Lords Sitting of 26 May 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALDRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EAST LOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

PATENTS, ETC. (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. In doing so, I would point out to your Lordships that the Amendments in all cases are either drafting or explanatory, and it is not thought that any of them raises a question of major importance. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that we should agree with all of them. With your Lordships' permission I shall explain the reasons for the Amendments on each clause and group the Amendments to that clause together when we come to them so as to save your Lordships' time,

599
because I know you wish to get on to the consideration of the important business still on the Paper. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 33.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 17, leave out ("in the patent") and insert ("as provided by subsection (8) of this section")
Clause 1, page 2, line 31, leave out ("in the patent")
Clause 1, page 2, line 39, leave out ("in a patent")
Clause 1, page 2, line 40, at end insert:
(" (4) No request or claim under the foregoing provisions of this section shall be entertained if it appears to the comptroller that the request or claim is based upon facts which, if proved in the case of an opposition under the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section eleven of this Act by the person in respect of or by whom the request or claim is made (in this section referred to as 'the claimant') would have entitled him to relief under that section.")
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (5).
Page 3,line 28, at end, insert ("on the complete specification and in the register of patents")
Page 3,line 30, leave out from ("mentioned,") to ("ought,") in line 32, and insert ("as aforesaid")
Page 3,line 38, at end, insert ("and, if he does so, he shall rectify the specification and the register accordingly")
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("in a patent in pursuance of this section,") and insert ("as aforesaid")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the Amendments to this clause are put in for the following reason. Clause 1, as it left your Lordships' House, was intended to ensure that the actual deviser of an invention should in all cases be entitled to be mentioned as such deviser in the patent. The Commons Amendments deal with three points. In the first place, they provide that the deviser shall be mentioned not only in the Letters Patent but also on the complete specification and in the Register of Patents. Secondly, the Commons have reinserted in subsection (5) a provision that the allowance of an extension of time for making a request or claim under the clause shall be "subject to payment of the prescribed fee." I would point out that this provision was
600
omitted in your Lordships' House as a Privilege Amendment. Thirdly, it is now provided in subsection (4) of the new clause that, where the conditions are such that a claimant to recognition by the mention of his name as provided in the clause, could oppose the grant of the patent under the existing paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act, he shall take that course instead of proceeding under the new provisions. If such a person establishes his position under Section 11, it means that the application for the patent was originally wrongly constituted, and the Comptroller has powers to deal with such a position when established under that section which are not given, and are not in general necessary, in respect of a successful application under the new clause. These are the Amendments to Clause 1, and I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out Clause 3.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, under our law, an applicant for a patent is required to disclose in his complete specification the best method of performance of the invention known to him when the specification is left at the Patent Office. On the other hand, an applicant for a patent with priority under the Convention is not allowed to cover in his complete specification improvements which he has made in the invention since he filed the foreign application upon which his claim to priority is based and so may not be able to comply with the first-mentioned requirement. To resolve this difficulty, Clause 3 provided that the obligation, in the case of an application claiming priority under the Convention, should be to disclose the best method of performance known to the applicant on the date for which he claims such priority. There are, however, other possible ways of meeting this difficulty, and it is thought that the problem can better be left over for further consideration as to the best method of solving it when the Patents Acts are under general review. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 6, line 6, leave out from ("the") to ("in") in line 7 and insert ("disclosure contained")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, Clause 6 provides that, in comparing an invention for which priority of date is claimed in this country under the Convention with the invention for which a patent was first applied for in a foreign country, regard shall be had to the invention disclosed, whether formally claimed or not, in the whole of the relevant foreign documents. The Amendment proposes to provide instead that regard shall be had to the "disclosure contained" in the whole of those documents—wording which it is thought may better represent the intention, and meet a criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when the Bill was before this House. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
In the Schedule, page 10, line 4, at end insert:
("Eight A.—In paragraphs (a) and (b) the word 'foregoing' shall be omitted.")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to provide for an extension of time for accepting a complete specification where an appeal is lodged upon a matter arising out of Section 91 in accordance with Clause 7 of the Bill. The provisions for such an extension of time in Section 8A of the Act are at present limited to appeals under any of the "foregoing" provisions of the Act, and it is thought that the proper course is to omit the word "foregoing" so as to include all appeals under the Act before acceptance of the complete specification. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 11, line 25, at end insert:
("Eighty-two.—After the word 'Act,' where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or by the Trade Marks Act, 1938'; for the words 'under this Act,' where those words first occur, there shall be substituted the word 'thereunder'; and after the words 'under this Act,' where those words last occur, there shall be inserted the words 'or under the Trade Marks Act, 1938, as the case may be.")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the International Convention provides that, where the last day of the period for claiming priority under the Convention in respect of an application for a patent or for the registration of a design or a trade mark falls upon a dies non or a day when the Patent Office is not open to receive the deposit of applications, the period shall be extended until the first following working day. There is already statutory provision for this so far as patents and designs are concerned in Section 82 of the Act. The Amendment makes similar provision with regard to trade marks. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think we finished with Clause 26 last night. There are no Amendments to Clauses 27 and 28.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Restriction on working of coal vested in statutory undertakers.
29.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, coal the fee simple in which is at the commencement of this Act vested in statutory undertakers (that is to say, local authority, company or other body or person authorised by or under an Act of Parliament, or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, to construct, work, or carry on a railway, canal, inland navigation, deck, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water, sewage disposal, or other public undertaking), having been acquired, under powers in that behalf conferred by any such Act or order

603
as aforesaid, for the purposes of their undertaking, shall vest in the Commission subject, in addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (4) of Section four of this Act, to the restriction that the coal shall not be worked without the previous consent in writing of the persons in whom the undertaking is for the time being vested.
(5) A consent in relation to a restriction imposed by this section shall not be unreasonably withheld, but this provision does not preclude the right of undertakers whose consent is sought—

(a) to give consent subject, as far as may be reasonably requisite, to a condition that working shall not be such as to let down any land in which the undertakers are in terested, or shall be limited to working in particular places or in a particular manner, or to other conditions or limitations as regards the working consented to to the making good, or paying proper compensation for, damage arising therefrom; or

(b) to require, as a condition of consent, payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with the consent.

Any question arising under this subsection shall be referred to and determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, who shall have power to dispense with consent either without conditions or limitations or subject to any such conditions or limitations as aforesaid. In determining any such question the Railway and Canal Commission shall have regard primarily to the safety and efficient working of the undertaking in question.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "statutory" and insert "public supply." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to place non-statutory public utility undertakings in the same position as statutory public utility undertakings in reference to this clause. It is difficult to see why non-statutory undertakings should be excluded. It is true that non-statutory undertakings are very much smaller and of less importance than large statutory public utility bodies. At the same time they do perform a very useful purpose to a number of small communities, and it is a little difficult to see why this particular class of undertakings should not enjoy the same advantages as the larger ones do under Clause 29, and particularly because there is no precedent for non-statutory undertakings not being treated in the same way as the statutory ones.
In the Rating and Valuation Act exactly the same clause dealt with the position of the non-statutory as well as the statutory undertakings in connection
604
with the question of derating. Neither of those two bodies is allowed to enjoy any of the benefits of the Bill. There is very great interest in this matter in connection with Scotland, and I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has put down an Amendment on this point. In certain Acts such as the Scottish Housing Act, and I believe also in the Air-Raid Precautions Act, there is definitely no difference made between these two classes of undertakings. I hope that when the noble Lord replies to this he will be able to give me some assurances that there will be no unfair discrimination between these two classes of undertakings.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 3, leave out ("statutory") and insert ("public supply").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): This question was very carefully considered in another place, and perhaps I may tell your Lordships frankly that it has been very carefully considered by me before attempting to advise the Government as to whether this particular Amendment should be accepted. Something I think can be done which I hope will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Viscount, but I am unable to consent to the Amendment in this form, and that for several reasons. In the first place statutory undertakers are in a very special position. They are bound by law to maintain their works and to give certain supplies, and, it may be added, which is a matter of some importance, they are not within the protection given by Section 8 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act of 1923, because, as my noble friend probably knows, they are excluded from the provisions of that section by Section 13 in that Act.
Now the excellent bodies who are providing public facilities without the protection or the obligations of a Statute are in a very different position. They are traders carrying on very often merely for profit, and they do not differ essentially from the position of other people who are often engaged in works of great advantage to the public. There are large factories employing thousands of people, there are other bodies who have, for instance, hospitals, recreation grounds, town halls, housing estates and so forth, who have just as much claim as we see it as the non-statutory bodies who are providing,

605
say, gas or water to the people in the neighbourhood. Accordingly, if the door were opened in this way the Government take the view that it would have to be opened a great deal wider, and they think that considerable difficulty would be caused to the Coal Commission in such a case. There are reasons of that kind why we do not think that it is possible to give this to the numerous small bodies—in Scotland, if I may mention Scotland to my noble friend Viscount Mersey, and in other places—which are carrying on this sort of business.
But what does occur to me is this. I want to be very sure, and I have thought it right that I should be very sure, that the safeguard given by Section 8 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, should be open to these bodies. That Act imposes restrictions on the working of minerals required for support. There are certain conditions. Application has to be made to the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade refers the matter to the Railway and Canal Commission. That section has constantly been applied, and I believe that occasions no very great difficulty. It is the section under which practically all the bodies—except the statutory bodies, which are out of the question for the moment because they are in our Bill—obtain protection when it is needed. I must admit that, although it was thought in another place that that provision in Section 8 of the Act of 1923 would be available to the non-statutory persons whom it is desired to protect here, when I considered it I was not quite sure that they were safe in applying under that section. Accordingly I am prepared on Report to propose a clause— I have drafted one, but I do not think I have it here; still the precise form docs not matter now—to make it quite clear that these non-statutory undertakers shall have a right to make their application under Section 8 of the Act of 1923. I would suggest to my noble friend that that is really a sufficient protection to the various persons whom he desires to protect, and I hope that on that assurance he will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I am not quite sure that I follow the advice; which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has given. Both statutory undertakers and non-statutory under-
606
takers have a right to have, and indeed have, coal which is required for the support of their enterprises. The condition of being a statutory undertaker or a non-statutory undertaker in the case of a gas company does not involve any real difference in regard to the rights they are entitled to maintain. For example, in England, by an Act of 1934, non-statutory undertakers in gas enterprises were not only given the right to apply to the Board of Trade to be made statutory undertakers, but indeed the Board of Trade was in a position to require them to alter their position from being non-statutory undertakers to being statutory undertakers. The result was that in a very large number of instances non-statutory undertakers in gas enterprises in England became statutory undertakers. That Act did not apply to Scotland and the fact is that in Scotland most gas companies are non-statutory undertakings. But when inquiry is made as to whether they are interested in the coal beneath their particular properties it is discovered, according to my information, that these non-statutory undertakers in Scotland have, in proportion, a larger amount of coal in which they are interested than have other companies who have adopted the form of being statutory undertakers. There does not seem to be any real ground for discriminating between these two sets of people.
The matter can be easily remedied by putting in, instead of the words "statutory undertakers," "public supply undertakings" which would bring in the whole of these people who do not seem to differ as to the rights that they should be entitled to exercise. I confess that, using such intelligence as I have, I could not quite follow whether what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor suggested would enable these people to obtain similar rights of support in the case of their undertakings as are to be given to statutory undertakers. If I were assured of that, I should have nothing more to say, but it seems to me certain as matters stand under the Bill that non-statutory undertakers—largely in Scotland and to a certain extent in England also—will be deprived of a right which it would seem on general principles of equity ought to be just as much available to them as to statutory undertakers. I regret having to raise this point specially, and if I

607
could be assured that their rights would be looked after I should not press the matter. Otherwise I should be very much concerned to support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: May I point out to the noble and learned Lord that in a number of cases non-statutory undertakers are controlled by statutory undertakers? In the case of a holding company you may easily have a statutory company which holds all the shares and controls the policy of a non-statutory undertaking.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope there will be no misconception about what I have said, because the last thing I should wish is to convey an impression which is not quite that which I want to convey. The distinction between the two cases that was relied on in another place and is relied on here is twofold. In the first place statutory undertakers are bound by the Statute or the Provisional Order, whichever it may be, to maintain their works and to perform public duties. The other point is that they are not protected under the Act of 1923 because they are excluded by the final words of Section 13 of that Act. If my noble friend Viscount Home would like to look at that Act I can hand it to him now for his perusal. But a non-statutory undertaker can give up his business whenever he pleases, and, to deal with what my noble friend Viscount Mersey interjected, that is so whether the shares are held by a statutory undertaking or not. The body itself is not bound to perform public services and can give them up whenever it likes. You cannot, according to the view of my advisers and the view taken in the other place, distinguish between such a body, merely because it is performing certain public services, and all sorts of other bodies who have not got the special protection which is put in this clause.
I have mentioned some of them, and a number of others could be mentioned. A hospital is not a bad example. A hospital does not exist for making money; it is not protected by the Bill, and there are scores and scores of other similar institutions to which no special protection is given. But when it comes to a statutory undertaking, it is necessary to give protection, for the two-fold reason I have
608
mentioned. First, it is under a duty to do something, and you must not interfere with its performance of that duty; secondly, it has not the protection of Section 8. I propose to make it perfectly clear that these non-statutory undertakings, which are, I agree, performing a business of great importance in the locality, shall have a right, if they are in any fear that their support is being interfered with, to make the application mentioned in Section 8 and have all the advantages of that application. On the other hand, I must admit that the machinery in Section 8 is not quite the same as the machinery in Clause 29 of the Bill.
But I would add this in conclusion. Having regard to what I have said about Section 8, it is not very likely that the persons involved in working coal and, a fortiori, in anything done or permitted by the Commission, who are going to act with the public interest in their mind, are going to do anything wilfully which will interfere with a gas or water undertaking in Scotland or in England. At any rate, if they do it, there is a remedy, which I propose to make perfectly certain, available to them under Section 8. I hope that I have explained the position which I am bound to take up on behalf of the Government, and I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord for the explanation he has given, and to ask him if he intends on the Report stage to bring up an Amendment to that effect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly; I thought I said so.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I did not quite understand. With the leave of your Lordships I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Amendment is one which, mutatis mutandis, applies to Scotland and in the circumstances I will not move it.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "A consent in relation to a restriction imposed by this section," and insert "may be given or withheld at the discretion of the undertakers who may attach

609
to any consent given by them such conditions (including conditions as to the making of monetary payments) as they may think fit." The noble Viscount said: This deals with a different point from that of my last Amendment. A number of more enterprising public utility undertakers which have coal under their undertakings have from time to time purchased that coal in order that they may be assured that the undertakings for which they are responsible will not be let down owing to subsidence. It is, of course, quite clear that these utility undertakers perform an enormously important work for large districts, and it is essential that there should be no interference whatever in their supply, whether it is of gas, electricity or water. They have therefore in certain instances acquired the coal under their areas. By this Bill all this coal will be vested in the Commissioners.
It may happen that at a subsequent date an authority which has acquired the coal under its area ceases to require that area for the purpose of its undertaking. It has bought this coal at a market price although, when it bought it, it knew perfectly well that it was never going to mine the coal and only wanted it for support. This support coal will be acquired at a purely nominal figure by the Commissioners. If at a subsequent date the works are no longer required by the undertakers, then the coal under them will apparently, according to this Bill, be a windfall to the Commissioners, who will be able to work it and to pay nothing but a mere pittance, which is the value of the coal when it is only required for support purposes. This is not a fantastic suggestion, as has been held in some quarters. Even at the present moment there is before Parliament a Bill to unify a large number of gas undertakings in South Yorkshire. The purpose of this Bill is, of course, to enable certain of those smaller undertakings to be closed and a big distribution system to be established with a few central producing units. It may quite easily arise that certain of these gas works will be shut down. There will be coal under them, and that coal will be owned by those gas works. It will pass for a very small sum indeed to the Coal Commissioners and will be really a windfall to them. I consider that it would be only fair that the authority should be given
610
anyhow, some fair remuneration for the expense to which it has been put in the first instance in acquiring this coal.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 35, leave out from ("section") to the end of line 15 on page 29 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite sure of the meaning of this Amendment and I am rather in doubt whether the view I took of it in the first instance is one which the noble Viscount has given to it. I confess, reading it as I did, I did not quite understand what the precise object of it is. Clause 29 provides that the coal of statutory undertakers who happen to be the fee simple owners of the coal shall vest in the Coal Commissioners subject, in addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (4), to the restriction that the coal shall not be worked without the previous consent in writing of the persons in whom the undertaking is for the time being vested. I do not see why it is to be supposed that that coal is to be regarded as having no value. It seems to me that the amount to be paid for it, though subject of course to the fact that there is a necessity for a previous consent in writing, is there: it must be paid for at the value at the vesting date of such coal. The Commission will be entitled in certain events to work the coal and to get a consent for the working of the coal. Accordingly it is not put down that at the date of vesting the coal is of no value.
What the Amendment says is that you are to strike out the reference to the consent being not unreasonably withheld, and say that it "may be given or withheld at the discretion of the undertakers, who may attach to any consent given by them" any conditions they like. That is as much as to say that subsection (5) of Section 29 will be quite inoperative, and that even if the coal is not in the land needed for the purposes of the statutory undertakers, yet the statutory undertakers can exact, if they please, any sum they like or place any restrictions they like on the working of that coal. That is not in the public interest, and I venture to think it is not really in the interest of any statutory undertaking. I must apologise humbly to my noble friend if I have not correctly understood the effect of his Amendment,

611
but if I do understand it I must frankly say that the Government are unable to accept it.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I understand from the noble and learned Lord that at the vesting date this particular coal will be acquired at its value as coal. At a subsequent date this coal may become of great value, because the particular piece of land is no longer required to be supported by this coal. The undertakers have previously paid for this coal a perfectly fair price in the open market, and, if this clause goes through as it is, they will suffer very considerable loss because the difference in the price that they paid and the price given for it merely as support coal will be very considerable.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): I do not think my noble friend realises the effect of his Amendment. The proposal in the Bill is that this coal shall be bought at the price which exists at the date of the valuation. Some of these undertakings may after forty or fifty years cease to be undertakings. It is proposed they should sell their coal forward, and those who have not had their coal worked would come to the Coal Commission and say: Will you pay for the coal you have not worked? It upsets the whole basis of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I point out that this is not so unusual a state of affairs as the noble Earl seems to think. Coal is reserved at the bottom of the pit shaft; it is called "pillar support coal," and is paid for at the outset. It is normal that the coal pit comes to an end of its tenure, and the time comes when the pillar support coal is worked. It is the terminal coal of the coal bank, and it is very valuable, because it is near the shaft and least expensive of all the workings to work. I know of a pit which is going to come to an end in, say, three years from to-day. There is a very large area, in several seams, supporting the shaft. When the outer working of that coal has reached its outer boundaries, the company works backwards towards the shaft, gets this coal, and makes a very good profit out of it. To-day, that coal is not worth a penny, because if you work it the shaft sinks. In two or three years that coal will be worth a great deal
612
of money, and it ought not to be confiscated.
EARL STANHOPE: It will not be confiscated. It comes into the valuation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I understand that if it has no value to-day it will have no value tomorrow.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are dealing here merely as regards coal vested in statutory undertakings, which are defined, and coal vested, or at the commencement of the Act vested, in them in fee simple, and acquired by them for the purpose of their undertakings. That coal is not like the shaft coal which the noble Earl has been speaking of, but is just the coal underneath their land, and it is going to be purchased. In a sense it is support coal, but it is support coal which according to the terms of the clause has got to be considered, having regard to the fact that it may be worked, under subsection (5) of the clause, the consent not being unreasonably withheld to its working. The possibility of its being worked and turned into money is a thing which has got to be taken into consideration when the value of that coal is the value of a particular unit or owner of coal, pursuant to the clauses in the Bill. I do not agree that it has no value. That will depend upon a number of circumstances, but it has a present value.
It may be not quite as much as if you can work it straight away, but that is the case with the coal of a number of people which is not going to be worked immediately. It still has got to be valued. Its value at the date of the valuation will have to be properly ascertained and paid, and it would be putting these undertakers in a position different from that of anybody else if you said that the value will be ascertained, not at the valuation date but at some far-distant date, according to the value then, if it has come into the position of being immediately workable. I am afraid, with all respect to Lord Crawford, that his argument has not convinced me that this particular case comes within the principle which he has mentioned.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble and learned Lord postulate an undertaking which has acquired coal necessary for support at the market price within the last few years? The statutory undertaking which I am postulating is

