Lords Sitting of 21 June 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
STANMORE UNUSED BURIAL GROUND BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
INFANTICIDE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (The EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the object of this small Bill is to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Secretary of State under the Marriages Validity

31
Acts, 1905 and 1924. The Order to be confirmed by the Bill is the normal type of Marriage Provisional Order and, as your Lordships will be aware, the Order has no effect until it has been confirmed by Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (KEIGHLEY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

COAL BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
General provisions as to functions of the Commission under Part 1.
2.—(1) The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining or carry on any operations for coal-mining purposes, other than searching and boring for coal, but shall be charged with the duty of controlling and managing the premises acquired by them under this Part of this Act, by granting coal-mining leases and otherwise, in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
(2) The Board of Trade may give to the Commission general directions as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions under this Part of this Act in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM) moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
"(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to exercise their functions as owners of the fee simple in coal and mines of coal and of the property and rights to be acquired by them therewith in such manner as they may think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
(2) The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining or carry on any operations for coal-mining purposes, other than searching and boring for coal, but shall grant leases for those purposes:
Provided that the Commission may carry on any operations for those purposes which may be requisite for preserving in good order premises that are not for the time being subject to a coal-mining lease."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment to Clause 2 which stands in my name has been framed to meet the criticisms and objections which some of your Lordships entertained to the original Bill. It is now in different wording. There is a proviso added, to carry out an undertaking given on the last occasion, the proviso being to make it perfectly clear that the Commission may carry on any operations for these purposes which may be requisite for preserving in good order premises that are not for the time being subject to a coal-mining lease. I hope it will not be improper if I say a word with regard to the words which appear at the end of subsection (1). I have formed the opinion, as I am sure have some of your Lordships, that the noble Lords who object to my Amendment on the Paper have expended a considerable part of their lives in promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry, and I confess it seems to me that it must be due to some misunderstanding that noble Lords wish to strike out those words in subsection (1) of my Amendment. The Commission must exercise their functions, and I confess that for my part I am unable to see any better objects to carry out than those which are mentioned at the end of subsection (1). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GAINFORD,LORD GAINFORD, who had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out "in such manner as they think best" in the proposed new subsection (1), said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has entirely misunderstood my attitude in moving this Amendment. I am grateful to the Government for the way in which they have met the arguments which were directed against the clause as it originally stood. I accept whole-heartedly the words of this Amendment. The only words I take exception to are the words mentioned in my Amendment to the Amendment, namely "in such manner as they may think best," which I should have thought

33
were unnecessary. The point that I want to make is as to whether it was necessary that a Commission of this type should exercise judgment irrespective of the facts which would justify its coming to a conclusion. If the Commission exercise their proper functions in "promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry" nobody would take exception to it, but if you leave in the words "in such manner as they may think best" it means that in addition to their having those powers, to which no one can take exception, they can act upon a prejudice and not upon definite grounds. It is for those reasons that I thought these words might with advantage be deleted from the Bill.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out from ("therewith") in line 4 to ("for") in line 5.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government have done their best to indicate the objects which should animate the Commission in carrying out the very important duties which will be confided to them. It seems obvious that a direction to exercise functions for promoting these objects must imply a discretion as to how the exercise of those functions will best promote the objects in view. Therefore I do not think this Amendment is necessary.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord on the Woolsack a question with regard to his Amendment, because the wording is different from what it was in the first version of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi moved an Amendment on what was Clause 41 with respect to the Commission when they were considering the making of an order, having regard to the effect of the order, if made, on employment in the district and upon social conditions, and matters of that kind. For the information of the noble Earl the Leader of the House I may say it is to be found in the OFFICIAL. REPORT of May 26, column 628. That Amendment was defeated, but it did receive substantial support, and I gathered from the Government that they would at all events give friendly consideration to what was intended.
34
I see that in the revised form of the subsection now before the House it is provided that it shall be the duty of the Commission to exercise their functions "as they may think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry." May I ask if that revised form of words covers the sort of consideration which was implicit in the Amendment which we moved? That Amendment did suggest that they should take into account the amount of employment to be afforded in the coal-mining industry and that if a compulsory order for amalgamation would diminish the employment in the coal-mining industry that fact should be taken into account. Does this revised form of words mean that circumstances of that kind will be taken into account when the Commission exercise their powers "for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry"? I only ask for information because, if it is not taken into account, when we come to the proper clause I should like to bring the matter up in the form of an Amendment.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, perhaps I can answer that question. The Government have considered this matter and they feel that it is not necessary to put it either into this clause or later on in the Bill, for the reason—which I think I stated on the last occasion—that the Provisional Order Committee, both in this House and in another place, would undoubtedly, when there was a question of amalgamation and so on, consider what its effect would be on the number of people employed in the area and whether it would be necessary to close pits. I think there is no question whatever that either House of Parliament would consider that very seriously, and therefore the Department of Mines and my honourable and gallant friend do not feel that it is necessary to put it in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I pointed out that the ground on which this subsection was put into the Bill in another place, as stated by the President of the Board of Trade, was that it would give Parliament an opportunity of raising

35
matters, and it was only required for that purpose. He said he did not think the provision would be exercised. I am informed it is quite unnecessary because at any time it is open to Parliament to raise any question it likes. These words are not necessary for that purpose. Furthermore, they seem to be very bad drafting having regard to what follows in the Amendment that is going to be moved subsequently by the Government. The Bill states in one sentence in Clause 2 that it shall include "all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal." Lord Crawford pointed out on the Committee stage that it was quite absurd to give a Commission of this kind opportunities to deal with matters of safety. Matters of safety, he showed, were regulated under other Statutes, and had to be carried out by the owners of collieries through their mining engineers, who were responsible people.
It is quite absurd to entrust safety to a Commission of this kind who know nothing about underground coal-mining. But if this provision is left in the Bill, and the proviso which is to be moved immediately afterwards by the Lord Chancellor is introduced, that will make it read that
"nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by or under the Coal Mines Act, 1911."
In one sentence, therefore, the Bill will say they are to have power, and in the next sentence that they are not to have power. It seems to me perfectly absurd to try to legislate in that kind of way, making an assertion in one part of the clause and putting in a provision immediately afterwards to say it does not operate. There is no reason whatsoever why this subsection should be in. It is quite superfluous and it has not been found necessary in other Acts of Parliament. When the Electricity Act of 1926 was passed no such provision was put in, and yet any question can be raised in Parliament. As I have said, the words are really superfluous and therefore I beg to move that they be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment which
36
has been moved by my noble friend Lord Gainford. As he has pointed out, the proviso which will be moved presently by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Leader of the House betters the objection which we had before to this subsection in regard to safety; but the Coal Mines Act, 191r, so I am informed, only applies to safety, and there still remains the objection to the Board of Trade being able to give general directions to the Commission. What are the general directions going to be? They may be very objectionable indeed. As the noble Lord has just reminded your Lordships, the Leader of the House told us on the Committee stage that these powers were unlikely to be enforced, but, on the other hand, the noble Earl will be the first to admit that he cannot speak for future Governments and future Administrations. The Mining Association feel very strongly on this point, and after all they are gentlemen highly qualified to voice such objections and to know the technical difficulties which might arise out of words such as these. You are putting in the hands of the Commission powers which landlords have never had, and in granting leases in future they may be able to impose on colliery owners all sorts of restrictions of an impossible nature. They would be able, under the general directions, to say to them, "We will not grant you a lease unless you use mechanical appliances of a most expensive sort"—possibly appliances not at all suitable to that particular pit.
I would really submit to your Lordships that this Coal Commission, constituted as it will be under the definition which comes later on, will not contain persons qualified to give highly technical and highly dangerous directions of this sort. I hope your Lordships will insist either Ripon the removal of this subsection, which appears to us to be quite unnecessary for the proper working of the Act, or else on the redrafting of what, as Lord Gainford has pointed out, is a ridiculously badly drafted subsection.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I should have thought that the reasons my noble friend Lord Dudley has just given to the House were sufficient reasons for the retention of this subsection. He said that the Commission were going to be given powers of all sorts and kinds and

37
that they might do some very extraordinary and dangerous things. The whole object of this clause is to enable matters to be brought before Parliament. Once you bring in a Government Department the Minister responsible can have questions asked of him in either House of Parliament and the whole question can be raised. The whole object of this subsection is that the matter should be able to be brought before Parliament and also that the President of the Board of Trade should be in a position to say, "I do not think it is advisable from the national point of view to start a whole new coalfield, although, no doubt, from the mining industry's point of view it might be advisable because you would be able to get your coal cheaper from these new areas than from those already being worked." The Government consider, and I hope Parliament will agree, that that would be inadvisable from a national point of view for the simple reason that you will throw a whole number of people out of employment; their houses, villages and schools and so on would become unnecessary as they drifted away from the place where they were employed, and that is a matter Parliament would desire to stop.
That is all. That is why the President of the Board of Trade should be able to give general directions to the Coal Commission and he should be cross-examined and have to defend his case in this or the other House of Parliament. That is all that is intended by the whole of this subsection. But the Government realise that in putting in the provision with regard to safety it might perhaps be thought that the Board of Trade were interfering with regard to the safety provisions of the Bill and therefore, to meet the views your Lordships expressed on a former occasion we have put down this proviso so as to limit that question in regard to safety to what your Lordships desire. I hope very much that the two noble Lords will not press this Amendment, because I do not think the provision is going to do any harm and it might safeguard the mining industry from all those dangers expressed by my noble friend Lord Dudley.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division on this point but I think it is possible that the Board of Trade might unduly interfere with the work of a Com-
38
mission in which the Government apparently have little confidence. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by or under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or by or under any other enactment relating to the control or management of a mine within the meaning of that Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this proviso is proposed to be inserted in order to comply with the promise given on the last occasion and to make it perfectly clear that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, will not be interfered with in any way by the Board of Trade.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Commission to acquire fee simple in coal.
3.—(1) The Commission shall acquire in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act the fee simple in all coal and mines of coal together with such property and rights annexed thereto and such rights to withdraw support as are hereinafter mentioned, subject to such servitudes, restrictive covenants and other matters adversely affecting any of the said coal or mines as are hereinafter mentioned, and subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the retention of interests arising under coal-mining leases or created by working facilities orders.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or created by working facilities orders" and insert "and of certain other interests." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequential upon a very important concession which it is proposed to make by an Amendment standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and myself in Clause 5, with reference to interests in coal or a mine of coal in or under land formerly copyhold which were preserved to the tenant on enfranchisement. I think that that Amendment on Clause 5 and this Amendment should be taken together. Perhaps the next formal Amendment and the first two formal Amendments on the next page had better be taken with the one I have just mentioned on page 2, line 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("or created by working facilities orders") and insert ("and of certain other interests").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to these words "of certain other interests"? He was proposing to allow this Amendment to stand over until he had taken an Amendment to which this Amendment was consequential. I quite understand that, but when he moves the main Amendment to which the anterior Amendment is consequential, would he please explain why he thinks it so desirable that words of this character, "and of certain other interests," should be inserted in the Bill? They are vague and wide and unusual words to insert into an Act of Parliament. I have no doubt that they are intended to refer to what the Bill describes as "retained interests." I fancy that is their intention, but perhaps when the noble and learned Lord speaks to the Amendment he will be good enough to explain why he selects these particular words for insertion here. They do not appear to be entirely appropriate or entirely adequate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I deal with that point now? There are so many points to be dealt with in this Bill that I think I had better do so at once. I think it becomes clear if you go back to the beginning of the clause and to the words "subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the retention of interests arising under coal-mining leases." It is proposed to substitute for the next words "and of certain other interests." You have only got to read this part of this Bill and to go back again to the beginning to see what it is which is stated to be retained. In other words, if you read the Bill and the sentences together it is only a statement calling your attention to the fact that not only do you retain certain interests under coal-mining leases but you retain certain other things which are going to be made perfectly clear in the Amendments, if they are carried, which I propose to move in a minute. I think if the noble Lord thinks it over he will agree that that is a satisfactory explanation.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have not quite followed all the procedure in your Lordships' House during the short
40
time that I have been here, but I rather think with great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that we cannot pass over the Amendment on page 2, line 36. We have to save it in some way if I might respectfully put that position to the noble and learned Lord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I bow to the better knowledge of certain other people with regard to the procedure of this House. Therefore I am willing to explain the page 2, line 36 Amendment, and in order to do so to explain at the same time what is the real meaning of this Amendment. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that when the matter was before you previously, the Government took the view with regard to minerals under the land that it would be better to treat them logically in just the same way as other minerals are treated, and to allow an interest in these copyhold minerals to be acquired by the Commission and to be treated just as if they were an interest under the leasehold land. Some of your Lordships thought that would occasion very great difficulty. There was an Amendment down on the last occasion and certain considerations have been put before members of the Government. I may say that these considerations have had very careful consideration and that the Government have come to the conclusion that the wiser course will be to treat copyhold minerals, in so far as they are not cases where the copyholder has the right to work coal in or under the land, as being retained interests so that the Commission will not acquire those rights at all.
I think it is my duty to tell your Lordships shortly why that change of opinion, and, if I may, why that not insubstantial concession is now being made on behalf of the Government. I shall do it as shortly as I can. Perhaps your Lordships are aware that copyholds no longer exist, but that the enfranchisement of all the copyholds in the land left the rights of the lord of the manor and of the tenants who mine the minerals quite untouched. Apart from special customs in regard to the property in the minerals, as I explained before, the right was in the lord of the manor, and the right of possession was in the tenant and still is apart from certain customs, but the result of the right of possession of the land in the copyholder extended downwards, with the

41
result that the interest of the copyholder in minerals has been regarded in some at least of the authorities on this difficult matter as amounting to an estate in the land. Although apart from custom he cannot take the minerals, which are not his, he is supposed to be in possession of them in right of some interest.
The result was, until the passing of the Mines Facilities Act, 1923, that except in the case of agreement or except in the case where there was a special custom neither the tenant nor the lord of the manor could work and get the minerals at all. If that had been universal it would be still possible to deal with the problem which arose, but unfortunately there are special customs in various parts of the country which are exceedingly diverse. There are customs under which the lord of the minor may be entitled to get the minerals without the consent of his tenant. There are customs under which the property in the minerals is vested in the tenant. Finally, the lord of the manor may have a special and limited right to work and get the minerals without the consent of the tenant. So there is no hard and fast way in which you can divide up the position of the tenant and say that he has got an interest in the normal case or in all cases which ought to be the subject of valuation and which ought to pass to the Commission. That is the general position as regards minerals.
When we came to deal with the present Bill it was found there was this difficulty. There is a difficulty with regard to justice, which seemed to require the Government to make a concession to the mineral owners. It was this, that there are cases—it is difficult to express any opinion as to how many, but undoubtedly there are cases—where lump sums have been paid by colliery companies to copy-holders, which lump sums have never been included in the global income and therefore form no part of the global sum which has to be divided. These lump sums were partly for the purpose of enabling coalowners to get the coal, partly to enable them to let down the surface and partly to enable them to work under the soil of the copyholding tenant. In other words, there are three separate items. Then there are cases where royalty payments have been made by colliery companies to copyholders. Therefore you get this difficulty, that the
42
royalty payment to the copyholder (say, for the purpose of simplicity, twopence a ton) is paid partly for the right to let down, partly for the right to create underground workings, wayleaves underground, and partly in respect of the copy-holder's interest in the coal. For the purposes of registration under Section 2 of the Registration Act—everybody has to comply with it who requires compensation—it would be necessary separately to register the rights in respect of the coal and the rights in respect of the power to let down.
That will raise, I regret to say, enormous legal difficulties. It might require a very large number of costly and protracted actions before you could ascertain what it was that had to be registered as passing to the Commission for the global figure, and what it was that did not pass to the Commission but had to be paid for separately. The actions in question might involve a great deal of delay, because not only, as I can tell your Lordships from experience, would they be difficult actions in many respects, but they would involve the customs of the manor, and as soon as you deal with proceedings in which customs of the manor have to be ascertained, you may have to embark on an inquiry which may require months of investigations before the case comes on and many days of hearing when it does come on. The result would be, as the Bill stands, that an inquiry into all these matters might involve a great deal of delay as well as a very great deal of cost which ultimately would have to be paid by the Commission under the terms of Clause 34 (2) of the Bill as it stands. The result of this might be that the vesting date, which under Clause 3 (2) is now a date which may be extended, might be considerably prolonged, and the delay in the opinion of His Majesty's Government might be very serious.
The Government have come to the conclusion, as regards the copyhold minerals other than those which are possessed by copyholders who have a right to work apart from the consent of the landlord, that these copyhold minerals had better be reserved so that they do not any longer make a claim against the global figure and so that there is in effect a windfall—it may be large or it may be small, I will express no opinion about that—to those coal-owners who are not in that position and

