majority of your Lordships supported that Amendment, and I venture to think that it embodied a sound principle, which surely ought to be maintained within the four corners of this Bill. But during the debate upon that Amendment, from the speeches that were made by noble Lords in different parts of the House and especially from the speech that was made by my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition, I was left with the impression that, although the majority of the Committee agreed with the principle of the Amendment, there was a distinct view in certain quarters that the actual wording might be improved.
Moreover, it has been pointed out to me since that the Amendment as actually worded might go rather further than I intended, and might even hamper the working of this Bill in one or two of the larger coal fields. Let me take the case of Lancashire. Lancashire, I believe, produces at the present time about 15,000,000 tons of coal a year, but a very much greater amount is consumed by her industries. If, therefore, the Amendment were to stand in its original wording, Lancashire would be given an allocation of not less than the ascertained home consumption of the district, an allocation which would be, of course, far in excess of the amount of coal which in present circumstances she can possibly produce. That would create a most undesirable situation, and would undoubtedly very much hamper Yorkshire and other neighbouring coalfields in the sale of their coal to Lancashire industries. Therefore I would ask the leave of the House to substitute the words of which I have given Notice, today, for the words of the Amendment carried during the Committee stage. I think that by these now words not only will the interests of the manufacturers which I have in mind be adequately safeguarded, but the danger of cutting across the Bill will be avoided.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("allocation") to end of line 38 and insert ("such
1026
maximum being fixed after taking into consideration and providing for the last ascertained consumption in that district of coal produced therein."—(The Earl of Dudley.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the desire of the noble Earl to remove some of the difficulties that arise under his first Amendment, which is now in the Bill. The real difficulty in this matter is that it is very difficult to determine what a coal-consumption area in any district is, as a coal-producing area is by no means coterminous with a coal-consuming area. The three districts to which I think the noble Earl more directly referred in his speech on the Committee stage were Cannock Chase—
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: No, not Cannock Chase.
LORD THOMSON: Staffordshire and East Worcestershire. You cannot say within a radius of a few miles what is the coal-consuming area. It may extend up to twenty miles, and while the Government appreciate the desire to overcome the difficulty with regard to counties like Lancashire, at the same time the flaw in the Bill due to this Amendment is really almost incurable in the opinion of the Government. I do not propose to resist this Amendment, if it is pressed by the noble Earl, but I do not think it is necessary, because the whole Amendment will probably be taken out in another place if the Government can manage it, and they propose to try to do so. If the noble Earl persists in the Amendment, I shall not oppose it, but in point of fact, with all respect, I do not think it makes much difference to the attitude which will be taken up with regard to this Amendment as a whole, because in the view of the Government it is entirely unacceptable and cuts across the whole purpose of the Bill. The Bill provides that in fixing the district allocation the Central Council shall consult with the district executive, and if the executive board is not satisfied it can appeal to arbitration. That was laid down in the original Bill, and that is what we thought would meet the noble Earl's point. But his original Amendment was passed, and this attempt to remove certain flaws which the noble Earl himself has recognised in that Amendment does not, in the opinion of the Mines Department, really make any

1027
great difference. So I can only repeat that if the noble Earl persists with the Amendment I shall not resist it, but I should be glad if he did not press it.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, may I suggest that the words "and providing for" should be omitted from this Amendment? That would make it purely advisory, and I should think that in those conditions the Government might find it much more possible to accept it. I do not think that anybody could deny that grave difficulties would arise, as the noble Lord has said, by trying to make the consuming areas of coal the producing areas of coal. Speaking as one interested in Lancashire I should be delighted to see that district allowed to produce all the coal it can for its own area. Of course, I recognise that it is quite impracticable. The term "district" in the Bill is defined in the case of Lancashire as Lancashire and Cheshire. There are one or two collieries of the Lancashire coal field which are just over the border in Cheshire, and it would be rather absurd to say that the whole of Cheshire should be included in the Lancashire area for the purpose of consumption. Take another case. There are two Welsh districts defined—North Wales and South Wales. Who is to draw the line between them and to say what is the home consumption of North Wales and what the home consumption of South Wales? The same, I think, applies to North Derbyshire and South Derbyshire. Therefore, I think the Amendment as carried in Committee, although it was no doubt hardly obvious to many who voted on it, would really be impracticable to work, and if it were left purely advisory it might be possible for the Government to accept it, without interfering with the general principle of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I confess that I was a little disappointed at the attitude taken up by the noble Lord—who is, I gather, still in charge of the Bill. Noble Lords responsible for the Bill change so frequently at different stages that they will forgive me if I am not quite sure who is the right person to address. I do not think it is an adequate answer to an Amendment brought forward in order to try and improve the wording of the Bill and to make it more practicable, to say that the Government are going to resist an Amendment in another place, and therefore it
1028
does not matter what your Lordships do here. I think it is our duty to try to make the Bill, having regard to its many defects, as little harmful and as reasonably good as may be, and I hope that your Lordships will not be deterred from undertaking that task by the somewhat discouraging attitude of the Government. I should have thought the Government would have been grateful to my noble friend Lord Dudley for having brought forward words which I think admittedly improve the Amendment, although they do not seem to make it completely satisfactory from the Government's point of view. I do not know whether the noble Earl opposite would accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Vernon, but in any event I should have thought it was much better to make the improvement which is suggested, even though the Government threaten that in another place they will not accept it.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, you thought fit in the Committee stage by a large majority to accept and pass an Amendment to which an Amendment has now been moved. That Amendment in our view really made nonsense of the Bill, and was quite unworkable. We certainly do not deprecate any effort that your Lordships think fit to make to render a totally unworkable Amendment less unworkable. We merely say that we think you cannot possibly succeed on those lines, and therefore we are not so very much concerned with what its final form is, because it cuts entirely across the scheme of the Bill. Your Lordships are, of course, willing to try and improve this Amendment, which you hastily and by such a large majority adopted. If you now think it will make matters better, we still think it is entirely unworkable and contrary to any possible scheme. That is the definition of our attitude.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, despite what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite I feel inclined to press my Amendment, and I rather protest against the words used by the noble Earl opposite in the speech that he has just made. He has said that the Amendment which was carried made nonsense of the Bill. I do not know who are the advisers of the noble Earl who have advised that the Amendment made nonsense of the Bill.

