Sitting of 27 July 1926

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords].
  Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
  Bolton Corporation Bill,
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered:
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords],
  As amended considered; to be read the Third time.
  Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
  London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill (by Order),
  Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
  Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dundee Corporation," presented by Secretary Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
  GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Greenock Corporation," presented by Secretary Sir JOHN GILMOUR; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO OUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORT CREDITS (POLAND).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of instances in which guarantees under the export credit scheme have been approved for British contracts in Poland during the past 12 months; what is the total amount of guarantees approved by his Department for Polish credits up to date; if he is aware that the economic condition of Poland has undergone substantial improvement during the present year; and whether any special steps are being taken to promote the expansion of British trade in that country?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Seventy-four bills in respect of fourteen transactions relating to Poland have been guaranteed during the twelve months ending 26th June last. The total amount of guarantees approved by the Export Credits Department for Polish credits up to date is nearly £1,200,000, of which about £600,000 has been taken up. As regards the last part of the question the Com-

    1883
    mercial Secretary at Warsaw reported recently that the economic outlook in Poland is more hopeful. His Majesty's Minister and the Commercial Secretary keep the Department of Overseas Trade continually informed as to the possibilities of trade with that country.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the fact that the economic position of Poland is steadily improving, will applications for credits in respect of that country be considered?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am very glad to hear that Poland's economic position is improving. If so, we shall be very glad to do all the business with Poland that we can.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that there has been any reluctance on the part of the Committee to grant credits to this very important country?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Committee examines the proposals put before them, and use their discretion as to whether or not they are suitable for public money.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has there been any reluctance in regard to this particular country?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not that I know.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any loss has been incurred in granting facilities in respect to Poland?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say that without notice.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that the condition of Poland to-day is such that any investment there is highly speculative?

    MEAT STOCKS (COLD STORAGE).
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any action has yet been taken to put into operation the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Foodstuffs in regard to the publication of all stocks of meat held in cold storage in the United Kingdom?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I
    1884
    have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 15th December last.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider legislation on the subject next Session.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will consider it.

    GOLD MARKET, LONDON.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade which three countries have been the principal buyers of gold in the London market since the beginning of the year and the amounts which they have taken, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): As regards purchases of bullion in the London market I can only refer my hon. Friend to the financial columns of the Press. As regards sovereigns taken for export from the Bank of England, the principal destinations were India £839,000, Spain £598,000, Holland £333,000.

    COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH CUBA.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of negotiating a commercial treaty with the Republic of Cuba, in view of the fact that at the present time negotiations are proceeding between Cuba and Spain whereby, although Great Britain purchases approximately one-fifth of the total crop of Cuban sugar and is an important buyer of Cuban tobacco, Spanish goods will receive favourable treatment?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should welcome the conclusion of a treaty with Cuba, but, up to the present, efforts to find a basis for such a treaty have not proved successful.

    PAPER MANUFACTURE (RAW MATERIAL).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the shortage of the natural products necessary for the manufacture of paper; and whether any action has been taken by his Department with a view to safeguarding and increasing supplies of raw material?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of any present shortage of these materials, but I am informed that the

    1885
    Forestry Commissioners are planting in Great Britain considerable areas with trees suitable for the production of pulp, and are prepared to give financial assistance to local authorities and others for the same purpose.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
    Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is considering the application of the principle of the Merchandise Marks Bill to advertisements of foreign goods in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The matter is dealt with in Clause 4 of the Bill which, as my hon. Friend will be aware, is now before a Standing Committee.

    CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade when the first part of the Report on the Census of Production will be published; and to what industries will it relate?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am unable to add anything to the reply given by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to my hon. Friend on 26th April last. Every effort is being made to expedite the preparation of the Reports.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his experience has been that there has been difficulty in getting returns in that way?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There was a certain amount of delay, there always is; but I think generally it is due to the smaller rather than to the larger people who had to make returns. They are coming in much more satisfactorily lately, and I hope to be able to get out the particulars earlier than expected.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it intended to publish this Report on the lines of the previous Report, namely, as the parts are ready?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to have notice of that question. I want to give any information that is available as rapidly as I can.

    MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.
    Brigadier - General CHARTERISasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to consider the removal of the condition laid down in the King's Regulations that a candidate for appointment as a Military Knight of Windsor must be a member of the Church of England?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Yes, Sir; it has been decided to abolish the condition in question, and the consequent amendment will be made in King's Regulations.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Will the removal of the restrictions be operative from to-day?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. When the Amendment is actually made in the Regulation.
    Mr. COUPER: Am I to understand that a Presbyterian and a Methodist will now be eligible for appointment to this Order?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Provided that they fulfil the Regulations under which the appointments are held.
    Mr. COUPER: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept our thanks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—for the very kind way in which he has met us—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to pass a vote of thanks.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RIFLES AND AMMUNITION (UNOFFICIAL EXPERIMENTS).
    Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, as his Department hats been assisted in recent years by private or unofficial experiments with rifles and ammunition, he awaits the results of further unofficial experiments in 1927 before coming to a conclusion as to the types of rifle and ammunition to adopt?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The War Office has not received any special assistance in recent years in connection with service rifles and ammunition, from unofficial experiments, though information resulting from such experiments