613
one in a district where coal is workable, and the market price has been paid for it. On the valuation date the statutory undertaking is still proceeding with its work, and owing perhaps to some unforeseen circumstances, unforeseen on the valuation date, within a year or eighteen months before the vesting date the statutory undertaking comes to an end. All of a sudden, within those eighteen months, that coal becomes available. The Regional Valuation Board is still doing its work. If I understand the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment aright, he thinks it would be fair that as the market value of that coal before the vesting date has suddenly risen, the statutory undertaking ought to have the right to get it, and that it should not fall like a ripe plum into the hands of the Coal Commission, who have not paid anything for it and do not deserve it. Perhaps the Government will tell us how the valuation will be made in those circumstances.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: May I illustrate it simply? Supposing you had one of those large gas-holders entirely supported on a large block of coal. While that gasholder is in use the coal is of no value at all. But supposing that for some reason it is put out of use, and the gas made somewhere else; then the coal becomes available. I wish the noble and learned Lord would say whether the coal is considered for the purpose of valuation at its prior value or at its value after the gasholder has been put out of use.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The value will be ascertained according to the market value at the date of valuation, regard being had to the circumstances which attach to it. And although it is true that this particular coal conceivably, under the ingenious circumstances which have been put before your Lordships, might become of much greater value after the valuation date, that is a thing which is true as to great quantities of coal everywhere. They may become suddenly more valuable owing to the fact that, although it was not expected that they would be worked for thirty years, those quantities of coal might by some chance suddenly become immediately workable. Then of course it is of greater value. The Bill cannot deal with all the events, likely and unlikely, that might happen after the valuation date. When you have valued once you have valued once for all, and
614
you are just like anybody else who has sold his property. It may turn out after it is sold that there was a gold mine under it, or again it might turn out that, although you got some money for it, it was perfectly worthless. Those are the chances which are inevitable in such a case, even though, as is unfortunately the case here, the sale is of a compulsory nature.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I have a distinct recollection that when this question was raised in another place the Attorney-General gave an undertaking which seemed to me to read to the effect that when such coal came to be worked compensation would be paid. My memory does not enable me to put it definitely to your Lordships, but perhaps we might raise it again on the Report stage in view of the learned Attorney-General's statement. But let me say this, in addition to what the Lord Chancellor has said. People readily accept the results of bargains which they voluntarily make. If the gold mine is in their property, and they did not know in time, then they put up with the consequences. But it is a very different thing when you are compulsorily deprived of your property.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I admit that. I thought I had said it. But it cannot be helped when there is a compulsory purchase. The same thing applies—you cannot reopen the purchase because it turns out it has been good or bad, on one side or the other. It is one of the disadvantages attaching to any compulsory purchase. But I may say at once that if my noble friend is right in thinking—something which is quite new to me—that some undertaking was given in another place, most undoubtedly that shall be very carefully considered, and if he is right it must be implemented on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I take it that the noble and learned Lord when we come to the Report stage will reconsider this?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the light of any undertaking that may have been given in another place.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am not very convinced by what the noble and learned Lord has said. It looks to me, even more so than it did before, that

615
the Coal Commission are almost going to get something for nothing; but in view of the reply that we have had I do not wish to press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause:
.—(1) Where in relation to any coal the fee simple in which is at the commencement of this Act vested in a person carrying on the business of coal mining the following conditions apply—

(i) The coal is not subject to a coal mining lease, and

(ii) the coal supports works or plant belonging to that person and used for the generation production or supply of electricity gas or water or any other works or plant of that person used for the purposes of his coal mining business

the coal shall vest in the Commission subject, in addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (4) of Section four of this Act, to the restriction that the coal shall not be worked without the previous consent in writing of the person in whom such works or plant are for the time being vested. Provided that the restriction imposed by this section shall have effect so long only as the coal is required for the support of works and plant belonging to a person carrying on the business of coal mining.
(2) A restriction imposed by this section shall not have effect in relation to working carried on in exercise of a right subject to which the coal in question vests in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act.
(3) A consent in relation to a restriction imposed by this section shall not be un reasonably withheld, but this provision does not preclude the right of the person whose consent is sought—

(a) to give consent subject, as far as may be reasonably requisite, to a condition that working shall not be such as to let down any works or plant of that person, or shall be limited to working in particular places or in a particular manner, or to other conditions or limitations (as regards the working consented to) to the making good, or paying proper compensation for, damage arising therefrom; or

(b) to require as a condition of consent payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with the consent.

Any question arising under this subsection shall be referred to and determined by the Railway and Canal Commission who shall have power to dispense with consent either without conditions or limitations or subject to any such conditions or limitations as aforesaid. In determining any such question the Railway and Canal Commission shall have regard primarily to the safety and efficient working
616
of the works and plant supported by the coal.
(4) A restriction imposed by this section shall be enforceable by the person in whom the works or plant are for the time being vested in the like manner, and against the like person, as if it had been imposed by a covenant entered into by the Commission on the vesting date.
(5) A holding subsisting in coal that is to vest in the Commission subject to a restriction imposed by this section shall (notwithstanding the provisions of Section seven of this Act which require the value of a holding to be ascertained by reference to the amount which it might have been expected to realize if this Act had not been passed) be valued as if provision had been made before the valuation date for that restriction to take effect on the vesting date.
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Merthyr is not able to be here and I am moving this Amendment on his behalf. I should like to read in support of it an extract from a letter sent by the Monmouthshire and South Wales Coal Owners' Association to the Mining Association. They wrote asking if that Association could support their views in connection with this new clause, and I may say that the Mining Association entirely approved of the clause and thought it a very reasonable one. They say in this letter:
"The South Wales Association have considered certain questions arising from the incorporation in the Bill of the Amendments relating to statutory undertakings which are found in Clause 29.
They think that the provisions of this clause should be extended to colliery companies for the reason that in many cases colliery companies have acquired areas of coal in order not only to work as much of it as they can, but also to support their surface properties, the chief of which are generally the power stations. We have actual cases where this arises. Moreover, in the particularly important case we have in mind this power station itself supplies considerable quantities of electricity to local authorities for distribution to consumers, and is therefore in the same position as if it were a properly incorporated statutory undertaking for the supply of electrical power.
It seems to us that such protection as is given to statutory undertakings should certainly apply to colliery companies. Nor do we take a very narrow view on this matter. We should be disposed to agree with any industrial undertaking having the same rights, and it should not merely be limited to the statutory undertakings set out in Clause 29.
After all, the question whether supply of a certain commodity or the performance of a service is done through a body which is incorporated through Statute is a mere matter of Parliamentary and administrative machinery."

617
That is their case, and it seems to me that the powers of restricting the working of the coal and enabling the support to be given for the electrical plant owned by colliery companies are exactly in the same category here as those in the previous clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, after Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am well aware that the noble Lord is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, expert in the House on all matters relating to coal. But I am in great difficulty as to whether in sponsoring this Amendment he has considered exactly to what it applies. This is a case where the colliery owner owns freehold coal which is in his possession and which he requires for the purpose of supporting his works or plant used for the generation of electricity, gas or water. What I am not able to understand is this. Do you want any clause to protect a man who is in possession and who is working the colliery from doing something to his own coal which will be disastrous to his undertaking? It is just like asking for a protection against a man from sawing off the branch on which he is sitting. I am quite willing to be persuaded that I am wrong, but at present I am unable to understand in what circumstances this could possibly apply since it relates to coal which is being worked by a colliery company which requires the coal for the purposes of supporting their own works. There is nobody else there who can come and do it.
LORD GAINFORD: Is the coal not transferred to the Commission?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The coal will vest in the Commission, but the assumption is that the coal is being used by a colliery company presumably under the lease—it must be under the lease—for the purpose of the generation of electricity, gas or water. That colliery company is in charge of it. It has got a lease of it. Even if it is a case of a colliery owner who owns freehold coal under Clause 12, he is entitled under the lease, either a peppercorn lease—we shall come to that later—or some other lease. It is the company which is in charge of this coal. I know, as I have said, what an expert the noble Lord is in this matter, and it may be, having taken up this
618
Amendment rather quickly, he has not had time to consider all its implications, but may I say that if on consideration he finds there is something which shows that I am quite wrong in the point I have put, the Government will be very glad to consider it on the Report stage.
LORD GAINFORD: My noble friend Lord Merthyr will no doubt communicate with the Mines Department and have the matter reconsidered on Report if he desires to do so.
LORD CROMWELL: Would the effect of passing this Amendment in fact not be to take away the value from the coal and reduce it to nothing? It appears to me that that is the case. If it is reserved for support, presumably it will not be marketable for some considerable time, and therefore it will have no value when it is valued. That is the way I read it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are not dealing with value here, but with an Amendment which suggests that the coal is not to be worked without the previous consent in writing of the person, the colliery lessee, in whom such works or plant are for the time being vested. It is only a question of working. The objection I am taking to the Amendment is no more than this, that he is the man who is going to work it, and he can make up his mind whether he is going to work it or not. He is not going to cut his own throat. That is the short statement that I make in answer to this, but I am perfectly at one with the suggestion made by the noble Lord that Lord Merthyr can communicate either with the Mines Department or with me, and, if it is found there is something here that requires protection, that protection will, I think, be given on the Report stage.
LORD GAINFORD: I thank the noble and learned Lord, and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30:
Saving for certain statutory rights.
30.—(1) The matters subject to which by virtue of Section four of this Act the vesting in the Commission o£ any coal, mine of coal, property or rights is to take effect, and the contract referred to in that section for the sale of any coal, mine of coal, property or rights is to be deemed to have been made,

619
shall include the following rights, that is to say: —
(a) …
and those rights shall not be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as constituting or conferring any interest in the coal or mine in respect of which they are exercisable.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to insert in subsection (1) after paragraph (c):
"(d) any right of any person to apply for and any right of the Railway and Canal Commission to impose restrictions on the working of minerals under Section eight of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923."
The noble Marquess said: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment which is rather a simple one and one to which I do not think any objection can be raised. Unless this paragraph (d) is inserted, the Bill can be hereafter construed so as to deprive the surface owner of his existing right to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission under Section 8 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act of 1923. If your Lordships will read Section 8 of that Act, you will find it gives a right to surface owners to apply in cases of dispute or necessity to the Railway and Canal Commission for rights of support. I am aware of a certain public building where that question may arise, and this paragraph is merely suggested in order to make it quite certain that the rights which are already conferred by the section to which I have referred in the 1923 Act will be retained. It is simply to avoid any dispute as to the interpretation of Clause 30 that this Amendment is moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 16, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If any rights of this kind were being taken away, it is perfectly clear that the noble Marquess is right and that a saving provision should be inserted, but the only reason it is not there is that it is, as we think, really quite unnecessary for the reasons which I can shortly give, and which I hope will persuade the noble Marquess that he need not press this Amendment. Clause 18 expressly amends and limits the operation of other parts of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, and therefore shows quite clearly that
620
Section 8 is not being in any respect repealed or affected. If the noble Marquess will look at page 54, line 27, of this rather large and complex Bill he will see in the Second Schedule that there is a reference to an application under Section 8 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, which obviously involves that that section is not being, either impliedly or otherwise, repealed. Accordingly the precise words which he wants inserted are, in the opinion of the Government, unnecessary.
I only have to add this, that the portions (a), (b) and (c) of this Clause 30, subsection (1), were only inserted from an abundance of caution because it was suggested in another place that there was something in the Bill which might to some extent affect rights under this clause. Your Lordships will observe that the language of Clause 30 is:
"The matters subject to which by virtue of Section four of this Act the vesting … is to take effect … shall include the following rights …"
And really a reference to Section 8 of the Act of 1923 would be a little out of place in this particular clause. At any rate, I can say this, that my advisers and I have satisfied ourselves that Section 8 of the Act of 1923 is in no way affected and that the words suggested are unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Subject perhaps to the noble and learned Lord agreeing that I might consult my legal advisers—for this is a legal question—as to whether that answer satisfies them, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Limitation of costs payable in case of disputes between adverse claimants]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment down in my name to this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 7, after ("Commission") insert ("(other than the provisions of Section ten of this Act)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 39 agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after Clause 39, to insert the following new clause:
"Where the owners of a colliery undertaking consider that they are paying, or being asked to pay, an excessive price for surface wayleaves the Commissioners shall have the power to compel the owners of the surface wayleaves to negotiate with the Commission for a reduction of such wayleaves.
Failing agreement the Commission shall have power to submit the dispute to the Railway and Canal Commissioners whose decision shall be final and binding."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison, I desire to move this new clause. I do so formally, and my noble friend will explain what I was going to explain to your Lordships. I had armed myself with arguments, but my noble friend will do it much better than I.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD ADDISON: I should be obliged if the noble Chairman would give me a ruling on a point of order.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I cannot.
LORD ADDISON: I must apologise for not being sufficiently familiar with the procedure of this House. This is a clause which I have been asked to move by miners' representatives in another place. There are a number of cases, especially in the North of England, where, I am informed, serious hardship is occasioned by the excessive or high charges which are made for surface wayleaves Formerly these cases could be brought before the Railway and Canal Commission, but a case came to the Courts in 1935, and it appears there was a ruling then given by the Court of Appeal that, under the Mining Industry Act, 1926, the Railway and Canal Commission had no jurisdiction in these cases. I have had provided for me a number of cases where serious disabilities are occasioned by very excessive and in some cases unreasonably high charges levied for the transport of coal across a short line leading to the River Tyne, and also in other cases, and there is now no machinery for the companies concerned to have their case heard by any authority which can give a fair adjudication in the matter. This clause, if accepted, will provide that
622
in these cases the companies concerned, if the Commission is so persuaded, can have their case submitted to the Railway and Canal Commission. I do not want to detain your Lordships by giving long details about these cases, but there really is a serious hardship to companies concerned in this class of case now owing to the judgment of the Court of Appeal to which I have referred. There is no machinery for having their grievances dealt with equitably.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Perhaps I can be of some assistance to the noble Lord who has just spoken by telling him that the case to which he referred is one that I think I know, for it concerned a company with which I am connected. The application to the Railway and Canal Commissioners was dealt with as he says; so it was possible to bring an application in a Court of Law, and that in fact was done and has been successful. I am not at the moment able to tell the noble Lord in which Court it was brought, or how it was brought, but such a case certainly can be and has been brought. In view of that fact he may not think it necessary to proceed with this Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I assure the noble Viscount that, whatever that case is to which he referred, it clearly does not apply to a number of cases about which I have received full details. In one of the cases wayleaves for quite a short piece of line are equivalent to the payment of £165 an acre, and I am informed there is no machinery for appealing against that unreasonable charge. There are quite a number of other cases, so it is not merely a matter of one case.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Under the Mines (Working Facilities) Acts which are in force at the present time a colliery company which is asked to pay more for its surface facilities than it thinks is reasonable can apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, but the Amendment which the noble Lord seeks to put into the Bill is one which relates to cases in which the colliery is already paying too much under a current contract. I think, possibly, the case that he was referring to is that which came to be known as the Consett case in which the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the previous Court, their reason being that the 1926 Act did

623
not permit the Court to make a reduction during the currency of any contract. An Amendment of this character which seeks to alter existing contracts in order to allow a tenant to get out of what may possibly be a bad bargain is one which I hardly think would be accepted in this House, and I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I must appeal to the noble Earl to give the matter a little further consideration. There is no suggestion here of an attempt to alter an existing contract. If the parties have entered into a contract and one of them has made a better bargain than the other, that is their affair. But that is not the proposal of this new clause. Perhaps the noble Earl will go so far as to allow me to put the case before him and give me a further opportunity of bringing it up on Report. If he will allow me to do so I will withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43:
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.
(3) After receiving any such recommendation from the Commission the Board of Trademay lay before Parliament the report in which the recommendation was contained and may then make a provisional order declaring that it is expedient in the national interest that the number of coal-mining undertakings should be reduced in the area with respect to which the recommendation was made and directing that the said powers of the Commission shall become exercisable in that area:
Provided ….
(4) A provisional order made under this section shall be of no effect unless it is con firmed by Parliament, but if the order is so confirmed, either without modifications or with modifications as to the area with respect to which the order is to have effect, it shall come into force on the date of the passing of the Act confirming the order or on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty, whichever is the later date.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (2), after "Trade," to insert "setting forth the advantages which may be expected to follow a scheme of amalgamation or absorption in economy in working, in providing employment, in lowering the cost of coal in its production or distribution or in raising wages, and." The noble Marquess said: We now come to that part of the Bill which deals with the question of amalgamations, and the three Amendments which stand at the top of page 5 of the Marshalled List, two in my name and one in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, all deal more or less with the same subject. They purport in effect to require that the Commission, in submitting proposals under this clause for amalgamation, shall specify with far greater particularity than is provided in this Bill what they actually propose, and that Parliament shall have that information before it before it authorises a Provisional Order which will enable the powers for amalgamation conferred by this Bill to be exercised.
May I just read the particular subsections, which seem to me to be inadequate. Subsection (2) of Clause 43 reads:
"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 pf 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."
All it has to do is to state that in its opinion progress has been inadequate in an area.
Then the clause goes on in subsection (3) to say:
"After receiving any such recommendation from the Commission the Board of Trade may lay before Parliament the report in which the recommendation was contained and may then make a provisional order declaring that it is expedient in the national interest that the number of coal-mining undertakings should be reduced in the area with respect to which the recommendation was made and directing that the said powers of the Commission shall1 become exercisable in that area:"
There is nothing to provide that they have anything more to say than that in an area specified the progress of amalgamation has been inadequate.
Then subsection (4) provides:
"A provisional order made under this section shall be of no effect unless it is confirmed by Parliament, but if the order is so confirmed, either without modifications or with modifications as to the area with respect to which the order is to have effect, it shall come into force on the date of the passing of the Act…"
It seems to me that the procedure is dangerously loose. What you want is that if the Commissioners come to the conclusion that progress in amalgamation has not been adequate, they should be compelled to particularise in far greater degree than is required by the Bill in what respect the progress has been inadequate, and to submit to the Board of Trade proposals in detail for remedying it, and that those proposals should be brought not only before the Board of Trade but before Parliament.
It is with the view of securing that the Commission shall give Parliament the information upon which alone it can reasonably judge as to whether there ought to be amalgamation or not, that I propose that the report shall set forth
"the advantages which may be expected to follow a scheme of amalgamation or absorption in economy in working, in providing employment, in lowering the cost of coal in its production or distribution or in raising wages,"
In other words, Parliament, who will have ultimately to settle the matter, should have full information as to why the scheme of amalgamation is put forward and, as I intend to propose in a later Amendment, that the report should include particulars of the scheme of amalgamation or absorption proposed. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept, not necessarily these words, but an Amendment which will ensure that the Commission shall submit recommendations pariicularising in detail, not only the area, but the kind of scheme of amalgamation which it proposes to ask for power to enforce.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 28, after ("Trade") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
EARL STANHOPE: I agree with my noble friend opposite that as laid down in the Bill, the scheme does appear to be very indefinite and I am prepared to go a considerable way in the direction he desires. Really there are two stages of amalgamation schemes. First, there is
626
the general proposal to be laid before Parliament. Then, if Parliament thinks fit to pass the Provisional Order, the scheme in all its details has to come before the Commission to be finally settled.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Do you mean the Railway and Canal Commission?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes. Our difficulty is that in this Amendment the noble Marquess lays down the whole thing in considerable detail. According to the wording of his Amendment it looks, I think, as if the President of the Board of Trade would have to be satisfied that all the suggestions he makes in his Amendment are fulfilled before he can submit his report to Parliament, and that the Select Committee will have to be satisfied on all these matters. I am sure that that is not what my noble friend desires. Therefore I think we can reach agreement by telescoping his Amendment and the next Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. That Amendment proposes to insert a provision that
"such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that area."
We do not think that that goes quite far enough, and therefore we suggest that there should be inserted at the end of the Amendment as it is printed on the Paper the words
"and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom."
That does not lay down exactly what the advantages are, but it does provide that the advantages will be shown in the report made to the President of the Board of Trade and by him submitted to Parliament.
I am sure my noble friend has as much respect as I have for Select Committees of Parliament and he will realise that no Select Committee would accede to a Provisional Order being granted unless satisfied in regard to a whole number of facts. Therefore, I think if we put in words of that character it will ensure that the report made to the President of the Board of Trade is a really complete one, such as would be necessary, I think, before Parliament would be satisfied by the draft of a Provisional Order. It does not bind the hands of Parliament too

