HL Deb 29 May 1930 vol 77 cc1221-30

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that on the Second Reading there was a debate of several days, and when the Committee stage was reached your Lordships gave it a very minute and, if I may say so without impertinence, a very careful examination. The result of that was that your Lordships passed several Amendments which we on the Government side could not accept, and are not now able to accept. At the same time, the position in which I find myself is this, that I know of no fresh facts or no fresh arguments which ought to induce your Lordships to decide to-day in a different way from what you decided a week ago; and I think it would be discourteous of me, and certainly no good purpose would be served, if I detailed the old facts and repeated the old arguments. We all know that there may be another occasion on which your Lordships will have an opportunity, should you desire to use it, of reconsidering the decisions which you came to a week ago. I am not in a position now, although we do not agree with your decisions, to do anything except formally move that this Bill be read a third time. There are a few Amendments, chiefly of a drafting character, standing in the name of my noble and gallant friend Lord Thomson which he will move, and one or two others. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.

Clause 3:

Provisions of district scheme.

(2) Every district scheme shall further provide for the following matters— (f) for the determination, at such times and for such periods as may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the price below which every class of coal produced in the district may not be sold or supplied by owners of coal mines in the district, and for securing that the actual consideration obtained by the sale or supply of the several classes of coal, exclusive of coal supplied free or at reduced rates for the use of persons employed in or about the mine, shall not be less in value than the price so determined;

(3) A district scheme may further provide— (a) for the deduction, if it is so decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, from the quota of any coal mine for any period of the tonnage by which, in contravention of the provisions of the scheme, the output or disposal of the coal mine has during any previous period exceeded the quota of the coal mine for that previous period, but without prejudice to any penalty that may have been incurred by reason of the excess;

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON) moved, in subsection (2) (f), to leave out "employed in or about the mine," and to insert "who are or have been employed in or about the mine and the dependants of persons who have been so employed." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is inserted in response to the desire of Lord Joicey, who very kindly has said he will let it stand instead of his Amendment. It is merely to comply with the custom in coal mines whereby certain coal is given to employees and their dependants. The Amendment that I move gives a slightly wider scope than the Amendment originally suggested by Lord Joicey.

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("employed in or about the mine") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Thomson.)

LORD JOICEY

My Lords, this Amendment is not a very important one, but it is one in which I feel sure that the miners in different parts of the country will take some interest. It is the custom in the North of England, particularly in Northumberland and Durham, to have a large number of aged miners' homes. These have been built, some by the coal owners themselves, others by the miners, and the miners have always liberally contributed a weekly sum to the aged people who occupy them. The owners as a rule are only too glad to give free coal to their old servants who have to occupy these houses. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is probably a better Amendment than mine, because it includes all those who are dependent on the aged miners who occupy these homes.

LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "or disposal." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a tidying-up Amendment. During all the vigilant scrutiny of this Bill which has taken place in both Houses of Parliament, no one noticed those two unnecessary words. They were noticed at last by a draftsman. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 31, leave out ("or disposal").—(Lord Thomson.)

Clause 4 [Effects of schemes on contracts]:

LORD THOMSON

My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment here. It is the same as the last Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 28, leave out ("or disposal").—(Lord Thomson.)

CLAUSE 5 [Committees of Investigation]:

LORD THOMSON moved, in subsections (6) and (8) to leave out "interests" and to insert "interest." The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are really drafting Amendments too. My noble friend Lord Russell said he did not like the use of the word "interests" after "public"; he thought "public interest" was better English.

Amendments moved— Page 12, line 40, leave out ("interests") and insert ("interest") Page 14, line 4, leave out ("interests") and insert ("interest").—(Lord Thomson.)

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 misdemeanour and liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, 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:

LORD THOMSON moved to leave out "acts in contravention of any declaration which has been so made," and to insert "discloses any information so obtained by him." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is to meet a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, who wanted to make it quite certain that everybody who disclosed information should be liable under the Bill. I have the authority of the noble Viscount for saying that he is quite satisfied with the Amendment as it now stands. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 31, leave out from ("who") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("discloses any information so obtained by him"). (Lord Thomson.)

