§ House again in Committee (according to Order):
§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMANI 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.
§ 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 SLAMANNANI 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 MERSEYMay 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 CHANCELLORI 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 FALMOUTHI 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 CHANCELLORCertainly; I thought I said so.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTHI did not quite understand. With the leave of your Lordships I will withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MERSEYMy Amendment is one which, mutatis mutandis, applies to Scotland and in the circumstances I will not move it.
§ 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 CHANCELLORI 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 FALMOUTHI 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 CRAWFORDMay 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 STANHOPEIt will not be confiscated. It comes into the valuation.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe 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 BURLEIGHWill 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 MERSEYMay 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 CHANCELLORThe 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 SLAMANNANI 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 CHANCELLORI 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 FALMOUTHI take it that the noble and learned Lord when we come to the Report stage will reconsider this?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIn the light of any undertaking that may have been given in another place.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTHI 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 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
§ (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.
§ (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 CHANCELLORI 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 GAINFORDIs the coal not transferred to the Commission?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe 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 GAINFORDMy 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 CROMWELLWould 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 CHANCELLORWe 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 GAINFORDI 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 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 CHANCELLORIf 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 LOTHIANSubject 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 CHANCELLORThe 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.
621
§
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 ADDISONI should be obliged if the noble Chairman would give me a ruling on a point of order.
§ LORD ADDISONI 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 RIDLEYPerhaps 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 ADDISONI 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 MUNSTERUnder 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 ADDISONI 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.
624§ 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 STANHOPEI 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.
§ EARL STANHOPEYes. 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 wordsand 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 LOTHIANIt 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 STANHOPEI 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 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 STANHOPEWhat 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 LONDONDERRYI 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 CHAIRMANThere 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 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!
629§ 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 MUNSTEROn 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 ADDISONI 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 LONDONDERRYThe 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 HASTINGSWhen 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 CROMWELLIn 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 ADDISONThe 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 CROMWELLI 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 RIDLEYI 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 STRABOLGII 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 ELIBANKIf 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 DUDLEYI 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 KINCARDINEI 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 STRABOLGIMight 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 RIDLEYMay 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 STRABOLGIWe see the difficulty, and we want to get half a loaf rather than no bread which may be offered.
§ EARL STANHOPEI 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 ADDISONThe reply of the noble Earl is not appropriate at all. Voluntary amalgamations do not have to receive the consent of this House.
§ EARL STANHOPEAll the more reason why the obligation should be made statutory.
§ LORD ADDISONIt 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 SAMUELThis 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 LONDONDERRYI take it the noble Viscount is agreeing that there is no inherent wickedness.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELCertainly. 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.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMy 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 moved, in subsection (3), after "area," immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "in manner proposed by such report
644§ 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.
643| 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 CHANCELLORThe Government are content to accept this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 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 STANHOPEI 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 GAINFORDThere 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 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 CHAIRMANPerhaps 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 ADDISONAfter the explanation of the noble Earl I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
650§ 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 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 STANHOPEI 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 DUDLEYI 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 LOTHIANMay 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 STANHOPEMay I satisfy my noble friend on one point? Clause 49 gives ample safeguards against any disclosure of information.
THE EARL OF LINDSAYThis 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 GAINFORDI 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 STANHOPEThis 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 LOTHIANThen 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 STANHOPEI 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 BINGLEYPersonally 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 GAINFORDSupposing 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 SLAMANNANI 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 LOTHIANIn 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 STANHOPEI 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 GAINFORDIn 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 STANHOPEI 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 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 STANHOPEI accept this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 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 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 CHANCELLORI 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 GAINFORDAfter 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 STANHOPEThe 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.
659THE LORD CHAIRMANThe 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 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 MUNSTERThis 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 BURLEIGHI 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 MUNSTERThe totals will appear if they are asked for. There is no reason to suppose we desire to hide the totals.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIn 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 STANHOPEFor 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.
662§ LORD HASTINGSI 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.
661| 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.
663§ EARL STANHOPEI 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.