1029
All I can tell him is that some very able business people in the Midlands considered this Amendment, and in their opinion it did not make nonsense at all. However, that is a matter of opinion. As regards the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Vernon it does not seem to me that if we omitted the words "and providing for" that would lead us anywhere at all. It would merely then be a question of consideration by the Council. But that does not help us in the least. Under the Bill as it originally stood the Council had to consider what allocation we should receive. But, as I tried to point out last week, we have not great confidence in the composition of these bodies. Some of the members may, indeed, be trade rivals, and therefore what we want to provide for is, not only that our allocation should be considered by the Council, but that we should receive an allocation which will enable us to provide for the local wants of our local customers. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the proposal of my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to insert:—
"Provided that the Council in fixing the allocations shall have regard to the amount of coal or coke produced in each district and destined for export overseas with a view to securing that the production, supply and sale of coal and coke so destined shall not be hampered or restricted."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have had some correspondence with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill with regard to the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper, and I would like to thank tike noble Lord at once for the effort which he has made to meet me in these matters. But I am afraid the Amendment he has put down does not entirely meet the point that I had in mind. As the result of criticisms that were made with respect to the Amendments I put down in Committee I have modified those Amendments in order to try and overcome the objections then raised. My original Amendment laid it down that the Central Council should fix the various district allocations in such a way as not to hamper or restrict the production and sale of coal for export overseas. I now understand from the noble Lord that he objects to export coal being
1030
specifically referred to in any shape or form in the Bill.
In those circumstances, I think your Lordships will not be surprised that I was somewhat misled by what he said when this matter was debated during the Committee stage. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read out what the noble Lord said on that occasion with regard to the Amendment. He said:—
"I am sure everybody who has thought about this problem has a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's argument, but to make it incumbent upon the Central Council is perhaps a little too strong. If the noble Earl would consider some such phrase as shall take into consideration,' it would be different."
I think the only inference I could draw from those words was that the Government objected to special treatment being definitely accorded to any particular class of coal, but that they would not object to special consideration being given to certain very important factors in connection with the export trade. Justifiably, I think, I came to the conclusion that my new Amendment conformed to the suggestions made upon the Committee stage.
May I say why I do not think that the noble Lord's Amendment is sufficient? His Amendment which follows mine makes an attempt to deal with the difficulty when it arises; whereas my Amendment is designed to do whatever is possible within the present structure of the Bill to prevent any difficulty arising whatsoever. My object is to make sure from the very beginning that there shall be no difficulty in the way of any company being able to accept any foreign order whenever it comes their way. I want to repeat what I think I said during the Committee stage; that is, that the uncertainty which is engendered by the provisions contained in this Bill is already having a very bad effect upon the export trade in South Wales. And I gave your Lordships the instance of a company which had had one of its usual orders halved because its clients had definitely come to the conclusion that there was a very great chance, as the result of the provisions of this Bill, that the company would not be in a position to fulfil its contract.
In the export trade the variations of trade are extremely sudden and the demand changes extremely quickly. I am

1031
assured that the delay caused by any application that might be necessary, say, to the Central Council for an increased allocation would undoubtedly result in the loss of orders. Exactly the same arguments as apply with regard to the district allocation really apply in regard to individual quotas of collieries. Increased demands for the coal produced by a particular colliery are very sudden indeed. The export trade to a very large extent is an individual business, and very often a buyer requires a particular coal from a certain colliery and nothing else will satisfy him. Invariably in those cases a decision has to be made in a very short space of time.
It is for these reasons that it is absolutely essential that, in fixing the original allocation and the first quotas, the very fullest attention should be paid to these considerations. I understand it is the object of all of us to see that nothing remains in this Bill which will in any way hamper our export trade. I cannot understand, therefore, why some such provision as the one I suggest should not be placed in the Bill. I understand, as I said before, that the noble Lord objects to particular mention being made of the export trade. Frankly, I cannot see the force of his objection. After all, the conditions which govern the export trade are entirely different from those which govern the rest of the trade of the country, and though I can see that there may be arguments against actual special treatment being accorded, or at least a provision for special treatment to be accorded to a particular class of coal being inserted in this Bill, I cannot see that there can be any possible objection to the very fullest consideration being given to the conditions which govern our export trade in order to make the fullest allowance for the variations which occur in it and for the suddenly increased demands which may be made.
I repeat that my Amendments are merely designed to carry out what I believe to be the intention of the whole of your Lordships' House in this matter. I know that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill maintains that my object is secured in the Bill as it stands. That is not my view and it is not the view of those who are interested in this department of the trade in South Wales. In their opinion these Amendments are
1032
absolutely vital, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will support me in asking the Government to insert them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, the noble Earl has quoted from my speech. I will quote from his, and I will quote the part which mainly actuated me in trying to meet his wishes. He said:—
"We feel that there ought to be the greatest possible elasticity in this scheme with regard to this class of trade."
The Bill as it stands has its starting point for allocation in the regulation of output, in the districts. The allocation is fixed from time to time by the Central Council and it is fixed in consultation with the executive boards of the districts. If there is an unexpected demand any executive board is entitled to ask the Central Council for a further allocation. That is all in the Bill. It is inherent in the scheme and, in order that there should be no doubt about it, certain Amendments have been put down by the Government to try to meet the noble Earl's point. He says that these demands may be unexpected. It is perfectly true that they are unexpected, and for that reason they cannot be foretold. But the scheme provides, especially with the Amendment that is on the Paper in my name, for a very considerable measure of elasticity applying not only to export coal but to all classes of coal. There is a special paragraph, paragraph (d) (i) in Clause 3 (2), providing for fixing a separate quota for any class of coal.
With the Amendment that stands in my name, I really should have thought that the noble Earl would have been satisfied. Serious efforts have been made to keep my promise and I am sorry that he thinks I have not kept it. But very strenuous efforts were made to meet his point of view and I submit that the Amendment standing in my name is even more explicit than what he says in his Amendment. With the permission of your Lordships, I would like to read the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. It provides for the insertion, after line 38, of an extra paragraph which reads as follows:—
"() for the district allocation being determined at such times and for such