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Bertie, who is unable to be here to-day, to thank the Minister in charge for his courtesy in putting this Amendment on the Paper. The same remark applies to Lord Thomson's Amendments to Clause 11.

Clause 10 [Duration of Part 1]:

LORD THOMSON

My Lords, this Amendment is of exactly the same character as that which I have just moved, and the same arguments apply to it. It merely tidies up the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("act in contravention of a declaration of secrecy") and insert ("disclose information".—(Lord Thomson.)

Clause 11:

Amendments of Part I of 16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 28. (3) If the owner of any undertaking (in this subsection referred to as the "transferor undertaking") proposed by any 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 or real or personal property 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.

LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "money or securities or real or personal property" and to insert "property, whether real or personal"; and towards the end of the subsection, to leave out "the money or securities" and insert "that property." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this form of words has been agreed upon as meeting the case. It also meets the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie. That applies to both Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 18, lines 41 and 42, leave out ("money or securities or real or personal property") and insert ("property, whether real or personal.") Page 19, line 6, leave out ("the money or securities") and insert ("that property").—(Lord Thomson.)

LORD JOICEY

My Lords, I presume that these words will comprise all classes of property and investments of every kind that may happen to be in the reserve fund?

LORD THOMSON

That is what I understand.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

LORD JOICEY

I should like to be satisfied of that, because it is a very important matter indeed.

LORD THOMSON

That, I understand on the highest legal authority, is the situation. I hope that will be to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Joicey.

Clause 16 [Interpretation]:

LORD THOMSON

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the one moved by myself instead of the one put down by Lord Joicey.

LORD JOICEY

Yes.

LORD THOMSON

Precisely the same arguments apply in this case. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 36, leave out from ("rates") to ("and") in line 37, and insert ("for the use of persons who are or have been employed in or about the mine and the dependants of persons who have been so employed").—(Lord Thomson.)

Moved, That this Bill do pass.—(Lord Thomson.)

LORD MELCHETT

My Lords, before this Bill passes finally from our charge and returns to another place I should like to make a few remarks on the position we now stand in, especially in view of the important speech made by the Prime Minister in his constituency on the position of the Bill and, if I may say so, of your Lordships' House. The Prime Minister entered at some length into the position of the Bill and laid down some general principles, one of which was that although amalgamation was not at first part of the Government's scheme, which he admitted was introduced to reduce the hours the miners were working, he was not prepared to accept any Amendment which struck at the root of amalgamation. Later in his speech he went on to say something that I thought was rather significant and I hope somewhat kindly— If the House of Lords was a revision Chamber, and took a national interest in vigilantly watching lest the House of Commons should do damage, there was just as much reason for those worthy gentlemen to put in an appearance up to 1929 as since the 1929 Election. And he concluded those remarks by saying— If it is willing to do its work as a revising body, treating Labour Bills in the same impartial way as Tory Bills, I should be the last man in the world to say that such revision was not to the public benefit. What I would like to stress is this. I do not think that anybody can say that this Bill has been dealt with in any except a revision sense. Nobody can say that our discussions have been in any sense Party discussions. They have been very largely technical discussions, and the alterations made in the Bill have been made, not as the noble Lord, Lord Marley, indicated, brutally, but in the sincere belief that we were improving a Bill which, I frankly admit, we do not much like. This is the last opportunity we shall have of dealing with this matter, and I hope that the spirit which seemed to infuse the Prime Minister's speech will be carried into the consideration of the Amendments to the Bill when it comes before another place.

I would more especially stress again the importance of the spread-over hours which now stand part of the Bill. Since this Bill has been under discussion unfortunately the export coal trade of the country as well in Durham as in South Wales has been getting worse instead of Improving. Only recently I had occasion to discuss with colleagues of mine the position in South Wales, with which they are intimately acquainted from day to day, and the position there is really desperate. As a matter of fact it seems almost ironical to discuss the question of the limitation of the hours of work of men who can get so few days' work a week. If you take the whole of the average time that they are working it is far below any figure you could put into any Bill and far below any time that they wish to work. The spread-over is really of very great importance. I understand that conversations and discussions have been going on in South Wales between the representatives of the miners and the representatives of those who run the collieries and are tending towards the recognition of some friendly arrangement. There is the hope that we may arrive at a basis of friendly co-operation.