627
closely, but on the other hand I think it does fulfil the desire which my noble friend has in mind.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It is a very important point, for the reason that the principle and basis of amalgamation has to be settled by a Select Committee and the Railway and Canal Commission are completely debarred from considering merits, except whether the scheme is just as between the amalgamating companies. I have a further Amendment on the Paper which does not alter that principle but will make it clear that the Railway and Canal Commission should consider certain things which I think at present they are debarred from doing. Subject to its being understood that I shall have an opportunity of considering the words suggested by the noble Earl, what he has said does seem to secure my object that the body which has to decide whether amalgamation shall be carried out shall have full information, not only as to the area, but as to the scheme. Subject to my having the right to consider the words again, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope my noble friend will not press the word "scheme," because in my mind that means the scheme in all its details before amalgamation can take place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (2) "and such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that area." The noble Marquess said: I was not fortunate enough to catch all that the noble Earl said, and I do not know exactly what he wishes with regard to the Amendment I have on the Paper.
EARL STANHOPE: What I suggest is that my noble friend should move his Amendment as it is printed on the Paper with the addition of the words "and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 33, after ("inadequate") insert ("and such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that
628
area and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment printed on page 7 of the Amendment Paper in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Snell, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Addison, and I understand it is desired to move that Amendment at page 43, line 33.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided also that in any action taken under this or the next succeeding subsection to effect a reduction in the number of such undertakings the Commission shall have regard to any representation made to them by any local authority in the area or by the Commissioner for the Special Areas with respect to existing social facilities and works such as transport, roads, schools, housing, places of entertainment, lighting, water supply, and other facilities and works, and shall also have regard to the possible effect upon the wage standards and hours of labour of the persons employed in such undertakings, and shall take measures to provide for the transference or absorption of workers who may be displaced."
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that the Amendments have got printed out of order, and also if I have not given the Government sufficient notice, but I have only just discovered the error myself and arranged the right order with the Clerks and the Lord Chairman. On page 6 there is an Amendment in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel and other noble Lords, "after Clause 43," in rather similar terms, except that it makes compulsory the measures in the Amendment which we are now discussing, which my noble friend and my other noble friends have put down. We do not propose, therefore, to move the Amendment on top of page 6, but we do propose, with your Lordships' leave, to move the Amendment which is printed on the top of page 7 in the name of my noble friends Lord Snell and Lord Addison and of myself. It is printed as an Amendment to Clause 44, and is in the wrong place; it refers to page 43 of the Bill at the end of line 33. Therefore it should be moved immediately after the Amendment which has just been accepted in the name of the noble Marquess. If your Lordships will permit me to move it as a Manuscript Amendment, all will be in Order-especially if the Government see their way to accept it!
This Amendment raises a very important matter, about which I do not think there can be much doubt in any part of the House. If we are going to effect under this Bill a reduction in the number of working pits, we may, if we are not careful, create new "special" or distressed areas, with all that means. You can make out a case for amalgamation, and by your amalgamation close down what are called "redundant" pits and be able to market coal a few pennies a ton cheaper to the consumer. A commercial case can be made out, and that sort of thing is, of course, happening in the ordinary course of business under the present régime in the coal industry. While you may be saving a few pennies per ton on your coal by these rationalisation schemes, you are devastating certain areas by closing down the pits which are the sole means of livelihood for a great portion of the inhabitants of those areas. You throw on the scrap-heap not only the men—who may or may not find other work; that is another matter—but also the social services which have been built up round those communities—the schools, the churches, the chapels, the places of entertainment, the sports grounds, the playgrounds, the clubs, the roads, the drains, and all the rest of the results of local endeavour which have made the district habitable and amenable.
A point comes where it does not suit the national interest, taking it as a whole, to render an area derelict, although from the balance-sheet point of view you can make out a case for the closing down of certain pits. I do not think it is necessary to labour this argument; it is, I am sure, very vividly in the minds of all of us. I would only cite, quite apart from the coal industry, the example of the shipyards. There was supposed to be a redundancy of shipbuilding yards, and a private company was formed under the auspices of the banks, with the blessing of the Treasury and the Government of the day, to buy up and close down these so-called redundant shipyards. We can now see, all of us, that that policy was overdone. You have such areas, as Jarrow, where a large part of the population depended for their livelihood on their work in the shipyards, which have been in the greatest distress ever since, and all sorts of steps have had to be taken to keep them alive, to bring new industries
630
there, and so on. We do not want to see, I submit—and I am sure the Government do not want to see—a repetition of that sort of thing happening in the coal industry as a result of this Bill.
It has happened, as your Lordships are aware, notably in South Wales, where certain pits have been closed down which were the sole means of livelihood for practically all the inhabitants of a valley, with the result that you have had these awful conditions in South Wales ever since and many men have not worked for many years after that closing-down. You also lose all the social endeavours of the past by the local authorities, with Government assistance, to provide schools, roads, means of transport, drains and everything else. Therefore in this Bill we are asking that where any schemes come up for consideration involving the reduction of coal undertakings, regard should be had to the representations made by the local authorities in the area or by the Commissioner for Special Areas. The whole subject should be viewed widely, and there should be a balancing up of the gains and losses which the proposed amalgamation would bring. This is not a Party question, although my noble friends and myself happen to have put this Amendment down. It does not follow Party lines at all. We think that this is a necessary safeguard to have in the Bill. Your Lordships will observe that we do not put down any mandatory Amendment. We do not compel pits to be kept open because distress would be caused if they were closed down or local authorities would lose. We only ask that "regard should be had." I suggest that that is reasonable, and I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, or, if the wording does not suit them, to suggest an alteration, always retaining the sense of the object which we have in view.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 33, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: On the Second Reading of this Bill I reminded your Lordships that the Government hoped that all amalgamations would be done voluntarily and that the compulsory powers contained in this portion of the Bill need not ever be brought into effect.

631
The noble Lord opposite will remember that under Clause 2 the duty of this Coal Commission is to look after the property which has been transferred to it in the national interest, and when any compulsory scheme comes before the Select Committee there will be before that Committee also the representatives of local authorities, the miners' representatives, and others, who can come there and make their case. It would be far better to leave these proposals to that Select Committee, who will look to the amalgamation scheme in the light of the evidence submitted to them. If the noble Lord is referring to voluntary schemes, that is a thing which, of course, does not come under the Coal Commission in any way whatever. There is no reason at all why these voluntary amalgamations should not be continued by the industry itself without any reference to the Coal Commission. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that these important local authorities and miners' representatives can appear before this Select Committee, and that indeed the Commission, who are authorised to look after the coal in the national interest, will fulfil the function which Parliament proposes to transfer to them.
LORD ADDISON: I confess that I think the reply of the noble Earl is completely inadequate. This is a much more important matter than he suggests. I gather that the suggestion of the noble Earl as an alternative is that the local authority, or if not, someone on behalf of the Special Commissioner, will appear before the Select Committee to add, I take it, to the army of well-briefed counsel and others who will appear before that Committee, and prolong these proceedings accordingly. But the suggestion is something, if I may say so, much simpler and more sensible than that. The suggestion here is that when the Commission are considering the amalgamation of mining undertakings and making a report to the Board of Trade recommending amalgamation—that antecedent to the making of that report, before anybody is involved in the cumbrous procedure of Provisional Order Bills, they should give an opportunity to the local authority, and the Commissioner for Special Areas, to state what their views are on the subject. That is to say, before it comes to the making of the order at all.
632
It surely, I suggest, is right and proper that before recommending amalgamation, which may have the grave effects which have not been a bit exaggerated by my noble friend—and I might go further and say that it ought to be almost an obligation, but we do not go as far as that—that the Commission should consult the local authorities concerned, who at great expense have provided all these amenities and special social services, and also those who are aware of the effects of the proposed amalgamation upon the miners and others employed in the area, so that before they make their report, or as part of the considerations which lead to the drafting of the report, they will necessarily have these matters before them, and not leave it until a much later stage has been reached, when the Provisional Order Bill is being considered by Parliament. This is quite clearly the right place in which the Commissioners should have these matters before them, and I hope the Government will adopt in some appropriate form this very simple and sensible procedure.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has made a very interesting speech. We have been led to believe that this Part of the Bill is a very important one. I have understood that the Government have had it in their mind that the coalowners are very recalcitrant and are ready to place great obstacles in the way of amalgamations, and that therefore it is necessary to have a body of this description to keep the coalowners up to the mark in carrying out the policy in which the Government apparently believe. I am given to understand there is an idea that there are a great many amalgamations which could be brought about, and which are not brought about owing to some inherent vice in the coalowners. I ventured on Second Reading to give some of my experience in the amalgamation of collieries. My original ideas were much wider than those of the Government, but after long experience I have come to the conclusion that amalgamation is really a matter of evolution, and that it would be wrong to force it to go more rapidly than it would naturally go, and so bring about amalgamations which would not be in accordance with the well-being of the country.
I think that this question of amalgamations has been misrepresented in the

633
minds of those who are responsible for the Bill. We know quite well that in the management of collieries the human factor is a very important one, and I would go so far as to say that if the Commission are proposing to take a more active part than I hope they will, we shall have to consider how great amalgamations can be controlled by the human factor of the human mind. I feel that we shall find that great conglomerations of collieries will act in a manner inimical to the best interests of the country. I am sure it would be wrong to have a large collection of collieries, with the idea of reducing expenses, because that is to a large extent a fallacy. With regard to those to whom noble Lords, on the Opposition Benches have referred, the question of safety is of the greatest importance, and larger undertakings are a great danger to the safety of the men who are in all our minds in looking to the well-being of the miners. Therefore, I feel that the less activity displayed by the Commission the better and that they should leave amalgamations to the evolution which is going on at the present moment. I challenge any assertion by the Government that the movement in this direction is slower than it ought to be. I would ask them to look at the figures of the last few years, and they will then see that it is going on to the satisfaction of all concerned at the present moment.
LORD HASTINGS: When Lord Minister made his reply to Lord Strabolgi he appeared to speak as if the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had been referring to voluntary amalgamations, and he went on to say what would happen. I understood that this Amendment had no reference to voluntary amalgamations, and I gather from the intimation now given by Lord Strabolgi that it refers only to compulsory amalgamations. I had to ask, because Lord Munster seemed to be a little bit doubtful. It seems to me that the two noble lords on the Front Opposition Bench have made out a strong case, and one in which they ought to be supported, not by mineral owners, because there will not be any when this Bill becomes law, but by surface owners, for more than one reason.
In the first place it is extremely desirable that the surface owners, as human beings, should have proper care for the men with whom they have been associated
634
in the past as members of the community, that proper care and attention should be paid to their requirements and needs, and that they should not be placed at any disadvantage by reason of the business requirements of the coal trade and the necessity of amalgamations. There is also this point, that surface owners should bear in mind that surface buildings, which' are not to be interfered with in any way, or only in a very modified way by this Bill, will belong to them, and in a very large number of instances these amenities which have been set up for the benefit of the mining community are held by the community either on annual tenures or short leases, and in fact belong to the surface owners. It is a matter of importance to the surface owners that the villages which have until lately been thriving communities should not be rendered derelict. Surface owners' interests are identical in this matter with the interests of the mining community who live in the same area as they do. The hardships which would accrue to the working community in the event of certain of these compulsory amalgamations, and without proper regard being paid to the provision of work for them elsewhere—or not necessarily elsewhere: other forms of work in the same place—those same hardships would in a different degree, but to a considerable extent, attach to the owners of the buildings in which these men live and to the amenities which they enjoy.
I think that from the dual standpoint this Amendment deserves a very large measure of support. I hope the Government will accept it. It is in no sense mandatory, but it gives an indication to the Commission concerned as to what they should do, and a very useful indication too, because what is contained in an Act of Parliament is always a guide to their conduct, to the method of carrying out their business—much more valuable than if the local authorities and others interested merely had the right to appear, as of course, they have. But with this addition inserted in the Bill that right would be a statutory one, instead of one that is granted by courtesy.
LORD CROMWELL: In case I do not get another chance of supporting the Government I should like to say a word in support of what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has said. The difference between what he said and what the noble

635
Lord, Lord Addison, desired is as to the time at which the representations should be made. The noble Earl, Lord Minister, says they will have an opportunity to appear before a Committee of Parliament and Lord Addison desires that they should appear first before the Commission and state their case. I support the noble Earl for this reason, that if the Commission are to decide on national policy I think it is a mistake, because you cannot get away from the fact that the wording of this Amendment would involve the Commission's having to make a decision on national policy. They would have to decide whether it was in the interest of the nation or the local authority in these particular respects, quite irrespective of coal. They are taking the place of coal landlords.
LORD ADDISON: The noble Lord has misunderstood the proposal. It does not at all affect the duties of the Committees of Parliament which will deal with the Provisional Order Bill. This is to require the Commission before they make an order on which a Provisional Order Bill will be based to have regard to the views of the local authorities upon the effect in these respects of the order if they decide to make it. It does not affect the proceedings in these Houses of Parliament at all.
LORD CROMWELL: I quite appreciate that, but it affects the action which the Commission may take. The Commission may not recommend an amalgamation because in their opinion these conditions are not satisfied, and I do not think that is a matter to be placed in the hands of the Commission.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think this is an Amendment which deserves support. It is quite clear that the Commission before making any report which is to be considered by Parliament must naturally consider all the circumstances of the case. One would expect them to have some contact with the owners of the various companies which it is suggested should be amalgamated, and one would equally expect that they should have regard to the other conditions as well. It is not really very easy for some of the local authorities mentioned here, who should in fact have their opinion heard, to go to the expense and trouble of laying their views before Parliament and of being re-
636
presented by counsel. It is only too evident in the results which we have seen in the Special Areas what the effect has been in the past of the cessation of employment in some particular colliery, either by reason of amalgamations and the closing of certain pits or in cases where work ceases in collieries on economic grounds. If that can in any degree be avoided it is surely one of the responsibilities of the Commission, not in their function as landlords but as having to co-ordinate and amalgamate the industry.
The only difficulty I see is that when framing the scheme for amalgamation the Commission might not be able to forecast with any accuracy which of the pits which it is proposed to amalgamate will in fact be the ones which will be closed. No doubt they will be able to form a reasonable estimate, but it will not be very easy for them to get a very clear picture of it. Another difficulty that I see is in the last few words of this Amendment, which say that they "shall take measures to provide for the transference or absorption of workers who may be displaced." Knowing as we do the difficulties that have been found by the fairly elaborate organisation of the Commissioners for Special Areas to accomplish this very purpose, I think it will be rather difficult for the Commission to do very much in that direction. But nevertheless I think it is only sensible and right that they should have the responsibility of having to take that into account.
LORD STRABOLGI: I may say that my noble friend and myself are quite prepared, if we can get the Amendment accepted, to leave those last words out. We do see that there are some difficulties about the last sentence concerning absorption and transference.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If these words are not put into the Bill it seems to me that the Coal Commission will be converted into a landlord of the kind that is always held up to abhorrence in this country who only thinks of matters from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence. I feed quite certain that where voluntary amalgamations take place the present coalowners or royalty owners always take into consideration these points which the noble Lord desires to put in the Bill. But if it is to go forth from Parliament that the Coal Commission is merely to be a landlord

637
and to hold its position purely as a landlord who is to have no regard to the working people and their conditions and amenities, all I can say is that this will be an additional injury which this Bill will cause to the country.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not support the wording of his Amendment or the place in which it is put, but I certainly support its spirit. As one closely engaged in the industry I feel that if anything can be inserted in the Bill which will give greater confidence to the men engaged in the industry in regard to their future, it would be a most admirable thing. Those of your Lordships who are connected with the coal industry will know that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get colliery workers. It is very difficult to get pit boys, and that means that the future workers in the industry will not be available, and they are becoming increasingly difficult to train. I think that is largely due to a lack of confidence in the future, and this measure, which entails compulsory amalgamation, still further shakes the confidence of those, particularly the younger men, who are engaged in the industry. The Government ought to remember as well that a large number of persons who are likely to be displaced by compulsory amalgamations are small men who make a living out of little pits which they work themselves, where a large pit could not make such a living. Those little men are very useful—they are sometimes rather a nuisance to the larger colliery companies, I admit—and are performing a useful work. I feel that they are frightened about the effects of this Bill, and if something could be inserted which would give them greater confidence it would be an excellent thing. I would also like to add the lack of confidence they may feel in regard to being displaced, by compulsory amalgamations, from the houses in which they now live near the pit.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I should like to add a few words in support of this Amendment. I am thoroughly in favour of the principles already stated from many points of view, but there is one point of view which has not yet been stated, and that is the view of the local authority. The local authority is charged with the duty of providing the social services, amenities, and so
638
forth, and if without consultation it is charged with the extra responsibility, on account of amalgamation, of making new amenities, new services, elsewhere, the rates of the local authority, which are extremely heavy at present, will be added to by a very great burden. It does seem reasonable that before such a step is taken in regard to these amalgamations the local authority, which, as Lord Strabolgi has said, has been charged with the duty of providing schools, water, drainage, and other services, should have an opportunity of being consulted as regards these services. In a mining area particularly the provision of these services is extremely difficult and very expensive, and if, as happens even now, a whole community shuts down, the services which have been put in at very large cost by the local authority are thrown away and the burden is put upon that local authority of finding them elsewhere. From that point of view as well as others, I heartily support the Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
LORD STRABOLGI: Might I just say that I have consulted my noble friends, and we are quite prepared to leave out the last two lines after "undertakings" —namely,
"and shall take measures to provide for the transference or absorption of workers who may be displaced."
I have consulted the Lord Chairman, and, if I am allowed, I would move to leave out these words.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I explain that I did not mean to imply it was necessarily right that this part of the question should be ignored. I only wanted to draw the noble Lord's attention to the difficulty.
Lord STRABOLGI: We see the difficulty, and we want to get half a loaf rather than no bread which may be offered.
EARL STANHOPE: I am not quite sure that some of your Lordships appreciate the fact that this clause only affects compulsory amalgamations. If noble Lords feel it is essential to strengthen these interests, no doubt they will be prepared to propose an Amendment on the Report stage by which the whole of these obligations will be necessary before voluntary amalgamations can take place either.

639
After all let us consider what happens now. Colliery companies have to consider their shareholders, and they have to consider whether by amalgamation they can make a greater profit and get their coal cheaper and so on than they do under present conditions. Compulsory amalgamations come under the Coal Commission. The Coal Commission have no shareholders other than the general public, in the far distance, to whom the debt which is raised has to be repaid, but they are charged with the national interest.
Now let us see what happens. The Coal Commission charged with the national interest have to make a report, and the President of the Board of Trade, who is a member of the Cabinet, as soon as he begins to consider a subject of this kind, will at once be assailed on the one hand by the Minister of Labour and on the other by the President of the Board of Education who, for instance, has to provide out of his estimates fifty per cent, for the building of schools at the present time, by the Minister of Health, and so on. Is it likely that the Minister is going to come before a Select Committee of Parliament and put forward proposals disregarding all these things suggested by the noble Lord? Does my noble friend Lord Hastings take such a low view of a Select Committee of this House that he thinks it necessary to give statutory orders to a Select Committee to consider these matters? The Select Committee would consider matters of this kind along with all other matters, and any Minister who is going to ask for a Provisional Order from Parliament would have to take all these matters into account.
LORD ADDISON: The reply of the noble Earl is not appropriate at all. Voluntary amalgamations do not have to receive the consent of this House.
EARL STANHOPE: All the more reason why the obligation should be made statutory.
LORD ADDISON: It is for the Government to alter the form of the Bill. As far as we are concerned we can only propose Amendments which relate to the form of the Bill as it is now before us. The Bill is placing certain duties on the Commission, and all we ask is that the Commission, before undertaking the discharge of this particular duty, shall con-
640
sult certain responsible persons. That is all. I suggest that it is an entirely reasonable Amendment. What happens with regard to other amalgamations is also equally appropriate. I agree that that should be taken account of, but that matter is not before us. We have no authority in that matter. It is not subject to the judgment of Parliament. This is. On this particular matter I hope the House wilt support us in the Division.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: This is a matter on which all those who have studied this question must feel considerable difficulty. We have two opposite factors—the economic factor and the human factor—which may in a particular case conflict, and it is impossible to deny the cogency of both. Those who have listened to this debate realise to the full the hardship that must be imposed on a community if a particular pit is closed and the services which have been provided over a long series of years by the local authority become useless. On the other hand, the great trouble about the British coal industry is that it is an old industry which is laid out on a plan adopted in previous generations, and nothing could be worse for the coal industry than that the map of the industry, so to speak, should have been the map of 1850 or of 1900 or that, in years to come, it should be stereotyped in the map of 1938. That is the real trouble about the coal industry, and the obstacles to the improvement of the organisation of the industry are enormous.
Among those obstacles are those that have been mentioned to-day. The industry is not laid out in the most economical fashion for the best production of its commodity. It is quite certain that the British coal industry is enormously handicapped by having to inherit the bad layout from previous generations, and one of the worst features is the enormous number of separate undertakings. I beg noble Lords who feel hostile to anything in the nature of compulsory amalgamation, and who have been impressed that some amalgamations are carried too far or that unnecessary amalgamations may have been undertaken—I beg them to remember that if you do not have amalgamations this industry cannot flourish, and all the individuals connected with it, whether miners or consumers, thereby suffer. As to the voluntary amalgamations which have taken