43
who have a right to share in the £66,000,000. I think it is just as well to put a pleasant face on something which may be a little bit distasteful to those who have to propose this Amendment, and so I will say that I think that a good many people will have reason to be pleased—namely, the coalowners who are going to get some benefit from this—that the copyholders are not going to be injured, that the proceedings before the Valuation Committee will not be delayed, and finally that the Coal Commission will be spared payment of a very large and unknown amount of costs by the step which the Government are taking.
I am not technically entitled to refer to the Amendment to Clause 5, but that explains why the words "created by working facilities orders" on page 2, line 36, are not sufficient. We suggest instead that the words "certain other interests" are sufficient to show what is meant, because the retentions will be retentions of interests arising under coal-mining leases, those created by working facilities orders, and one or two other small matters.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, there are certain matters to which I would like to refer in dealing with this question, but before doing so I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord very much indeed for the very great personal trouble which I know that he has taken in connection with this matter. This is not a question of bargaining, but a mere question of justice, which has given a certain amount of difficulty in working out, and I congratulate the Government upon having come to their conclusion. I had an Amendment down myself which dealt with the matter in a slightly different way. This Amendment of the Government deals with the matter in an admirable way, but has not quite the same symmetry as mine, and, of course, if I am not satisfied in regard to certain points—I understand a certain amount of investigation is going on—I want to reserve my right to raise those points on the Third Reading. There is a question also of a possible dealing with disputes raised under my Amendment, but in view of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord I will not deal with the matter now, and I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, speaking as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for dealing with this point. I am quite sure that it will give great satisfaction. There is just one question which I would like to mention, and that is the determining of legal rights by reference to the Courts. I would like to know if that question will be dealt with.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask another question? Having regard to what I understand will be the effect of this Amendment, the global figure will, of course, be available to pay so much more for the other coal which will be acquired. Therefore, I can quite understand that those who share out of the global figure will naturally be rather happy at this concession, because the global figure will not be distributed over quite so much coal. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us what percentage of the coal he expects will be automatically, by this Amendment, excluded from transfer to the Commission?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, might I perhaps emphasize the importance of that question? The noble and learned Lord said he could not state what the amount involved would be, but can the Government give us any indication at all of the kind of proportion this bears to the whole coal of the country. Is it a question of one million, or half a million, or five millions? It is important in future discussions of this matter that we should be able to form an estimate of the proportion that this hears to the whole.
LORD CROMWELL: Would it be right to say that it does not refer to coal at all, but only to certain rights over the working of coal? If so, it is a question which was never considered by the Greene Committee at all, and therefore not valued.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may reply to the last speaker first, so far as I remember it is not coal in the true sense, but it is a right in coal and accordingly that right is an interest in coal which ought under the Bill as it originally stood to have been separated from other rights and valued, a matter which would have taken a great deal of time. Then I am asked how much difference this makes to the Bill. As

45
your Lordships will readily understand, the Government have tried very hard to get some estimate as to how much is going to be given up, what value of windfall to the other coalowners is involved. I have great difficulty in answering the question, because nothing definite can be stated, but it is fair to state that according to the opinion of those best entitled to form one on this matter the sum is not a very substantial one, and is quite small as compared with the global figure of £66,000,000.
But, your Lordships will remember this. If the matter were strictly considered, all the lump sum payments ought to be accounted for. Then you have to consider the royalty payments which have been made in a rather generous way to the copyholders—namely, twopence as compared with sixpence. That twopence does not represent what is being given up by this Amendment, because the twopence should include the right to let down and make underground workings, and in no case does it include coal property so called, but such rights as the copyholder has to prevent coal being worked, because it happens to be in his possession. So the figure in question, if it could be ascertained, would to some extent, indeed to a considerable extent, be done by ascertainment of how much the twopence per ton paid to these copy-holders ought to be attributed to a right in the coal, and that sum, as I am advised, would not be a very substantial one. Much as I regret it I am not able to give any close approximation of the figure, but I am satisfied that the Amendment in my name is one which is in the true interest of the public, and which ought to be accepted. With regard to the remarks of Lord Daryngton, I am very glad to have been able to afford some assistance to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I welcome what has been said on their behalf.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison make it clear that we are not asking for the amount of money involved, but is it possible to give any estimate of the amount of the interests in coal involved?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not think it is possible to do that. The amounts are very small indeed. Very often the claims of the copyholders
46
amount to what I may call a nuisance value to those working in the colliery, in that they cannot get through underneath the copyholder's land in order to get the coal which lies beyond it. Therefore I understand that a good many of these payments are really a charge made on the passageway under the surface. The amount of coal which comes under this clause is so small that, as I understand it, the State would probably lose more in having to take all these cases to Court and pay the costs than they would do by actually meeting these claims.
LORD ADDISON: Then would this make it impossible to drive a passageway under the copyholder's land?
EARL STANHOPE: It would be bought under the retained interests, which would be bought outside the global figure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I add that, as regards the question of underground roads, that is covered by Clause 16 of the Bill?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the next is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("as") and insert ("which").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Retention of leasehold, etc., interests carrying right to work.
(4) A right to work granted by an order of the Railway and Canal Commission under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, either as originally enacted or as extended by Section thirteen of the Mining Industry Act, 1926 (in this Act referred to as a "working facilities order"), shall, in so far as it creates an interest in any coal or mine of coal, be a retained interest.
(6) In this Part of this Act—
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved an Amendment to make subsection (4) read as follows:
"A right to work granted by a working facilities order shall, in so far as it creates an interest in any coal or mine of coal, be retained interest."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment. It takes out words from this clause and puts them into the definition clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("by") to ("shall") in line 35, and insert ("a working facilities order").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line a, leave out ("mine or coal") and insert ("coal or mine").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) Interests in coal or a mine of coal in or under land formerly copyhold which were preserved to the tenant on the enfranchisement thereof shall be retained interests, except in a case in which the tenant has, by custom or otherwise (except by virtue of a coal-mining lease), the right to work coal in or under the land without the licence of the lord."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, the reason for which I have already explained.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (6):
"(c) references to a retained copyhold interest shall he construed as references to an interest that is a retained interest by virtue of subsection (6) of this section."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this paragraph is consequential on the clause which your Lordships have already agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Compensation payable in respect of acquisition as a whole.
(4) The Central Valuation Board established under the Third Schedule to this Act shall prepare and deposit with the Board of Trade a map showing a division of the whole of Great Britain into regions (in this Act referred to as "valuation regions"), and shall allocate a part (in this Act referred to as a "regional allocation") of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds to each valuation region.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (4)—namely, to leave out "a" ["allocate a part"] and insert "such," and to add to the subsection the words "as they may estimate to bear the same relation to this said sum as the value of the fee simple of the coal and mines of coal in the said region bears to the value of the fee simple of all the coal and mines of coal acquired under this Act." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I raised this question in a somewhat different form on the Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said he thought it was a matter mainly for the decision of the House, and that it might be considered further on the Report stage. I can explain the point very briefly. In subsection (4) of Clause 6 you will see that the Central Valuation Board established under the Third Schedule to this Act is instructed to allocate a part of the £66,450,000 to each valuation region, but there is nothing in the Bill which states the principle upon which it shall make that allocation. There is nothing to prevent its allocating for one reason and £66,000,000 for another, and I think it ought to be clearly defined in the Bill what are the principles upon which the £66,000,000 should be distributed among the various regions.
It seems to me quite clear that the principle upon which the sum should be distributed should be the relative value of the coal, as ascertained by the valuation authority in each region, and the relation which that valuation bears to the £66,000,000. If the total regional valuations amount to, say, £100,000,000 or £120,000,000, then each region should get approximately 10s. in the pound of its valuation. At any rate the only principle of justice is that each region should get its fair proportionate amount of the total. This Amendment is put down in order to secure that that principle is adopted. I believe the Government are not unfriendly to that proposal, although they propose a somewhat different form of words, and in that confident expectation I move the Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("a") and insert ("such").
Page 7, line 15, at end insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am not at all sure that what the noble

49
Marquess says is not probably correct, and if it would meet his point I should be prepared to move two manuscript Amendments. The first would be at page 7, line 12, to leave out from "allocate" to "to" in line 15, and the second would be in line 15, at the end insert:
"a part (in this Act referred to as a 'regional allocation') of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds, being a part bearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as they may estimate the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region to hear to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain."
If my noble friend will withdraw the Amendments which stand in his name I shall be prepared to move the two which I have read out.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, if the Government are of the opinion that they are making a concession in this matter I hope they will disillusion themselves immediately. The Bill gives to the Central Valuation Board absolute, dictatorial powers in the matter of the division as between one region and another. There is no indication in the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Lothian has said, as to how that division shall be made, and the Amendments proposed by my noble friend and, with modifications, accepted by His Majesty's Government, still have in them the most unreasonable words, which are "as they may estimate." That does not take away the dictatorial powers of the Central Valuation Board at all. Any reasonable man knows—it requires no explanation—that there is no real method of ascertaining the proper proportion which should go to one region or to another region until the actual valuations in those regions have been completed. There is no other means of making a true estimation for the reason that when the global figure, which has been the subject of so much adverse comment, was agreed it was taken as being the average of the net rents which had been received by royalty owners over a period of years. There was no estimation then of the value of the undeveloped coal.
It is quite true that when it was agreed that a certain number of years' purchase should be applied to that original global figure, it was assumed that the undeveloped coal was included by reason of the fast that, of course, coal now in work would be to some extent worked out. But
50
there was no exact means of ascertaining what was the value of the undeveloped coal, and undeveloped coal cannot be known as to its value until, in fact, it has been valued. Consequently when this Valuation Board is required under the Bill to apportion the £66,000,000 as between regions it is bound to do so very largely in the dark. The Central Valuation Board is to consist of persons nominated by the Board of Trade and equipped with dictatorial powers to compel each region to accept whatever figure they think proper to allot to that region. The regions are not unlikely to object strenuously to that allocation, partly because they will consider that their coalfield is worth more than the sum allotted to it and partly because, of necessity, they cannot be acquainted with the value of other coalfields. None the less the Central Valuation Board are to have this arbitrary authority to force on a region such figure as they may consider adequate to the occasion. There was not in the Pill, until this particular Amendment was accepted, any provision to compel the Central Valuation Board to sub-divide the whole of the £66,000,000.
That absurdity is got rid of by the partial acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment, but there still remains this objectionable feature, that the Central Valuation Board are to have the power to estimate upon a certain basis how these regions shall receive their allocation. It is one of the worst parts of the Bill. It is one of the most foolish and futile parts of the Bill, and Parliament ought not to pass a Bill which contains such a complete futility. The Central Valuation Board are asked to perform the impossible. They are driven back upon the exercise of arbitrary powers with no indication as to how they can exercise them. I do not think I can put the matter more strongly than that, but, naturally, we are not anxious to make the fools of ourselves that this Bill requires us to do in respect of the lack of instruction to the Central Valuation Board. That is not a fair thing to ask Parliament to do.
Although my noble friend's Amendment does to some extent improve a ridiculous situation, it does not improve it to the extent that it ought to improve it on the action of His Majesty's Government themselves. It is not really possible for the Central Valuation Board to

51
allocate to the regions the sums it is fair the regions should receive until the valuations themselves are complete. That may be, of course, a very long period of time, as the regions have got themselves to be created. It would be better, when the regions have been set out, that the allocation should wait until the Central Valuation Board have at least some indication as to the respective values of the different regions. I should personally be quite prepared to accept as a sop, if I can put it no better, the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, but to suggest that it is a concession, or to suppose it is sufficient, is really to ask the House to believe that which is hardly accurate. I can raise no further objection to the Amendment which Lord Munster has proposed, but do not let him think for a moment that I and those who act with me are satisfied it meets the case we presented before and possibly may have occasion to present again when it comes to the Third Reading.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I only rise to say this, that the noble Lord will recollect that in the Memorandum which was sent to the Mines Department by the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee, and which was published, I think, at the beginning of last year, the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee themselves recommended that there should be a global figure, and that that global figure should be divided up between the various regions in the country.
LORD HASTINGS: Exactly, quite so; but I do not think it is proper that the noble Earl should confront noble Lords in this House with what the Mineral Owners Joint Committee decided or did not decide. The noble Earl is dealing here with noble Lords who have not, of necessity, any connection with the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee at all. He has got to satisfy this House that toe proposals in this Bill are sound, and that they are going to make themselves into a proper Act of Parliament, and it is net proper for him to suggest that this, that, or the other has been agreed to by the Mineral Owners' joint Committee, who have no influence over this House and should not have.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, will the noble Earl be so good
52
as to repeat the two Amendments to my noble friend's Amendment? I would like to understand them before they are put.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments, by leave of the House, are as follows:
Page 7, line 12, leave out from "allocate" to "to" in line 15.
Page 7, line 15, at end insert "a part (in this Act referred to as a 'regional allocation') of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds, being a part bearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as they may estimate the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region to bear to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have only got one suggestion to make. For my part I should be very happy to accept those words subject to one slight alteration. The effect of my alteration would be to omit the words "they may estimate," so that the Amendment would then read:
"being a part hearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region bears to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain."
If the Government will agree to that I shall he very happy to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to add my voice to what has been urged by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The Government have in their form of words accepted the principle that the regions should have allocated to each of them the proportional sum which their particular valuation bears to the whole. Now once that principle is accepted, as obviously it has been, surely it should not depend upon estimate at all but should depend upon the actual facts. I would beg the Government to abandon the phraseology which they have adopted in the noble Marquess's Amendment—namely, the phraseology about the estimation—and give us the plain relation of the regional valuation to the global whole.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite seems to think the Government have made a great concession over this. We felt it was always in the Bill; at any rate the intention was in the Bill. All that has happened now is that

53
the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, thought it should be made clearer, and the Government have agreed. Therefore, in order to make the matter clearer, we suggest that these words should be put into the Bill. It was always the intention this should be done in this way. We are unable to accept the proposed Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh because, obviously, this must be a question of estimation. As I suggested on a previous occasion, valuers in one area may take a different standard from the valuers in another area; therefore it is necessary that the Central Board should have to take those matters into consideration and make their estimate as to what those various values should be. You cannot take one particular area and say, as its figure amounts to, say, £20,000,000 and that is twice the sum which will be available, therefore we will give them £10,000,000; because someone else might have valued on a much lower scale. Therefore it would not be fair to divide that particular valuation by two. We feel that it is necessary to take the whole of these matters into consideration, and to leave the words as they are in the proposal which is now before the House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House. May I in one word suggest to the noble Earl that, in view of the fact that your Lordships' House has already decided that the vesting date is not now to take effect until all the regional valuations are completed, there can be no objection whatever to leaving out the estimation, and relying on a question of fact.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I would suggest that we accept the Amendment proposed by the Government to my words. I think it is purely a verbal Amendment; the effect is just the same. I think the point raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh is a good one, and might possibly be considered on Third Reading. But, as I take it, the effect is this. The Central Valuation Board is a valuation board. It has got to discharge its function according to the accepted principles of mineral valuation, and it is so constituted as to give it that duty. It is constituted of one independent person, a member of the legal profession, who has to determine the award, and of two other independent persons, and, in respect of each valuation region, one person who
54
has been engaged in mineral valuation in that region and has a knowledge of coal-mining and has had experience in the valuation of minerals. It will, therefore, have a majority of expert mineral valuers upon it, and it is called upon to give an estimate. Perhaps "estimate" is a bad word, but it is, I take it, a decision in their professional capacity that they will give. They will state what in their view the valuation of each of the coal hereditaments in each region is as compared with the total coal in the whole country. That is the effect of this Amendment.
From that point of view I think it clearly defines what I understand is the intention of the Government, and I am, therefore, very willing to accept the Amendment proposed, though possibly on Third Reading the actual use of the word "estimate" might be reconsidered if it is thought that it does not have the effect which I think it does have. My view is that the word "estimate" in relation to the composition of the Board does in fact give instructions to the Central Valuation Board to act in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, recommended.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I hope before the Question is put the noble Earl will reply to the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. As it has been inserted in the Bill by your Lordships' agreement that the vesting date shall not take place until after all the regional valuations are concluded, what possible objection can there be to base those on fact rather than upon assumption? The noble Earl, I think, has not replied to that very important point. There cannot possibly be any objection, I submit, instead of waiting for the Third Reading of the Bill, to settle this matter here and now. It seems quite unreasonable and unnecessary that an estimation should be taken at all. Why not base it on fact? As the Bill stands at present, the vesting date cannot take place until all the regional valuations have been completed. I hope the noble Earl will reply to that, otherwise I would press my noble friend to move his Amendment to the Government's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is really a simple point. I think noble Lords who have objected to the Government Amendment are really under some misconception. The whole