All we have asked for, and really all that the Amendment does, is to leave all the areas to be the best judges of their own salvation. As I pointed out before, it is really a very modest request. It is a reasonable request. It is a request which I do not think affects any principle involved in the Bill. It is one which I understand a very large proportion of those responsible on the trade union side are anxious at any rate to explore, and I almost think to accept. I think it is an enormous responsibility for any Government to undertake in view of the present position. Yesterday the House of Commons was engaged for hours in the exploration of the desperate unemployment position—everybody trying to find some solution, everybody practically admitting the difficulty of finding any solution. It does seem to an ordinary human being a most extraordinary thing at a moment like this to pass legislation to prevent people coming to arrangements which might mitigate instead of increasing unemployment, in one branch of industry at any rate.

I would beg the noble Lord, who has conducted the Bill through your Lordships' House with such courtesy and skill and has shown himself so extremely reasonable, to represent to those with whom he has influence that in all sincerity, without any kind of Party feeling or anything else, I wish the Government to re-examine that part of this problem in the most sympathetic way. It can be to nobody's interest, in order to achieve a kind of symmetry which today is somewhat fashionable in legislative action and outside, to do something which we feel is going to be detrimental not only to those who own collieries but to those working in them. The noble Lord said the other day: "You say the costs will go up; you have had other advantages." But, all those advantages admitted, at the present time the position is terribly bad, competition is very keen, and it is extremely difficult to obtain the orders we want. It is, however, really of no use for us to try to throw stones at each other. The position is there and has to be faced. I am certain if the Government would take the unbiased opinion of those in these areas they would find almost a general agreement on this matter.

LORD JOICEY

My Lords, I quite agree with what has been said by my noble friend. I think the whole question was originated by the unfortunate pledges which were given by the members of the Government and their supporters during the late Election. I could not help thinking, as time went on, that they began to see the difficulty there would be in shortening the hours and meeting the increased costs which that shortening of hours would involve. I more than once thought they would have been only too glad to have dropped the whole thing. But, once they had brought the Bill into the House of Commons, the politicians there seized upon it, and made all kinds of additions to it dealing with matters about which they did not seem to be well acquainted. I have some sympathy with the Government in that respect, because there is no doubt that the Amendments which were made were Amendments which did not improve the Bill. On the contrary, they worsened it. Some of the Amendments which have been made here have had the same effect.

I am not a believer in the Bill. I think it will do more harm than good. The objects which the Bill had were cheaper coal, shorter hours, and higher wages, but I feel quite sure that none of those objects will be realised, because the costs which will be added by the shortening of hours and by the reduction in quantity of output will be such that it will be absolutely necessary to put on a considerable price to the consumers in order to meet the heavy additional costs. So far as I am concerned—and I think I can speak for the mine owners of Durham and Northumberland—although we do not like this Bill we shall do all we can to make the best of it. There are many difficulties to contend with, but your Lordships may rest assured that, if anything can be got out of it, the coal owners in the North of England will make the greatest efforts to carry out everything that the Bill compels them to do.

We do not like public control. We do not like to be controlled by a Department, or even by Parliament in this matter. Parliament is not always wise. All of us who have been for some years in Parliamentary life know that Parliament often makes mistakes, and, depend upon it, when legislation is produced and Hushed forward in the interest of one special class you will find such action is a mistake and against the interest of the country as a whole. So far as we are concerned in the North of England we repudiate all responsibility for this Bill. The responsibility must rest upon those who forced these various Amendments into it, and upon those who brought the measure forward. The responsibility rests with them and not with the coal owners, who are always blamed for any misfortune that comes upon the coal trade. I could show that the present depression has not arisen by the action of the coal owners, but has arisen from the action of the politicians. Those who give the matter serious thought will, I am sure, agree with me. But, I repeat, we shall do all we can to make as much out of the measure as possible.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.