641
place, to which the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, referred, they are quite inadequate to the needs of the case. Apart from the smallest mines which have been also mentioned, there are no fewer than 523—I leave them out of account.
The pits which produce from 10,000 tons a year to 500,000 tons number no fewer than 320, and they produce nearly a quarter of the whole of the British product. Those are the pits which are now hampering the whole industry. In the other countries with which we are competing no such conditions have been allowed to prevail. In Germany, in the great coalfield of Westphalia some years ago we found that they had a production of about 100,000,000 tons a year, and the separate undertakings responsible for it numbered seventy. Seventy to produce 100,000,000 tons. I have been told there has been some little extension of the number lately, but I have not the particulars. In any case the German coalfield is organised in a wholly different fashion from ours. In France, in the Pas-de-Calais coal-field, an output of 20,000,000 tons was produced by sixteen undertakings. It is obviously possible to organise far more efficiently with such a number of undertakings than with the hundreds of separate undertakings which we have in Great Britain.
And that applies not only in the matter of production but also in the matter of selling, which is of great moment to this industry. Selling schemes are far more practicable if you have a dozen concerns than with one hundred or two hundred concerns. In 1926 a Departmental Committee was appointed on the question of selling schemes, under the Chairmanship of Sir Frederick Lewis, now Lord Essendon, consisting of a number of the ablest business men and others in this country, and they came to this conclusion. I will quote a few sentences from their recommendations:
"The development of organised marketing in the coal-mining industry is desirable in order to avoid excessive competition, to effect economies and improvements in the marketing of coal and to help to stabilize the industry."
They went on to say:
"The present lack of consolidation in the industry is a serious impediment, and the full development and benefits of organised marketing cannot be realised unless the industry can be consolidated, by amalgamations, into a much smaller number of units."
642
This matter therefore was dealt with as long ago as 1926. It is of vital economic importance to the whole industry and therefore to the nation. Every one agrees that voluntary amalgamations are better than compulsory ones. No one suggests that there ought to be any rigid rule for amalgamations up to a certain size and the Commission is not endeavouring to effect that, but we do insist that there are cases in which voluntary amalgamations will not be effected, although they are desirable. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, asked whether we suggest that there is some inherent wickedness on the part of the people who do not carry out the necessary schemes. Not at all. The reasons are very well known and are quite obvious.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I take it the noble Viscount is agreeing that there is no inherent wickedness.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Certainly. He was rather suggesting that those in favour of amalgamations must attribute inherent wickedness to those who resist them. But we do not do that. We say the reasons are well known and obvious, and they are partly inertia, partly personal factors—persons do not wish to amalgamate with others and give up directorships they have previously held. These are wider considerations, and this debate has necessarily rather broadened out from the particular Amendment which is under discussion. These wider discussions must come in, and the speeches of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and others have broadened out the debate into the general question of amalgamation. My observations are directed to submitting to your Lordships that in considering this particular factor, this particular Amendment, we ought not to put more obstacles in the way of amalgamations than already exist in this Bill. The considerations mentioned in the Amendment will undoubtedly be taken into account by the Minister and by the Select Committees. If they are put into this clause there will be one more obstacle in the way of effecting a thing which is most desirable. Any scheme now under the Bill has to pass the gauntlet first of all of the Coal Commission, which will consist of very able men, not only bureaucrats and civil servants but able men of other types, then the President of the Board of Trade, then a

643
Select Committee of the House of Commons, and then a Select Committee of the House of Lords. Now my noble friend Lord Lothian is proposing that certain points should be referable in part to the Railway and Canal Commission.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am doing nothing of the sort.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My noble friend has given notice that he intends to move an Amendment to make certain matters referable to the Railway and Canal Com-
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (3), after "area," immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "in manner proposed by such report
mission which he thinks may not be within the purview of the Select Committees. Is that not so? My noble friend makes no reply, so we may take it that he agrees that my statement was right. I do suggest that the tendency of this House to-day ought not to be to put further obstacles into this Part of the Bill but ought to facilitate its operation.
On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Aberconway, L.

Gainford, L.

Addington, L.

Gerard, L.

Bathurst, E.

Addison, L.

Hastings, L.

Cawdor, E.

Arnold, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Dudley, E.

Belper, L.

Lamington, L.

Grey, E.

Clwyd, L.

Leconfield, L.

Lindsay, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Middleton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Daryngton, L.

Mowbray, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dickinson, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Digby, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Doverdale, L.

Phillimore, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Saltoun, L.

Elibank, V.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Hereford, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Snell, L.

Home of Slamannan, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Ridley, V. [Teller.]

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Strickland, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Greville, L.

Hampton, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Falmouth, V.

Harlech, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Holden, L.

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

Goschen, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Halifax, V.

Jessel, L.

Hampden, V.

Mancroft, L.

Bath, M.

Samuel, V.

Marks, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Zetland, M.

Amulree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Basing, L.

Rennell, L.

Airlie, E.

Berwick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ancaster, E.

Biddulph, L.

Sackville, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bingley, L.

Sherborne, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Cadman, L.

Stafford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cautley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Midleton, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Munster, E.

Cromwell L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

Denman, L.

Trent, L.

Plymouth, E.

Eltisley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Radnor, E.

Elton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Woodbridge, L.

Spencer, E.

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

Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

with such modifications (if any) as the said Board may think fit and within such period as may be prescribed by such Provisional Order." The noble Marquess said: We are of opinion that the insertion of these words is necessary in order

645
to carry out what we have in view. As the subject has been dealt with on previous Amendments I do not think I need say anything further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are content to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (4), after "effect," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "but not exceeding the area specified in the report referred to in subsection (2) of this section." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a point which I understand the Government are not so ready to concede, but I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has met the views of a great number of us in having accepted the last Amendment. It does ensure that the parties affected shall have some knowledge of the proposals in connection with amalgamations. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that any modification shall not be by way of an increase in area by the Coal Commission. It is provided by Parliament, and I think properly, in many Statutes that powers should not be conferred upon a Minister to expand an area. In the same way in this Bill it is important that there should be some limit to the power to extend a proposed amalgamation to an area outside the proposal put forward to Parliament by this Commission.
It is quite possible that Parliament through its Committee might think that the amalgamation proposed was not quite in accordance with its own views. If that should be the case, the right procedure, I submit, is for the views of the Committee to be sent to the Commission, that the Commission should consider the alteration suggested by the Committee, and that then a new Provisional Order should be issued in connection with the amalgamation and it should be published. That is the only way which seems to be fair to the parties affected. If this procedure were not adopted, the collieries in an outside area might be included in the amalgamation and the parties affected have no knowledge whatever of the proposal. The proposal ought to emanate by
646
a Provisional Order through the Commission. Although it might have been recommended by a Parliamentary Committee, the Committee should not have in itself the power to extend the area.
The year before last there was a Housing Act passed through Parliament. Local authorities had the power conferred on them by Parliament to purchase land compulsorily for demolition purposes and the Minister had powers of modification by Order. But Parliament restricted the Minister's powers of modification, and the Minister was not permitted to authorise the local authority to purchase compulsorily any land not in the original Order. That is an exactly similar case to this. It seems to me quite fair that the parties to be affected by any extension of the area ought to have exactly the same procedure through the Commission as the Commission might suggest should be adopted for an amalgamation in the first instance.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 14, after ("effect") insert ("but not exceeding the area specified in the report referred to in subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Gainford.)
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid this is one of the Amendments which we are unable to accept, as I have already informed my noble friend. We do not feel that it is right to fetter the powers of Parliament in this way by making it statutory that no Select Committee of either House can make an extension of this scheme. I can well visualise, and I am sure the noble Lord opposite can, occasions when, once a scheme is lodged, it may be fair that some other company should be brought into it, and that company may be quite willing to go into the scheme voluntarily. If this Amendment were carried, it would be entirely cut out, because it would be outside the area appearing in the original Order. As your Lordships know, Provisional Orders have to be brought before Parliament before a certain date each year. Therefore, once the thing began to be considered, you could not get a new Provisional Order published until the following year, and that would hold up the whole amalgamation for a further period. I cannot believe that a Select Committee of either House of Parliament would bring in large areas without giving them full warning and due opportunity of being

647
heard before the Committee. I suggest it is very unwise to limit the powers of Parliament in the way proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD GAINFORD: There would be no trouble at all if a colliery desired to come into the amalgamation. What I was very anxious to secure was that a colliery should have an opportunity of knowing that it was proposed to be brought into a scheme which was approved by a Committee; otherwise it might be prevented from putting its case before the Select Committee. Having regard, however, to the reply which the noble Earl has made, I think that possibly some arrangement might be made to meet my point at a later stage, and I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to insert after subsection (4):
"() A Provisional Order made under this section may be introduced and proceeded with at any time during the sittings of Parliament during any Session."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on a matter of procedure, and I am afraid it is too much to hope that we shall receive much support on it from the noble Lords below the gangway on the left, who fortunately saw fit to support us on the last Amendment. Where an amalgamation is desired, I think it is only right and proper that the full facilities of a Parliamentary Session should be available for such an Order. Under the existing Provisional Order procedure it will be necessary for the Bill to be submitted to Parliament every year before Whitsuntide. Of course, Whitsuntide is a variable feast, but still, in the main, it means that if we are limited to the calendar year, the activities of Parliament in the initial stages of a Provisional Order Bill will in fact be limited to about February, March, April and a portion of May—three and a half months. The Amendment is designed to provide that, whatever we may do with respect to other Provisional Order Bills, this class of Bill may be introduced at any time during any one Session of Parliament.
There is, however, one point on which, perhaps, if the noble Earl opposite could inform me in a certain way, there would
648
not be a very strong case for this Amendment. The Standing Order of the House to which this refers is No. 101:
"No Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Whitsuntide."
In the discussions which took place in the other House it seemed to be understood that this Provisional Order rule related to a calendar year and was in fact—shall I say?—invented when Parliament did not as a rule meet for a new Session in the autumn. But of late years, as your Lordships know, it has become the practice to begin a new Session in the autumn, in October or November. Therefore I ask the Leader of the House if he will tell me whether this Provisional Order procedure relates to a Session or to a calendar year. If it relates to a Session, it would mean that a new Bill could be introduced if a Session began, we will say, in November, so that there would be a longer time then for the Provisional Order Bill to make progress in the Houses of Parliament.
If, therefore, he tells us that the Government intend that this provision shall be so interpreted that it relates to Sessions of Parliament and not to a calendar year, then it would mean that the opportunities for the introduction of a Bill would date from the commencement of the Session of Parliament—it might be in October or November—until the following Whitsuntide. If so, there is not much point in my Amendment, and if it is the intention of the Government so to use the procedure, I will withdraw. As it stands, however, if it is interpreted in terms of a calendar year, and in the form in which, I am quite sure, until recent years this procedure was interpreted, it would mean that in fact Parliament was limited to about three and a half months out of each Session in which any of these Provisional Order Bills could be initiated.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 17, at end insert the proposed new subsection.—(Lord Addison.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might be permitted to answer this question, as it is one of procedure. In the first place I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the House has been reluctant to pass—in fact I do not think it has ever passed—a clause in a Bill which has overridden its Standing Orders. Your Lordships will remember some years ago—I am speaking from memory now;

649
I have not got the papers before me—that we had a Bill dealing with Sunday entertainment which was thought to interfere with and alter Standing Order No. 212. Your Lordships came to the conclusion that, although the suggested amendment to the law was quite an acceptable one, it should be carried out by altering the Standing Order rather than by introducing the alteration to the Bill. As regards this particular Standing Order, No. 101, the noble Lord behind me (Lord Addison) is correct in his assumption that it applies to a whole year. The Provisional Order can be introduced at any time from the beginning of the Session of Parliament in October, if it begins as early as that, up to Whitsuntide, and in fact it has very often been done.
For example, the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Keighley Water Charges) Bill was introduced to the House of Lords and read a first time on December 16, 1924, and the Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Port of Manchester) Order on November 23, 1936. There are many other precedents. So your Lordships will see that it is possible—of course it takes some time as a rule—if the Provisional Orders Rule is dispensed with, for a Bill to pass through Parliament before Christmas. If we were to alter the Standing Order at present it would cause a good deal of inconvenience to petitioners. It might curtail the time for petitions. The reason why the Standing Order lays down that a Provisional Order Bill shall be introduced within two months before the end of the Session is to secure that sufficient time is given to interested parties to petition, and that the proper procedure with regard to Provisional Orders shall be carried out. Parliament has always been very tender in this kind of matter, and if there is not interference with the rights of petitioners, or difficulty as to the Standing Orders being subsequently suspended, has allowed the Provisional Order to be introduced after Whitsuntide. For the two reasons which I have put before you I hope that my noble friend behind me will agree and will not press his Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: After the explanation of the noble Earl I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44:
Powers of the Commission as to obtaining information for purposes of Part II.
44. —(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, 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.
(2) The Commission may require the owner of any coal-mining undertaking in an area in which their powers under Section thirteen of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, of submitting schemes are exercisable, to prepare such accounts, plans, or other documents, relating to the undertaking and such valuations of the property and liabilities of the undertaking as the Commission consider necessary for the discharge of the functions aforesaid, and may require copies thereof to be delivered to the Commission.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "specified in the authority" and insert "in an area in which the powers of the Commission under Section thirteen of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, of submitting schemes are exercisable." The noble Lord said: The Commission under the clause as it at present stands can appoint agents who will have considerable powers to enter any premises used in connection with a coal-mining undertaking; they can inspect any books or documents, or require any information which they may prescribe. Those are enormous powers to be granted to a Commission without any justification, and the coal industry take the strongest objection to giving such unlimited powers to any Commission. It is quite evident that a body of this kind, when once they get powers, exercise them in an extraordinary way. It shows what bureaucracy is. Once a body of officials is set up they try and expand themselves, and a clause like this gives them roving powers, and creates a feeling of uncertainty which is most undesirable in an industry of this kind.
Of course if there is a prima facie case for an amalgamation scheme in an area this will be demonstrable at once without

651
the necessity for the detailed investigation of plans and accounts, which will only be required after an Order has been obtained and when the Coal Commission come to deal with the financial details of a scheme. It is proposed therefore by this Amendment to limit the powers of the Commission to a reasonable extent. They can get all the information they want without these excessive powers, and I hope the House will agree to the Amendment, which I have pleasure in moving.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 25, leave out ("specified in the authority") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Gainford.)
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment on this clause, because it interferes with the Amendment which we have just moved on the previous clause. I think we all agree that it is necessary that we should get as full information as possible with regard to amalgamation schemes before they come before Parliament to get a Provisional Order. The President of the Board of Trade is not in a position to say how many concerns should be brought into amalgamation until a good deal of information has been collected, and therefore it is impossible for him to make an order saying that those inquiring into a scheme shall only be allowed to make their inquiries within an area, as proposed by this Amendment, because he does not know what that area is. He must get a certain amount of information before he begins to draw up a scheme and therefore what is proposed by the Government, and is in the Bill, is that they shall be entitled to enter and require information as to any coal-mining undertaking "specified in the authority." If you limit them to an area, that area may prove after inquiry to be the wrong area, and therefore it shows the necessity of getting the information which we all agreed to on the last clause.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do hope the Commission are not going to be allowed to have these wide powers of walking into anybody's premises and examining their books, like a policeman, in an area to which their commission does not apply. I think it is a most dangerous and most objectionable power to give them, and I hope we shall hear
652
a little further from the noble Earl with regard to what they are going to be allowed to do. It seems to me that under this clause they will have a regular roving commission, as long as they get a ticket or commission form. If agreement cannot be reached now, I hope that at a later stage it will be possible to limit them to that area where their powers are exercisable.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I put a further point? There is nothing under this clause to prevent the information so obtained from being published. As the noble Earl sees, anybody who gets authority can go in and do practically anything he likes, and I think this matter does require more consideration. My own view is that the Commission should be restricted to getting relevant information, on which we are all agreed, otherwise we shall be getting agents, or something in the nature of the Gestapo, with which we are acquainted abroad, introduced into this country without any explanation at all.
EARL STANHOPE: May I satisfy my noble friend on one point? Clause 49 gives ample safeguards against any disclosure of information.
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: This is really one of the most objectionable clauses in the whole of this Bill. It gives a roving commission to go into a person's undertaking, and to go through his books and everything he possesses. It must be borne in mind that a great many colliery undertakings have ancillary businesses. I know colliery concerns that hold hotels and other outside businesses. I think the Government should specify to what extent these persons may probe and inquire into the undertakings.
LORD GAINFORD: I take a very strong view that powers of this kind will be most unsettling to the industry. Suppose an agent suddenly goes to the pithead and says, "I have got authority to examine all your workings. I am also going into your offices to look at your books." We do not know why he is going to do that, we do not know how he is going to interfere. The whole thing is a most monstrous invasion of a company's privacy. Apparently the Commission's agent would have full liberty to do anything that the Commission

653
ordered. These roving powers are most objectionable, and I shall most certainly go to a Division.
EARL STANHOPE: This is not a roving commission, as the noble Lord suggests. It is very severely limited under the Bill, and if he thinks that prior warning should he given before an agent goes to inspect premises I am quite prepared to consider it at the next stage. If he will read the clause he will see that it says that:
"Any member…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, 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…."
That is definitely for amalgamation purposes and for nothing else. Therefore it is not a roving commission at all. If the noble Lord thinks some further safeguards are required I shall be only too glad to consider them, but the very last thing we want to do is to probe into people's businesses.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then what is the remedy supposing an individual asks for information which in the opinion of the concern is not really relevant to the question of amalgamation? These are the ordinary elementary liberties of the subject. Can the Commission be cited for asking for information which is not relevant? Is it possible to ask questions in this House or another place? What is the remedy supposing the Commission begins to abuse its powers?
EARL STANHOPE: I was going to say, as soon as we had disposed of this Amendment, that I was prepared to accept the next two Amendments, which do make some difference and affect the matter which the noble Marquess has just referred to. I am quite prepared after the word "may" to insert "so far as is reasonably necessary" and later on, in subsection (2), to leave out the words "the Commission consider" and insert "are reasonably," so that it would read—
"…such valuations of the property and liabilities of the undertaking as are reasonably necessary for the discharge of the functions aforesaid…."
It has only to be proved that it is not reasonable and they would not get the information.
LORD BINGLEY: Personally I dislike the idea of compulsory amalgamations, but surely if we admit that powers are given to the Commission we must allow them to have complete information before they exercise them. Granted that there are penalties for the disclosure of information and that all the information is kept secret, I do not see how we can refuse to let the Commission get all the information necessary.
LORD GAINFORD: Supposing the Commission in certain circumstances were not able to find facts which would justify an amalgamation, and they proceeded to force an amalgamation which was not wanted. If this Bill remains in this form, in order to make out a case they are free to look through all the books and statistics of a great number of firms without any justification whatever. That is the point to which I take the strongest objection. I do not think these amalgamations are necessary. If compulsion has to come we are quite prepared to give the necessary information where it is required, but to seek that information in this kind of way is most objectionable, because they are trying to create a case when they have not got one. If they have a case of course all the information would be given. The noble Earl has kindly agreed to accept the next two Amendments. That will help, but at the same time I do think it is necessary between now and the Report stage for the Government to try to meet the point I have made, so that the unlimited powers conferred by this clause would be restricted to a prima facie case which would justify them in seeking for the information.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I venture to urge the Government to meet what I regard as a very reasonable request. This power given under this clause is undoubtedly immensely wide; in fact it is unlimited. You do not select a particular area in which you find that conditions are generally favourable to amalgamation and say that the Commission's agents may investigate there what the conditions are, but you select the whole country and you give power to go and make investigations, not where they regard the conditions as superficially reasonable for amalgamation, but in any part of the country where by chance they may discover a reason for amalgamation