1033
periods as the Council think fit, so however that the Council shall be required to amend the allocation during any such period if they are satisfied upon the representation of the executive board for the district that it is necessary to do so in order to meet an increased demand for coal or any class of coal."
I listened attentively to the arguments brought forward by the noble Earl. If he will allow me to say so, I rather thought they were arguments against his own case and strengthened the case for the Amendment I was about to move. In any case, I am sorry to say I can go no further on this, and I must resist the noble Earl's Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I confess I approach the consideration of this Amendment with the profound consciousness that my inexperience in the coal trade might easily lead me into a wrong conclusion. I am only able to form such judgment as I can upon the arguments which have been put forward on each side. Trying to apply my mind impartially, I am bound to say that it does not seem to me that the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken quite meets the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Plymouth. The Amendment which he is going to move in a short time seems a very useful one for providing an easy means of making alterations in the scheme, if from time to time it should appear necessary, but, as I understand the Amendment which the noble Earl has put down and which we are now discussing, its purpose is to provide that in fixing the original allocations regard shall be had to the export trade in such a way as to secure that it shall not be in any way hampered or interfered with.
Prevention is better than cure. It is probable, I should think, that it would have been far better in making the original allotments, to ensure that the export trade is not hampered or restricted rather than to give powers to make an alteration when it is found out that there is a danger of such interference. On that account, giving it such impartial judgment as I can, it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Plymouth is bringing in an Amendment which cannot really vitally hurt the Bill, because it is not mandatory. It only directs that they shall have regard to
1034
these things; and it might improve the Bill, because it makes it quite clear that one of the cardinal features to be borne in mind in making an allocation is that there should be no interference with our export trade. That, it seems to me, is a matter which vitally concerns us all in these days, and anything which is designed to make sure that the importance of that trade and its untrammelled exercise shall not be interfered with does seem to me an Amendment which it would be valuable to have plainly inserted in the Bill. On that ground, my inclination is to accept the view which is put forward by the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: I listened with great care to what the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, said, and there is one point—it seemed to me to be his major point —which I confess I do not quite follow. These are the quotas in all mines of all district—you may put it that way—which are being allocated, and you have only a certain amount to deal with. You cannot allocate with a margin. You have so many tons to distribute among the districts. I understand you start with that in the scheme. The noble Earl desires in fixing the allocations, to have regard to the coal so that export shall not be hampered or restricted. He mentioned, twice I think, an unexpected demand for coal which could not be met. If the demand is unexpected, it is quite obvious you cannot fix the allocation for it in advance. I understand that unexpected demands sometimes occur, and are expected to occur, for coal required for iron and steel purposes, so that similar elasticity is required in a case of that sort. Perhaps the noble Earl will, by leave of the House, say another word and explain exactly how you can decide in advance on an unexpected demand. That rather puzzles me. It seems to me the Amendment which has been put down in the name of the Government covers all that, and enables you, within the space of a day or two at the outside, to meet any unexpected demand which you hear of, by making and obtaining a new allocation when you know what allocation is required. I cannot see what guidance this Council would have in fixing the allocation at the early stage beyond fixing it at what they knew would be required. That they would fix anyhow, because the desire is to produce

1035
as much coal as can be sold. I do not understand that difficulty would be met by the noble Earl.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, listening to the debates on this Bill, and having no technical knowledge, which I think is the case of many on both sides of the House, what occurs to me is the impossibility of working the Bill at all. Take what has been put down by the noble and gallant Lord, who always, I think, tries to treat us as fairly as possible in the matter, if I may say so much to him. Look at it as a matter of business. You suddenly get a large order for the export of coal. You have immediately to rush off, before you can accept that order, and put in an application to the executive board of the district, and they have to report to the general board. Then an inquiry has to be made as to whether in all the circumstances of the case you can grant an additional quota. Particularly you would have to take into account the neighbouring coal fields, as to whether they have not too much and whether it would not be better to transfer some from them. I do not know how business is to be carried on if every time there is an exceptional demand for the export of coal you have to go through all those, proceedings of the district and general council in order to get it through. It will be as bad as having a lawsuit as to whether you are to export the coal or not.
I should have thought that both of these Amendments ought to be put in. It is quite true what the noble Earl has said, that you cannot tell in advance whether there will be some extra call for coal to be exported, but you have to make some sort of estimate from what has happened in the past, and surely it is not an unreasonable thing to say that in fixing the allocation you shall have regard to the amount of coal or coke produced in each district and destined for export overseas with a view to securing that the production, supply and sale of coal and coke so destined shall not be hampered or restricted. The noble Earl asks, how are you to know about this demand for the further export—how are you to fix it? It is to be all guesswork, or largely guesswork, founded upon past trade, and upon all sorts of probabilities, as to whether coal will be wanted. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that you are in a very
1036
disastrous position if you cannot bring your petition before the Council in order to have, under exceptional circumstances, what is provided for in his Amendment. Whether you can carry on business and get contracts under those conditions is another question. If you have not that open to you, it seems to me you will be so hampered that you might as well give up trying to carry on the export trade at all. I would suggest to the Government that both Amendments might be accepted.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, if I might venture to intervene I would do so because I have been concerned for some months past in the attempt to secure some voluntary arrangement, before this Bill was introduced, to adjust the output of the country to the demand for coal so as to prevent undue competition depressing the industry. In considering haw this could best be done we came to the conclusion that the best way would be for each district to arrange what it anticipated would be its normal supply to its customers. We then realised that it would be absolutely essential to have a central body which would be able to allocate to each district what its total allocation would be in accordance with the consumption which it anticipated it would have to meet by its production. We arranged that each district should have its representative on the Central Council so that the whole case should be considered on its merits between district and district., while at the same time there 'would be opportunity for appeal in the event of any district feeling that it was not fairly treated by a majority of those on the central body.
Then we had Amendments such as that of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, which sought, as I think wrongly, to impose on the scheme an allocation suited to the district which the noble Earl represents and is interested in. If that allocation took place it is very obvious that other districts might be in difficulty, because one district might get a bigger allocation on account of its being able to supply the needs of that district and another district would be hit. Exactly the same, I think, is the case in connection with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, because he seeks to try to regulate the allocation according to the production. It is the coal produced that he alludes to in this Amendment. It is important

1037
in connection with the scheme proposed in this Bill that production should meet the consumption which it is fair to allocate to that district. It is because there is a danger of each district thinking only of its production, and not of consumption and of the demand for the coal, that there is a danger of this scheme failing if these Amendments are inserted in connection with aggregate production because we have to consider consumption as well as production.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, in the coal district with which I am best acquainted we depend on our export coal and the noble Earl naturally asked what an unexpected demand might be. Most of our coal goes to the Baltic. A large order from Russia, from the Soviet Government, might be taken to be an unexpected demand. To be able to supply any demand from whatever quarter with the greatest expedition and to leave our coal masters free to meet that demand is the vital question in such a district as that with which I am acquainted, and as the noble Earl the mover of the Amendment is acquainted with in another part of the country. I think that anything that can be done to remove the dead hand of this Bill from the coal masters in exporting districts is to the good, and therefore my view has already been placed, as usually, extremely well by the noble and learned Viscount. I should welcome the insertion of both Amendments in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"() for the district allocation being determined at such times and for such periods as the council think fit, so however that the council shall be required to amend the allocation during any such period if they are satisfied upon the representation of the executive board for the district that it is necessary to do so in order to meet an increased demand for coal or any class of coal;"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the alternative Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to insert this new paragraph. I think I can assure the noble Earl that he will find that in practice this meets all that he requires.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions of district scheme.
(2) Every district scheme shall further provide for the following matters—
(c) for the determination, at such times and for such periods as may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the standard tonnage of every coal mine in the district in respect of coal and, if it is so decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, in respect of any class of coal, so, however, that the method of determination shall be specified in the scheme, and shall be such a method as will insure that, for the purpose of the determination, regard shall be had to the special circumstances of every coal mine (including the efficiency and economy of the working of the coal mine the extent to which it has been developed or is being developed for economic working, the extent to which its output has been increasing or decreasing, and, in the case of the first determination, the proportion which the output of the coal mine bore to the output of the district' during some recent period during which no arrangements made by a voluntary association or otherwise were in force regulating the output of any substantial number of coal mines in the district):
Provided that a district scheme may make provision for the determination of the standard tonnage of, and quota for, any two or more coal mines in the district which are worked by the same colliery undertaking as if they were one coal mine.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), after, "tonnage", to insert "after deducting all coal to be used for the purpose of working the mine and all coal to be supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the same words which I propose to insert in this clause appear in the definition of "Disposal" on page 22, line 26, of the Bill. It seems to me that it is desirable to exclude such coal as it probably varies considerably in quantity from time to time.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, after ("tonnage") insert ("after deducting all coal to be used