55
point of the regional valuations is to split up the coal area of England so as to enable the persons in charge of particular districts to value the coal in those districts on the same principle and on the same basis, and it would be quite wrong to think that if in sixteen or eighteen areas—I have forgotten how many there are—the figures attained by the regional valuers were A, B, C, D down to X, say, in amount, you could add all those up and say that the allocation should be in accordance with the amounts which they had ascertained. The valuers in Durham may value on a different basis from the valuers in Kent, and it would be quite unfair to take the amount of all the valuations in Kent and say that should be the amount for that area, and take all the amounts ascertained in the Durham area and say that was the fair value of the Durham coal. Therefore it is that the persons who are going to determine the regional allocations are the Central Valuation Board—expert people who will ascertain the fractional amounts which the various districts are entitled to. It is not a question of fixing, so to speak, in the first instance the amount of a particular region, but of ascertaining what proportion of the whole that region is entitled to, and these valuers being experts, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has already stated, it is a thing which they will do in a professional way and it must be a matter of estimation. It is not a matter of fact; it is a question of an estimate—in other words, of the opinion of expert valuers. That is what is suggested in the Government Amendment which I think your Lordships might properly accept.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): May I ask your Lordships one question? If it is impossible to accept the value put upon the coal in a district by people who have valued it, how can they accept the value put upon it by people who have not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether I may be permitted to point
out to the noble Lord that he begs the question. It will not be true that they have not; they will ascertain what the proper regional valuation is.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I understood that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, will withdraw the Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper. When the noble Marquess has withdrawn his two Amendments, perhaps my two Amendments may be formally put.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the manuscript Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out from ("allocate") to ("to") in line 15.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the second manuscript Amendment which I have read to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, at end insert ("a part (in this Act referred to as a 'regional allocations') of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds, being a part bearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as they may estimate the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region to bear to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to move the omission of "they may estimate." If that be carried there will be a further small consequential Amendment to be made.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out ("they may estimate").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Whether the words "they may estimate" shall stand part of the Amendment?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor)

Bath, M.

Ancaster, E.

Crewe, M.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Reading, M.

Grey, E.

De La Warr, E. (L Privy Seal.)

Zetland, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Addington, L.

Gorell, L.

Midleton, E.

Addison, L.

Greville, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Amulree, L.

Harlech, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E

Arnold, L.

Holden, L.

Munster, E.

Belstead, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Poulett, E.

Biddulph, L.

Killanin, L.

Radnor, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Spencer, E.

Boston, L.

Rennell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Wicklow, E.

Sherborne, L.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Cranworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Halifax, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Samuel, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Tredegar, V.

Forester, L.

Templemore, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Hereford, V.

Harris, L.

Northumberland, D.

Horne of Slamannan, V.

Hastings, L.

Wellington, D.

Ridley, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Middleton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Mowbray, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Phillimore, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Cromwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Saltoun, L.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Shute, L. (F. Barrington.)

Elibank, V.

Gerard, L.

Teynham, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on the main Amendment, I would like to ask a question. It is not for us on these Benches to intervene between the Government and their supporters below the gangway on this side, but is it clear on the Amendment as it stands that when all these parts, whatever proportion they may bear to the total national valuation, have all been allocated, the total allocation will then be £66,000,000?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if that question is addressed to me I should say that it is a very simple matter of English and, I should add, of arithmetic. The parts of the whole are exactly equal to the whole.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
"Compensation to certain persons.
.—(1) In addition to the compensation payable under Section six of this Act the Commission shall pay to the persons who—

(a) were on the tenth day of November nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and had been regularly for not less than five years before that (late engaged (whether
58
as individuals or as partners in firms) in or in connection with the business of the administration or management of acquired interests in coal, mines of coal or acquired property and rights; and

(b) in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act have suffered loss in respect of sums paid by them in the purchase of or of a share of the goodwill of their said business or otherwise in connection therewith

compensation in respect of such loss.
(2) The compensation to be paid by the Commission to any persons so entitled shall be such annual sum for a term of years as shall recoup to such person the said loss together with interest thereon during the said term at the rate of five per centum per annum and shall be payable at such time or times and in such manner as may be determined by agreement between the Commission and that person or failing such agreement by arbitration under subsection (3) of this section.
(3) Any difference or question required by subsection (2) of this section to be determined by arbitration and any difference or question which may arise as to whether any person is entitled to receive compensation from the Commission under this section shall be referred to the arbitration of a tribunal of three arbitrators who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the President of the Law Society the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution and the President of the Land Agents' Society and, save as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Acts 1889 to 1934 shall apply to such arbitration."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Darcy to take charge of this Amendment and with the leave of the House I will move it. Your Lordships will recollect that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, moved an Amendment framed with the intention of securing compensation to all displaced mineral agents and their staffs. The arguments are not necessary to be gone over again, nor would it be proper that I should attempt to go over them, for the reason that the Amendment was taken to a Division and was defeated by a majority of one. It is not therefore possible for me to raise the same point again. But an Amendment has now been put down which raises an entirely different point. When I was speaking to Lord Saltoun's Amendment in Committee I mentioned the fact that no reference had been made to the loss of capital invested in these businesses which would be caused by the passage of this Bill into an Act. It is that particular point which is dealt with in this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Darcy.
It is a fact, common not only to the practice of mineral agents but to the majority of other professions, that a man when he seeks to join that profession as a principal has to pay the market value of the partnership which he seeks to acquire. There are, of course, cases where the whole goodwill of a business is purchased, but it is much more usual that a qualified mineral agent desiring to participate in an existing business of mineral agents should acquire a partnership in that business for a sum of money. Very substantial sums are paid for these partnerships—sums which are taken into calculation by the Inland Revenue when estimating the value of a mineral agent's property passing at death, so that a complete acknowledgment of the existence of this vested interest exists. We have cases which have come to notice of sums ranging up to £9,000 which have been paid for partnerships of the character which I have indicated. The passage of this Bill into an Act, with the consequential vesting date which the Bill contains, will not necessarily bring to an end the employment either of the principals or of the staffs in mineral agency offices. There is at least reasonable expectation on the
60
part of some—possibly the majority—that they may continue to be employed under the Coal Commission, providing they are willing to accept such employment, which is an important proviso. We thought when in Committee that the expectation of the income which these men and their staffs had was inadequate, and representing that view we were defeated, as I have already said, by one vote.
But we never challenged the other point to which this Amendment refers, and that is, the certain fact that whereas these individuals may conceivably preserve some portion at least of their income by passing into the employment of the Coal Commission, yet it is absolutely certain that the arrival of the vesting date must bring these businesses to an end. There will cease to be any value in a partnership in the business of a mineral agent. Its market value, for which they have paid, will cease to exist, and this Amendment seeks to provide a measure of compensation for those persons who are deprived of the possibility of ever realising the investment that they have made in these particular businesses. The Government have said constantly that they rest themselves upon the principle of paying fair compensation for all expropriated property. It is a little difficult, in face of this Bill, for the Government to maintain that particular contention. Still, in deliberately confiscating half the property of every royalty owner, which this Bill is doing, at least it is leaving to the mineral owner half his property; but in the case of the mineral agent it is deliberately taking away the whole.
If the Government attach any importance to their principles in the matter of paying compensation in cases of compulsory acquisition, they cannot deny that here they are contravening those principles by depriving these mineral agents of the whole value of their investment. This Amendment is framed to give to those agents an adequate compensation, spread over a term of years, and I think it would be difficult, in view of the certain fact that the mineral owners have had the payment of their expenses in the matter of agency capitalised and deducted from their own compensation, to deny the justice of the claim which is now made both by the mineral agents themselves and by the mineral owners on their behalf, that the value of these investments

61
should not be taken away from them without compensation. The House will be quite clear, I hope, that this Amendment has no relation whatever to the Amendment moved and defeated in Committee. This Amendment is unable to preserve the position of the staffs of the mineral agents. We have been bound, in view of the decision of the House at an earlier stage, to give that up, but we now desire, if possible, to convince the House that the case of the mineral agents in the matter of their investments in their businesses is not one which can be disposed of without sympathetic consideration. I suggest that the best method of disposing of it is to accept the Amendement in the name of Lord Darcy, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.(Lord Hastings.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a subject which we certainly discussed on the last occasion, because I remember that he himself raised this very point, although, as he said, the argument turned more on the income side than on the capital side. I wonder if he realises where his argument would lead us. Has he never heard of the system of purchase in the Army? Surely he must have known how in the old days officers used to purchase their Commissions. Many years ago purchase of Commissions was abolished. What compensation did officers get? None. Surely he must know that there are innumerable cases of men who acted as agents in regard to imports from foreign countries. Not many years ago a former Government went to Ottawa, made arrangements with the Dominions, and imposed duties on foreign imports. From time to time quite recently import duties have been imposed on new articles, which duties have seriously decreased or completely stopped the sale of those articles in this country. What compensation has been paid to the men who had bought that business of being agents for those imports? None. Now my noble friend suggests that mineral agents in this case should be treated entirely differently.
I venture to think that once you open the door to the paying of compensation in cases of this kind you are going to get the State into very heavy liabilities, and prevent the State from doing many things which he, I am sure, as much as
62
I myself, would desire. I am sure the noble Lord, for instance, has been watching imports coming into this country and stopping British employment. If we are going to pay compensation to anybody who has paid for a share in a business we shall be getting into serious difficulties, and for these reasons I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has quoted a number of instances where no compensation has been paid, but in the case where a local authority is abolished the employees of that authority do get compensation.
EARL STANHOPE: That is quite a different matter.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not think that the cases to which the noble Earl referred are quite on all fours with the case touched by this Amendment. Take the case of purchase officers. My father was a purchase officer. It is perfectly true that he lost the capital which he had invested, but he did retain the power and opportunity of being advanced in his career without cost to himself. If the noble Earl is going to give to the mineral agents the same opportunity of advancement in their profession without cost to themselves, I am sure that this Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, I think the instances given by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, are not applicable in this case. In the present case property has been taken over by the State which has paid an income and is to continue to pay an income. If the State takes over property which has produced an income in the past and is to continue to produce an income in the future, surely it is only fair that a portion of the income should be used by way of pension for those officials who have been displaced.
LORD STRABOLGI: May we be informed before coming to a decision how many people are affected? Is it known, approximately, how much the Amendment would cost? I am personally in favour of paying compensation to persons who may lose their employment as a result of Parliament's action, and I would like to compensate all the miners who are displaced under Part II of this Bill. It

63
is the same principle. Their capital is their skill, which they have acquired in going down the pits as boys, and if they are being displaced by these amalgamations I think they ought to be compensated, too. I am prepared to support the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on this point if he will support me on my point about the miners.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House quoted a number of the evil doings of his predecessors in government. I never suggested that this was the first unjust Government. Injustices have been perpetrated upon people in this country by a long succession of Governments.
EARL STANHOPE: Is my noble friend in favour of paying compensation to the agents of foreign importers?
LORD HASTINGS: No, certainly not, but the noble Earl referred in the first place to the question of the failure to pay compensation when purchase in the Army was abolished. That was the point I had in mind. There, of course, was a case which was truly analogous to the present case. The other cases which my noble friend quoted were not at all analogous. That is why I reminded him that, whereas two wrongs cannot make a right, I yet did not accuse this of being the first of the unjust Governments. There is no occasion—it would not be proper for me—to repeat what I have said, but I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that there is no exact estimate of the number
of persons who are affected, because it is not possible to know exactly how many partners there may be in any particular business. But roughly speaking there are 200 such persons involved in this particular matter. The House will remember that the sum of money which would be capitalised in respect of agency costs, that is, expenses of management, was in the neighbourhood, if I remember rightly, of £3,000,000. Approximately £3,000,000 was taken off the royalty owners' compensation in respect of expenses of management. Quite clearly 200 persons are not going to divide among them anything approaching £3,000,000. The compensation would be vastly less than that.
At no excessive cost the Government, by accepting this Amendment, could do something to minimise the hardship which must inevitably attach to this community by reason of the loss of their certain employment—their future employment is hypothetical. They could do something to minimise that loss, something to diminish the number of persons whose disfavour they are gaining by this Bill, something to re-establish a somewhat tarnished reputation in the matter of this Bill. There are so many advantages in the acceptance of this Amendment that I trust even now that the Government will accept it, and if my noble friend declines to do so I shall invite the House to go to a Division on the subject.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 44; Not-Contents,48.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Gainford, L.

Tredegar, V.

Gerard, L.

Bathurst, E.

Harris, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Aberdare, L.

Hastings, L.

Dudley, E.

Addington, L.

Marley, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Addison, L.

Middleton, L.

Grey, E.

Arnold, L.

Mowbray, L.

Lindsay, E.

Askwith, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Midleton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Redesdale, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Cranworth, L.

Saltoun, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cromwell, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

Teynham, L.

Elibank, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wolverton, L.

Home of Slamannan, V.

Faringdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wellington, D.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Bath, M.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E, Erne.)

Reading, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Forester, L.

Zetland, M.

Halifax, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Hereford, V.

Greville, L.

Ancaster, E.

Samuel, V.

Harlech, L.

Feversham, E.

Heneage, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amulree, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Jessel, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Boston, L.

Mamhead, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Monkswell, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rennell, L.

Radnor, E.

Sherborne, L.

Spencer, E.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Windlesham, L.