655
which previously they had never seen. I think that is far too wide a power to give, and I say so for this reason.
There is nothing more disturbing than having the whole of your business raked through, and having your officials put at the disposal of a Commission of this kind. It takes people off their work. I have known it to be said, and said with truth, in past times that a certain number of people in a very important industry were entirely unable to perform the proper functions of their enterprise because they were so constantly being brought up by Government to argue about this question and negotiate about that. These things may be necessary where the conditions are critical, but in the ordinary running of a business it would be intolerable to have people constantly coming to your office and investigating all your books and having your chief officials put at their disposal. Everyone knows that as soon as you set up a staff in a bureaucracy they tend to magnify their functions. They seek to justify their salaries, and they do a great deal more of this interfering business than they would ordinarily do if they had to be paid by results. I do beg the Government to consider this matter and see whether some alteration of the words cannot be made to remove what I regard as a very just complaint.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: In a normal case of this kind the Commission may ask for information, and if that is unreasonably withheld then they may have these powers. This provision starts by saying they may send representatives into anybody's business at any time, and that I consider intolerable. Nobody wants to prevent the Commission getting all necessary information to enable them to discharge their functions. What we do want to prevent is their having a roving commission of the nature which would enable them to walk into anyone's office any day and say, "We are going through your books." It is that which causes resentment and seems to be quite unnecessary.
EARL STANHOPE: I should be very glad to consider that point before the next stage. I see the noble Marquess's point, but perhaps it is not quite so serious as he thinks, because this has
656
definitely to be where a scheme of amalgamation is being considered. I am only sorry this did not come up after dinner, because after the noble Viscount (Lord Home) had returned to the House last night he was so impressed with the value of the Coal Commission that he was prepared to give it far wider powers than I am.
LORD GAINFORD: In the circumstances I hope the noble Earl the Leader of the House has no objection to limiting these powers. If he can give assent to that I am quite prepared to withdraw, but if he cannot give that I feel I must go to a Division, because the principle of the liberty of the subject is really involved.
EARL STANHOPE: I am prepared to say it requires some alteration, but I cannot guarantee, without consulting my advisers, how far I am prepared to go. As the noble Lord knows, I am not in that particular Department, and therefore I cannot commit it without having some further consultation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), after the first "may," to insert "so far as is reasonably necessary." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 25, after ("may") insert ("so far as is reasonably necessary").—(Lord Gainford.)
EARL STANHOPE: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the Commission consider" and insert "are reasonably." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 42, leave out ("the Commission consider") and insert ("are reasonably").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) Any question as to whether a request made under this section is reasonably necessary shall be determined by arbitration and unless such question has been so determined

657
in favour of the Commission and a reasonable opportunity has been given to the person concerned in the arbitration to comply with the request subsection (4) of this section shall not apply."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the information that may be required by the Commission to such information as is reasonably necessary and to provide that in the event of disputes the question of reasonableness shall be determinable by arbitration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 31, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I regret the Government cannot accept this Amendment, but I venture to think that when certain Amendments have been made to the clause permitting search and inquiry there will no longer be the same reason behind the noble Lord's Amendment. 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. 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. Then—and this is material to the Amendment now before the House—if the Coal Commission should act unreasonably, and require something which they cannot defend as being reasonably necessary, the people to whom a notice is addressed, and from whom they are seeking to get this information, are entitled to pay no attention to it. And if the Coal Commission are then so unwise as to try and exact a penalty, they will be met with scorn by the tribunals of this country, and will be very sorry for themselves. They are most unlikely to do it.
658
That being the case, I think there is no need for an arbitration clause, because it will be observed by your Lordships that an arbitration on a matter like this is very undesirable. There would be constantly altering requirements, it might be, by the Coal Commission, and I do not know how many possible arbitrations there would be, whereby the whole thing would be hung up. It would be expensive and there are difficulties of that kind which I venture to think are important. But with the words that it is proposed to introduce and which have been already partly introduced, as I have said, the Coal Commission would be very unwise to attempt to exercise these powers unless they have acted in a strictly reasonable manner.
LORD GAINFORD: After the statement of the noble and learned Lord I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Amendment and continuance of Part I of 20 and 21, Geo. 5, c. 34]:
EARL STANHOPE: The Amendment down in my name to this clause is purely formal, and is moved as a result of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1937, having been passed. The date has now to be changed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 32, leave out from ("which") to ("shall") in line 35, and insert ("as continued by subsequent enactments, is limited to expire oil the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
Reports to Board of Trade.
53. The Commission shall annually, at such date and in such form as the Board of Trade may direct, make to the Board a report as to their proceedings under this Act during the preceding year, and the Board shall lay every such report before Parliament, and the Commission shall also, if at any time they are directed by the Board so to do, make to the Board a report as to any matter relating to their functions specified in the direction.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has withdrawn the Amendment to this clause which he had on the Paper and has handed in a manuscript Amendment. It is the same as the one printed on the Paper down to the word "lay" in the fifth line and then it goes on "before Parliament statements showing the total amounts of the certified valuations in each region in respect of principal and subsidiary coal hereditaments respectively, and."
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after "The Commission shall," to insert:
"(1) after receiving the certified valuations from the respective Regional Valuation Boards under subsection (6) of Section seven of this Act forthwith transmit the same to the Board of Trade and the Board shall as soon as may be lay before Parliament statements showing the total amounts of the certified valuations in each region in respect of principal and subsidiary coal hereditaments respectively, and
"(2)"
The noble Lord said: The reason for my finding it necessary to alter the form of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper was that it appeared on closer investigation that under the Amendment as drawn individual valuations would have to be laid before Parliament. Of course nothing of that kind was intended. It would be undesirable, it would be cumbersome, it would be purposeless. What was intended was to ensure that the aggregation of valuations of regions should be laid before Parliament, and that is the reason for the manuscript Amendment which the Lord Chairman has notified to the Committee. The clause would now read:
"The Commission shall (1) after receiving the certified valuations from the respective Regional Valuation Boards under subsection (6) of Section seven of this Act forthwith transmit the same to the Board of Trade and the Board shall as soon as may be lay before Parliament statements showing the total amounts of the certified valuations in each region in respect of principal and subsidiary coal hereditaments respectively, and…."
The purpose of this is quite plain. It is to give Parliament an opportunity of knowing what these valuations are.
Everybody will be inquiring at the end of the four years, when the valuations are complete, what the amounts total to, and questions are bound to be asked in Parliament and the information will be bound to be given. It seems to me, therefore,
660
better that it should be put actually into the Bill now. It will be a matter of the greatest interest not only to mineral owners, who will then of course have ceased to be mineral owners, but also to the general public and Parliament to know exactly how the valuations when complete compare with the estimation of value which has been put upon them and under which they have been purchased. It is essential really to a proper understanding of the whole matter that these valuations should in due course be made public in aggregation region by region. This is not contentious; there is no great principle involved in this, but I think it would complete the Bill. It would make it statutory to provide under the Bill, this information which of course will have to be provided when asked for in one or other House of Parliament. It would not be possible to conceal it. It would be very improper if it was possible, and normally it would not be possible. I suggest therefore that it is far better it should go into the Bill now, so that in due course these valuations will be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and both Houses will have the opportunity of forming their opinions upon the completion of the Act which is to be put into operation. It will avoid some misunderstanding and a good deal of perhaps rather unpleasant questioning that might arise later on. In every way I think it is desirable and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 12, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment has the effect which the noble Lord has suggested—namely, to make public the total valuations in each region, both principal and subsidiary. We are of opinion that it is hardly worth while to include them in this Bill. It would, I think, be far better if questions were asked or a Motion was put down in this House seeking the information which the noble Lord desires. I am not at all sure that it is wise to put into a Bill which will last for ever one small point which can be answered in either the House of Commons or in this place.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can quite understand that the Government may feel they have very good reasons for not wanting these totals to be made public.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The totals will appear if they are asked for. There is no reason to suppose we desire to hide the totals.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In that case, if the Government do not want to hide them, why not put this into the Bill and allow them to be known?
EARL STANHOPE: For the simple reason that we try to make our Bills as short as we can. I should have thought that this Bill was long enough and complicated enough as it is without putting in unnecessary things. I submit that we do not want to put into an Act of Parliament something that can be ascertained by asking a question across the floor of this House, and I have no doubt this information will be asked for if noble Lords opposite are still members of this House. It seems to me quite unnecessary to put this into the Bill.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will remember that last night you
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think that is quite an adequate answer. If the noble Lords on the Bench opposite were not rather anxious as to what the figures would disclose I think they would give way in this matter at once. It does not create a very good impression to use the argument that the Bill would be made longer by these few lines. That is really asking me to swallow rather too much. I very much hope the noble Earl will give way to-day. I would ask him to do so as a gesture. It is quite true that these figures will be extracted in due course. People will want to know. They will ask, and the Government of the day will find it extremely difficult not to give them the information. But it would create a much better impression if the obligation were put into the Bill.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Hereford, V.

Gerard, L.

Wellington, D.

Horne of Slamannan, V.

Hastings, L.

Ridley, V.

Lamington, L.

Bathurst, E.

Middleton, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Aberconway, L.

Mowbray, L.

Dudley, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Palmer, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Belper, L.

Phillimore, L.

Grey, E.

Camrose, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cromwell, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Liverpool, E.

Dickinson, L.

Stafford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Strickland, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Teynham, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Trent, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Exmouth, V.

Gainford, L.

NOT CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Stanhope, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Bath, M.

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

Zetland, M.

Elibank, V.

Hampton, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Halifax, V.

Holden, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Samuel, V.

Luke, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Marchwood, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Marks, L.

Midleton, E.

Arnold, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Munster, E.

Bingley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Windlesham, L.

Radnor, E.

Clwyd, L.

Woodbridge, L.

agreed to take Clause 12 after Clause 54. I have a mass of manuscript Amendments handed in, and perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House will consider the difficulty that there may be in reading them out to your Lordships and making them comprehensible.
EARL STANHOPE: I suggest that we should postpone Clause 12 until the end of the consideration of the Schedules. That will enable the various Amendments to be printed and we can consider them on Monday afternoon. It seems to me to be wise that we should break off now. There is a Royal Commission which is overdue, and I suggest that after that we should adjourn until a quarter past nine, and that then we should go on with the Schedules. I beg to move that the consideration of Clause 12 be postponed until the end of the Schedules.
Moved, That the consideration of Clause 12 be postponed until after the consideration of the Schedules.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:

Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions),

Workmen's Compensation (Amendment),

Evidence,

Patents, etc. (International Conventions),

Poor's Allotment in Hanwell Charity Scheme Confirmation,

Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation,

Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation,

Bournemouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Blackpool Improvement.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]

COAL BILL.
House again in Committee:
[The EARL of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution and procedure of the Coal Commission.
1. The Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by
664
the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade shall nominate one of the members of the Commission other than the chairman to act as deputy chairman.
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 coalmining or supplying or selling coal or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining.
6. It shall not be lawful for a member of the Commission white he holds office to acquire, directly or indirectly, for his own benefit any interest or securities in any such undertaking as aforesaid, and if a member of the Commission becomes entitled for his own benefit under any will or succession or otherwise to any interest or securities in any such undertaking he shall sell or dispose of it or them within three months after he has so become entitled thereto.
9. There shall be paid out of the revenues of the Commission—
(a) to the members of the Commission, or to any of them, such salaries and allowances for expenses as the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury may determine; and
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to add to paragraph 1: "At least two members of the Commission shall be persons who have had executive responsibility in the coal-mining industry." The noble Marquess said: I venture to think that this Amendment is really much more important than it might seem to be at first sight. The Schedule provides for the appointment of a Chairman and four other members who are to constitute the Coal Commission, and under this Bill the Commission have broadly two very important sets of functions. On the one hand, they have to administer the coal industry and revise from time to time the rents, and at the end of leases to make new leases for every coal-mining undertaking in the country. On the other hand, they are entrusted with the duty of considering whether there are an excessive number of undertakings in any area, and of making proposals 1o Parliament for the amalgamation of those concerns, and asking Parliament to give them compulsory powers to bring about such amalgamations. Those are two very important functions, and the latter may mean, as indeed the first may, that in due time the Commission may become the most vital factor for good or evil in the mining industry of the country.
It seems to me it would be quite fatal ii the members of that Commission are of what I may call the ordinary Civil Service type, and that is not because I have not the very highest opinion of the Civil Service of this country. It is one of the greatest advantages which the country has that it has got a magnificent Civil Service. But the men in it are qualified by the conditions of the Service, which is intended to produce certain definite sets of qualities. They have security of tenure and they have great experience, but everybody knows that the Civil Service as such tends to lack the very qualities which are developed by private enterprise. We have a conspicuous example of that in the history of the Post Office. As long as the Post Office was administered as an ordinary Civil Service it was not successful, and the fundamental reason was that its members had security of tenure. Once a person got his foot at the bottom of the ladder and was ordinarily competent you could not get rid of him, whereas, as everybody knows, in a successful business getting rid of people who are not really up to their job, and putting other people in who are up to the job, is of the very essence of success.
It is absolutely vital that the experience of the members of this Commission should be that of people who really understand, and have spent some part of their life in, the practical business of coal mining. If you get that kind of person—of course with complete independence—then there is some chance of the Commission being a success, because the members will understand the problems, they will have sympathy with the managers, the workers and the owners, and they may work successfully. But if you get a body consisting of people who have not got that experience, and who may be looked upon as interfering without really understanding, you may get a serious condition in the coal industry. At any rate you will certainly not get the results which the Government look for from this Commission.
I therefore regard the question of the composition of the Commission as an absolutely vital matter, and in order to secure what seem to me to be the essential qualities which must be represented on it I am moving this Amendment, providing that at least two members of the Commission shall be persons who have had execu-
666
tive responsibility in the coal-mining industry; that is to say, people who, when the proposals for amalgamation or leases come forward, will deal with managers or owners of coal mines as men having the same kind of experience of the industry as they have, and in making proposals for amalgamations will understand what amalgamations mean. Perhaps the Government already intend to do these things, but I am not sure that intentions are always the same thing as execution in dealing with public matters, and I have moved this Amendment in order to make certain that the Coal Commission do have that kind of experience.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HASTINGS: I wish to support my noble friend in this matter. The Civil Service have the admirable qualities to which my noble friend has referred, but they do live a circumscribed and, if I may say so without offence, a hide-bound life which places them out of touch with the daily life of the people. To exclude a member of the Civil Service from this particular Commission would react to the advantage of the industry and to the proper conduct of the purposes for which this Bill is produced before Parliament. It is really essential to have persons who are in contact with the daily life of the people and who are familiar with the problems of industry, and not a member of the Civil Service who, through no fault of his own, has in early life entered a Service which takes him out of daily touch with the people which alone enables him to understand the problems which this Bill must present. It is for that reason that I beg to support my noble friend.
EARL STANHOPE: Frankly I have no idea who the gentlemen are whom my honourable and gallant friend has got in his mind, if he has anybody in his mind, as regards the members of the Coal Commission; but if my noble friend will consider what generally happens in this country he may change his mind on the subject. I do not pretend that this Government is a Government of experts in every particular. I cannot pretend, and I do not suppose most of my colleagues can pretend, that we are experts in the actual subjects which we have to administer in

667
our respective Departments. There is one great exception in the shape of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is an expert in his particular subject, but the remainder of us are chosen for other reasons. Similarly, very often in regard to public companies or even private companies—for instance, take my noble friend Lord Home. I do not suppose he would set up as being a great expert on railway matters; but nobody would say he is not obviously a thoroughly suitable person to be head of a great railway company.
Why should a different system prevail in regard to the Coal Commission, particularly if you look at the second paragraph, which lays down that no one shall be a member for less than five years or for more than ten years? What follows from that? It means that if you take an expert from the coal industry, unless you take him at an age when he is going into retirement, which is in most cases undesirable, he is going to go back into the coal industry. Is it a wise thing that a man who works in one particular area, and with a certain section of the people in the coal industry, should be put as one of the five people in charge of the whole management of this great industry? Is it not better to get someone with general knowledge and fine capacity in other ways who relies on the expert evidence and expert guidance of his advisers, not civil servants in this case, but the equivalent of civil servants, except that they can be discharged if they are found not to be suitable; one who will rely on that evidence and guidance and bring an independent judgment to bear upon the problems presented to him? I suggest to my noble friend that he may find that under his proposal he is getting someone who perhaps does not come with an independent mind to the matter, but comes with an expert mind, rather inclined not to trust his advisers; one who thinks his opinion is right and who is rather allied to the people in one region rather than to the country as a whole. As directors of companies are not experts, but rely on experts to advise them, similarly the members of the Coal Commission should do the same thing in this case.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am sorry I do not understand the argument the noble Earl has used at all. The com-
668
parisons which he has made are, I think, completely irrelevant. I am not suggesting what the noble Earl says. I did not suggest that the head of a great Department of State should be an expert or that it was desirable that there should be an expert at the head of the Coal Commission. In the first place, except in the case of one or two, the Departments of State do not administer great services, and in the case of the great Services the Army Council consists of expert soldiers and the Board of Admiralty consists of Admirals. The Directors of the London Transport Board consist largely of people who have built up the London Transport. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Chairman or all the members of the Coal Commission should be experts. What I am suggesting is that it is essential that on this Commission you should have an effective representation of people who have real experience of the industry itself. If there is a difficulty in finding such persons because they have to retire after ten years, I would eliminate the ten years and let them serve for fifteen or twenty years. If you have a first-class man, why should we limit his period of service? All I am contending for is to secure that this Commission should have on its membership men who really do understand the inner workings and the life of the great industry over which they are to have an enormous influence.
EARL STANHOPE: They are really equivalent to a small board of five directors. Of course they have the whole of their expert advisers below them to advise.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think that the analogy of the Ministers of the Crown was not only irrelevant but really almost improper. We can very easily get rid of a Minister of the Crown, but I was very much surprised at the remark made by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, that these members must retire within five or ten years. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor if that is the correct reading of the first few lines of page 51.
EARL STANHOPE: I think they can be reappointed.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is very important. Lord Stanhope indicated that these men were going to be retired after five or ten years. There is nothing in the first few lines of paragraph 2 to