1039
for the purpose of working the mine and all coal to be supplied free or at reduced rates of persons employed in or about the mine").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has more than one Amendment dealing with this subject. The object is to exclude colliery consumption and miners' coal from the regulation of output. The basis which was to be adopted for the determination of standard tonnage and the quota was carefully considered in consultation with the coal owners before the Bill was drafted. It could be either output raised and weighed at the pit-head, that is to say, including colliery consumption and coal used for any other purpose after it was raised; or coal disposable commercially. The coal owners expressed the view that it was fairer that the former should be adopted—that is, output raised. The Bill was therefore drafted in that form and, since the coal industry, who are going to work the scheme and this Part of the Bill, desire that output should be so defined, I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Certainly, after what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw. I was unacquainted with what had happened and I put the Amendment down on the chance that it was desirable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2) (d), after paragraph (ii), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"(iii) That a district scheme may provide that where a standard tonnage or a quota has been determined for any mine the colliery undertaking to which the mine belongs may subject to such conditions as the scheme may provide assign such standard tonnage or quota or any part thereof to any other mines in the district and that for the purposes of any subsequent determinations of standard tonnages or quotas the then existing standard tonnages or quotas of such mines shall be deemed to include the amounts so assigned."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down with a view of clearing up a point of some little substance in connection with an undertaking which might close one of its pits in order to concentrate upon output from a remunerative pit. It is not considered that the Bill is quite clear as to what would happen to the quota that is at
1040
tached to the colliery that is being closed down in the event of redetermination of standard tonnage, and it is important that, if any firm for economic purposes closed down one of its collieries which has had a quota output attached to it, there should remain a possibility of that quota being secured and, in order to promote economic working, that it should remain attached to the undertaking, so that more economic collieries can be operated so long as the scheme is in force. It is with a view to securing this that I move the insertion of these words. I hope the Government may see their way to satisfy me either that the Bill meets the point or that these words may be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Gainford.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is, of course, hoped that the effect of the regulation of output will be that the less efficient pits will be absorbed by those that are more efficient, and in order that this may take place the efficient pits must obviously put themselves in the position of securing a larger output as the result of absorbing the less efficient. This can be achieved by giving them the standard tonnage of the pits that they purchase. The view of the draftsman is that this is already secured in the Bill as drafted, and this has been explained to the Mining Association; but in order that there may be no doubt about it I am authorised by the Department to give an assurance to the noble Lord on these lines: That the Department would be prepared to approve a district scheme which contained a provision to the effect that, in the event of a pit or undertaking purchasing another pit, the combined standard tonnage of the two should thereafter he regarded as the standard tonnage of the new undertaking; and that, on any subsequent determination of standard tonnage, the new undertaking should be treated in the same way as any undertaking formed before the previous determination of standard tonnage. I think this assurance will meet the noble Lord's point.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, on that assurance on the part of the Government —and I presume that any subsequent Government will respect it—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say one word? On what sort of basis are we legislating? Are we legislating by a Bill or on the assurance of a Department which may be entirely departed from by any subsequent Government? Why on earth should we take the assurance of a Department? If that assurance is necessary, let it be in the Bill. It is absurd to suggest that you can get out of an obligation that is recognised by the noble Earl opposite simply by saying that you have an assurance from the Department that they will continue to do what the noble Earl suggests that they ought to do. If it ought to be adhered to, let it be in the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I desire to support very strongly the remarks of my noble and learned friend. I think that the idea of interpreting the future administration of a measure by something said in the course of a debate during the progress of the Bill is most dangerous one. If the undertaking is clear and definite, as it is intended to be, is there any conceivable objection to putting it in the Bill itself? If there is no such objection, is not that far the better course to take so that people who have to work the Bill will know where they are and will not have to look up debates to see what has been promised by a Minister? They will see it in the Act. Let me suggest to the noble Earl opposite, who is always reasonable in these matters, that he should put this down as an Amendment on the Third Reading, and if, as appears to be the case, it meets the point raised by Lord Gainford, I am sure the House would approve it.
EARL RUSSELL: If I may say another word by leave of the House, if the noble and learned Earl had listened rather more carefully to what I said, he would have heard me say that, in our view and that of the Parliamentary draftsman, it is already included in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I heard that, and it did not make the slightest difference.
EARL RUSSELL: And as the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the Amendment and is satisfied with it, noble Lords who are not coal owners might as well leave it to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: By leave of the House I should like to say one word more. The noble Earl who has just sat down knows perfectly well that, if any case of this kind is raised in Courts of Law, one thing that may not be mentioned is anything that has been said in debates in this House. Accordingly any assurance that he gives to-day can never be used in a case in a Court of Law. If the noble Earl does not propose to put this down as an Amendment after the Third Reading, I do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (f) of subsection (2), after the last "coal," to insert "exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a slightly different point from that of my last Amendment, because as the Bill stands, if the owner sells at a reduced rate to employees, he would be liable to a penalty, and in order to avoid this liability I propose to insert the words on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, after ("coal") insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to permit the continuation of the practice of supplying free or cheap coal to mine workers. It was not intended that this practice should be disturbed by the Bill, but I would suggest to the noble Viscount that, in the view of those who advise us, a better form of this Amendment, while it would achieve the same object, would be to insert the words:—
"exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates for the use of persons employed in or about the mine."
VISCOUNT BERTTE OF THAME: I have great pleasure in accepting that suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 28, after ("coal") insert ("exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates for the use of persons employed in or about the mine").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Effect of schemes on contracts.
(3) The owner of a coal mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme by reason of the fact that he has, in pursuance of any contract, sold or supplied coal at a price below the minimum price determined in respect of that coal under the scheme at the time of the sale or supply, unless the price at which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied was lower than the minimum price determined in respect thereof under the scheme at the time when the contract was made, or, where no minimum price had then been determined in respect of the coal, unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "by reason of the fact that he has," to insert "supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the same point that I raised in my last Amendment. I do not know what view the noble Earl takes, but it appears to me that the supply of coal free or at reduced prices for employees would form part of the contract of employment, and therefore these words appear to me to be necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, after ("has") insert ("supplied free or at reduced rates to persons employed in or about the mine").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, not only do these words make the clause read very badly, but they are in fact unnecessary. We have accepted an Amendment which covers the point and, that being so, the free or cheap coal for miners is excluded from the regulation of prices.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Committees of investigation.
5.—(1) There shall be constituted national committee of investigation consisting of nine members, which shall be charged with the duty of investigating
1044
any complaint made with respect to the operation of the central scheme, and there shall also be constituted for every district a district committee of investigation consisting of five members, which shall be charged with the duty of investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of the district scheme for the district for which the committee is constituted.
(6) If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests or is unfair or inequitable in its operation, it shall be the duty of the committee to report the matter to the Board of Trade, and if, after considering the report and consulting such persons as appear to them to be affected, the Board agree with the opinion of the committee, the Board shall make recommendations to the council or executive board charged with the duty of administering the scheme, with view to the rectification of the matter complained of.
The Board of Trade may hold inquiries for the purpose of assisting them to consider any report made to them under this subsection by a committee of investigation in like manner as they are empowered under Section twenty-two of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, to hold inquiries for the purposes of that Act, and that section shall apply with respect to inquiries held by the Board under this subsection accordingly.
(8) If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme is having or is likely to have an effect contrary to the public interests or is unfair or inequitable, it shall be the duty of the committee to make representations with respect thereto to the persons having power under the scheme to rectify the matter, and if, upon such representations being made, the matter is not dealt with to the satisfaction of the committee, the committee may refer the matter to a single independent arbitrator to be appointed by agreement between the committee and the body charged with the duty of administering the scheme, or, in default of agreement, by the Board of Trade, and the persons having power under the scheme to give effect to the decision shall comply therewith and exercise their functions under the scheme in conformity with the decision.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that no such committee shall be empowered to investigate a complaint