Wicklow, E.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 8 [Rights and obligations arising from contract for sale to have effect in respect of interim period]:
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, since I tabled two Amendments to this clause another Amendment has been put down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Leader of the House to insert a new clause after Clause 9. I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to this new clause, and in the circumstances I do not propose to move the Amendments to Clause 8.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after Clause 9:
Acquisition by the Commission of right to arrears of rent.
".It shall be within the competence of the Commission to take from the person entitled thereto an assignment of any debt due from a lessee in respect of rent payable before the vesting date for premises that are to vest or have vested in the Commission, and. in the case of such rent becoming payable at any time within the twelve months next before the vesting date, the Commission shall, on being required so to do by notice in writing served on them by the person entitled thereto at any time before the expiration of twelve months from the vesting date, take an assignment of any debt due from the lessee in respect thereof at a price to be determined by agreement between that person and the Commission or, in default of agreement, by arbitration."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Government have carefully considered the point raised by certain noble Lords that it would put the landlords in some difficulty if they had necessarily to press their tenants for immediate payment of rents during a period not too long before the date when the property passes to the Commission. After careful consideration the Government have thought fit to draft a new clause after Clause 9 which, as Lord Middleton
66
properly said, is intended exactly to cover the point of his Amendment, though perhaps a little clearer from the legal point of view, and differing in this respect, that the Government are unable to see that it would be wise for them to consent to anything except an assignment of debts for rent becoming payable at any time earlier than twelve months. In other words, up to twelve months this is a concession in the direction which Lord Middleton proposes, but, as he says, he has an Amendment in manuscript to substitute two years for twelve months. Having carefully considered it, the Government think two years would be too long and would expose the Commission to certain risks. The position would be that during the two years before the vesting date, if that Amendment were passed, landlords would have no inducement at all, as far as we can see, to recover from their tenants the sums which may be due from them, and as they are ceasing to be landlords they might perhaps from kindness of heart or some other motive think: "It does not matter to us now, the Coal Commission have got to take over these liabilities and these rights as against the tenants, and we therefore will do nothing." That of course is not so much to be anticipated in the case of the Government Amendment, which is limited to one year, but we cannot think it is very reasonable to ask the Commission to take over the arrears for a longer period. In these circumstances I beg to move on behalf of the Government the Amendment that stands in my name and in that of the Leader of the House.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, I still think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not quite appreciated the

67
situation fully in regard to this Amendment. He is still under the impression that it is meant wholly as a concession to royalty owners. I would beg him to believe that it is equally for the benefit of the Coal Commission. I have had to deal with these things many times myself, and I know perfectly well that the more you can put the responsibility on a new owner, after a sale has taken place, for recovery of rents and so on for some period before the transfer, the less the obligation for the new owner as well as for the late owner and for the man who pays the rent. It is a matter of great satisfaction to those with whom I am associated that the Government have admitted the need for dealing with the matter of arrears of rent. In the circumstances I have not moved the Amendments that I tabled first with regard to Clause 8, and I do not propose to say any more about the principle involved. The only point on which we differ is the question of two years or twelve months. Before we drafted the Amendment that stood in my name on Clause 8 we considered the whole matter very fully and very exhaustively. Actually any period less than two years serves scarcely any useful purpose whatsoever. Some of us would have preferred a longer period because, in fact, a great many of these arrears have been allowed to run on for two, three, four, and even five years, and very often, when times change, rents for quite a number of years are recoverable. We hoped that the Government might accept the period of two years.
There is this point to be considered. In most agreements that are made rents run from January to December, and the Commission will take over in July, so in all probability, if only a concession of twelve months is made, the concession is really in respect of about six months. I think we are entitled to ask the Government to be consistent. The problem arose in the Tithe Act of 1936, and the Government dealt more generously in those circumstances than they do in these. Of course the circumstances are not wholly alike; still, in those circumstances, the Government allowed the arrears in respect of tithe rent to be made payable to the tithe owner when the proceedings for recovery had been commenced before the expiration of two years from the date on which they became payable. I think we are only
68
asking for consistency, and it is really only a small concession that we are asking. I hope the Government will agree to the Amendment as being a reasonable one. I would once more emphasize the fact that it would be very much to the advantage of the Commission to have these greater powers than the lesser ones indicated by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed new clause moved—
Line 7, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("two years").—(Lord Middleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will you allow me to say one word with reference to the Tithe Act, which has been carefully considered on behalf of the Government as a possible precedent for the term that Lord Middleton seeks to enforce by the Amendment to the proposed new clause? Your Lordships will remember that the whole of the Tithe Act was due to a serious agitation, accompanied in some cases by violence, as regards the recovery of the tithe, and the Tithe Commission was armed with powers for collecting tithe rentcharge which had never existed in the tithe owner and which it would have been impossible to give to the private tithe owner. The section in question also gave the tithe payer a right of appeal to a properly constituted tribunal, which had power, on compassionate grounds which were connected with his pecuniary means, to scale down the amount of the tithe which the tithe payer ought in the circumstances to be bound to pay. Those are very exceptional cases which do not arise here at all, and I am afraid we cannot regard that as any precedent in the present case.
I have already given my reasons for thinking that a period of twelve months is as much as you can fairly ask the Government to take over in regard to arrears. I would add that in a great number of cases payments are not made yearly, but at shorter periods, and I do not quite accept the view that in the normal case this clause will only operate for six months. From what I know of the facts I think the clause will generally operate for a very considerably longer period. I am sorry that on behalf of the Government I cannot accept Lord Middleton's Amendment. There was some doubt whether the Government

69
should go as far as they have gone, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, I must press the Amendment. In the Committee stage I moved an Amendment very much in the same sense, but I withdrew it because I was not aware then of the support I should receive in the House. I received reproaches from many mem-
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10:
Apportionment of rent and determination of questions on severance of subsisting leases.
10.—(1) In the case of every coal-mining lease subsisting on the vesting date in the case of which either—
(a) a severance of the reversion immediately expectant on the lease is effected, by the vesting in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act of that reversion as regards a part only of the premises which are comprised in the lease; or
bers of your Lordship's House who had never spoken in the debate and who told me they would certainly have suported me. I shall, therefore, press the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the proposed new clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Radnor, E.

Forester, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rosslyn, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Spencer, E.

Greville, L.

De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stanhope, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wicklow, E.

Harlech, L.

Heneage, L.

Wellington, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Holden, L.

Elibank, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Bath, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Jessel, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Samuel, V.

Luke, L.

Reading, M.

Mamhead, L.

Zetland, M.

Addison, L.

Palmer, L.

Amulree, L.

Rennell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Arnold, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Belstead, L.

Sherborne, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Biddulph, L.

Stanmore, L.

Feversham, E.

Bingley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Daryngton, L.

Templemore, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Home of Slamannan, V.

Gerard, L.

Portland, D.

Ridley, V.

Harris, L.

Hastings, L.

Bathurst, E.

Aberdare, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Lamington, L.

Fizwilliam, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Middleton, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Mowbray, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clifton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cromwell, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Saltoun, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elphinstone, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Teynham, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment to insert the proposed new clause agreed to.

(b) a severance of the interests arising under the lease is effected, by the vesting in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act of those interests as regards a part only of the premises which are comprised in the lease and the immediate reversion in which is vested in the Commission;
and the lease does not reserve separate rents for the premises vested in the Commission and those not so vested, the rent reserved by the lease shall be apportioned, and, in all cases in which an apportionment of that rent is required in relation to the like severance for the purposes of a valuation under the Third Schedule to this Act, the apportionment under this subsection shall be made on the basis of the apportionment made for the purposes of that valuation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "and the lease does not reserve separate rents for" and insert:
"the several parts of the premises, the rent reserved by the lease shall be apportioned, and the parts of that rent to be apportioned to the several parts of the premises shall, in default of agreement between the Commission and any other person entitled in reversion immediately expectant on the lease and the lessee, be determined by an arbitrator selected by agreement between the parties or, in default of agreement, by the Lord Chancellor in the case of England or the Lord President of the Court of Session in the case of Scotland.
"(2) Where an apportionment of the rent reserved by a lease has been made for the purposes of a valuation of a part of the premises under the Third Schedule to this Act, an arbitrator shall have regard to that apportionment for the purposes of a determination under the preceding subsection."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down by the Government by way of providing a solution of certain difficulties which were raised on the Committee stage. The main point is this: where an apportionment of rent is necessary under this clause, it is proposed by the clause that the matter shall be settled by arbitration. Some question was raised on the Committee stage as to what was the best way of settling such a question of apportionment. If I may speak from my very large experience, I would suggest that mere matters of apportionment, involving as they do valuations, are much better settled by an arbitrator than by the Court. Indeed in substance the Court in such a case acts upon conflicting evidence given by valuers, whereas in fact the better plan in normal cases is for a single valuer to deal with the matter—he is of course an arbitrator for this purpose—and very likely he will not require any evidence at all.
The second point is this. There was a question whether the valuation of premises under the Third Schedule should be binding on such an arbitrator or on the Court as the case might be, and it has been thought better, as there may be special circumstances in a particular case, that the arbitrator should be told that he must have regard to the value put upon the premises under the Third Schedule to the Act but should not be in every case bound by it. This is an Amendment which I think carries out the general wishes of your Lordships as they were
72
expressed when the new Clause 10 was being discussed on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 34, leave out from ("for") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I have really nothing to say, but in respect of the second subsection, which provides:
"Where an apportionment of the rent reserved by a lease has been made for the purposes of a valuation of a part of the premises under the Third Schedule to this Act, an arbitrator shall have regard to that apportionment for the purposes of a determination under the preceding subsection,"
it is a little difficult to understand why an arbitrator should be tied in this matter. If he is, he ceases to be an unfettered arbitrator. The royalty owners feel that if these matters are to go to arbitration the least that they are entitled to expect is that the arbitrator should approach the subject with an open mind and that he should not be bound by the decisions of one of the interested parties, or the purpose of his arbitration rather falls to the ground. I had not proposed to move at this stage an Amendment to the Amendment, but unless the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is able to explain away a circumstance which appears to be inexplicable, I propose to put down an Amendment on Third Reading to ensure that the arbitrator shall have an unfettered decision.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to that I will only say that it is inconceivable that the arbitrator should not be told what has been done in the previous valuation made for the purposes of the Third Schedule, and it was thought by the Government that saying merely that he should have regard to that apportionment was equivalent to saying that he should not be in any way bound by it. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, the idea that the striking out of subsection (2) would carry out his wishes is really quite unfounded, and possibly it might be dangerous, because the arbitrator might say, "I have this apportionment" and might think that he was bound by it, whereas this subsection tells him that he is not. However, the

73
noble Lord will have an opportunity of considering the matter further.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there follow some consequential Amendments in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 5, after ("with") insert ("a reference to arbitration under subsection (1) of this section or with").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 8, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("that") in line 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("Court") and insert ("arbitrator or the Court, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment, which again is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("an") and insert ("a reference or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers of Commission for consolidation of leases before the vesting date]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is mere drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("to receive") and insert ("beneficially to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Right of freeholder in possession of coal to lease thereof.
12.—(1) A person carrying on the business of coal-mining immediately before the vesting date, who is then beneficially entitled (whether or not subject to a mortgage) to the entire fee simple in coal or a mine of coal that is
74
not subject at that date to any coal-mining lease, shall have the right, if he has made an application in writing in that behalf to the Commission before the vesting date, to a grant from the Commission of a coal-mining lease comprising any coal or mine of coal specified in his application to which he is so entitled and any property and rights that vest in the Commission therewith:
Provided that a person shall not be entitled under this section to a lease the grant of which would interfere with the exercise of a right granted by a working, facilities order, or with the use or exercise under a coal-mining lease of any property or right comprised therein.
(2) A lease granted under this section shall be granted for such a term, commencing on the vesting date, as the person entitled to the lease may require, not being longer as regards the coal comprised therein than may be reasonably requisite for enabling that coal to be worked out, and subject to conditions with respect to rent and otherwise which shall not in any case be more onerous to the lessee than the conditions customary in the district or, where there are no customary conditions or the customary conditions are not applicable, than the conditions to which a person not entitled to the benefit of this section might reasonably have been expected to agree, and the conditions of the lease shall, where the person entitled thereto acquired the fee simple in the coal before the tenth day of November nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be so framed as to secure that his financial position in respect of his business of working the coal shall not be adversely affected by the operation of this Part of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that," to insert:

"(a) the right under this section to a grant of a lease of any coal or mine shall be conditional upon the applicant's satisfying the requirements of the Third Schedule to this Act as to the registration of particulars thereof under the Registration Act and the making of a claim for compensation for the fee simple therein, and to his complying with the provisions of that Schedule that impose upon him any duty in connection with the valuation of the fee simple therein; and

(b)"

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment proposed to remedy a mere omission in the drafting of this clause. It is clear that it was never intended that where under Clause 12 there is a right to grant a lease of any coal or mine the person having that right should not comply with all the other provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act and satisfy requirements as to registration and as to making a claim for com-

75
pensation. Accordingly this is in the nature of a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 32, after ("that") insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "agree" and insert:
"Provided that any person who acquired the fee simple in the coal before the tenth day of November, 1937, and who obtains a lease under this section shall take in lieu of compensation as provided by Section six of this Act a lease for the term and subject to the conditions herein mentioned save only that the rent annually payable thereunder throughout the said term or any renewal thereof shall be one peppercorn."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is what has been termed a peppercorn proposal in order to simplify the operations of this Bill in connection with working proprietors. The proposal is a very simple one, that the coal shall be transferred to the Commission and that a peppercorn shall be handed to the Commission as recognition that the coal shall be worked exactly in the same way as it would have been worked if this Bill had not come into operation. The principle of this Amendment has been accepted by the Government already in words which are now in the Bill as it passed through Committee stage, and I have to thank the Government for the way in which they have endeavoured to carry out the principle. I am proposing again a peppercorn rent, but I do not want them to think that I am departing from any arrangement in proposing the words which are upon the paper. The Mining Association, having considered this matter very carefully, have asked me to put a certain number of arguments before the Government and to ask them to consider whether the peppercorn arrangement is not preferable to the one which they have accepted. They have accepted the principle that all working proprietors should not be financially injured, and they are also proposing an Amendment, to which no exception is taken, that they shall not be put in a better position owing to their coal being transferred to the Commission. We are agreed absolutely in principle, and the only question between us at the moment is whether the pepper-
76
corn system is not more just and less complicated.
Three arguments have been given by the noble Earl the Leader of the House against the peppercorn proposal. The first was that the mineral owner might make arrangements with a colliery company to sell his coal at any time before the vesting date with the result that it would become freehold coal and in that way the object of Part I of the Bill would be frustrated. My Amendment meets that objection, because it provides that coal which has passed after November last year shall not be considered. Then the noble Earl said that an alteration of the global figure would be necessary, but it appears on investigation that that will not be the case, because the freehold minerals would be valued exactly the same as all other minerals. The only practical difference would appear to be that the Commission would not have to borrow so much and therefore it would be in a better position by the £8,000,000, or whatever was the sum of money involved. There is therefore no real point or force in that argument. The noble Earl's third point was that it was necessary to make provision for the continuance of the liability of working proprietors for Mineral Rights Duty and Miners' Welfare Levy. This point seems to be met by an Amendment on the Paper in my name a little later on which makes suitable provision to deal with the Mineral Rights Duty and the Welfare Levy. The noble Earl's point that it might be necessary to pass a Financial Resolution in the other House to deal with the matter, is of no moment because it is quite easy for the Government, by Amendment of the present Finance Bill, or an alteration of the Finance Bill during the next two years, to meet that particular point.
The President of the Board of Trade in another place put forward arguments in opposition to the peppercorn rent proposal. He was opposed to it on the ground that it gave an option to the working proprietor either to take the capital compensation or to adopt the peppercorn rent alternative. This objection has been met by the Amendment which I have put down under which the peppercorn rent becomes compulsory and uniform in every case. Mr. Oliver Stanley also said that there would be no incentive to the working proprietor to press for a proper