669
say that unless the term is a term which can be repeated they shall retire. It is important, and I think makes all the more necessary what Lord Lothian has suggested should be done—namely, that there should be one or more experts appointed qua experts. I cannot help thinking that read in connection wtih paragraphs 5 and 6 the reluctance of the Government to allow an expert to be put on to this Board is notable. Paragraphs 5 and 6, which later on I propose with the leave of your Lordships to try to omit, set out a number of limitations upon the qualifications of these gentleman. They have to sell out their possessions in certain types of industry in order to avoid all risks of corruption. I will move to omit the words. I think they are quite derogatory to the dignity and probity of the men to be appointed on this Commission. Meanwhile, I really do not see that Lord Stanhope has answered the case. It seems to me that a very simple, very straightforward and very convincing case was put forward by Lord Lothian.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has in my opinion quite rightly likened this Coal Commission to a board of directors. So far as my limited experience goes—and I know many others in your Lordships' House have greater experience—two expert directors on a board of directors are most valuable, and probably the most valuable are those who are ex-officials who have been concerned in the business. It is most desirable in a case like this, which quite obviously is a most complicated business, that there should be expert directors on the Coal Commission.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should also like to support the Amendment. From my very limited experience I think it is absolutely vital to have two people with expert knowledge on a Board of this sort. I think on the Electricity Board there are two or more expert members as well as those with knowledge of finance.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I cannot help feeling grateful to the noble Marquess for endorsing the thesis which I put forward on Second Reading. The truth of this matter is that you are removing from the coal industry by this Bill one of the most valuable component parts that go to make up that industry. That is the essential mistake of the Bill. By eliminating the private landowner, who has skilled
670
technical advisers, you have left a weakness which has got to be filled in, and the noble Marquess has provided one of the means by which that weakness can possibly be mitigated, although I should not agree that the mere appointment of two technical members of this Commission would be one quarter as effective as the present participation of the private landowners in this industry. I very much hope that he will develop his thesis and if necessary go to a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say one word, because I think there is a little misapprehension about the position. The difficulty is not that the Government do not want to have two persons with technical knowledge, or more persons with technical knowledge, on the Commission. The difficulty is simply that if the Amendment is passed as it stands there is a possibility that at once, or from time to time, it may not be possible to get two completely suitable people who have had executive responsibility in the coal-mining industry. There is some difficulty in my mind as to what is meant by executive responsibility. The noble Lord who has just spoken has pointed out that very often coalowners are admirable people to assist in such work as that which will fall upon the Coal Commission. Those are not people who have had executive responsibility.
It is quite easy to agree that the Commission shall as far as possible include among its members not less than two persons—now I am venturing to suggest an alteration—with executive responsibility or other intimate acquaintance with the working of the coal-mining industry. If you put that in it can always be done, but if you leave it as it is it may force upon the people who have to appoint the Commission—and I rather think I am at the moment one of the people who have got to consider the matter—the appointment of two people who are not wholly as good as other people you could get, who have not the quality of being persons who have had executive responsibility. Something of the sort might be done, and I think it would carry out all the real objects of the noble Marquess, because I think the words "executive responsibility" are going to hamper very much the person who has to make this appointment.
LORD HASTINGS: Might I ask the Lord Chancellor a question which is really very interesting? Would the alteration which he suggests exclude the possibility of appointing two civil servants from the Ministry of Mines?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have suggested words which I certainly think would exclude them. Whether they are effective or not I will not pledge myself at the moment, but they are intended to exclude them. I want two experts. If that is all that is wanted, I would not exclude for a moment some of the people who are coalowners and who, as I know, are experts, although they are not technical people with executive responsibility. They are people who really have an intimate knowledge of the coal industry. Two people of that kind can always be found for the members of the Commission.
LORD GAINFORD: I am aware that there is an enormous number of men who have had executive duties in connection with coal-mining but after a certain number of years underground have retired and are ready to be consulted, as they often are, by colliery firms in connection with underground and mining operations. I do not think, from my knowledge of the coal industry, that there would be any difficulty whatever in finding men, other than civil servants, who have had executive responsibility directly in the management of underground operations, know all about mining and are certificated mining engineers, who are no longer employed definitely except for purposes of being brought into consultation in connection with difficulties which occur in the collieries of this country. But so long as the words which the Government have suggested in place of those of my noble friend the Marquess of Lothian really mean that they are not to be reckoned as men of experience merely because they have been in the Civil Service, but that men who have had actual experience in connection with mining are to be appointed, I am satisfied.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am very glad to accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord. If he will introduce words of that kind to be considered at the Report stage, they seem to me all right. I think the purpose on which we are agreed is quite clear: that
672
you do not want this Coal Commission to be an alien and foreign body; it must be something that is integrated with the real life of the industry, otherwise you will get into trouble. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Does the wording of paragraphs 1 to 7 make it quite clear that members of the female sex are excluded from this Commission? There seem to be very few Government Commissions so far into which they have not found their way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not certain whether the noble Earl desires to include or exclude them.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I want to make quite sure that the wording of this Schedule definitely excludes them. The word "he" is used, and I hope that that is sufficient to exclude women.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to say that, if a member of the female sex is qualified, I do not see why she should not be appointed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have here a manuscript Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford: Page 50, line 26, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD THE EARL OF CRAWFORD moved to leave out paragraphs 5 and 6. The noble Earl said: These paragraphs say that the members of the Commission, soon after appointment, have to sell any interests they possess
"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."
Those are very wide words. They prevent a man having investments in practically any iron and steel business, any business that makes machinery or electrical equipment, or rails, or wagons, or wires, or which sells pit props or ropes or bricks, and above all the by-products of coal, which of course include gas and electricity. Is it really necessary or desirable, in appointing these five gentlemen, to assume as definitely as this that they are going to be subject to jobbery and corruption, that they will be influenced in the granting or withholding of leases by their share-holdings in one or other of one hundred or possibly two hundred sidelines of industry in plant and equipment? That is what these two paragraphs do.
Certainly it is very inelegant, but is it necessary to suppose that these gentlemen are going to be subject to corruption or jobbery of this kind, or are going to give leases or withhold leases in order to further the business of a company which makes bricks and suchlike? I think it is very unfortunate if this sort of restriction has got to be imposed. I may just add this, that if you are dealing with men who are so liable to dishonesty as paragraphs 5 and 6 assume, they are not going to be deterred by having to sell their shares in a brickworks or gas company. Their methods of corruption would be far more subtle, and therefore far more dangerous. If they are dishonest they are not going to be deterred by not being able to hold their shares in a railway company. I therefore move that these paragraphs be left out, in order to find out if they are necessary, because I think they are throwing a needless slur and doubt upon men who will doubtless be the soul of honour.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 26, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I look upon this as a protection, because, human nature being what it is, if they give certain votes people will charge them with being influenced.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There is another aspect of the question. To come back to the simile of the Leader of the House, this is a board of directors, and if you become a director you have to take qualifying shares in nearly every case.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I would like to support the noble Earl's Amendment. Presumably the Coal Commission are going to be a body of gentlemen upon whom we can rely to give us the best service. If we are going to ask the gentlemen who are going to sit on this Commission to get rid of all their holdings, or a great part of their holdings, we are going to get an entirely different class of man to sit on the Coal Commission. In the past we have always found, in this country at least, that the gentlemen who serve on Commissions of this sort have been, as the noble Earl has said, the soul of honour. We found that both during the War and in peace time. I suggest
674
that these paragraphs will have a deterrent effect and prevent the employment on the Coal Commission of gentlemen who could render the best service.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: These two paragraphs were put into the Schedule for one purpose only—namely, to secure the independence of the members of the Commission, and in the short time which has been available since this manuscript Amendment was handed in I have ascertained that they are the usual and general provisions which are inserted in connection with members of such bodies as this Commission. I am told that in the London Passenger Transport Act and the London Electricity Act these identical paragraphs are inserted.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The London Passenger Transport Board has in its membership gentlemen who do serve in other companies.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: That does not alter the argument at all, and I am told that there are many more Acts of Parliament where exactly the same provisions are inserted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If that is the case I will accept it, but I am bound to say I should be a little surprised if I heard that Lord Ashfield is not permitted to hold shares in a brick-making company.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think this is a more important question than the noble Earl suggests. If the members of this Commission have to be individuals who really have no connection with any important commercial undertaking, you may have to go very far in order to find some individuals who are entirely unconnected with those undertakings which supply the coal trade. I believe we shall have to fall back on derelict Cabinet Ministers. It seems to me they will be the only individuals in the country who have no connection with any useful undertaking.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think the intention of this paragraph is perfectly all right, but I think a little consideration ought to be given to it. What is clearly intended is that these gentlemen should have no connection with a coalmining concern; but to say that they must have no interest in any derivative of the coal industry is really almost absurd.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If it would satisfy the House we should be prepared to omit the words in lines 30 and 31 "or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suppose my noble friend can put that down on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Will the noble Earl move it in that way?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Earl moves this as a manuscript Amendment—in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule, omit all words after "coal" in line 30.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 30, leave out ("or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining").—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That will allow him to grow pit props if he likes!
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I am not at all sure I can assent to this Amendment. It seems to me that it is giving a definite advantage to those who go in for low temperature carbonisation and other methods of manufacture. He can boost them as much as he likes, and help them as a shareholder in every possible way, to the detriment of ordinary coal-mining. I do think it ought to include "the manufacture of the by-products of coal." Would the noble Lord agree to the inclusion of these words?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If it would suit the convenience of the House I shall withdraw this Amendment and bring the matter up again, in some other words, on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, after paragraph 7, to insert the following new paragraph:
"8. The Commission shall by order, approved by the Board of Trade appoint one or more Regional Commissioners in each valuation region with the power and duty of carrying out in that region such administrative functions of the Commission under this Act as are specified in the order."
676
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is moved in much the same spirit as the one moved earlier this evening by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. The idea underlying it is to make the Commission more effective in its dealings with the coal trade. I do not know whether, in fact, I have put this Amendment down in the right part of the Bill. It might have been better in some other place, but, as this Schedule seems to describe the arrangements of the Commission, it may well find a place here. This Amendment is not in the interests of any particular section of the coal trade, but it is an attempt to ensure that the Commission will keep more in touch with coal-mining in the districts, more in touch with the people responsible for carrying on the work. It is, I believe, very important that a body such as this should decentralise as much as possible.
It may sound a little contradictory, in a Bill which has as its object the unification of royalties, to suggest anything that might appear to split up the body responsible for the management, but that is not the real intention. There is no suggestion that the ownership should be subdivided or that the management in matters of policy or principle should be affected in any way. It is simply a proposal that in matters of detail the Commission should work in and through the-districts where that work has to be done. The small day-to-day and week-to-week items should not have to be referred to the Commission in London if a decision has to be taken. I feel strongly on this point of centralisation. Your Lordships will be aware of many other examples connected with Government Departments, and the administration of local government where endless time is wasted through having to wait for decisions to be taken by the Department in London. There is a feeling in many walks of life in the country that too little attention is paid to local opinion, and the fact that that feeling exists is a bad and unhealthy sign.
This is a very important thing indeed. I could quote endless examples in other spheres of activity. Your Lordships will be familiar with many questions of local government which have to be decided subject to the approval of the Minister or the Department, not only questions of broad policies, but questions of detail in many cases. I would suggest that one-of the advantages of the present system

677
is that in most cases those who direct the industry at least live in the district where the coal is mined. Their agents live there, and they are in intimate touch with the district and with the people who are conducting the trade. If any question of a decision has to be taken about the alteration of a boundary or about the method of working and so on, it is comparatively easy to get the mineral agent of the owner to consult with the owner. Perhaps ninety-nine times out of a hundred he is on the spot. I have put this Amendment down for the purpose of avoiding the delay and the awkwardness of having to wait while the application on behalf of the coal company has to go up and be considered, possibly not by the Commissioners themselves but, it may be, by the secretary or the general manager who are concerned with the administrative machinery.
I have not attempted in the Amendment to specify what functions should be delegated to the Regional Commissioners. I suppose in a Schedule of this sort it would be impossible to do so. I think your Lordships will appreciate the sort of thing I have in mind. The general tendency in most firms at the present time in regard to administration is towards over-centralisation, and this Bill is another example of that. I think a provision such as I have indicated would be of great importance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 8, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Ridley.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: As one who has had a certain amount of experience in this sort of administration in this country I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. I cast my mind back to the pensions' administration which was set up during the War. I am referring particularly to pensions for Service men who had been discharged or were disabled and so on. One of the first Committees set up after the War by the House of Commons of which I had the honour to be a member was a Committee to decentralise the pensions administration in order to set up regional areas. It was found that under the original procedure there was a great deal of delay, as my noble friend has said, in administration, and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction owing to that delay, so that generally speaking, the Government were forced to decentralise that administration.
678
During the War, so far as food control was concerned, the Government found it necessary to do that from the very commencement. After all, questions of pensions were to some extent matters that could afford a certain amount of delay; but when we come to the question of coal and coal prices and matters affecting the coal industry itself, these are matters that have to be settled with the greatest amount of celerity possible. If these questions are to be referred to London for settlement I can conceive that the administrative machinery of the Coal Commission will suffer many disabilities, and will be liable not only to break down in certain respects but to be the cause of very great embarrassment, not only to those in the coal industry but to the Government themselves. I hope sincerely that the Government will consider this Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, because I feel sure that if they are able to accept it in some form or other it will save them from a very great deal of difficulty and trouble in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the opinion of the Government this Amendment is really quite unnecessary. This is not a case where there is a pension fund being established and administered or anything of that sort. This is a case where a Coal Commission, which everybody is going to respect, the members of which your Lordships have already decided are so high in character that it is unnecessary to leave paragraphs 5 and 6 in the Schedule, because it would be an insult to them, is going to do its best in the interests of the industry. The main duty of this Commission will be to grant leases. There are no doubt some incidental things, such as answering tenants on various subjects and giving consent to various things, but the main thing is the granting of leases. As regards that it must be done by the Commissioners as a whole, and it is for that reason that there is a quorum established for them, that they are to have a secretary, officers, agents and servants and a seal, and that they are to act as if they were in substance a corporate body.
It is true there will be some work to be done in regions some distance from London. They already have the power to appoint any agent—whether you call him a Commissioner or not does not matter—in any district to perform any of the more

679
or less clerical duties and things of that sort that have got to be done in that part of the country. Anything important that comes before such an agent will be submitted by him to the Commission who will act in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule and a proper quorum will decide. It is most dangerous, I would submit, to suggest that an individual can do anything but something of a Ministerial character. The right course is to leave it to this body of high-minded people who are interested only to do their best. You must leave it to them to decide what duties they would confer from time to time on a local agent. I would suggest that with that explanation the noble Viscount might be content to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I understand that the Commission will be capable of giving executive authority to agents in the district. My only comment is that in similar circumstances I observe that has not happened. I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Before we pass from this First Schedule I would like to make an observation about the Amendment I moved just now. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, said this was exactly what appears in the Act establishing the London Passenger Transport Board.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I did not. I said it was similar to that Act.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Earl, Lord Munster, mentioned the London Passenger Transport Board, which prompted me to observe that I learned with astonishment that the noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, is not allowed to possess any shares in a brick-making company. Here are the terms of the relevant clause—that a member of the Board shall within six months sell his interests in any company which is carrying on any passenger transport undertaking in the London Passenger Transport area. That is entirely different from the ridiculous provision which appears in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Schedule.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
PROVISIONS FOR DEFINING PROPERTY AND RIGHTS WITH WHICH, AND MATTERS SUBJECT TO WHICH, COAL IS TO BE ACQUIRED.

PART I.
General.
(4) In a case in which any of the conveying parties might, after the conveyance, be subject to any personal liability in respect of a restrictive covenant that adversely affects the coal or mine, the conveyance shall be deemed to contain a covenant entered into by the Commission with that party with the object and intent of affording to him and his successors in title a full and sufficient indemnity, but not further or otherwise, that the Commission will at all times after the vesting date duly perform and observe that restrictive covenant in relation to the coal or mine and will at all times keep that party and his successors in title effectually indemnified against all actions, proceedings, costs, charges, claims, and demands whatsoever in respect of that restrictive covenant.

PART II.
Vesting of rights to withdraw support.
6.—(1) In a case in which the fee simple in the coal or mine and the fee simple in land supported thereby was vested on the valuation date in the same person and no coal-mining lease of that coal or mine was then subsisting, there shall vest in the Commission with the coal or mine, such a right as is hereinafter mentioned, to the extent to which the existing owners of the coal or mine were competent on the valuation date to grant such a right by virtue of their interests in that land, that is to say, a right to withdraw support from that land so far as may be reasonably requisite for the working of any coal, subject to an obligation to make good, or to pay proper compensation for,—

(a) damage arising from such working to that land, exclusive of buildings or works thereon; and

(b) subject as hereinafter provided, damage arising from such working to buildings or works thereon.

(2) The Commission shall, on the occasion of their first exercising, or granting to a lessee the benefit of, a right vested in them by this paragraph give public notice that they propose so to do by advertisement in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality, and, in the case of buildings or works whose construction is begun after the date of the first publication of the notice, the obligation to make good or to pay compensation referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph shall be limited to damage which could not have been avoided by reasonable and proper precautions taken in the design and construction of the buildings or works to minimise damage in the event of subsidence.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved, in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2, to leave out "a restrictive" and insert "any." The noble Lord said: I have only seen this Amendment this afternoon for the first time and I am afraid the Lord Chancellor will probably tell me that there is very little in it, that it is all wrong and things of that sort. I rather imagine he will be right. But please do not think that I am unnecessarily taking up the time of the Committee, because there is a difficulty here and we want his assistance to enable us to deal with it. Under the Schedule any of the conveying parties to the imaginary conveyance that we have previously discussed, who might be subject to any personal liability on a restrictive covenant that adversely affects the coal or mine, have to be indemnified against the consequences of that covenant being broken. The difficulty we are up against here is that, although everyone knows quite well what a restrictive covenant is, not everybody has drawn his covenant to comply exactly with the term "restrictive covenant." We feel that where we have a covenant that is in substance a restrictive covenant, where the Commission could commit an act or refrain from committing an act, and they do intentionally commit an act, they ought to stand the racket if anybody is to stand the racket at all.
I have two examples that have been handed to me. One is that of a colliery company that was in negotiation with a royalty owner for a lease of certain coal and, in anticipation of the grant of a lease, drove certain headings into the coal. The negotiations were abandoned by mutual consent and it was agreed that it was necessary to leave a barrier round the heading. The colliery company paid to the royalty owner the royalty value of the coal left unworked and the royalty owner agreed that if at any future time he worked the coal, or the coal left unworked should be worked by a lease or a licence granted by the royalty owner, colliery A should have an allowance in respect of the payment that it had made. If they had only said that that coal should not be worked, all would have been well, but they said it should be worked on certain terms. Now if the Commission proceed to do it the wretched royalty owner would find himself liable in an action.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Indeed he will not. With all respect to the noble Lord it is not so. He has read out that it is only if the royalty owner or his licensee worked that coal, he is to make an allowance. That is not going to be the case here.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I have been instructed by a very eminent firm of solicitors and I quite agree that this is rather a brief account that I read out. I should have thought it might have occurred to the Lord Chancellor that it would be almost inconceivable in such a case as that that the owner would have covenanted otherwise than with heirs, executors and assigns.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But his heirs, executors and assigns are not going to do it.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I should have thought that the Coal Commission would have been assigns. I thought that was the purpose of the Bill. There was another case where the owners of unlet coal covenanted with each other that in certain events, which had happened, neither of them, nor their respective successors in title, would let his coal without first offering to concur with the other in making mutual arrangements for joint working or a joint lease. I do not think that is a particularly good case, but it does illustrate principles. It is not a case where I think any damages would be given, but we are interested here in the class of covenant, not in the fact that it is not going to cause any damage. An eminent counsel, who I think is the counsel mentioned in the discussion which we had a short time ago, has advised that this covenant did not create any interest in the coal in favour of the owner, but the owner is under personal liability to pay damages if the covenant is not performed. I am not asking the noble and learned Lord to give us an Amendment here and now, but I hope he will give us some assistance. I want to submit that where a covenant which adversely affects the coal, and is really of a negative character—that some act shall not be done, or only upon terms—it affects the value of coal as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. I submit that this is a matter that can be dealt with in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 3, leave out ("a restrictive") and insert ("any").—(Lord Darcy (de Knayth).)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try to be brief. In the other place this question was raised by a very learned counsel, who in the first instance wished to have a general covenant, or rather an indemnity against any sort of covenant which affected the coal, and it was the subject of discussion among lawyers in the House. It was pointed out to him that he could not suggest any covenant other than a restrictive covenant which adversely affected the coal, which could impose any liability on the owner after this Bill had resulted in an Act and the property had passed to the Commissioners. It was said that if any such covenant could be suggested the Government would see that something was done to protect the person who might have been liable under such covenant, and I have already said privately to the noble Lord that if he can now suggest any such covenant, other than a restrictive covenant, against which the owner of the coal, one of the conveying parties, requires an indemnity, it shall be considered, but my strong belief is that no such covenant can be suggested. My view is rather confirmed by this, that he has given us two examples which have been put before him, and in neither of them is the owner of the coal left under any liability whatever. Accordingly I see no reason for putting in anything which will only occasion trouble, and I shall ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I think that my effort at prophecy when I introduced this Amendment has been carried out reasonably well, but I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord for replying in the very courteous way he has, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph 6, to leave out all words after "subject to an obligation to" in subparagraph (1) to the end of sub-paragraph (2) and insert "pay reasonable compensation for damage due to letting down the surface of the land and buildings and works thereon. Any dispute as to the fact of such damage or the amount of such compensation shall, failing agree-
684
ment, be determined by arbitration." The noble Lord said: In this Amendment we have reached a subject in which, the principle of transfer having once been, we will not say agreed, but no longer disputed, this particular point is perhaps not only of the chiefest interest to mineral owners now, but a perennial and continuing interest to surface owners in the future. The proposals contained in the Bill as drawn had better be dealt with for the moment on their merits. This particular part of the Second Schedule deals with the transfer of such rights as are now possessed by the owner of surface and minerals to the Coal Commission, and inasmuch as the surface owner who is also the owner of the minerals is in a position to safeguard his surface rights in his lease, so does the Coal Commission desire to obtain the same powers that the surface owner now possesses.
If that were all we might almost leave it at that, but it is by no means all. In this Schedule there are contained certain words, which, although not unfamiliar in certain mineral areas of Great Britain, are extremely unfamiliar in others. There are the words inserted before "pay compensation," "make good or." There is a vast deal of good between making good and paying compensation, and whereas making good is permitted in certain leases, in the majority of leases it is not permitted other than by the consent of the lessor, which makes the entire difference. It is not to be supposed that a lessor and a lessee are in constant variance in the matter of making good damage which has been necessarily inadvertently caused. There are innumerable cases where the lessee does make good and does pay compensation, but it is always with the consent of the lessor, who has the right to insist upon the payment of compensation.
LORD STRABOLGI: "Proper compensation."
LORD HASTINGS: Yes by all means, proper compensation. It is the words "to make good" that I am concerned with. It means that the lessee under the Coal Commission will have the right either to make good or to pay proper compensation, whichever suits him—not the surface owner—best. That is a very serious interference with existing surface rights. But it is as nothing to that which