1045
which could be referred to arbitration by the complainant under the provisions of any such scheme."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to prevent investigation by the committee of complaints which would more properly be referred to the arbitrator. The coal owners have their remedy in arbitration, and it was not desired to bring difference between coal owners before committees of investigation. Those who complain have a complete remedy in arbitration under the scheme, and it is desirable they should be limited to that remedy and not trouble the committees with an investigation which is not really germane.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not propose to object to this Amendment, but I wish to call your Lordships' attention to it for the purposes of argument on a later question, which I am going to raise, as to what the particular scheme of arbitration means.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation" and to insert "or is unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price." The noble Earl said: The reason for this Amendment is that the draftsman has advised that the Amendment moved by Lord Halsbury in Committee is not sufficiently explicit to cover what the noble Earl had in mind when he moved his Amendment, and that the words which we propose to substitute will cover the point raised by the noble Earl in a more definite manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("or is unfair or inequitable in its operation") and insert ("or is unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price").—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, this is the most amazing Amendment from a Socialist Government which I have ever known. Will your Lordships read this subsection as it now stand's?
"If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any provision of the scheme is contrary to the public interests"—
1046
That is how the subsection read before I put in my Amendment, "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation." These words are now proposed to be left out, and, therefore, a scheme which is unfair and inequitable in its operation is to be left in. That is the effect of it. The noble Earl opposite dissents. I beg the noble Earl's pardon, but may I point out to him that it is exactly what we told him on the Committee stage—namely, that it was contrary to the public interests, and that there was no power in anybody to say that if a scheme was unfair and inequitable it should not be allowed. Therefore we put in these words "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation." Now the noble and learned Earl is proposing that those words shall be taken out, so that a scheme may be allowed, although it is unfair and inequitable.
Then note what he is proposing to insert in the place of those words. He proposes to insert "or is unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price." Does that cover everybody against whom a scheme might be unfair or inequitable? He says he has closed it up. I should think he had. He has left half the populace out of the question. Does he object to saying that if a particular scheme or arbitration is unfair and inequitable it must be cut out altogether? Is that the Socialist idea? Is that the idea of the Party of the People? It does not matter against whom. Somebody may be ruined by it. It does not matter who may be ruined, or what class of person, so long as it is not unduly interfering with the supply or sale of coal or any class of coal at a reasonable price." Anybody in this country may be ruined by an unfair or inequitable scheme, and the noble and learned Earl says that is a proper method for a Government returned by the Socialist Party to put before the whole country. A more hopeless Amendment than this I cannot possibly imagine.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite appreciate the objection which the noble Earl opposite has to the words of the subsection as they now stand. He will remember that when my noble friend Lord Halsbury moved his Amendment in the Committee stage the suggestion made from the Government side was that the words

1047
might be wide enough to cover the case of coal owners as opposed to coal consumers, and it was proposed that the word "coal consumers" should be added. The limitation to coal consumers has now been achieved by an Amendment which has just been accepted by the House, which limits Clause 5 to cases in which there is no power to refer to arbitration under the earlier clauses. The clause being so limited, what is there objectionable in a provision which enacts that the committee shall have power to take action if it is of opinion that any provision of a, scheme is unfair or inequitable in its operation? Those words are quite precise enough. They are intended to cover every sort of unfairness or inequity. The words which the noble Earl now suggests really only cover some kinds of unfairness, and that is why as at present advised I think the Amendment which he now suggests will make things worse and not better.
When Lord Halsbury moved his Amendment in Committee I said in supporting it that my interest was in the consumer, and this clause is the consumer's clause. I am not troubling about the coal owners, or even the miners, in this clause. One of the matters about which I at any rate felt some anxiety was the power given to the board, in a district consisting exclusively of coal owners, to make such arrangements as might unfairly differentiate against one class or consumer that they did not desire to encourage, and in favour of another class of consumer that they did desire to encourage. They might, for instance, desire to increase the consumption of gas and to discourage the consumption of electricity, and they could do it quite easily by unfairly discriminating between those two classes of consumers in regard to price. As the clause now stands, that would be guarded against, because the person who was unfairly treated would have a right to apply to the committee, but on the clause as it is now proposed to be amended he would have no right at all. That does not seem to me to be what Parliament can intend, or what I hope the Government intend, and I cannot see that there is any real objection to saying that the committee shall have power to interfere if a particular scheme is proved to be, to their satisfaction, unfair or inequitable in its operation to any particular class of
1048
consumer. Therefore, I hope the Government will see their way not to press this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: If your Lordships will allow me, I think the noble and learned Viscount's speech requires the courtesy of some reply, and I will point out to him what, as a lawyer, he will be the first to appreciate. If you are trying, when sitting on this committee of investigation, to construe these words "unfair or inequitable in its operation" you find yourselves completely at large. There is nothing in the words to prevent them from referring to coal owners.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: By reason of the previous Amendment, that is excluded from the committee of investigation.
EARL RUSSELL: It is difficult to see what unfairness other than that of price they can have to deal with. It is the custom in the coal trade to supply coal to different customers at different prices. That was stated and appears to be a well-established custom, and that is inequitable in the sense that we were taught that equity means equality. I think you might put the Consumers' Council in a great difficulty. We were really trying to help the noble Lord who moved this Amendment in the first instance by putting it in a form which we thought would be workable. If that does not meet with your approval I do not know that we can say more than that to commend it, but that was our reason.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: The next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, of course I shall not move.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after subsection (9), to insert the following new subsection:—
"() Any person aggrieved—

(a) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to report to the Board of Trade that any provision of a scheme is contrary to the public interests, or is unfair or inequitable in its operation, or where such a report has been made is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Board of Trade in relation thereto; or