77
valuation of his minerals and that these might be valued at an unduly low figure. This objection has been met by the Government's Amendment to paragraph 12, sub-paragraph (6) of the Third Schedule, under which the Commission may appeal against valuations of working proprietors' minerals. The third objection of Mr. Oliver Stanley was that no provision was made in respect of the working proprietors' present liabilities to Mineral Rights Duty and Royalties Welfare Levy. This objection is met by the Amendment to Clause 12, page 15, to which I have already referred. Therefore all the arguments made against this simple proposition of a peppercorn rent have already been met. All the arguments urged by the Government in either House have been met in one form or another, and I believe satisfactorily met.
On the other hand, if we proceed to deal with the proposals that are on the Paper together with the Government's Amendment and the Amendments in the name of Lord Home, we are up against two or three very different complicated propositions. Take, for instance, the colliery proprietor's liability for local rates in Scotland. It appears that at present it depends on the amount of coal which he works. At present if no coal is raised in a year there will be no liability to local rates, but in future, if the colliery proprietor is liable to pay an annual rent to the Coal Commission whether coal is worked or not, he will be liable to rates on the amount of the rent. That seems very unfair and it will have to be met in some form or other.
Another strong argument against the method proposed by the Government is that it is very difficult to carry out the principle that the working proprietor shall not be in a worse pecuniary position. We have no assurance that the rate of interest will always be reasonable. Let me give a case. Suppose a working proprietor receives £50,000 as compensation for his minerals and invests it in Defence Loan at, say, three per cent. He will receive about £1,500 per annum in interest. He will then have this amount available for paying rent to the Coal Commission. In addition he will have to make an annual payment by way of repayment of the capital sum within the time of the working out of the minerals. Let us call this sum £1,000 per annum. The amount he should be called on to
78
pay in rent is, therefore, £2,500 per annum. There is nothing in the Amendment of the Government which precludes the Coal Commission from fixing any percentage that seems fit to them in any individual case, as representing the return which should be obtainable on the capital sum. They might, for instance, fix six per cent., which would make the total rent £3,000, plus the £1,000 already referred to, or £4,000 in all. In other words, the working proprietor would have to be a loser to the extent of £1,500 a year. I mention just that case to show how complicated the Government proposal is as compared with the proposal of a peppercorn rent. I do not, however, want to press the peppercorn rent Amendment against the wish of the Government and then to lose the one on the Paper, although I think mine is a better proposal.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, leave out from ("agree") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new proviso.(Lord Gainford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In order to save the next Amendment, the question I will put is that the words from "agree" in line 7 to the end of line 10, shall stand part of the clause.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the peppercorn rent proposal is undoubtedly simpler than the one which the Government have put on the Paper, but, as my noble friend knows, there have been some difficulties in regard to the matter. We were not satisfied that it did not need a Financial Resolution. Therefore for that reason, and for the reason that I think some people might feel that by the payment of a peppercorn rent only the ownership of the coal would not pass to the Coal Commission, but remain in the hands of the working owners, I am afraid we feel that it is necessary to stick to the Amendment which we have suggested and which we have discussed at great length on the two sides. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, as the person who originally moved the Amendment with regard to a peppercorn rent in this House I have to acknowledge with great gratitude the way in which the Government have met the proposals which we made. It was

79
perfectly plain from what the noble Earl stated on the last occasion that the Government entirely accepted the principle of what we put forward. The Government, just as everybody else, realise that it was perfectly unjust to take away from working owners a very great proportion of the money which they had invested in coal. Nothing could be more to the detriment of the coal industry in this country than that. Accordingly the Government met the situation very readily, and I think, as the noble Earl indicated a moment ago, that the Government would have accepted the suggestion of the transfer of all the coal held by the freehold owners to the Commission upon payment of a peppercorn rent but for the fact that if that were done simpliciter the freeholder would be getting an advantage in respect that he would be free from the Welfare Levy and the Mineral Rights Duty.
Accordingly we have to make provision by a subsidiary Amendment for the continuing payment by the freehold owner of the Mineral Rights Duty and the Welfare Levy, but we get the answer from the Government that anything of that kind would involve a Financial Resolution in another place and perhaps a recommital of the Bill. So it was suggested then, and repeated to-night by the noble Earl, that that is really the impediment which stands in the way of what after all is the very simplest method of curing this difficulty. Nothing could be plainer or simpler than the fact that the man who has purchased his coal for the purpose of working it should be left in possession of it but pay nothing by way of rent. That would leave him in the same position and would give him the fair deal to which he was entitled.
The difficulty is still here. I was at the negotiations with the noble Earl and the President of the Board of Trade which resulted in the form of words which is at present in the Bill. We were neither of us, as the noble Earl will remember, committed to that particular form of words; we were only committed to the principle, and we parted each expressing a desire to get a better form of words if we could. The better form of words which I devised is in an Amendment which I put on the Paper, but of course I will not urge that in controversy with either my noble friend Lord Gain-
80
ford's proposal or that of the Government. That I do not propose to press this evening at all. But may I suggest this? I do not know whether I have entirely forgotten the methods which our financial practices compel us to follow in another place, but it is going to be a considerable time before the vesting date occurs. Accordingly, it does not seem to me to be a complete objection to the proposal of a peppercorn rent that a Financial Resolution will be required in another place in order to put proper obligations upon the freehold owner. I am inclined to suggest that that matter could be cured in the Finance Bill of next year; it does not require to be cured at once. There is plenty of time ahead of us before anything practical requires to be done, and I would beg the noble Earl who leads the House to consult the advisers of the Treasury upon this matter and see whether we cannot remove this impediment to what, after all, everybody acknowledges to be the simplest method of treating the subject. I would ask the noble Earl to take that up with his advisers and see whether that cannot be done.
I have of course considered very carefully the terms which the Government propose in their Amendment. It is obvious that they have been labouring to find an honest and reasonable way of dealing with this matter, but I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that even this form of phraseology remains very complicated. It is going to require a considerable amount of investigation and argument if that particular method is followed, and I fear that there may be very many recourses to arbitration to set out what the right result should be. My noble friend Lord Gainford has raised the question of interest, and I do not like to dilate upon that subject because it is a very highly controversial one, but at any rate you can readily find many people who would disagree as to the assessment at any particular time that is to be put upon the value of money. And if we try to place the freehold owner of coal in as completely advantageous a position as he previously was, without improving it, that may be a very difficult question for which to find the proper solution.
The result of what I have been saying comes to this. Let me say quite frankly that if the Government find it is too

81
difficult to adopt a simple method, which has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Gainford, then I readily acquiesce, and I express my thanks to the Government for the way in which we have been met all through this matter in connection with this particular subject of controversy. But, on the other hand, I foresee very many difficulties arising out of arguments upon whether the freehold owner of coal is really being put in a worse position, or a better position, or in the same position, and I think if we can avoid that we ought to do it. If the method I have suggested, by having a provision made in some later Finance Bill, could be adopted, then it seems to me that would be the easiest method of treating the subject.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, those of your Lordships who are not as familiar with this particular clause as those who sit on this side of the House will have realised that this is not in any way a disagreement with the Government on a question of principle. It is purely a matter of trying to find the simplest form of machinery, and I must say I do not think that the noble Earl the Leader of the House was very convincing in his objections to this original proposal which, in spite of all the discussions that have taken place since this Bill was first introduced, still remains the best and the simplest because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Home, has said, it has so far proved beyond the powers either of the Government, or of the Mining Association, or of any of us who are trying together with the Government to do so, to find the best form of words. I feel first of all that there cannot be any substance in the objection of the noble Earl that there would be a feeling that the Commission did not own the minerals which are affected under this clause just as fully as all the rest of the minerals, because they would go through exactly the same machinery as regards valuation as all the rest of the minerals. They would have to do that, otherwise the whole machinery of valuation would break down.
The only difference would be that the compensation money would not actually pass, and, as soon as that compensation money passes into the hands of the colliery owners, it complicates the whole machinery of this clause, because it is the desire both of the Government and of ourselves that colliery owners should be no
82
worse off in the future after the valuations have taken place, and also no better off. They should, in fact, be in exactly the same position. But as soon as the compensation money has passed to the colliery owners that principle becomes exceedingly difficult to achieve, owing to the fact that the interest received on the compensation money has to be related to the rent which will be payable by the colliery owners in the future. If it is related on a fairly low scale—that is to say, if it is related to gilt-edged Government securities—there is, as far as I can see, nothing to prevent the colliery owners investing that money at a higher rate of interest and therefore being better off. On the other hand, if the Government relate it to a rather high rate of interest, which the cautious colliery owner feels he would be taking too high a risk in investing the compensation money to achieve, then he would be worse off because he would not be justified in taking that risk. So it does enormously complicate the position at once.
I hope the Government will very seriously consider whether it is not worth while to give up any small objections they may have. I really do not know what they are, but as far as I can see there is no fundamental objection in regard to the Financial Resolution because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that can be put right in next year's Finance Bill. Before we part from this Bill I hope the noble Earl will tell us whether that is so or not. I feel that your Lordships would wish to simplify this Bill in every possible way. The main criticism of the Bill is that it is so badly drafted and so complicated. What we are doing here, although we are not in disagreement in principle, is that we are making this machinery still more complicated because the Government will not accept this very simple proposition. For the sake of simplification and for the sake, as your Lordships would wish, of sending the Bill back to the other place in a better and more simple form, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise only to reply to one or two points which have been made in the course of the speeches we have just heard. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has, I know, considered most seriously and most carefully

83
the various alternatives to meet this point, but we cannot help feeling that the method we now propose is better than that of a peppercorn rent for the reasons which were stated by the noble Earl who leads your Lordships' House. We much hope that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment will withdraw it and that your Lordships will be prepared to let the proposals of the Government in regard to freehold coal go through in the form in which they stand on the Paper.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, all I have to say is that I am disappointed at the Government not saying that they will, at any rate, consider this matter again before the Third Reading. If the Government are, I will not say obstinate, but obdurate in this matter, I have no alternative but to withdraw this simple method of securing justice for the working proprietor. I do not want to make another speech on the alternative, but I do press the Government in connection with this matter that, when we accept the alternative, they will give an assurance that the rate of interest will be a reasonable one. What we anticipate under the proposal of the Government is that it will be very difficult for the working proprietor to be assured that he will not be in a worse financial position. If we could get an assurance that the rate of interest will be a reasonable one it might meet us to a very large extent. What we are really afraid of is that a very considerable expense must be incurred in arbitration in connection with any alternative to the proposal I have put on the Paper. That is undesirable because we do not want to have a great deal of money thrown away on arbitration which might be avoided by the simpler method of a peppercorn rent. In the circumstances, however, I feel I have no alternative, for the moment, at any rate, but to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "not be adversely affected by the operation of this Part of this Act" and insert:
"neither be adversely affected nor improved by the fact that, in lieu of his remaining entitled to the fee simple in the coal, compensation of the amount ascertained under Section seven of this Act becomes payable in respect thereof, and he becomes liable to a periodical payment of rent of an amount fixed
84
by reference to the time requisite for enabling the coal to be worked out, and ceases to be liable as proprietor thereof for the payment of Mineral Rights Duty and Royalties Welfare Levy."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the Amendment that the Government prefer to that proposed in regard to the peppercorn rent. With reference to the point raised in regard to interest by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, I think we must leave it somewhat open for this reason. There may be cases in which a colliery company might pay off a mortgage which they had originally raised for the purchase of the minerals, and that mortgage might be at a very high rate of interest. The noble Lord and I agree that we want to leave the colliery proprietor in the same position as before, neither better nor worse off, and therefore it would be unfair if he were to use the money in that way. It is just as much in the interest of the Commission as of the proprietor to avoid endless litigation or arbitration, which is not good for business and is often extremely expensive. We shall do our very best to meet all the ordinary cases and settle them reasonably, and where there are exceptional cases there should be exceptional means to carry out what we both desire—namely, that the proprietors should be no better off and no worse off than before.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 12, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I do not profess to share the difficulties of the noble Earl, but I am not going to make any difficulty about them now. I do not wish to add anything further to what I have already said except this, that we shall still be in possession of this form of words which the Government have put forward at the Third Reading, and I am not to be taken as wholeheartedly accepting them at the present time.
EARL STANHOPE: I have no doubt the noble Viscount will go down with his flag still flying!
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl did not say he is going to guarantee they would be in the same position because they might be better off owing to the fact that a colliery proprietor might be able to invest his compensation money at a higher rate. He

85
did not say he might be worse off. He could not guarantee they would not be worse off because the rent might be related to a rate of interest he could not achieve without undue risk. It is only fair to give the two instances. Although the noble Earl could not guarantee he would not be better off, he equally could not guarantee he would not be worse off.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: The point in my next Amendment, to add words to subsection (2), has been met by words in the Fifth Schedule and therefore I do not propose to move it.
Clause 15 [Provisions as to obtaining information for purposes of Part 1]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is consequential on an Amendment to which your Lordships have already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 29 and insert ("a person having a retained interest and that relate to the premises in which that interest subsests").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Powers of the Commission in relation to underground land other than coal.
16. In respect of any underground land not vested in them by virtue of this Part of this Act, the Commission shall themselves have the right, and shall have power to grant a licence to any person, to do any of the following acts in the course of operations carried on for coalmining purposes on or after the vesting date, that is to say, to enter upon, remove, execute works in, pass through and occupy any such land and to do all such other acts in relation to any such land as are requisite or convenient for the purposes of any such operations:
Provided that neither the Commission nor a person to whom a licence has been granted under this section shall be entitled by virtue of this section or of the licence
(e) to do any other act which, if this section had not been enacted, would be actionable as a trespass or as a nuisance and which, if done, would be likely to cause actual damage of a substantial amount.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph (e) of the proviso, to leave out "of a substantial amount" and insert "other than of a purely nominal character." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is, I think, one which will not take very
86
long to explain. It was moved in Committee stage in a slightly different form—that was, to leave out and not to insert the words that are here suggested. The words which are in the present Amendment are more or less taken from what the learned Lord Chancellor said in the debate when, in discussing that Amendment, he said that "substantially" here means other than nominal. I think there is general agreement in regard to what is intended. There is possibly a certain fear that the words in the clause at present might be interpreted in a different way from what is intended, I think, both by the Government and by those who moved the original Amendment. I do not like to say anything about the meaning of words such as these when the noble and learned Lord is here to interpret them in a much more effective manner, but I do hope the Government, as this small Amendment is really intended to clarify the meaning of the words more than anything else, will accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government accept this Amendment, subject to one alteration. If the noble Viscount would substitute the word "amount" for the word "character" then the Government could accept the Amendment. What we want to get at is that the amount should be a nominal amount. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in that form.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I agree to the correction suggested by the noble and learned Lord, and will move the Amendment in the form he suggests.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line z6, leave out from ("damage") to the end of line 27 and insert ("other than of a purely nominal amount").—(Viscount Ridley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:
Power of the Court to appoint receiver and manager on the application of the Commission.
".In any proceedings in which the Commission claim to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease, the Court in which the proceedings are pending may, on the application of the Commission, make such order as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling operations for coal-mining

87
purposes to be carried on on the premises, or for the preservation thereof, during the continuance of the lease and during any period that may elapse between a determination thereof and the granting of a new lease, and the provision to be made by any such order may include the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the premises, with liberty, subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may think fit to impose, to manage the undertaking, to use for the purposes of the order any fixed or movable plant or machinery of the lessee in or upon the premises, and to do all such other acts and things as may be or become requisite for those purposes."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a clause to empower the Court to appoint a receiver and manager. It is of some importance, although it looks very technical. Its importance consists in this. As your Lordships know, a part of this measure from the beginning has been that the Coal Commission shall not enter into and carry on the business of coal-mining. I think that is an idea which has received the support of the majority of the members in this House. On the other hand, there is a possibility from time to time that a particular lessee may meet with unfortunate circumstances. He may become bankrupt, or, again, he may prove to be a person who does not comply properly with his lease and who is obdurate and against whom proceedings have to be taken, or, apparently, he may be unwilling to pay the rent. In any of these cases the Coal Commission, however unwilling, may be driven to take proceedings, and the difficulty is that (apart from this proposed Amendment) having taken proceedings the Coal Commission would have to enter but they would not be allowed to work.
It is true that under a previous clause which your Lordships assented to to-day they could prevent flooding and do salvage work, but they could not keep the mine going. It may be absolutely essential in the interests of the Coal Commission, and, if I may say so, above all in the interests of the men employed in the mine, that the working should continue if it is possible to carry on the mining of coal in that mine. Accordingly this clause has been drafted to allow an application to the Court for the appointment of what may be shortly stated as a receiver and manager until the Coal Commission once more get a tenant who can enter and work the coal himself. It looks
88
rather technical, but these words are almost common form, and will be readily understood by anybody who has ever been concerned in an application to the Court for the appointment of a receiver and manager. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20, insert the said new clause. (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I take no exception to the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord provided he is willing to accept certain words at the end of the sixth line of the new clause of which I have given notice. The words I propose to add I have handed in to the noble and learned Lord. I propose, at the end of the sixth line of the Government's Amendment which ends at the word "fit" ["the Court in which the proceedings are pending may on the application of the Commission, make such order as it thinks fit"] to add the words "having regard always to the rights of third parties." The purpose of this Amendment is, as the noble and learned Lord has described, one that can be quite acceptable to the surface owner and the colliery proprietor. But there is here a question which the Court will have to decide. It is probable—in fact I think it appears to be certain—that the Court would have power to grant to the Commission an order which would override the rights of a surface owner to distrain on the fixed plant and machinery in respect of arrears of surface rent, and which might also give power to the Commission to grant new leases comprising such surface without reference to the surface owner. It is, I am quite certain, not intended by the Amendment to expose the surface owner to any such risks. He clearly must have his position safeguarded in the circumstances which are envisaged by this Amendment moved by the Lord Chancellor.
His rights might be jeopardised, and I think would be jeopardised, if the Court were called upon to make an order enabling the Coal Commission to do certain essential things, for without the power to use the surface machinery it is clear the Coal Commission would not be able to operate the mine, and yet the surface machinery and the plant upon the surface would unquestionably belong to, or would be the subject of a lease from, the surface owner. I think it is obvious that the