685
follows. There is a provision contained as the Schedule proceeds that unless the surface owner has complied with certain conditions in respect of the development of his surface he will not be entitled to compensation for damage in respect of that development. It is really hardly possible to exaggerate the effect that this must have upon the property and the potentialities of development of the surface owner after he has parted compulsorily with his minerals.
On the occasion on which I ventured to initiate a debate on Part I of the Bill, only last Thursday, I ventilated this subject at some length, but here we are now in Committee getting down to details, and this is the proper moment for dealing with it in detail. It is here proposed to impose upon the owner of the surface whose minerals will have been taken away from him an obligation which does not lie upon him. His lessee is under covenant to pay compensation for damage done upon the surface, and he, as I have said before and repeat, endeavours to have the best of both worlds and to arrange that the surface is not developed in such a manner as will depreciate the value of the minerals beneath his own surface, so that he may extract these minerals through the medium of his colliery tenant and later develop the surface. After the coal has been taken away from the surface owner, his interest no longer lies in coal; his interest will lie exclusively in the deveopment of the surface.
To impose upon him an obligation in rsepect of that development to which he is not now liable is to place upon him a financial liability which may be exceedingly serious. It will at least hinder him in his development, hinder him in any effort he may make to recoup himself for the losses which this Bill inevitably inflicts upon him, and it will incidentally make it difficult also for those whose interest in coal never was great, but who desire to occupy the surface and have had that surface withheld from them because the owner of that surface has desired not to hinder his colliery tenant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am loath to interrupt the noble Lord even for one moment, but I thought he was aware, and certainly a message was sent
686
to him from which he would be aware, that on this point on which he is dilating with such eloquence the Government are prepared to make a full concession.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble and learned Lord has pleased me more than I am able to say, but no message was brought to me to that effect. It was hinted to me that the Government might be prepared to give a concession in this matter. If I had known, I should have spared the time of the Committee and my own voice. If the noble and learned Lord is prepared to give way I shall most gladly sit down and welcome what he has to say.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 11, leave out from the first ("to") to end of line 27 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are two questions which arise here, and I do not propose as at present advised to deal with them quite in the same way. The first point is whether it is wrong to give a working colliery owner an option to make good or to pay proper compensation. Your Lordships will observe that this is a matter which does not in any way affect the Commission. This is a matter for the ordinary people who are going to work the coal of this country throughout the land. My information, and I would add my experience, with regard to colliery leases is that it is the commonest possible practice to give the lessee who is letting down some surface an option as to whether he shall make good or pay proper compensation. I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I thought he had finished what he wanted to say on that point.
With regard to that, as at present advised the Government do not make a concession, but with regard to the other point which he was dealing with when I am afraid I interrupted him but without any intention of being discourteous, the Government are prepared to omit the various provisions contained substantially in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 6, under which there is a qualification with regard to the nature of the construction and the nature of the building. With respect to that we propose to say that we do not insist on it. It is true we run a certain risk there, or rather the lessee will run a certain risk, for the reason that it has

687
been hinted there are sometimes buildings put up, when subsidence is approaching, which it is known are going to tumble down; but it is for the lessees to say whether they wish to insist upon the clause as it is—that is to say, the people who are going to work the coal. The House must determine the matter as it thinks fit, but so far as the Government are concerned we are prepared to omit sub-paragraph (2) which will entail, a little alteration of (a) and (b) in subparagraph (1), lines 12 to 15. That is only verbal.
Now having omitted that, there remains only the question of making good or paying proper compensation. With regard to that I should like to remind the noble Lord, and to appeal to some of the noble Lords who have actual experience of this matter, that there are quite a number of large colliery companies who keep a staff accustomed to make good minor damage when it takes place on the surface, who do it with extraordinary expedition to the complete content of the people on the surface who have suffered some minor damage, it may be, to a shed or to the ceiling of a room or something of that sort. I am told there are cases when the damage, such as it is, resulting from long-wall working, is made good within twenty-four hours after it is done. I should suggest to your Lordships that it would be extremely unwise to impose upon the tenants who are going to work the coal in this country an obligation in every case to have a quarrel prima facie, unless the person on the surface is a very high-minded person, as to the precise sum which is involved in putting right a fence or making some minor repair to some farm buildings or even to cottage buildings. Far better, if the working colliery company is in a position to do it, that they should send in their own men and make the thing as good as new straightaway. That, as I submit and according to my instructions, is so common a provision that it cannot be suggested there is anything unreasonable in it. On that point, therefore, I propose to ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. On the other point I am fully accepting what he wants, subject to alterations in sub-paragraph (1) between lines 12 and 15.
LORD HASTINGS: If I might be permitted to deal first with the lesser point
688
of making good, the noble and learned Lord Chancellor states with perfect truth what is the custom in the great majority of colliery districts of Great Britain. It is no less than the truth to say that in the vast majority of cases the colliery staff does in fact make good the damage which is done. I agree that it would be most unreasonable to insist that they should in all cases pay compensation. It would not react to the advantage of the surface owner that that should be done. But he will not forget that at the present time making good is always done with the consent of the lessor, the consent of the surface owner. It is done as a matter of convenience and always with the consent of the lessor. If he would agree to insert "the consent of the lessor being necessary thereto" all the prospect of trouble and compulsory powers and the rest would be done away with. The lessor's rights would be safeguarded and colliery proprietors would not be put to greater expense than now. But not all colliery proprietors are model lessees. There are many whose practice and custom is above all reproach, but there are, as in all walks of life, some who are not entirely reliable. If you allow them to choose between making good and paying compensation you will have buildings, in respect of which compensation ought to be paid on account of damage, dealt with by unsatisfactory colliery lessees whose ideas of making good are not those which could commend themselves to any landlord. If it was made subject to the permission of the lessor there would be no further argument.
On the larger point I am more than grateful to the Government for having given way on this very vital matter the importance of which really cannot be exaggerated. I cannot speak with knowledge, but I hope that the lessees, in other words the representatives of the Mining Association, will not feel disposed to dispute the propriety of what the royalty owners have put forward as essential to them and which the Government have been courteous and gracious enough to acknowledge. I do not know how we are going to deal with the framework of the Amendment, which is neither to be dropped nor carried, but I should be very content to leave that to the Lord Chairman and the Government because I am confident that that will be put right.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: May I ask the noble and learned Lord Chancellor exactly how this is going to read now. As I take it, it will read from line 10:
"… subject to an obligation to make good, or to pay proper compensation for damage arising from such working to that land, exclusive of buildings or works thereon—
then we omit everything thereafter. Am I correct in that assumption?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is right. I would like my draftsman to go through it, but that is as I understand it.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: That would mean, as I read it, that compensation would be paid for damage to the land but no compensation would be paid for any buildings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry. That is just what I did not mean. I thought you said "inclusive" but I understand it was "exclusive" as you read it. It will read:
"to pay proper compensation for damage arising from such working to that land, including any buildings or works thereon."
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: Of course that makes a complete difference.
LORD STRABOLGI: I have listened with the greatest attention to this amiable exchange between the noble and learned Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and I am not quite clear what is proposed. I think we are entitled to know, and for this reason. Earlier in the proceedings on the Committee stage of this Bill, I had the privilege of moving an Amendment—which, of course, was not accepted—in an attempt to safe guard people from damage by subsidence. As far as I can gather, those who speak for the Mining Association—
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My noble friend must not regard me as speaking for anything at all except as a member of this House.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was not quoting the noble Viscount, Lord Horne, but the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. He said that those who were speaking for the Mining Association—
LORD HASTINGS: But I said they were not in this House.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not mean to say anything offensive at all. The noble Lord has, quite rightly, had expert advice.
LORD HASTINGS: That is perfectly right.
LORD STRABOLGI: From the people who advise the Mining Association. I am not imputing anything to the noble Lord or to any other member of this Committee. I was merely speaking of those who advised the noble Lord on behalf of the Mining Association. Is that right?
LORD HASTINGS: That is quite acceptable.
LORD STRABOLGI: They are satisfied with the concessions that the Lord Chancellor has had wrung out of him at a late hour, the third late night sitting on this Bill. But I understand from an interjection made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that those who are advised by those who advise the royalty owners—I hope I am not going to give offence—are prepared to compromise or to accept this. I make no apology for asking this question: What is happening to the rights of the unfortunate people who built houses on the land perhaps carelessly or in ignorance, poor people who suffered severely from subsidence? Is their position going to be worsened as a result of this paragraph?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think we are entitled to know that.
LORD HASTINGS: It will be strengthened.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am not quite sure about it. I think that the words in the Bill were vague enough as it was and I do not see what advantage we get by combining (a) and (b) of subparagraph (1) of paragraph 6.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Combining (a) and (b), if the noble Lord will allow me, means simply this. As the Schedule read, there was a qualification about the liabilities with regard to buildings—namely, the qualification contained in sub-paragraph (2). It is now going to run that there is to be compensation for "damage arising from such working to

691
that land "and damage" arising from such working to buildings or works thereon." That is not going to hurt any living human being except possibly the people who have to pay. The persons who own land and buildings whom the noble Lord is desirous of protecting are going to get the benefit of this. I rather protest against the suggestion that anything has been wrung out of the Government, or that there has been an eleventh-hour compromise. That is not so at all. An Amendment has been put down on a paragraph in this Schedule, which after all is a very complicated and difficult matter and involves questions of law which are by no means easy; and after long consideration the Government have thought it fair to make the concession that I have made. There has been no compromise and nothing wrung out of the Government whatever.
LORD STRABOLGI: Suppose there had been something wrung out of the Government that is what the noble Lords are here for. That is their job. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I presume, is on this side of the House although he usually sits on the other. We are here to wring concessions from the Government where we think concessions are called for. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord he is the head of the legal profession of this country, but it so happens that I have done more active political work in one House of Parliament or the other than he has. It is the business of Members of Parliament in either House to fight as best they can for what is just, and if they can wring concessions out of the Government, then good luck to them! I tried myself to do so earlier in the afternoon, and if more of your Lordships had supported me, I should have succeeded.
When the Government have pressure brought to bear upon them, they make concessions. The noble Earl who leads your Lordships' House knows this very well, because he has a long acquaintanceship with another place. So has the Lord President of the Council, if I might draw him into this. Would they please advise the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that when I suggest that the Government have had something wrung from them I am only complimenting the Parliamentary skill of
692
those who are getting some concessions. What I rose for was to probe a little further into the position of a man who owns a house which is suffering from subsidence. Is his position worsened by this? The Lord Chancellor says "No." Then I come to the next question. I am not very familiar with legal phraseology used in mining leases and similar documents, but if you look at line 11 it says, "to pay proper compensation." I am not familiar with any such term as "proper" in a legal document.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought perhaps the noble Lord was objecting to the use, in connection with compensation, of a word so simple as "proper," and would prefer to have the word "improper."
LORD STRABOLGI: I have always been taught that qualifying adjectives were dangerous in legal documents and Acts of Parliament. In the Amendment drafted by Lord Hastings and his friends "reasonable" is adopted, to which I objected. Why should it not be put down plainly as "compensation"? I think I have a right to ask whether, as a result of these exchanges and these comings and goings, with the bargain that has been struck—a perfectly proper bargain—the position of those who are likely in the future to suffer from subsidence will be worsened. I should be very glad if the noble and learned Lord could give an assurance.
LORD HASTINGS: I should like to say a word about this. Lord Strabolgi is quite properly agitated as to whether the small house-owner is going to suffer or be benefited. He forgets that the mineral owner is to be extinguished as such, that he is in future, where he is both the owner of the surface and of the minerals, to be the owner of the surface only, and that anything he can suggest as an Amendment should be designed to improve the situation of the occupier, tenant or freeholder of the surface. Clearly it must be to the interest of the man who is going to be interested only in the surface to safeguard the interests of others who are interested, as well as himself. Accordingly this particular Amendment, of which the Government have approved, is going to improve the position of all upon the surface, big or little, freeholders or tenants. That he can take from me to

693
be the fact, or we should not have sought this Amendment. In so far as he has suggested that this concession has been wrung from the Government, I think the very fact that I began to develop the case as I did, and was checked by the Lord Chancellor, proves that I did not know that the Government were going to give way. As for wringing, indeed I had not begun to wring. I can but reiterate the gratitude which I feel to the noble and learned Lord, but I had only an inkling and nothing more of what was going to happen, although I admit I was confident as to my ability to carry the House with me.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank Lord Hastings for giving me the explanation that I required.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I would like to know what will happen in the case of a dispute as to whether proper or improper compensation has been awarded? I understand from the Lord Chancellor that the words originally in the Bill regarding disputes will not be included in this paragraph. Is that the case? If so, what will happen if there is a dispute?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will wait one minute there is another Amendment on the Paper which will deal with that question. That is the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Hastings.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I add one word of thanks to the Lord Chancellor for the concession he has made. I feel very grateful to the Government, because this happens to be a point on which I personally felt very strongly. I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he is now moving the Amendment in the form which he has described to the House because I personally would attach great importance to seeing this Amendment in that form when we reach the next stage of the Bill. I do not want it left on the understanding that something is going to be put in on the next stage; I would like to se it in now.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: This Amendment has been on the Paper for some time, and I think in the past it has been the Government's practice when they are willing to compromise on an Amendment to put down in writing the rival Amendment, so that the two can be con-
694
sidered together. It is very inconvenient that all these Amendments on which the Government are making concessions should be held over till Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am willing to take whatever course is the most convenient to your Lordships. What I am told is that it would be better perhaps, and more satisfactory, if Lord Hastings were to withdraw his Amendment on an undertaking that we should submit upon Report the extent to which we agree with the Amendment. This will be the position then, that we shall strike out of the existing paragraph the words in (a) and (b), replacing them by the words which I in a sense agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Home, and that we should also omit sub-paragraph (2). That will leave the clause with the words "make good, or"; and with regard to that it will be open on Report for Lord Hastings to move to strike them out by Amendment if he thinks so to do. If that is the convenient course, as I think it is, perhaps he might on that understanding withdraw the present Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: The Lord Chancellor's proposal is quite satisfactory to me. He will understand of course that on Report there must be a suggested Amendment to the words "make good, or." I do not propose to cut them out again; I should propose to add "with the consent of the lessor," but this present Amendment I now withdraw.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are going to leave in the words, and it will be for the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to present another Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I understand. That is quite agreeable to me.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Do we understand that the noble and learned Lord is to include in his Amendment such part of the Amendment suggested by Lord Hastings as refers to compensation which "shall, failing agreement, be determined by arbitration"? I understand from something he has just said that he anticipated that would be so.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is whether the Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Surely the next thing, Lord Hastings

695
having withdrawn, is that we should have the Amendment proposed by the Lord Chancellor, otherwise it does not become part of the Bill as we understood it would do.
LORD HASTINGS: That is so. It will not be in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I need not say that if I am wrong in this I shall admit at once, but what I thought was understood was that on the Report stage paragraph 6 would be as it is, (a) and (b) being altered as mentioned, and sub-paragraph (2) coming out. There is no difficulty, is there?
LORD HASTINGS: There will be some difficulty when the Bill is reprinted because unless an Amendment is made it will be reprinted as we leave it exactly as it is now, and that is not desired.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the leave of your Lordships, then, I should desire to move the Amendment. Can I move it without its being at this moment even in manuscript? I am sure I can put it right. I beg to move that paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1), of the Second Schedule shall be altered by leaving out all words after "land" in line 12 to the end of the sub-paragraph, and replacing them with the words
"damage arising from such working to that land or for damage arising from such working to the buildings or works thereon."
Secondly, I request leave to move that sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 12, leave out from ("land") to end of line 15 and insert ("damage arising from such working to that land or for damage arising from such working to buildings or works thereon").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HASTINGS: That seems to be perfectly in order, but there is one point that does arise. In withdrawing my Amendment, and permitting it to be replaced by the words the Lord Chancellor has suggested, I dropped out any provision for disagreement. I think we shall have to have some provision provided for disagreement at the end of my Amendment, so that it "shall be determined by arbitration." I am not very particular whether it is determined by
696
arbitration or by the Court, but we must have some kind of provision for determining disagreement.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I apologise for interfering, but I cannot help thinking we are labouring under great difficulty. Is it not possible for us to adopt a precedent which I understand has been recently discovered and postpone this particular paragraph?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I suggest to Lord Hastings that the matter which he has just mentioned, which of course has to be settled, is one of the matters which could easily be settled on Report stage, the Amendment which I have already moved being assented to. So there will be two questions. He can raise his "to make good or" and, also how the question of disagreement shall be determined. May I add that the noble Chairman, I think, has not yet got an Amendment with regard to the omission of sub-paragraph (2).
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That is the second Amendment. I have that.
LORD HASTINGS: I am agreeable to that. I merely mentioned it as a saver. There are the two points outstanding, the question of making good and the question of fixing the method of settlement of disagreement. I am quite agreeable to that procedure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think the noble and learned Lord should move the Amendment to omit sub-paragraph (2) now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that sub-paragraph (2) be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 16, leave out lines 16 to 27.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after subparagraph (1) of paragraph 6, to insert:
"(2) On granting to any person the right to withdraw support from any land the Commission shall require that person to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become payable as a result of the exercise of that right."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to secure that there should be some proper provision for compensation from any person who may have been found liable for

697
damage. There should be adequate facilities for payment of compensation. This Amendment is in general terms and applies generally, but I move it more particularly with reference to local authorities. The Association of Municipal Corporations have had this matter under consideration, and they take a rather serious view of what may happen in the future. In Clause 29 certain provisions are made for the protection of local authorities in respect of their statutory undertakings. It provides that in the case of works carried on by a local authority, such as tramways, gas, electricity, water, sewage disposal and so on, they shall vest in the Commission subject to the restriction that the coal should not be worked without the consent in writing of the persons in whom the undertaking is for the time being vested.
That provision is a general one for the protection of all statutory undertakers and ought to apply also to a local authority. Then a later subsection makes provision for the conditions under which consent may be given and that gives adequate protection for a local authority in certain circumstances, but the section omits certain other matters affecting a local authority. For example, the site of a town hall or a building site is not covered by Clause 29. We therefore come back to the question of compensation under the Schedule. A local authority may have gone to very great expense in securing the freehold, including the coal, of a site upon which to build a town hall or a site required for a housing scheme. They have done that in order that they may secure for all time support against subsidence.
Under the Bill the coal under such land passes to the Coal Commission and under the Schedule the Commission have the right to grant permission to withdraw support subject to the obligation to pay compensation. There is no guarantee that the person causing subsidence will be able to pay compensation. My Amendment is to this effect:
"On granting to any person the right to withdraw support from any land the Commission shall require that person to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become payable as a result of the exercise of that right."
To go back to the local authority, they have secured land on which to build perhaps a town hall or museum, and they
698
have secured the freehold including the coal in order that they may be secure for all time of adequate support for the building. This Bill comes along and takes away that security, takes away from them the support of the coal, and damage is done. There is no guarantee under the Bill that the person liable to pay compensation will be in a position to pay it. All I ask is that it shall be the duty of the Commission to require a person to give adequate security for the payment of compensation. It is putting no burden on the Commission and it seems to me a reasonable proposition that some such provision should be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Amulree.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This would be entirely a new departure in legislation of this character. There is no reason that I have been able to see why in this particular case, and in no other case, a man should be required to give security for something which may never happen, and, if it happens, may be without any possibility of determining how much security should be given and without means of knowing when the security would be required to be had recourse to. It is common to have cases where people are allowed to let down and there are powers in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, under which the Railway and Canal Commission can do it. But I have never yet heard of any such provision as this, and I think it would be imposing upon the working lessees a very unfair burden to compel them to give what is called "adequate security," which means a complete guess as to the amount which is necessary in respect of possible damage done at some later time. We have the provisions that compensation is to be given, and I suggest to the noble Lord that this Amendment is one which should not be pressed.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has raised a very important point. It is one of the extraordinary features of this Bill, which has been entirely unnoticed, or at least uncommented upon, that for the first time in the law of England, so far as I know it, the right to support has been withdrawn from the surface owner. It is the first occasion on which any person is entitled to work coal without providing support.