(b) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to refer a complaint to arbitration under subsection (8) of this section;

1049
may, with the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to that Commission who shall have power to make such order as they think fit."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my Amendment would give a limited power of appeal. First of all, they have to go to the Railway and Canal Commission, and unless the Commission grant leave of appeal nothing further will be done. But if they do, then surely, with a body of that kind, it is obviously a matter in which an appeal should lie. I cannot think that the Government could really object to such a very limited leave of appeal. As many of your Lordships know, this idea of a limited power of appeal is by no means new. For instance, the County Court has an appeal to a Divisional Court. Beyond that it cannot go unless either the Divisional Court gives leave to go to the Court of Appeal, or, if you choose to apply to the Court of Appeal over the head of the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal give leave to appeal. There are many other cases in which you go to another Court and say, "I want leave to appeal," and you are not allowed to appeal unless you can make out a prima facie case.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 5, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think something was said about this Amendment during the Committee stage, but the noble Earl and the House will realise that now you are dealing with a committee of investigation, where any member of the public who thinks he is paying too much for his coal, or who has any other grievance, can put that grievance before a committee of investigation. If the committee of investigation think there is a prima facie case and that the scheme is likely to have some effect which is against the national interest, or which is definitely against the interests of some considerable section of the public, they can then start arbitration and set the machinery going. But the noble Earl's Amendment now proposes that any person aggrieved can start the whole of the machinery going, and although the committee of investigation, having looked into it, have come to the conclusion that it is trivial or wrong, none the less he can, on account of that refusal to report to the
1050
Board of Trade, go ahead with the thing, and he can then, with the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to that Commission. I naturally sympathise with the trade union interest of that union of which the noble Earl and myself are fellow members, but I really think this an entirely unreasonable and unworkable provision. The committee of investigation must be given the right to stop in limine perfectly frivolous complaints, of members of the public, and the committee of investigation is not in the least likely to stop complaints that are not frivolous. But here any person who is aggrieved because they refuse to let those complaints go to arbitration is himself to be able to take these steps.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: When the noble Earl says "these steps," it is not "these steps," but "a step". The step he has to take is to get the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission. If that Commission think he ought to have a right of appeal then they can give it to him. But his only step is to get their leave.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps the language I used was not as accurate as it might have been. It is perfectly true that the step he has to take is to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for leave to appeal, but still that in itself will involve the committee of investigation in opposing that application for leave, and will involve a good deal of waste of time and expense, and it really is an unreasonable proposal. It gives every inhabitant of this country the right to go to the Railway and Canal Commission if he thinks his application has been turned down improperly. That will make the scheme unworkable. I hope the noble Earl will not press it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope I am not biased by that trade union interest to which the noble Earl referred, but I am not quite sure that the Amendment is so unreasonable as he suggests. Your Lordships appreciate how this matter arises. We are dealing only with the question of consumers. A consumer thinks he is aggrieved by some decision, or by the operation of the scheme. Under the Bill as it stands the Board of Trade sets up a committee of five people, two representing the coal trade, two representing the consumers, and one

1051
an independent chairman. Any complaint by any consumer comes to that committee, and under the Bill as it stands their decision is final, and there is no redress at all against it.
It apparently has occurred to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment that there might well be cases in which some body was substantially aggrieved, who had a real case, and who did not get a right decision from the committee. After all, he has no voice in the selection of the committee, and when there are only two consumers on the committee it is quite obvious that, with the best will in the world, they cannot represent every class of consumer. If you had one exporter and one domestic consumer, then the big trades and the gas and electricity people would all be left out. If they were in other people would be left out. However fairly the Board of Trade desired to act, obviously they cannot represent every class of consumer. That being so, a consumer may well come before the committee and have nobody there who in the least represents his point of view, indeed people who may be directly in rivalry with him. If they should decide against his application, on the Bill as it stands he has no redress at all. He can apply to nobody. All that this Amendment enacts is that where the committee of investigation refuses to accede to his application he may apply to the Railway and Canal Commission.
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl that it would make the scheme unworkable if any one who had a grievance could go into Court. It is obvious that you would have a scheme flooded with appeals and over-burdened with applications of that kind. The Railway and Canal Commission is a most responsible Court. It is actually the Court which is entrusted by the Bill itself with decisions on most important matters. All that the Amendment provides is that where a person thinks he is aggrieved he may go to the Railway and Canal Commission and ask them whether they think he has a real grievance which requires investigation. That does not seem to me to involve any grave risk, provided you accept, as the noble and learned Earl does accept, that the Railway and Canal Commission is a very responsible judicial body.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That being so, I cannot see that the Amendment, with that protection in it can lead to the dire consequences which the noble and learned Earl suggests, and I would ask him whether it would not give a good deal more condence to the consumers in this country—because, after all, they are the people for whom I speak. I am sorry to say that I know nothing about the coal trade. But we are all consumers either directly by burning coal or indirectly by having electric light or power or gas light, or industrially by using these fuels or powers. These people ought to be given some way of getting to the Court to see whether they have a real case to be judicially determined. If they cannot persuade the Court of that they are stopped, as the noble and learned Earl said, in limine. If the Railway and Canal Commission say: "You have made out no prima facie case," they are stopped. Where they do make a case it is evident to me that they should have it judicially determined. I would urge the noble and learned Earl to reconsider his attitude on these arguments which, as I said, are not put forward in any controversial spirit, but which really do seem to have some weight.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this Amendment was considered and fought in another place, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept it. But I cannot, I fear, add anything to the arguments I have already advanced to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Information obtained under Act not to be disclosed.
8. No information with respect to any particular undertaking shall be included in any report published under this Part of this Act by the Board of Trade, the central council, an executive board, the national committee of investigation, or a district committee of investigation, unless the owner of the undertaking agrees thereto, and any person who obtains any information in the exercise of the powers conferred upon the council or upon any executive board by any scheme made in pursuance of this Part of this Act, or conferred upon any such committee by this Part of this Act, shall be required to make a declaration of secrecy in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Trade, and any person who acts in contravention of any declaration which he has so made shall be guilty of a mis-demeanour and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not