89
rights of the surface owner in this matter should be protected, and the words which I propose to insert are very simple. They do not interfere in any way I think with the purpose of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, and they do give to the surface owner that protection which we think to be essential and which I greatly hope the noble and learned Lord will agree is essential. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 6, after ("fit") insert ("having regard always to the rights of third parties").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I quite appreciate the reasons which have led the noble Lord to propose this Amendment, because of course nothing could have been further from the idea of the draftsman of this clause than to enable the Court to utilise property belonging to somebody who is not a party to the action, and to direct the receiver and manager to do something with it. But I rather hope that the noble Lord will accept my positive statement that the Courts do not act upon that footing. When there is an application of this sort, the Coal Commission will be the applicant as the landowner, and prima facie and in a normal case the tenant will be the only defendant. When the matter comes before the Court on an affidavit stating the facts and asking for the appointment of a receiver and manager, nothing is less probable, and indeed nothing would be more wrong, than that the Court should make an order which affects the interests of third parties who are not before it. It never does such a thing, it would be quite wrong if it did, and if such an order were made in regard to the interests of some third party the third party interested would at once apply to the Court and get such an order set aside to the extent to which it appeared to affect him.
In other words, while I quite agree with what the noble Lord says, that the interests of people in mines or mining machinery which do not belong to the landlord, and in relation to which the landlord has no rights, ought not to be affected by the mere appointment of a receiver and manager. I can assure him that nothing of that sort will take place under such a clause as this, which follows, mutatis mutandis, the usual form of clause
90
which is applicable in such a case. I hope the noble Lord will accept my view that, although he is right in his objects, the objects are sufficiently safeguarded by the fact that the whole matter is left to the discretion of the Court upon the evidence before it.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I need hardly say that I am very glad to accept the specific assurance given to me by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the fears which I had expressed are not likely to be realised. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I suggested to him.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment to insert the proposed new clause agreed to.
Clause 21 [Amendments of working facilities enactments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on a previous Amendment which your Lordships have accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 45, after ("that") insert—
("(a) this subsection shall not apply to the granting of a right required by reason of the subsistence of a retained copyhold interest; and
(b)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I suggest that this might be a convenient moment for us to break off our proceedings, because we are now about to enter upon a new part of the Bill. If your Lordships agree I suggest that the House should reassemble at quarter past nine o' clock.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, might I suggest that we might proceed for a few minutes longer on the understanding that we shall not need to return after dinner to-night and on the understanding also that with an earlier sitting to-morrow we should complete this stage of the Bill by dinner time?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am in some doubt about that. As your Lordships know, there are on the Order Paper to-morrow an introduction and then three Church Measures, so that we certainly shall not begin our work on the Coal Bill until half-past three at the earliest. We

91
are now only on Page II of the Amendments, of which there are twenty-six pages, so that we are nowhere near halfway through yet, and as my noble friend knows there are several matters with regard to the Schedules which will require a good deal of discussion, as they did on the Committee stage. As the House has assembled with the idea that we should have a long sitting to-day I am anxious that we should have that long sitting, so that we may meet at a reasonable hour to-morrow and not sit after dinner then.
LORD HASTINGS: I would like to draw the attention of the noble Earl the Leader of the House to the difficulty in which we are going to find ourselves after dinner in regard to the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule was very controversial and it has been the subject of interminable negotiations between the two parties interested in this Bill, those representing the royalty owners and those representing the coalowners. They having come to an agreement, then His Majesty's Government stepped in with an alternative proposal. As that alternative proposal was put into my hands only after the tea hour this evening, between five and six o'clock, it has of course been quite impossible to arrive at any agreement with those other parties who are deeply interested in this matter. What I feel may happen is that when we reassemble after dinner we shall have to postpone the Second Schedule until to-morrow. If the noble Earl is willing to do that, that is another matter, but I certainly shall not be ready to debate it this evening.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the new proposal on the Amendment Paper?
LORD HASTINGS: Our agreed Amendments in respect of the Second Schedule are on the Amendment Paper, but the Government are very anxious that we shall accept something different, and there is a probability that we may be able to accept it. It has up to now been impossible to discuss the matter; clearly, while the House is dealing with the Report stage, we cannot be discussing outside. As long as the noble Earl understands the difficulty in which we are, I have no objection to continuing after dinner.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to express the hope that
92
we shall continue to sit to-night, as we have all been brought here with that intention, but I would support the proposal of my noble friend, that if there is one particular Amendment which would cause difficulty we shall agree to postpone that, as we did on the previous stage of the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: That is perfectly satisfactory.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]
Clause 24:
Reduction by the Commission of rents.
24.—(1) If at any time, on an estimate made by the Commission, it appears to them that their annual surplus for future financial years is likely on the average to exceed the amount which is at that time the prescribed appropriation to reserve, they may reduce any such rents within their control as are specified in the next succeeding subsection by amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one-half, or if the value of the reserve fund is then greater than the prescribed minimum reserve the whole, of the estimated excess of their annual surplus over the prescribed appropriation to reserve.
(2) The rents which may he reduced under the preceding subsection shall be—
(a)….
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "may reduce any such rents within their control as are specified in the next succeeding subsection by amounts" and insert "shall make such reductions in rents as they may consider reasonable taking all the relevant circumstances of each case into account." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move this Amendment. I rely on the next Government Amendment being accepted which meets the same point.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), after "shall be" and immediately preceding paragraph (a), to insert "any of the following at the discretion of the Commission, that is to say,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to give effect to a promise made at a former stage of the Bill to make it clear that the rents in this subsection are not to be taken in the order printed but may be taken in such order as seems best to the Coal Commission. I hope that it will clear up the doubt expressed on a former occasion about this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 4, at end insert ("any of the following at the discretion of the Commission, that is to say,").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31:
Competence of the Commission to acquire associated minerals and rights.
31.—(1) It shall be within the competence of the Commission to acquire—

(a) the fee simple or a term of years or other interest in any minerals or substances other than coal that are capable of being economically worked in association with coal that is being, or is proposed to be, worked; and

(b) the benefit of any right to be exercised in respect of any land for a coal-mining purpose.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on a former Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 27, at end insert—
("(a) a retained copyhold interest in coal or a mine of coal,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of two Amendments in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "worked," where that word occurs for the first time, and insert "gotten," and, after "with," insert "the working of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my first Amendment is to make it clear beyond all question that only minerals or substances other than coal are to be acquired which are actually gotten in association with the working of coal which are in the same strata and are brought to the surface through the same shaft. That is the intention of the Bill, but it would appear as the clause now stands that it might refer to other minerals even if they are lying in a different stratum provided they can be mechanically worked in association with coal. That would not be desirable and it establishes an ambiguity which should not be permitted to find a place in the Bill if it can be avoided. This Amendment does not alter the structure or purpose of the Bill, but it will avoid ambiguity which is likely to arise and which may possibly cause trouble later. My noble friend Lord Gainford says that we had, when discussing this matter, agreed that the word "won" would have
94
been better than "gotten," because there has been a legal decision defining the word "won" and not the word "gotten." I am entirely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor in this matter, and if he would prefer the word "won" I have no objection, but in effect "gotten" and "won" mean entirely the same thing.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("worked") and insert ("gotten").
Page 28, line 31, after ("with"), insert ("the working of").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see no objection to the acceptance of these Amendments, and I think in this context the word "gotten" is quite correct.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, because all these words are unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, leave out lines 18 to 25.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to insert in subsection (1):
"'Mortgage' includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth;"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to give effect to a promise made to Lord Bertie of Thame on a former stage of the Bill, that the word "mortgage" should be defined. We have now put it in the definition clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, at end, insert the said definition.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, before that Amendment is passed I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question. This Amendment provides that "mortgage "includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth. It occurred to me that it might conceivably have some reference to what is found in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20 of Part IV of the Third Schedule, wherein it is stated in effect that beneficiaries under a settlement have the right of application to a Court. I was wondering whether a mortgage defined as

95
it is proposed to be defined in the Amendment before the House would have any consequential effects upon those settlements which are brought under the purview of that sub-paragraph. My own legal knowledge is naturally inadequate to answer a question of that kind, but if I might be permitted to invite the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the point, I should be more than satisfied with any reply that he might give me. It occurred to me that this Amendment might conceivably have been drafted without remembering that a previous Amendment brought in by the Lord Chancellor had taken effect in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am fairly confident that the fear expressed by the noble Lord is not well founded, but it is a little difficult at a moment's notice to be perfectly certain without reading the whole clause through. Perhaps he will accept my assurance that I will look into that before the next stage.
LORD HASTINGS: And if the Lord Chancellor finds that he is not entirely satisfied he would himself put down an Amendment to rectify it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I would.
LORD HASTINGS: I am very glad to accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 10, leave out from ("land") to ("surface") in line 13.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the next Amendment is really a drafting Amendment. These words were left out of Clause 5 and we now propose to put them in here.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 24, leave out from ("order") to end of line 20, and insert ("means an order of the Railway and Canal Commission under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, either as originally enacted or as extended by Section thirteen of the Mining Industry Act, 1926").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Application of Part I to Scotland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first Amendment is drafting. The word "freeholder" does not occur in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, leave out ("and 'freeholder' means such a proprietor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 43, at end insert ("'sub-demised' means sub-let").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment again is a question of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 1, leave out from ("under-lease") to ("an") in line 2, and insert ("and' sub-demise' means sub-lease; and reference to a lease or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 7, leave out from ("security;") to ("chattel") in line 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also purely drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 15, leave out ("or the Court of Appeal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (6):
"(7) Any question which is required in pursuance of this Act to be referred to arbitration shall be referred to a single arbiter agreed on by the parties or appointed in default of agreement by the Sheriff;
(8) In any arbitration in pursuance of this Act, the arbiter may, and, if so directed by the Court of Session, shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the arbitration."
The noble and learned Lord said: Lords, this Amendment is required because the law relating to arbitration in Scotland is not so perfect, if I may say so, as the law of this country, and the consequence is that these subsections have to be inserted. It is really a question of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 17, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment again is pure drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 30, leave out subsection (9). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(15) Section six of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, as amended by Section four of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895, shall have effect as if the following further proviso were added thereto, namely:—
"Provided also that, notwithstanding anything contained in Section six of this Act, works, buildings, erections or plant used by a lessee of coal (as defined in subsection (4) of Section three of the Coal Act, 1938) for the purpose of working, cleaning or treating such coal shall not be entered in any Valuation Roll or Supplementary Valuation Roll prepared in terms of this Act for the year ending at the term of Whitsunday first occurring after the vesting date as defined in subsection (2) of Section three of the Coal Act, 1938, or for any year thereafter, by reason only of the fact that the said works, buildings, erections or plant are built or erected on land not let by the lease or leases or such coal."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be true, as the Lord Chancellor has just said, that the law of Scotland is not so perfect as the law of England, but if that be so then we ought to be very anxious to prevent Scottish law becoming even more imperfect than it is. That really is the reason I am moving this Amendment. It is an Amendment which applies entirely to Scotland, and it depends on the Scottish law of valuation which, if this Bill were to be passed in its present form, would be rendered more burdensome than it is at the present time. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if for a moment I indicate the history of
98
this matter. According to the Scottish Valuation Act, 1854, it was provided in the case of mineral leases that the valuation should be assessed in this way. If it was a lease of thirty-one years or under the valuation was to be taken at the actual rent which was paid by the mineral lessee. If the rent was for a longer period than thirty-one years then other considerations had to be taken into account, and the rent was one of the factors. The buildings put upon the ground formed other ingredients in the valuation. In the year 1895 a change was made in the law of Scotland to the effect that leases of thirty-one years and under should not be taken for valuation purposes at the actual rent as previously, but that other considerations might come into play. For example, buildings on the surface would be taken into account in assessing the annual value at which the property could be let, as the Act expressed it, taking one year with another, but in the case of particular erections upon the surface which were employed solely for the purpose of preparing the coal for the market by washing or cleaning or otherwise, in those circumstances such erections could not be taken into account provided that the minerals were leased along with the surface.
Now your Lordships will immediately see what takes place under this Bill. The Coal Commission having become the proprietor of the coal, no longer is the coal lessee in the position of having a lease where both the coal and the surface is let to him. Accordingly, the advantage which up till now the coal lessee has had in the respect that his buildings erected for the purpose of preparing the coal for the market would not automatically be taken into the valuation has been taken away and he would be assessed upon a larger sum than he has ever previously had to pay upon. It is obvious that that is a new burden put upon the coal lessee which had never been contemplated, and which arises solely from the fact that now you have the Coal Commission in possession of the coal and the lease to the lessee no longer embraces both the coal and the surface. I am sure that the Government do not want to bring about that result. There is no reason why these assessments should be increased upon the colliery lessee. Accordingly this Amendment provides

99
that in future valuations there shall not be taken into account, any more than there has been in the past for the purposes of the assessment to be imposed upon the colliery lessee, the buildings which he has erected upon the surface in connection with his operations for the purpose of preparing his coal for the market. That is the simple proposition which I put to the House, and I am perfectly certain there is no ground in either reason or equity upon which the Government can defend their present position.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 26, at end insert the said now subsection.—(Viscount Horne of Slamannan.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have never found the law of Scotland imperfect, but I have found it quite beyond my comprehension. May I make this suggestion to my noble friend. This Amendment as it stands is one which I am advised we could not accept, but while it has not yet been found practical to devise a formula which would enable all the cases to be satisfactorily dealt with, we are perfectly prepared to examine further the proposals of my noble friend, and in consultation with him, and I hope that by doing that we may find a workable solution of the difficulty with which the Amendment which he has moved is designed to deal. Perhaps in those circumstances my noble friend would be good enough to put himself into communication with the Secretary for Mines and to discuss the matter with him forthwith.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before my noble friend Viscount Horne of Slamannan tells us whether he is going to withdraw this Amendment or not, may I just add one word in support of it? The noble Earl, Lord Munster, who has said that he finds the law of Scotland incomprehensible, was sympathetic and I therefore will not detain your Lordships by putting forward further arguments in support of the case which was made so very clear by my noble friend Viscount Home. I only want to add my voice to his, as this is a matter which does come from the North of the Tweed, and I can assure your Lordships that after having with very considerable difficulty mastered the substance of the Amendment, I am perfectly certain that it is one which your Lordships would wish to accept.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I am always a very amenable person; in fact all my life I have suffered from being too amiable. I am in consequence very prone to accept the suggestion which the noble Earl has just made to me, but I warn him that upon this matter I am very implacable, and that the case which I have presented is one of so formidable a character that he will find it extraordinarily difficult to alter the line of thought upon which I have been moving up till now. I am content to withdraw the Amendment for the moment; but we meet again at Philippi on the Third Reading, and I shall ask him to consult his advisers and see whether that which we ask in this Amendment cannot be accepted in the same terms in which we have put it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46:
Duty of the Commission to reduce number of coal-mining undertakings where necessary in interests of efficiency.
(2) The Commission may, at any time, if they are of opinion that adequate progress in the reduction of the number of coal-mining undertakings is not being made, make a report to the Board of Trade recommending that the powers of the Commission under the said Section thirteen of submitting amalgamation and absorption schemes should become exercisable in any area specified in the report as an area in which such progress has in the opinion of the Commission been inadequate, and such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that area and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and a scheme of compensation or alternative employment for the mine workers displaced by such reduction of coal-mining undertakings." The noble Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships will be good enough to look at page 44 of the Bill you will see there Clause 46, a very important clause dealing with the duty of the Commission to reduce the number of coal-mining undertakings where necessary in the interests of efficiency. Your Lordships will remember that this was the subject of very close debate on the Committee stage. My noble friends Lord Snell and others have handed in a manuscript Amendment, which is also in Lily name, and which I may perhaps explain very briefly. If your Lordships will look