699
A person who would have been prepared to sacrifice whatever he got from the coal in order that his ancient mansion house might be preserved has no longer, under this Bill, got the right to support. The coal can be mined by this Coal Commission under any place in the country on payment of compensation but without any regard to any amenities which have previously been held to be sacred to the proprietors of ancient properties. That in itself is a very striking feature of this Bill. But I think that if you are going to have this extraordinary change in the law, at least you must be assured that the person who is working the coal under, let us say, some very expensive house or establishment shall be in a position to pay for it.
I do not pretend to say to your Lordships to-night what is the best way to deal with the matter. I do not pretend that the right way is, as Lord Amulree suggests, that security should be exacted from the person who is actually working the coal. I am rather inclined to say that the Coal Commission should be the body ultimately responsible for this. Of course, the Coal Commission need not be damnified in this matter, because it is always in their power to put into the leases which they grant such stipulations as they choose. Ultimately, however, as it seems to me, if the Coal Commission have this power to undermine anybody's property or anybody's house in the future, it is the Coal Commission that should be ultimately liable to see that these people are properly compensated. I do not pretend to-night to suggest what the real solution is, but I think we must seriously take this point into consideration before the Report stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Viscount said, very much better, what I had intended to say myself, and I am very glad that I saw him through the back of my head getting up, and sat down in time. I would only add this in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, in this matter. The learned Lord Chancellor tells us that this is an entirely new principle in law. I am very diffident of doing so, but I am afraid that I must dispute that. The Lord Chancellor has, I presume, a motor car, or drives in a motor car. There is a third-party risk insurance policy in respect of that motor
700
car without which it would be illegal to drive it. That is one example. This is really what Lord Amulree is asking for: a third-party risk insurance. There is also a case in commerce of people in a position of trust having to take out fidelity bonds. The Lord Chancellor said that this is an entirely new principle in law, that you have to make provision for something which has not happened and which may happen.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought I said "the law in relation to this subject," but if I did not, I intended to say it. I was not dealing with fidelity bonds!
LORD STRABOLGI: I am within the recollection of the Committee that the Lord Chancellor did not use those words. If he meant to use them, I accept that, but it is not a new principle in the Common Law to-day that such a provision should be made. It is in the nature of an insurance policy, and especially after the argument we have heard from Lord Home, I think there is much more in this than the Lord Chancellor allowed in his reply, and I hope Lord Amulree will stick to his point and find some form of words.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Lord Amulree speaks with so much authority in this House, and represents so powerful a group of public interest, that anything he says requires very close attention from this House, but I do not think the Lord Chancellor's reply was very convincing. I think he showed that it is difficult to assess, to-day, damage which may happen twenty, thirty, or fifty years hence. Those are technical answers to a very serious proposition, but of course this is natural and inevitable from the dangerous principle underlying this Bill, of severance of ownership of coal from ownership of the surface. What Lord Home said just now is perfectly correct. There are any number of great and heavy buildings in this country which are being protected by having pit pillars beneath them. Every famous house in a mining area has a coal pillar beneath it. When the lease of Grassmoor pit comes to an end the Coal Commissioners will be entitled to let that property which is worth thousands of pounds to the neighbouring colliery, and the owner of Hardwick Hall will have no redress at all, and if the mining pillar gets to a certain point it is

701
likely to fall to the ground. I think that the Government really must give a rather more considered reply, and not deal with this on the point of difficulty of making assessment, and that the Coal Commission shall be under an obligation to take certain circumstances of this character into consideration.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I say that the next Amendment on the Paper deals rather more drastically with this point.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I understand that the position is not quite like that which is stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Horne, and that the Coal Commission will not be perfectly free to give leases for the mining of coal, because there is a right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, and that that Commission will be able to restrain the Coal Commission from mining any coal under the four heads mentioned.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: Yes, but those are very exceptional cases. For example, coal under a mansion house will be mined in spite of the desire of the owner of the mansion house to keep his house intact. But there is no provision for the certainty of due compensation being paid in the event of the man who works the coal not being able to pay it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The Amendment which I moved gives the right to any person to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission to impose restrictions on the work. The Lord Chancellor assured me that that was in the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: What clause?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: That is Clause 30, page 30, line 16. I moved an Amendment in order to ensure the right of private individuals to make that application, and the noble and learned Lord in his answer assured me that that right was already preserved in the Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I intervene? The noble Marquess is perfectly right, only the view of what I said is not quite right. The noble Viscount, Lord Home, must forgive me for remarking that when I sent him over a copy of
702
the Act of 1923, I am rather sorry that he did not have time to read it. There are two things clear under the Act. Under Section 8 any person having an interest in land who is not entitled to support, or sufficient support for any buildings or works—not statutory undertakings—erected or constructed, or intended to be erected or constructed, on or below the surface, who alleges that it is not reasonably practicable to obtain such support by private arrangement can go to the Board of Trade; and on the Board of Trade considering the application, and thinking that a prima facie case is made out, the matter goes to the Railway and Canal Commission. And that has been done ever since 1923, and so far as I know no difficulty has arisen in connection with it. The noble Marquess was perfectly right when he said that, in answer to a suggestion that that ought to be saved by the Bill, I pointed out that that section remains as it is. And, after all, 1923 is a good long time ago, and nobody has ever suggested, so far as I know, that there is any difficulty about it at all.
Then there is the other point. It is said there is a difficulty in connection with getting a right to let down the surface. The same Act applies to that. There is practically no coal in the land which can be worked at all without some risk of the surface being to some extent let down. Every landowner knows that. It may be a few inches, it may be much more. It depends on a number of circumstances, but you cannot be sure of working coal without letting down to some extent the surface. It was for that reason that the Act of 1923 was passed, and gave distinct right and clear authority to the Railway and Canal Commission to give rights to any person to work the coal whose proper and efficient working was unduly hampered by the inability or failure to obtain such rights, or an ancillary right. He could apply and could be given such ancillary rights as are mentioned in Section 3, subsection (2) of the Act of 1923, the first paragraph of which is "(a) a right to let down the surface." If you go a little bit further on you will find the circumstances or the conditions on which that right is granted, which are to be found in Section 6 (4), where it is provided that in granting the right to let down the surface regard shall be had to the value of the minerals, the value of the buildings

703
which they are to support, and so on. Really the truth is that this right to let down, which it is suggested is a completely new right given to the Commission, is nothing of the sort. It has existed since the Act of 1923.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: The difference is that the Coal Commission are entitled to go ahead with their working and withdraw support without application to anybody at all. They have got an initial right to withdraw support without requiring consent from anybody. That has never happened before.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course it happens every day where there is some sort of agreement. It is not a surprising thing. It happens constantly; but it was suggested by my noble friend, as I understood—I am within the recollection of the Committee—that a right to let down the surface to anybody was an extraordinary and unusual thing. If he did not say that, I am wrong, but, if he did say that, he is wrong, and my recollection is that he did. The other point is this question about buildings. The man who wants to support buildings has been entitled to get that support, in an appropriate case, ever since the Act of 1923 came into force. I am sorry to have interfered with the observations of the noble Marquess, but I did want to make it clear that we are considering something on a basis, up to the present time, that really has not been completely accurate. All these things have been considered. The noble Viscount seems to think that these provisions were inserted in the Bill without any proper consideration. There has been the fullest consideration given to them, and he must forgive me for saying that his criticisms are a very modern and recent acquisition as far as he is concerned.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: Of course, I do not venture to dispute any question of law with the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, but the Committee will be in recollection of what I actually stated. It is perfectly true that for the first time in the legislation of this country, without any consent at all, the Coal Commission have been granted power to withdraw support from the surface. That is the proposition that I advanced, and probably it is a misapprehension as between the Lord Chancellor
704
and myself that we are differing upon this subject. But I reiterate that that is a power that has been granted for the first time, and it has to be very carefully safeguarded. We think that the Commission that is granted that extraordinary power should become the body ultimately responsible for such compensation as may need to be awarded, and that is the proposition I put to your Lordships.
LORD STRABOLGI: Are we to understand that where this old right that has existed so long is granted, if damage results, compensation is to be paid?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD STRABOLGI: In that case why not see that the men taking the lease are not men of straw and that they put up securities and collateral as in the case of new insurance companies? The Leader of the House, who has been recently at the Board of Trade, knows you cannot start a new insurance company without putting up securities. I think it is the same with friendly societies. There are several cases where this sort of reserve fund is required. I am not thinking so much of the great mansions like the historical building mentioned by Lord Crawford. These people can look after themselves.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh!
LORD STRABOLGI: They can brief lawyers and their watchdogs to look after their interests. I am thinking of the smaller people in great numbers, though I agree that great mansions over coalfields have an equal right of protection. May we have an answer to that point?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the House will allow me to answer, it is this is it not? Has anybody ever heard of a colliery undertaking being carried on by a man of straw? The lease is granted by the Coal Commission which will require all sorts of work to be done, and the notion that some completely impecunious person is going to undertake the carrying on of an ordinary colliery really is a little remote, but if there is such a person it is no different. It seems to me that this is only liability for damage you can do in the ordinary way. People who commit torts have got to pay, but it is not possible in the ordinary way to

705
get security before the damage is actually done. In any case it does seem to me that this is a most unfair obligation to attempt to put upon the ordinary collieries of this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: Has not the Lord Chancellor heard of the many cases of working men who, because colliery companies have gone bankrupt, have been deprived of their damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act? Is it to be supposed that colliery companies never go bankrupt? Has the Lord Chancellor never heard of Hatry? How many collieries did he control? I am sorry to say it, but the Lord Chancellor will not treat certain arguments put to him with the seriousness they deserve. I say that with all respect. He has not done so in the case of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Amulree.
LORD CROMWELL: May I ask whether the Government are prepared to make the Commission responsible? If they are, it would end the whole question. If they are not, they must find some way out.
LORD AMULREE: I have listened with great attention to the observations of the Lord Chancellor. As far as I can make out his argument amounts to this, that my Amendment is something new to the law and therefore should be ruled out. My answer to that is that this Bill is something entirely new to the law and therefore my Amendment is in order. I mentioned the case of the local authorities acquiring a building site under the Housing Acts at great expense, and the land being afterwards let down. This Bill comes along and says that under certain
circumstances the support may give way, and, while compensation is payable, the company that has to pay or the man who has to pay may be a company or a man of straw. What is the use of that? I submit that the proper course is for the Commission, when they grant a lease, to require from the person to whom the lease is granted some adequate security so that compensation will be paid if compensation should be found to be payable.
LORD GAINFORD: May I point out a case in which such a security is quite impossible? There are in the County of Durham probably sixty small groups of miners working a mine. There may be only three or four men working in one of them. I know of a case of two men, one of whom works underground and the other sells the coal above. It is necessary in the interest of these sales in these tiny places and scattered all over the coalfield, that the community served by these miners should get their coal at a regulation price, and that the miners should get their living in that way. It is quite impossible to expect a group of three or four, or perhaps eight or ten, miners to put down security in connection with letting down the surface. I think it is quite unreasonable to say that in every case security should be produced to cover the amount of damage that may be done. Surely it is the duty of the Commission when they let coal to estimate the extent to which damage may be expected and if they are wrong in their estimate they ought to be responsible.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents,41; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Ridley, V.

Lamington, L.

Wellington, D.

Middleton, L.

Aberdare, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Bathurst, E.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Basing, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Fitzwilliam, E.

Belper, L.

Palmer, L.

Grey, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cromwell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lindsay, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Sherborne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Shute, L. (V. Harrington.)

Radnor, E.

Gerard, L.

Stafford, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Holden, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hereford, V.

Iliffe, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Onslow, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Plymouth, E.

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

Poulett, E.

Gainford, L.

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

Spencer, E.

Hastings, L.

Stanhope, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Luke, L.

Bath, M.

Samuel, V.

Saltoun, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Addington, L.

Airlie, E.

Cadman, L.

Strickland, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Templemore, L.

Liverpool, E.

Teynham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert at the end of paragraph 6:
"If any person interested in any land supported by coal or a mine of coal shall suffer injury or damage through the withdrawal of such support after the vesting date (otherwise than in pursuance of a right vested in the Commission under paragraph 5 or 6 of this Schedule and in accordance with any term or condition attached to such right under that paragraph) he shall have a right of action against the Commission in respect of such injury or damage."
The noble Lord said: I am indeed on very perilous ground. This is a legal question, and I feel that it may appear presumptuous to attempt to argue these legal questions which have been debated and on which there is a difference of opinion between the eminent legal authorities in your Lordships' House. The object of this Amendment is, however, to make quite clear that the owner who suffers damage by the wrongful withdrawal of support can bring an action against the Commission, who are the owners of the coal. That seems to me to be the right way to do it. The last Amendment put the onus, as it seems to me, on the lessee. This Amendment puts the onus on the Coal Commission, who are the owners of the coal. I should like to quote in support of this Amendment a paragraph from the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence which reported in June, 1927. That was a Royal Commission under the Chairmanship of Lord Blanesburgh, a very weighty Commission, and it had reference to this very case of damage being done by subsidence, and cases where the owners of property destroyed, and particularly small people, were unable to get redress.
The Report said that in many cases the principal consideration for the miner
708
is that his house must be near his work, and the Report went on to say:
"We are satisfied that so far as the owners of these small houses are concerned there are existent many cases of genuine hardship, and it is this circumstance which has seemed to most of us alone to justify the recommendation which with reference to existing houses of this type in private ownership we embody later in this Report."
They went on to make the recommendation that there should be a right to compensation for damage caused by the withdrawing of support through mineral working in cases where under the existing law that could not be established. That recommendation has never been put into effect, because, I think, of opposition from the lessees, upon whom that liability would have fallen. This moment, when this tremendous change in the law is being made and the property is being transferred to the Coal Commission, seems to me to be an appropriate moment to make, as Lord Amulree said, a corresponding change in the law which would be appropriate.
A great deal of hardship has been caused by inability to get this compensation. It was admitted by the Commission, who now have an opportunity of correcting it. There is just this point, that the Coal Commission are going to become the owners of the property, and in cases where the lessees do not provide in a proper way, if no alteration is made the Coal Commission will be drawing profits from a situation which is held to be unsatisfactory. I think this Amendment ought certainly to secure the support of His Majesty's Opposition, and I gather from Lord Strabolgi that he would favour the protection of the small man. It may very well be that the Lord Chancellor will tell me that this is a drastic change in the law, but I do not think it is unfair, as the Coal Commission are going to make this very large profit on the deal, that

709
they should take the responsibility for cases of damage, even where a direct liability cannot be established against the lessees. If liability can be established against the lessees, then the Coal Commission will have redress. If it cannot be established, it seems to me they will have ample funds out of which to compensate all these people, in many cases poor people, who have suffered damage.
Perhaps one ought to have put down an Amendment which would have been discussed at that interesting moment last night when we tried to decide what was to happen to the surplus money. We had a Division on an Amendment by Lord Samuel, and that, I think, would have been the moment to suggest that there should be established a fund out of which compensation could be provided for such cases as this. Meanwhile, without attempting to argue the legal technicalities, of which I am not capable, I have moved the Amendment, the object of which is to provide that where support is wrongfully withdrawn, the Commission shall be responsible, and I leave it to the legal experts to say why that is impossible, if indeed it is impossible.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has moved it in a very plausible manner; but is it right to do this? An Amendment has already been passed providing that the Commission are to require the working colliery company to give adequate security for the payment of compensation. Accordingly the person who is going to be injured by the withdrawal of support has got the security which the Commission have required for the payment of the compensation. I must admit that I was caught out in a slight mistake when I addressed the Committee a short time ago, when I scoffed at the notion of there being people who could not pay. I agree I was wrong, and Lord Strabolgi was quite right. But you have now provided for the giving of security, and why should there be something else as well? Why should there be not only security but the right of action against the Commission? After all, it may not be the fault of the Commission at all. All the leases that are in existence at the present time have been granted before the vesting
710
date, and on the average they will continue for another twenty years or so. Many of these people will be acting under rights under which they have to withdraw support after the vesting date, and not necessarily rights to withdraw support under the provisions in paragraph 6 of the Schedule.
This, as drawn, may lead to support being taken away by people in the ordinary course working their leases without any reference to the Coal Commission at all. Yet you are going to impose on the Commission an obligation to pay the injury or damage, presumably on the footing that the adequate security that has been given is not sufficient and that the man or the company which has really done the damage is not able to pay. But I ask your Lordships to come to the conclusion that this really, in the circumstances, is not a fair thing to impose upon the Commission. There is nothing impossible as a matter of law in this, but it is not an equitable thing which you are trying to impose upon the Commission, and I suggest that it should not be agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is not it a fact that the Amendment we have just passed and this Amendment of Lord Balfour's dovetail in together?
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I suggest that this Amendment is a more desirable one than that for which we have just voted. As I indicated in the speech I previously made, I should much prefer the Commission to be the responsible body. I realise at once, and appreciate very much what the Lord Chancellor has just said, that leases have been granted before the date at which vesting has taken place, but I assume that in all these cases either power has been given to let down the surface in the working of the coal or stipulations have been made by which compensation will have to be paid if the surface is let down. Accordingly, if the lessee who at present enjoys a lease which must be taken over by the Coal Commission, lets down the surface under a lease in which he is entitled to let down the surface, then no compensation is payable and the Coal Commission will not be liable. On the other hand, if he lets down the surface under a lease where a stipulation had been made as to compensation, then the lessee will have to pay

711
and again the Coal Commission will not be damnified.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not what the Amendment says. The noble Viscount is perfectly right in his analysis that there are all these leases, many of which empower the lessee to let down the surface on the promise of paying compensation. Supposing one of these lessees lets down the surface, and knows he has to pay compensation, this Amendment still applies as drawn. The person who has suffered injury or damage is going to have a right of action against the Commission in respect of the injury or damage he has suffered, although that injury or damage was suffered by something which the Commission could not control in any way and had nothing to do with, and although the terms of the lease were that the surface might be let down on the lessee paying compensation. This Amendment as drawn will still hit the Commission.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I agree that in that respect the Lord Chancellor is entirely justified, and I should not be prepared to vote for the Amendment as it stands. What I am anxious to get at is this principle. The wording of the Amendment and the limitations which may be inserted are a different matter. What I would like to put before the Committee is this, and what I am anxious the Government should safeguard, is the principle by which, when damage takes place after the Commission are in operation—because all affairs beforehand would be regulated by their own terms—the Commission should be the body responsible for it. They can always safeguard themselves by the stipulations they make in their own leases. As to past leases, they will be regulated by their own terms. That is the principle I should like to see put into the Bill in whatever phraseology it may be couched. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor that it will provide double damage for people in whose case leases were already in existence which provided for damage for letting down the surface. That would be entirely wrong, but do let us work at this principle, and put it in definite shape in this Bill, and we can surely do that by the Report stage.
712
May I just be forgiven for one moment in saying that I did not read the 1923 Act so negligently as the Lord Chancellor suggested? The Lord Chancellor says that people who have experienced damage through their mansion or cottage being let down have got to go back to Section 8 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. I have reinforced my recollection by going to the Library, where I obtained a copy of the Statute, and I found this. What right have I when I appear before the Railway and Canal Commission to establish a claim that restriction should be imposed upon the working of the coal? I find that, in order to safeguard my cottage, I have to show that it is in the national interest that my cottage should be sustained. That is the amount of the right that remains to one under the 1923 Act. I do not suggest that I am ever going to establish, no matter how much I love my cottage, that it is in the national interest that it should remain. I say again that this is the first time that, without consent of anybody, or the authority of any other body, a Coal Commission are to be appointed who are entitled to withdraw support from the surface. I am sorry to say this with so much vehemence, but I was rather disappointed to seem to be caught out in an error in what I put before the Committee. At any rate, so far as this matter is concerned, I suggest to the Government that the great majority of the Committee are of the opinion that some safeguard should be made to ensure that people whose interests have been injured should receive the compensation to which they are entitled, and the only way that can be safeguarded is by putting the duty upon the Coal Commission.
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: May I say, in view of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend behind me, of course I did not intend to provide for double compensation. It is a legal matter and I naturally cannot understand the legal technicalities, but the position is that the Commission may withdraw support and we want to give redress. The end I want to achieve is that everybody should have recourse against the Coal Commission, preserving to the Coal Commission whatever recourse they may have against the lessee. That seems to me to be what is

713
wanted. There is no intention to have double recourse and if the Lord Chancellor would say that could be carried out I should be only too happy to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not quite understand what it is that is now wanted. I understand from my noble friend Viscount Horne that he agrees that this Amendment as it stands does not carry out that which is fair. There is of course a very great difference in the position of the Commission as regards leases they will grant, in view of the position of the Commission as people who come on the scene when leases are in existence, practically all of which permit of some terms or of some conditions for the letting down of the surface. As regards those, as I pointed out, the Commission cannot help it. Already the lessee is liable in respect of those matters where there is a condition to that effect. I think perhaps one might say that if that is what is required—namely, the liability of the Commission as regards leases granted by them and work done under those leases—the Government might fairly consider it on the Report stage. But the Amendment as it stands is one which, in the view of those with me and, as I understand it, in the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Horne, the Government cannot accept as it stands.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In view of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, I think the right course is to agree to withdraw. The noble and learned Lord has been kind. He has promised us something. I must admit I had thought, in view of the fact that the Coal Commission are going to become possessed of the whole of the coal, that there was an opportunity of putting into effect the recommendations of the Blanes-burgh Commission, which would rectify some of the injustice to small people. But the hour is early and I think it better not to press the Amendment now. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his promise and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: I suggest that this would be a suitable moment for the House
714
to resume. We shall continue the Committee stage on Monday next.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Earl to say at what time we shall meet on Monday?
EARL STANHOPE: The usual time, a quarter past four.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the hours of employment of persons under the age of eighteen years employed in certain occupations; to amend the Shops Act, 1934, with respect to the hours of employment of persons under the age of sixteen years, and with respect to the determination of the number of working hours of persons under the age of eighteen years; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AROON KUMAR SINHA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS).
Petition of Aroon Kumar Sinha praying that this House will determine the question whether upon the assumption that the facts set out in paragraphs 2 to 8 of the Petition are subsequently proved to the satisfaction of the House, the Petitioner would establish his descent in Peerage law from the First Baron: Read, and referred to the Committee for-Privileges.

NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL.
OSSETT CORPORATION BILL.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes past twelve o'clock.