1053
exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and line, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the publication or disclosure of any information in so far as it is required to be published or disclosed for the purposes of legal proceedings (including arbitrations) under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder, or for any report of such proceedings, or in so far as it is required or authorised by this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder to be published or disclosed to the Board of Trade, the central council, a committee of investigation or an executive board.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, to leave out "any declaration which he has so made" and to insert "the provisions, of this clause." The noble Viscount said: Under Clause 8 a pledge of secrecy is imposed upon people who obtain information in the course of their employment. Supposing for any reason owing to oversight, or it may be done, perhaps, on purpose by the person in question, no declarations has been made, then he will get off without any penalty at all. If you leave out the words "in contravention of any declaration which he has so made" and insert instead "in contravention of the provisions of this clause" you will still catch him. For that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 37, leave out ("any declaration which he has so made") and insert ("the provisions of this clause").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The effect of this Amendment would be that any one who contravened the provisions of the clause would be guilty of a misdemeanour. The provisions of the clause are that no information with respect to a particular undertaking must be included in a report without the consent of the owner, and that any person who obtains any information by reason of the operation of this Part of the Bill shall be required to make a declaration of secrecy. If the Amendment were accepted, the only offences which would be penalised under the clause would be including information in a report or failing to make a declaration of secrecy. It would not be an offence for a person, having made a declaration of secrecy, to give away secrets. That, I think, is clearly not what the noble Viscount intends.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Not at all.
EARL RUSSELL: No doubt what he wants to do is to ask why the clause imposes a penalty for acting in contravention of a declaration of secrecy, but imposes no penalty for publishing information in a report in contravention of the first part of the clause. The answer is that the publication of information in a report is penalised because if it were published by the Central Council, or an executive board, or a committee of investigation it could only be published in contravention of a declaration of secrecy and it would, therefore, be penalised under the clause. I think that as the noble Viscount's Amendment would not achieve the object he desires and as it is already covered it would be advisable that he should not press it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the noble Earl will just wait a moment, this person has to make a declaration in a prescribed form. If he has not done it and still gives information he gets off without a penalty. If the noble Earl could put down anything on Third Reading which would catch him I should be very much obliged.
EARL RUSSELL: I will certainly have the point considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso, to leave out "under this Part of this Act." The noble Viscount said: If these words are allowed to remain in the Bill a person who becomes a witness in a lawsuit might not be able to be cross-examined thoroughly. I do not know whether that point has occurred to the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("under this Part of this Act").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
EARL RUSSELL: Probably the noble Viscount meant to move to leave out "under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder." If those words were left out the effect would be that information acquired in pursuance of the Bill could be disclosed in any kind of legal proceedings and not only, as is now provided, in legal proceedings taken under the Bill. The question the Amendment

1055
raises is whether information obtained in pursuance of the Bill is on a par with confidential information on affairs of State, which is privileged from disclosure in legal proceedings. On the whole it is thought that information obtained in pursuance of the Bill is hardly comparable with State secrets and should not be protected by the same privilege. Therefore, if the noble Viscount would move his Amendment in the form I suggested, to leave out "under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder," I Should be willing to accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I fall in readily with that suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, lines 4 and 6, leave out ("under this Part of this Act or any scheme made thereunder").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendments of Part I of 16 & 17 Geo. 5, c. 28.
11.—(1) If it appears to the Board of Trade that it is expedient for the purpose of promoting the more economical and efficient working, treating or disposing of coal that an amalgamation scheme or an absorption scheme, under Part I of the Mining Industry Act, 1926 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Act of 1926"), should be prepared and submitted with respect to any two or more undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines, the Board shall require the owners of those undertakings to prepare and submit to the Board an amalgamation scheme or absorption scheme with respect to those undertakings framed in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Act of 1926, and if the owners fail so to submit such a scheme within such a time as may have been specified by the Board, the Board shall themselves prepare such a scheme, and for the purposes of that Part of that Act any scheme so prepared shall be deemed to have been prepared and submitted in manner provided by subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, of Section one of that Act and that Act shall apply accordingly:
Provided that—
(b) no such scheme of amalgamation shall provide, without the consent of the owner of the undertaking, for the separation of the treating and disposing of coal from the working thereof, or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining, for the separation
1056
from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary for such primary object.
(3) If the owner of any undertaking (in this subsection referred to as the "transferor undertaking") proposed by ally scheme prepared by the Board of Trade under this section to be amalgamated with or absorbed in, any other undertaking (in this subsection referred to as the "transferee undertaking") satisfies the Railway and Canal Commission that any money or securities belonging to the transferor undertaking formed, at the date of the passing of this Act, a reserve which, when the scheme was submitted, was not required for the efficient carrying on of the transferor undertaking, the Railway and Canal Commission shall not confirm the scheme except after making such modifications, if any, as may be necessary for securing that the money or securities will not be transferred to the transferee undertaking.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a manuscript Amendment on Clause 11 which I have handed to the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think that a manuscript Amendment is in order at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is important that we should get these things right. A manuscript Amendment is in order on the Report stage of a Bill although, unless it is a small matter of routine or drafting, or something of that kind, it is not very convenient. But your Lordships' House have very often admitted it. Where a manuscript Amendment is not in order is on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Amendment is in subsection (3), after "securities," to insert "or real or personal property." I only put this in manuscript form because I had hoped that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thomson, would have fulfilled his under-taking to bring forward words on Report. I moved certain words in Committee and Lord Thomson proposed that I should put in the word "property." Lord Darling objected to that and said:—
"You have property in something. It is not a substantive thing. You cannot see it or handle it. You have property in something. You may call it personal property or real property, but to put into an Act of Parliament simply the word 'property' thinking you are putting in securities of all sorts would, I think, be a very dangerous thing to do."

1057
Then my noble friend Lord Hailsham said:—
"I do not like accepting a word quite so hastily, and perhaps the best plan would be that the Amendment should be dropped on the understanding that the Government will consult their legal advisers and the Lord Chancellor, and bring forward whatever they think is the proper word on the Report stage."
Then I said:—
"If the noble and gallant Lord would undertake to do that I shall be quite satisfied."
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said:—
"I gladly accept that. This was debated in another place and this form of words was eventually adopted as most suitable. All the objections raised by the noble Viscount were put forward in that debate. I accept the suggested solution."
As the noble and gallant Lord had not put anything on the Paper I handed in this manuscript Amendment in order to cover certainly land and any other thing.
EARL RUSSELL: What is the page?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Clause 11, page 17, line 40.
THE LORD SPEAKER (EARL BEAU-CHAMP): The Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, must come before it.
EARL RUSSELL: I can get my Amendments out of the way. They are both drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("for") and insert ("to").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Might I make an addition to what was said by the noble Marquess? Would it not be more convenient that a copy of manuscript Amendments should be supplied to whoever occupies the Woolsack?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I did supply a copy to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who usually occupies the Woolsack.
THE LORD SPEAKER: The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, will come before that of the noble Viscount.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at the end of subsection (1) "and belonging to or controlled by such undertaking." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which stands in my name is one that I moved in Committee stage, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thomson, kindly undertook to consider it before Report stage. He has very courteously done so, but his first communication in regard to it I only received this morning. It was unfavourable to the words proposed by me, which are considered to be too wide. Since then I have had the advantage of a consultation with the noble and gallant Lord and his adviser, and I understand, if the Amendment were moved in another form, it might be acceptable to the Government. With the consent of the House, I should like to move the Amendment in the form I will now read:—
(c) No coal mine belonging to a company whereof all the shares are held by the owner of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining shall, so long as it is worked as ancillary to such primary object, be amalgamated or absorbed by virtue of a scheme prepared under this section without the consent of the owner of that undertaking.
The effect of those words is rather more precise and rather more limited than mine. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 11, page 17, line 9, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
EARL RUSSELL: We accept the Amendment in this form.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "securities," to insert "or real or personal property." The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships may have noticed, I am always loath to impose myself upon you for any length of time, and, having put forward my arguments, I do not repeat them.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 40, after ("securities") insert ("or real or personal property").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount is right in what he said. I must admit we are to blame in this matter. We did promise to consider it and bring up a form of words on Report. I regret that,