101
at the second subsection of Clause 46 you will see that that important subsection, if I may epitomise it, reads:
"The Commission may … if they are of opinion that adequate progress in the reduction of the number of coal-mining undertakings is not being made, make a report to the Board of Trade"—
then I miss out the Intermediate sentences and it goes on:
"and such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that area"—
that is Number one—
"and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom."
That is Number two.
Of the disadvantages, your Lordships will observe, there is no mention. The disadvantages we fear are these. That if you reduce the number of undertakings, if you close down pits, you will throw men out of work. We do not think it is fair to take away the livelihood of working men or others engaged in the coal industry without compensation, and therefore we propose to add a third proviso that not only shall the Commission, when putting forward their proposals for closing down so-called redundant pits, specify the advantages to the Board of Trade, but they shall put forward a scheme of compensation or alternative employment for the mine workers displaced by such reduction of coal-mining undertakings. My noble friends and myself were encouraged by the speech earlier in to-day's proceedings made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and by the speeches of other noble Lords, who sit on what I believe is irreverently called "the mountain." I understand that noble Lords who sit below the gangway on this side of the House are spoken of as sitting on "the mountain." It is a position of great advantage from which they put forward very cogent arguments, and the particular argument that encouraged my noble friends and myself to seek their aid and the aid of other noble Lords was that used by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and others in pleading for compensation for mining agents whose livelihood was taken away under this Bill.
In the subsequent Division, in which I am sorry to say we were narrowly defeated, my noble friends and myself supported the principle, and I am sure that every one of your Lordships will agree with the old adage which we use in Yorkshire, "What is sauce for the
102
goose is sauce for the gander." If it is right to pay compensation to mining agents it is right to pay compensation to those workmen who find it difficult to turn to any other occupation, except perhaps that of soldiering. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, knows that they make very good soldiers. These men are born and bred in the coalfields, they go into the pits as young lads and learn their trade at the coal face. It is a highly skilled occupation and if their livelihood is taken from them they are virtually ruined. They are as much entitled to compensation as any other class of the community or any other mine workers. I am sure I shall carry your Lordships with me in that. Everyone would wish to see them compensated. It may be said that the country cannot afford it, or that the industry cannot afford it. That should have been thought about before the Bill was introduced. If you are going to bring about compulsory reduction of undertakings you must think of the people affected. At the very beginning of the Bill in Clause 2 it is laid down that the Board of Trade shall have regard to the national interest before approving schemes and the same principle should apply in Clause 46.
That is our case. I do not know from what the Government have told us that there will be a great many of these compulsory schemes. I understand that the Government hope is that voluntary arrangements will continue and progress, and that the big stick, so to speak, of the Commission will not be used frequently. I hope that will be the case, but where it is used it is not right that mine workers should be left without any compensation or alternative employment. During the earlier stages of these debates certain accusations were levelled against noble Lords that they were perhaps actuated by regard for vested interests, and, if I may say so, they were very properly resented. Here is a chance for your Lordships to act in the interests of the poorest section of the great mining industry, the weekly wage earners. It is all very well to say that these men can go to the unemployment insurance. They do not want to do so. They want alternative employment, or they want to go on being pit-men. My information is that in the coalfields it is becoming difficult to find young men willing to go into the pits. Formerly it was the ambition of young fellows to follow

103
their fathers into the mines. To-day they see the unemployment which exists and they no longer wish to do so. It will be a loss of a great national asset, and for that reason alone, taking a broad national view, which I know your Lordships always take in this House, I hope that this Amendment will receive support.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 34, at end, insert ("and a scheme of compensation or alternative employment for the mine workers displaced by such reduction of coal-mining undertakings"). —(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, Lord Strabolgi has reminded the House that hitherto the seats in which we have been sitting have been known as "the mountain." May I take it that for the future they will be known as "Olympus." With regard to this particular matter, we debated it in another part of the Bill in Committee. I ventured to point out then, that if schemes of amalgamation were brought into effect the interest of the surface owner was likely to be very much affected. Villages in which he has a definite human as well as financial interest were likely to be rendered derelict, and their occupants workless, and I suggested then that it was to the interest of the section who are now mineral owners, but would then be only surface owners, that they should support the arguments which were adduced from the Labour Opposition Benches. I hold the same opinion now. I admit the great difficulty of providing alternative employment, but I do not admit the difficulty of providing compensation. Lord Strabolgi is right in saying that these men, while they can draw unemployment pay when discharged from their regular employment, do not want to do so and would prefer, and I think rightly prefer, either the alternative employment which is sought for them or compensation in respect of their loss of employment.
It occurs to me that inasmuch as a surplus of £2,000,000 per annum is to be taken out of the pockets of those to whom it now belongs, by the action of the Government, and is not to be placed in the pockets of the general taxpayers, it should primarily be earmarked, if it must leave the possesion of those who now own it, for those whom this Bill will most greatly distress. Next to the royalty owners, who are the immediate objectives
104
of the Government's attack, those miners who are displaced by reason of the operation of Part II of the Bill are those who will be most affected. It would seem to be poetic justice that money taken from the mineral owners should, if it is to go to anybody, be given to those whom the Bill afflicts—those who are displaced from employment in the operation of compulsory schemes of amalgamation. On those grounds I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I think they are sound grounds, and I commend them to those in the House who are the owners of what are now prosperous pit villages, and may find themselves the owners, as the result of this Bill, of derelict pit villages, and who owe a debt to the men who are living in reasonable prosperity in these villages now but who may be under the Bill reduced to a condition which will be akin to the position which the royalty owners in many instances will be reduced to by the action of His Majesty's Government.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is a small point which I think is worth considering in connection with this Amendment. If the Commission made a scheme as is suggested in this clause and had to put before the Board of Trade the advantages which would follow therefrom, and if that scheme involved putting a certain number of miners out of work and placing them on unemployment benefit, the Commission would automatically be putting the gains from their scheme down to the Board of Trade and the costs down to the taxpayer. It appears to me that as a matter of common accounting something of the nature of Lord Strabolgi's proposal should be passed.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I feel that there is a good deal of substance in this Amendment. There are, as your Lordships probably know, a very large number of small working colliers all over the country, and particularly in the Midland district from which I come—little men, working small surface pits entirely on their own, very often entirely staffed by members of their own families. They make a living out of these pits. They are very often a great nuisance to the larger pits, but they make a living out of this gleaning work, as I may term it, which the larger pits could not possibly do. It is perhaps reasonable to argue that these pits are uneconomic, and these

105
men are probably the sort of people which the amalgamation schemes will largely aim at. They are able to obtain leases very easily from the present coal-owners because the present coalowners would find it very difficult to lease these small pits, most of which are partially worked out, to anybody else, and it is reasonable to suppose that when the coal is vested in the Commission and amalgamation schemes are put into force these small men will have their livelihood taken away.
I presume that they will be compensated under the machinery of the Bill in the same way as the owners of any other displaced colliery will be compensated. I hope their compensation will be adequate. But I do feel that there should be some provision to insure their alternative employment in the pits. They are not wealthy men, they are ordinary working colliers. Apart from those people, I feel, agreeing as I do with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that everything should be done to encourage young men to go into the coal-mining industry. There is very great difficulty at the present time in getting pit-boys, and collieries all over the country are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain labour. and if you are going to make the prospect of future labour more insecure by this principle of compulsory amalgamations, the Government will be doing a great deal of harm to the coalmining industry. I can see no reason whatever why this Amendment should not be accepted.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, may I first of all, as one who has not got this Bill entirely at his finger tips, register a modest protest against the number of manuscript Amendments that we have had at this stage? I do not refer particularly to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because it is fairly easy to understand and he has made it very clear in his speech; but I must confess that in the course of our debates to-day I have found myself in considerable difficulties because of the number of manuscript Amendments. With regard to this Amendment, it is one which arouses, I think, a very natural sympathy in practically everybody's mind, as did the Amendment which dealt with the similar circumstances of the mineral agents. But there is this point that occurs to me: if your Lordships
106
agree to this Amendment and in fact agree to the principle of what may be called contingent liability, where is it going to end? The mineral agent and the coal miner are directly concerned in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has talked about derelict villages. There are in those villages probably village shops. What about the shopkeeper? Is he to be compensated for his loss of business? Is the Omnibus Company which runs buses to that village to be compensated for their losses? Where is it to end, if the principle is once conceded?
I have in mind—I have not the details, I am afraid—a similar Amendment on the Livestock Industry Bill. I am not at all certain that I did not move the Amendment myself. It was on that part of the Bill which dealt with centralised markets. Your Lordships will remember that three centres were to be selected for centralised markets, and it was suggested that auctioneers dispossessed by such centralisation should be compensated. That Amendment was refused by His Majesty's Government and indeed I think received little, if any, support in your Lordships' House. The principle is exactly the same here, and I would suggest to your Lordships that before agreeing to this Amendment you should consider what is involved by accepting the principle of contingent liability.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My noble friend Lord Radnor says that shopkeepers will lose. It seems to me that if the miners are paid compensation they will not lose.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would like to say one word with reference to what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said with regard to manuscript Amendments. I should like to say at once to your Lordships that nobody deplores more than I do the need for trying to carry on our legislation under these conditions, but I do want to say that that lamentable state of affairs must not be imputed to those of us who are attempting to improve this Bill other than the Government. The fact is that we took the Committee stage of this Bill now more than a fortnight ago, and a great number of matters were left over for discussion and consideration on the Report stage, which we have now reached. The Government's Amendments, including all

107
their attempts to meet those difficulties which had been raised, only reached us yesterday morning. That put us in the most terrible difficulty. We have done our very best to produce our own efforts, but quite obviously it was for the Government, I think I may say, to lead the way.
I am quite sure the Government did the best they could, but what has affected them is, of course, the intervention of a certain holiday which did take place. I suppose the Government had to have holidays like other people, and I suppose the people who work for the Government had to have holidays like other people. The fact remains that the Government's Amendments were not in our possession until yesterday morning, and because, as so often happens, the Government have put down an Amendment and we have either put down a new Amendment or an old one, there must be some clashing between the two. In order not to hold things over till another stage we are doing the best we can by way of manuscript Amendments. I am going to have some to offer to your Lordships myself shortly, and therefore I take the opportunity of saying it is not our fault. We are doing the best we can.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am not suggesting that the noble Lord was to blame, because there have been as many manuscript Amendments from this side as from that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With regard to Lord Strabolgi's point I would like to say it is a point that commands my very warmest sympathy, but that does not blind me to the fact that it is a point we have to examine rather critically. I would like nothing better than to see compensation go to the men who are going to be displaced. I would like better still to see them get alternative employment, but it is no use your Lordships' House commanding the Government to give these men alternative employment. That is a thing we have been trying to do for years, and it is not a thing that can be done to order. As to compensation, that is difficult. There is unemployment benefit, although it may not be as much as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment would like to see; but while my heart commands me to support this Amendment, my head indicates that it would be wiser to reject it.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I agree with a good deal of what my noble friend Lord Balfour has just said, and I must apologise to noble Lords opposite that the Government Amendments appeared on the Paper somewhat late. But may I remind noble Lords that even if they had appeared earlier it is not as a rule customary—I do not say it does not happen—that Amendments are made to Amendments on the same stage of the Bill? What has been the habit of your Lordships' House is that Amendments are put on the Paper and criticised, and then further Amendments are moved on the next stage of the Bill. Those who have seen the conduct of affairs in your Lordships' House know how difficult it is for either the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the Lord Chairman to put Amendments to Amendments and for the House to be able to follow them. Therefore, though I admit that the Government Amendments did appear late, really the proper method is to amend these Amendments on the next stage of the Bill.
As regards the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, of course, like everyone else, I have great sympathy with him, but does he quite realise what it entails? It entails only compensation to miners who lose their work through compulsory amalgamations. It leaves those who lose their work as the result of voluntary amalgamations without any compensation at all. It leaves a man who loses his work because there is a reduction of employment in a particular mine again without any compensation. I submit that neither he nor I would care to see one man compensated because, through purely fortuitous circumstances, he lost his job owing to an amalgamation being compulsory while another man across the road lost his job and got no compensation because the amalgamation was voluntary.
Further than that, the noble Lord rather jumped to the conclusion that because there was compulsory amalgamation pits would be closed. That does not follow at all. Nor does it follow, even if a particular pit was closed, that more men would not be required for work in one of the other collieries in the district. Generally speaking, the same amount of coal would have to be raised, although you may close one or two pits, and amal-

109
gamation might take place without closing any pits in order to get better working conditions. It by no means follows that men will lose their employment in that district. For these reasons, both for the fact that you cannot differentiate between a man who loses his job for one reason or another, giving compensation in the one case and not in the other, and for the fact that really I think the noble Lord is reading more into the clause than is intended, I am afraid I must resist the Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that Lord Strabolgi has moved this Amendment because it gives me the opportunity of saying, what I have said already, that the object of this Bill is to improve the conditions in the trade of mining and to improve, if possible, the conditions under which miners work. To my mind there is no other justification for this Bill but that. If something can be done in a case where miners are displaced from their work by compulsory amalgamations, I think it is a right and proper thing to do. As to the difference between a voluntary and compulsory amalgamation I agree there is an inconsistency there. As to compulsory amalgamations, in some cases I think they will displace miners, and the quantity of coal mined and the number of miners employed may be reduced, but if in fact that does take place we have here an opportunity of compensating those displaced by what your Lordships might agree to call the modernisation of industry. We have an opportunity of doing so because, under this Bill, there should be available a surplus which could be used for that purpose.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that this Bill upsets the present relationship beween the surface and the coal and that it creates entirely new conditions in the coal trade. The only purpose that should be aimed at is to improve the conditions in the coalfields themselves and to my mind this is a way of doing it. I do not feel sentimental about it. I think it is a sensible and practical thing to do. Your Lordships have on more than one occasion discussed the problems which have arisen in what are known as the Special Areas, and those conditions are very often the result of the closing of redundant pits; not the closing of pits by compulsory
110
amalgamations but their closing as a result of trade conditions or the working out of the coal in the collieries themselves. Those who have seen the conditions which very often prevail in those districts would be only too glad to do anything which was possible to improve them. Supposing, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has suggested, a colliery was to be closed somewhere and miners were to be transferred to another district to work at another pit, what is going to happen about the housing of the men transferred? Where are they to live? There are problems of this kind now in the North of England in what are known as the Special Areas. In some cases miners who want work could be given work at pits twenty or thirty or forty miles from where they are living, but there would be no houses for them to occupy if they were transferred to the new spheres of work. That is the sort of thing that I have in mind more than considerations of a sentimental kind. For those reasons I think this Amendment is one that is worth the serious consideration of your Lordships.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment to a Division. The noble Earl has referred to the case of miners unemployed as the result of voluntary amalgamation. The whole case is, I venture to suggest, wholly different. This House is entitled to take the view that it would rather do partial justice than not attempt to do any justice at all.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very much obliged to those of your Lordships who have supported this Amendment. May I continue the argument of the noble Lord Lord Darcy with regard to the differences between voluntary amalgamations and compulsory amalgamations? If I may respectfully put it to the noble Earl who leads the House, there is a world of difference between men thrown out of employment by an ordinary amalgamation between private capitalist interests and men thrown out of work by an Act of Parliament. That is the difference. The noble Earl has only to visualise the easy "wicket" he presents to the agitators in the coalfields, the men who can go about and say: "This is the Parliament that made such a fuss about these vested interests and rights of royalty owners, but it swept aside the case of the unfortunate men who lose their

111
livelihood and homes by these amalgamations." That is the difference. The ordinary play of the market is a different thing. The men are used to that, and they accept that. They say: "That is the result of the capitalist system. One day we will alter it; in the meantime we will put up with it." But when Parliament steps in and brings about these compulsory amalgamations and men are ruined, naturally they become very upset and bitter.
EARL STANHOPE: They may possibly say: "This is the result of going some way in the direction of nationalisation."
LORD STRABOLGI: That is a different story. If you have complete nationalisation, then you unify the whole industry and you can make your adjustments accordingly. That is quite a different matter. As I ventured to suggest at an earlier stage of the Bill, when I had the honour of speaking for my Party on one of the days of the debate on the Second Reading, if you adopt half measures of this kind you are bound to create frictions and stresses which you otherwise would avoid.
The other matter which I should like to stress is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. It is of course a fact that where you have this Commission who can make schemes for the compulsory closing down of pits, they may be asked by a permanent official of the Board of Trade or by the President of the Board of Trade, "What about the men who are going to be displaced?" and their answer may be, "That is all right; they are going on to unemployment insurance—they are going on to the dole." But that means that they are going on to the taxpayer, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, and are going on to the rest of industry, and on to their fellow workers who are employed. That is really very bad accountancy indeed. I think that the strongest argument for the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself is that presented by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, when he spoke of villages derelict as the result of the closing down of those so-called redundant pits. Your Lordships have, I am sure, seen derelict villages and you do not want to see any more; you do not want to have any more brought about by any decision of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I hesitate to interrupt, but I was quoting my noble friend Lord Hastings.
LORD STRABOLGI: My noble friend Lord Radnor spoke about ruined shopkeepers and ruined transport workers. That is a fact, of course; you can devastate areas purely in the interests of efficiency, and you can show a balance-sheet advantage. You can devastate the whole of a valley depending upon coal mining, you can ruin the local doctor, the local chemist, the other local shopkeepers and everyone else concerned; and you can show a balance-sheet profit and you can justify to the Board of Trade that it is a fine thing. But there is a much greater responsibility on Parliament than that, and I think that this Amendment would give some extra safeguard against such unfortunate events as those following this Bill. I have to press my Amendment.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with very great reluctance, and I am tempted to do so only because I feel that there are certain practical considerations which are being left out of account. We are all very eager to see people who through lack of employment are left derelict, put into a position in which they can get alternative employment, and if they cannot get that alternative employment we should be eager to see that in some way or another life was made not unduly uncomfortable for them by reason of the fact that action has been taken which has robbed them of their jobs. That I take it is the opinion of all of us; but when you come to look at the practical suggestion which is made here, I am sure your Lordships will come to the conclusion that it cannot be worked out. For example, take the case of alternative employment. There are no people less easy to move from their villages than mining communities. It has been the experience of everybody who has been dealing with the Special Areas, in Durham, South Wales and Scotland, that you cannot suitably move the miners from the villages in which they live. Their reluctance to move is one of the great features of their existence and constitutes one of the great problems with which the Government are faced in finding employment for men in the Special Areas. It is really one of the most difficult questions with which the Government have been confronted, and it has not been solved by all

113
the efforts of the experts and all the goodwill of Departments of Government which have applied their mind to this subject. You may as well rule out the suggestion of alternative employment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I would like to remind my noble friend that colliers are ready and willing to travel twenty-five or thirty miles a day in a char-àbanc to another pit. I agree that they do not wish to leave their homes, but they are willing to travel every day to work in another pit.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: No doubt, my noble friend has experience of certain instances of that sort, but taking the problem by and large everyone knows that the position is as I have described. Turning to the question of compensation, I would ask on what basis are you going to provide compensation for the man displaced from his work as a collier? Is it to be on the basis that he is never going to do any work any more in his life, or how are you going to assess it? The State has come to his aid to the moderate degree which unemployment insurance brings about in providing him with something that preserves him from absolute want, but when it comes to assessment of compensation on what basis does anybody believe that compensation could be assessed? I do not believe there is any basis.
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I be allowed to answer the noble Viscount? He was a distinguished member of the Government which passed the great Railways Act of 1921 when compensation was provided for the railway workers displaced under amalgamation. There was no difficulty about it.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: If my noble friend was familiar with railway establishments he would understand that railway men's wages are a totally different matter from the piecework earnings of colliers. The situation is not in any way comparable. I do not believe anybody from the practical point of view could sit down and frame a scheme of compensation which in the generosity of his heart he has proposed to your Lordships. I hope it will not go out from this House that we are in any way of harsh mind with regard to the conditions of colliers, or that we are not as desirous as anybody else to give them as good conditions as can be given, but I am afflicted with the practical difficulties and I think we would only involve ourselves in a position of ridicule if we sent to another place an Amendment which really could not be worked out.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Ridley, V. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Wellington, D.

Tredegar, V.

Gerard, L.

Hastings, L.

Dudley, E.

Aberconway, L.

Holden, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Aberdare, L.

Saltoun, L.

Grey, E.

Addington, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Biddulph, L.

Teynham, L.

Cromwell, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Radnor, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Heneage, L.

Wicklow, E.

Jessel, L.

De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Lamington, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Middleton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Horne of Slamannan, V.

Mowbray, L.

Bath, M.

Phillimore, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Amulree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Exeter, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rennell, L.

Zetland, M.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Belstead, L.

Sherborne, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bingley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Feversham, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Windlesham, L.

Munster, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Clause 47:
Powers of the Commission as to obtaining information for purposes of Part II.
47.—(1) Any member or officer of, or technical or professional agent appointed by, the Commission, authorised in writing by the Commission to make inquiries on their behalf as to any coal-mining undertaking specified in the authority, may, so far as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of obtaining information required by them for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this Part of this Act, enter any premises used in connection with the carrying on of that undertaking, and may inspect any such premises and may measure or weigh any stocks, and may take copies or extracts of any accounts, books, plans, or other documents, and may require copies or extracts of any such accounts, books, plans, or other documents to be delivered to the Commission.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert:
"Where information is required by the Commission for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this Part of this Act and the Commission consider it necessary for the purpose of obtaining such information to cause an inspection to be made at any premises used in connection with the carrying on of a coal-mining undertaking the Commission may after giving notice to the persons carrying on the undertaking authorise in writing."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will remember that at the earlier stage of the Bill general expression was given to the point from the various parts of the House that the power given in this clause was really far too wide to give to the officers of the Commission, who could go into any coal undertaking and inquire into any sort of subject without any warning. The Government recognised the force of that objection, and we have tried to meet your Lordships by this Amendment. I hope it meets the point made by your Lordships on a former occasion.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 25, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for meeting the point, but my views on amalgamations are pretty well known. I am absolutely in favour of voluntary amalgamations, I think they may do very good work. These compulsory amalgamations, however, are not only irritating but will do a good deal of harm. Moreover, I believe that the Commission as in the past will find it very difficult to find cases
116
where compulsory amalgamation is necessary. But, being established with powers which they have to exercise, they will naturally look about in every possible direction to try to find a case for a compulsory amalgamation which they can put into operation.
Whilst I recognise that the noble Earl has to a large extent met our criticisms, he has not carried out the full undertaking given by the Government on the Committee stage. I should like to read the passage of the Lord Chancellor's speech on May 26, reported in column 657 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He used these words:
"What occurs to me is this. As the clause stood in the Bill originally, I agree there was nothing about what was 'reasonably necessary,' and there was therefore this to be said that if the Commission should take the step of seeking certain information on their own motion it would be impossible to resist it without the liability to a penalty, but the clause has already been altered by the Amendments admitted so that it has the effect that it is only if the Commission act reasonably—and what is required is 'reasonably necessary '—that they have the power to make these inquiries."
We recognise by that that there have to be sufficient grounds for making inquiries, but if the Commission are tempted to make roaming inquiries this Amendment still enables them to do so.
The words to which I want especially to direct the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack are these: he then went on to say:
"There are various words which can be inserted in the clause which will make that clear. I think it is also clear that notice should be given to the undertakers and that they should be told what it is in respect of which information is required."
In the Amendment of the noble Earl there is nothing about the information which ought to be supplied to the undertakers. That, as I understand it, was an undertaking by the Lord Chancellor, that not only should notice be given in writing, as indicated by the noble Earl's Amendment, but that the information should also be supplied. If the noble Earl, who will find me very amenable, of course, as he has already done to-day, will undertake between now and the Third Reading to introduce words which will amplify that, so that not only should notice be given to the owners but that notice should be given in regard to the character of information which is required, I shall not further

117
trouble the House on this matter. Of course, if I cannot be met in that way I feel bound to move my next Amendment, which will at any rate limit the opportunity of this roving Commission to find a case for amalgamation and make all sorts of inquiries into every district to which my next Amendment would limit it. I think I have made a reasonable request and I hope the noble Earl will meet me on that point.
EARL STANHOPE: I shall certainly be very glad to consider whether I can introduce any further words. I do not think I can quite give a pledge, because I am not quite sure whether it is really possible. As the noble Lord opposite knows, what is required is information to see whether amalgamation is feasible and desirable, and that is rather wide. It might be not only the financial situation but what were the conditions in regard to the coal face and the galleries and shafting and all the things about which the noble Lord knows a great deal and I know very little; it might be difficult to find words to cover the whole of that, unless they were such general words that perhaps the noble Lord would not agree to them; but I would be very glad to consider the matter between now and the Third Reading.
LORD GAINFORD: By leave of the House, if I may reply, as I have indicated I wanted an Amendment put down. It was, of course, only because the Government placed this Amendment on the Paper yesterday that I have not been in a position to suggest words, but I do feel that not only should notice be given that inquiries are going to be made, but the information required ought to be indicated to the undertakers. I hope that the Government will see that words can be found between now and the Third Reading. Therefore at the present moment I do not move my next Amendment, but of course, I will hold myself free to move it, if necessary, on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on the last.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 27, leave out ("authorised in writing by the Commission").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is consequential also.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 28, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("and any persons so authorised").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 3o, after ("obtaining") insert ("such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the last Amendment to this clause is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 31, leave out from the beginning to ("enter") in line 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF THE COAL COMMISSION.
  5. A member of the Commission shall, within three months after his appointment, sell or dispose of any interest or securities which he may hold in his own name or in the name of a nominee for his benefit in any undertaking carrying on the business of coal-mining or supplying or selling coal or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice of an Amendment to insert after paragraph 1:
  "2. At least two of the members of the Commission shall be persons who have had practical experience in the coal-mining industry."
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, whether this paragraph is a happy one is a matter of opinion, but I can assure your Lordships that I and those assisting me spent quite a long time trying to get words here which would carry

  119
  out precisely the object of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who I think was chiefly concerned, and perhaps also Lord Hastings, to make sure that the Commission should contain two persons who have practical experience and who, according to the suggestion made, should also have had positions of responsibility in the coal-mining industry. The difficulty we had was in finding words which would carry out what I think everyone desired without excluding persons it could not be intended to exclude. When you put in the words "practical experience and responsibility" as suggested in the next Amendment by the noble Marquess, you are in this difficulty. Responsibility to whom? What sort of responsibility? Everybody connected with a mine has some sort of responsibility, and yet that is not what is intended. If you mean persons who are engaged in the actual conduct of the work in the mine, the difficulty is this, that you do not want to confine the choice to persons who have occupied the post of mine manager.
  You do not want, I think, to exclude people who are eminent experts in connection with the coal-mining industry, who have been in it all their lives, but who, as it happens, have not been mine managers, but occupied, perhaps, some higher position or some consultative position such as those eminent experts whom your Lordships are accustomed to consult on questions relating to mining. You do not want also to exclude persons whose business has been mainly in connection with helping the persons engaged in the industry to carry on their business to the best advantage without having held actually the position of ordering coal miners what to do or seeing in a practical way whether the mine is conducted according to the rules of the Act and according to the best principles of avoiding accidents. After making three or four efforts we came to the conclusion in the end that the simplest and most satisfactory was the paragraph which stands in my name and in that of the Leader of the House. We do not think that the word "responsibility" carries out what is really intended. Therefore we are not able at the moment to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, but consider that the paragraph we have suggested carries out the object we all have in view. I beg to move.
  LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, was unable to remain in the House to discuss this question, but he asked me to say a word in connection with this particular Amendment. He thought that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack might accept these words as an alternative to his own proposal:
  "At least two of the members of the Commission shall be persons who have had administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry."
  If the noble Lord would accept those words I am sure it would meet with the wishes of the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I had not previously been aware of these words. I think they will be quite satisfactory to the Government and I am prepared to accept them.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 51, line 8, at end insert: ("(2) At least two members of the Commission shall be persons who have had administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord puts that to the House, may I remind him that amongst those who supported my noble friend Lord Lothian in originally questioning the proposals of the Government was myself. I desired to be quite sure that the Coal Commission could not be packed with civil servants, and we were given to understand that words would be drafted to exclude civil servants from the sole occupation of the positions on the Coal Commission. Is the Lord Chancellor able to tell the House that the inclusion of these words "administrative experience" does cut civil servants out of membership of the Coal Commission? If not, I shall oppose the Amendment.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Lord that it is "administrative…experience in the coal mining industry."?
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I asked the noble and learned Lord Chancellor if he could assure me that these words did exclude civil servants from the occupation of the posts on the Coal Commission. If he bears out what the noble Earl the Leader of the House says I am delighted to accept the Amendment, but not otherwise.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a qualification which is not of a negative character but of an affirmative character. The persons must have had administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry. It is not whether somebody will be excluded because he has once been some sort of civil servant. He might have been a postman in the County of Durham who had become by a series of accidents a person with administrative or other practical experience, and whether such a man is intended to be excluded I do not know, but I do not think the present clause would exclude him. What the clause is intended to do is to say that if people are to be appointed they must have this qualification, and therefore, prima facie, an ordinary civil servant will be outside the clause, but the fact that there may occasionally be someone who not only has these qualifications but who also has been at some date a civil servant seems to me to be a matter which need not greatly trouble the mind of the noble Lord.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lord, the noble and learned Lord is quite correct in saying it need not necessarily trouble me, nor would it. What I want to avoid is the insertion of words which would enable civil servants with administrative experience in the Department concerned with mines to occupy all the positions on the Coal Commission. That is all I desire to be assured about, and the words which the noble and learned Lord himself first moved "shall be persons who have had practical experience n the coal-mining industry" clearly does exclude such persons, but the words he has accepted, suggested on behalf of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, might conceivably let them in, and that is why I object to the words. I like the noble and learned Lord's own Amendment better than I like Lord Lothian's.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is difficult to satisfy everybody. On the whole the Government have done their best here to meet the wishes of the House. If the noble Lord wants my opinion, my opinion is this. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it is my opinion that persons who are merely civil servants and have acquired an experience in that capacity are not persons who have
  122
  had per se an administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry.
  LORD HASTINGS: I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion made by the Lord Chancellor.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment on the Amendment Paper, in the name of Lord Lothian, is not moved. There is then an Amendment to leave out from the word "coal" in line 3o to the end of line 31, in paragraph 5. That Amendment appears in the name of the Marquess of Lothian.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think there has been some error in the printing of the Amendment Paper. This Amendment should stand in the name of the Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships will recollect that during a previous stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Crawford raised the question of the membership of the Commission, and as to the securities which the members might hold. After a prolonged debate on the Committee stage I moved to leave out the words "or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining." We have considered this matter again, and those words in our judgment are the best words to omit from that paragraph to meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Crawford.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 51, line 3o, leave out from ("coal") to the end of line 31.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HASTINGS: The next Amendment, in the name of Lord Darcy, to add a sub-paragraph to paragraph 9, would have been a consequential Amendment to the Amendment as to mineral agents' compensation, had it been carried, but as that Amendment was defeated this Amendment cannot be moved.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I suggest that perhaps this would be a convenient moment to adjourn our debate until to-morrow. I see that there are on the Paper a good many Amendments proposed to the Second Schedule, and therefore this is rather a convenient point at which to stop. If that is the wish of your Lordships, I will move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Stanhope.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BLL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I venture to remind your Lordships that the House meets to-morrow at three o'clock.
LORD STRABOLGI: And on Thursday at three o'clock too?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.