1059
through inadvertence, that promise has not been carried out. I am not in a position to say off-hand whether the words are right or not, but we will put them in the Bill now and consider them on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Power to constitute Coal Mines National Industrial Board and functions thereof.
(2) Before appointing any person to fill a vacancy among the members of the National Board, the Board of Trade shall consult the body (if any) which they were required by this section to consult before appointing his predecessor.
(5) Where there exists, or is apprehended, any dispute between the owners of and the workers employed in or about the coal mines in any district as to the terms of an existing agreement or a proposed agreement between such owners and workers providing for the regulation of wages or other conditions of labour throughout the coal mines in the district, and there has been a failure to settle the dispute in accordance with the arrangements existing in the district for the settlement thereof, either the owners or the workers may refer the dispute to the National Board who shall thereupon inquire into the dispute and report thereon to the owners and workers concerned.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of an Amendment at the end of subsection (2), to insert:—
"If a member becomes in the opinion of the Board of Trade unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under this Act the Board shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall notify the fact in such manner as it thinks fit and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
"A member may resign his office by notice in writing under his hand given to the Chairman of the Board."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the usual sort of clause to have in these Bills. A similar clause appears in the Port of London Authority Act, and, since then, in the Electricity Supply and Road Transport Bills and the Land Drainage Bill. Ever since the Port of London Authority Act it has been put in veiled form to cover cases of bankruptcy or imprisonment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am advised that no part of this Amendment is really necessary because it is inherent in the clause as it stands, but there is no great harm in it, except that in the latter part the resignation should be notified to the Board of Trade, which has to appoint the members, and not the Chairman of the Industrial Board. If the noble Viscount would put it in that form "under his hand given to the Board of Trade," we would be prepared to accept his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am much obliged to the noble Earl and move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, at end insert ("If a member becomes in the opinion of the Board of Trade unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under this Act the Board shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall notify the fact in such manner as it thinks fit and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
"A member may resign his office by notice in writing under his hand given to the Board of Trade").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "an existing agreement or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett is here, but this is an Amendment which I accepted in Committee somewhat hastily, and, as a matter of fact, it did not carry out either what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, desired, or what we desired. I consulted him with regard to it afterwards, and he agrees it should come out at this stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 40, leave out ("an existing agreement or").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
application of 52 & 53 Viet. c. 49.
(2) No scheme or rules approved or made under Part I of this Act shall exclude the application of the Arbitration Act, 1889. to any arbitration held in pursuance of that Part of this Act except in so far as that Act is inconsistent with that Part of this Act:
Provided that where on any such arbitration an award is stated in the form of a

1061
special case for the opinion of the court under paragraph (b) of Section seven of that Act the decision of the High Court thereon shall be final.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to leave out the proviso at the end of the clause. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with the Government over this. I thought they had agreed with me in Committee about a lot of Amendments in Clause 5 in reference to "unfair and inequitable." Then I find that they have cut all these out. Because they agreed, I thought it would be better perhaps that I should not move an Amendment that was down in my name on the Committee stage, Clause 14, page 27, and they seemed to be rather pleased that I should not do that in order that they might have some consideration as to whether the wording might be altered. I am bound to confess that having got those two concessions I am disappointed to find that all my Amendments in Clause 5, which so far had been agreed to, are cut out and nothing done for me on Clause 14.
The noble Earl opposite takes a curious view. I do not quite understand what his position is. Does he stand as a trade unionist. He is always twitting me with being a member of the same union as himself. I am not quite certain about that. But the point which I made was a very simple one, and it is this. Why in these very important questions, when you go to a board of arbitration, are you not allowed the ordinary rights of the ordinary citizen in a commercial case, which may be of far less importance than a case that comes under this Bill? Why are you not allowed the ordinary rights of appeal? Here you are only allowed to go to a Judge of First Instance, and you are not allowed an appeal beyond him. What earthly reason is there why you should not be allowed to go to the Court of Appeal in these arbitrations, which are very important ones? The noble Earl opposite cannot possibly say that they are not. The noble and gallant Lord who was in charge of this Bill part of the time had no doubt at all that they are important arbitrations, and the other noble and learned Lord who took tripartite responsibility for the Bill also did not seem to think that they were of a very unimportant character.
Why on earth should not the person who is aggrieved go as any ordinary
1062
citizen of this country to the Court of Appeal and the highest Court of Appeal? Why should it be that he is to be stopped at the first Court? The effect of my Amendment is simply, by leaving out from line 39 to the end of that subsection of the clause, to omit the provision that you are not to be allowed an appeal in this arbitration. I ask your Lordships to say that in this very important question the person affected should have exactly the same rights as every other person in this country and be allowed, as in other arbitrations, to go if he chooses to the highest Court of Appeal in the country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, leave out from beginning of line 39 to the end of the clause.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is, briefly, that this Bill is not intended to deal with constitutional points or to elucidate legal difficulties. It is primarily a Bill dealing with industry, and the objection to this Amendment and to Amendments of this character is the objection of time. It is desired to get things done and not to argue about them.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: At the expense of an individual?
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl will perhaps allow me to finish. To get things done and to carry on with the business. These matters will all have to do with the working of the coal industry and there is an appeal to arbitration. That in itself will be inconvenient—it means delay—but it is a measure of protection to the coal owner which is essential because he must have a chance of stating his case and having a decision. It is essential also to permit the stating of a case by the arbitrator for decision by the High Court. But the Government think that having given that arbitration and that appeal to the High Court they have introduced quite enough delay in the conduct of a commercial undertaking. You cannot really wait two or three years for a decision—
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: You will not do that.
EARL RUSSELL:—although no doubt it would be an excellent decision when

1063
it was given. Meanwhile you would hamper the carrying on of the industry. You could not get the cases considered and discussed in any sort of reasonable time or without considerable expense. I do not know why the noble Earl should think that when cases have been fully considered by an arbitrator and, if necessary, considered by the Court of Appeal, it is likely that injustice would have been done between subject and subject. In criminal matters you have no appeal.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Oh, yes you have. You can appeal up to the House of Lords.
EARL RUSSELL: No.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Oh yes, I beg pardon. I must ask the noble Earl to reconsider that.
EARL RUSSELL: I know all about the provisions of the Act about an appeal to the House of Lords, but in ordinary criminal cases you have no appeal to the House of Lords. It is only on particular questions. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. I do not think that anybody connected with the coal industry can really desire the prospect of interminable litigation. Their real desire is to get on with their business. I think the noble Earl would be wiser not to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: After what the noble Earl has said—if he will forgive me for not agreeing with him—I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.