    1887
    will naturally always be welcome. The answer to the question is in the negative.
    Sir P. RICHARDSON: May I ask whether unofficial experiments will be conducted with a view to accuracy or range?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Both.
    Colonel APPLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a stream line bullet was introduced by the War Office eight years ago, and is still in the experimental stage?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Experiments of course do take some time.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PAY).
    Sir P. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Warren Fisher Committee on the pay of the Royal Army Medical Corps have now made a Report; when is it proposed to revise the pay; and as from what date?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative as will be seen by reference to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15th June. As regards the remainder of the question, the revised rates of pay, which have already been announced in Army Order 196 of 1926, took effect as from 1st July.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).
    Major TASKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state what action he proposes to take with regard to the 19 known members of the Communist factory group stated in document 33 of the Blue Book on Communist Papers to be employed in Woolwich Arsenal?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It would not be in the public interest to make any statement on this subject.
    Major TASKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be in the public interest to let the public know something about this?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot say at this moment.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it the intention of the Government to penalise the workers in Woolwich Arsenal because of their political views?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not on account of any political views.

    ROYAL TOURNAMENT, OLYMPIA.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War if the Government has been involved in any expenditure in connection with the Royal Tournament at Olympia; and, if so, what amount?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Is it not a fact that this Tournament has given pleasure to thousands of people of all ages and classes?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Certainly.
    Mr. SMITH: is it true that at this Tournament there is a combined display in which troops, artillery and tanks rout out a "Whahdi" stronghold? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman think such an exhibition is in the interest of good patriotism?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (TUITION).
    Mr. SMITHalso asked whether the financial assistance given to officers' training corps, senior and junior, carries with it the opportunity of making appointments or providing tuition in connection with the staffs of public schools and universities?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer is in the negative.

  COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

    MINERS AT WORK.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines how many coal miners were at work on 14th July last, and how many of these were safety men?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The total number of wage-

    1889
    earners employed at coal mines on the 17th July was 86,760. Of these 67,100 were employed at mines not producing any coal or producing coal for colliery consumption only.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Suppose a number of miners are at work next week, up to what date does the right hon. Member get his figures? Does he get them weekly?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I get them weekly.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many outcrop workers are at work?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Not without notice.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether His Majesty's Government are taking any action to prevent profiteering in coal imported from abroad during the present crisis;
    (2) Whether he is aware that the prices being charged to fishermen and others engaged in important national industries for foreign coal vary between 55s. and 65s. a ton; and, in view of the fact that the coal is quoted at less than 20s. a ton at the ports of export, does His Majesty's Government propose to take any action to prevent profiteering in coal imported from abroad during the present crisis?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I will answer these questions together. So far as the fishing industry is concerned I am informed that a good deal of coal is imported direct by those engaged in the industry, but that where coal is bought from merchants prices in England range from 40s. to 50s. per ton and in Scotland from 44s. 6d. to 60s. My hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that suitable coal can be bought on the Continent at less than 20s. f.o.b. As regards the last part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend on the 20th July.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coal is being sold in Southwark at 3s. 1d. per cwt.?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I should be very glad to have any information I can from the hon. Member, but at the same time the sale of coal in small quantities is different from the sale in large quantities.
    Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that coal at this price is a very great hardship on the poorer classes of the community, and will be not take steps to prevent it?
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet established any safeguards against profiteering in household coal?
    Colonel LANE FOX: As I explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen on the 20th July, it is not the policy of the Government to control prices unless abuses should arise which force them to do so. That position has certainly not arisen yet.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his attitude in continually refusing to deal with this matter is encouraging these people, and that profiteering, especially as regards cwts. of coal, is worse than ever it was?
    Colonel LANE FOX: If the hon. and gallant Member will bring me proof of profiteering, I shall be extremely glad to go into it. That will be much more useful than merely asking vague questions.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this question has been debated on the Floor of this House again and again and that in the minds of impartial people profiteering has been amply proved?
    Colonel LANE FOX: It is because the hon. and gallant Member has not produced proof that I have asked him to do so.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I supplied him with particulars that coal was being sold at 4s. per cwt., and that he was so satisfied it was profiteering that he promptly took steps to have it reduced?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am glad the hon. Member has given me such an excellent testimonial.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is not that one case in which profiteering has been proved, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that 3s. 6d. per cwt. is profiteering?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am afraid that in the present circumstances, and considering the difficulties of getting coal from abroad, it cannot be considered profiteering.
    Mr. SUTTONasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Bury Coalowners' and Merchants' Association, in Lancashire, are charging the household consumers at the rate of £3 15s. per ton, an 3s. 9d. per cwt., for their coal; and whether he will take action against this firm for profiteering?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I understand that the coal referred to was part of a cargo of privately-imported coal which cost the merchants over £3 a ton into depot at Bury. The coal, about one-third of which was slack, had to be screened by the merchants and 3s. 9d. was the price for the large coal sold in hundredweight and half-hundredweight bags. This does not, therefore, appear to be a case in which the use of the word "profiteering" can be justified.
    Mr. SUTTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's officials ascertain the price paid for this imported coal, or whether they only take the statements of the merchants themselves?
    Colonel LANE FOX: My information came from the coal emergency officer in the district who himself went into the whole question.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what price is being paid for the coal imported by the Government under the Supplementary Estimate which the House passed a few days ago?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot answer that question.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Would it not be more appropriate if these cases of hardship were communicated to the Miners' Federation.

    OUTCROP WORKINGS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether special instructions have been issued to his mines' inspectors with regard to outcrop workings; and, if so, will he state what were these instructions?
    Colonel LANE FOX: When such workings come to the knowledge of the inspectors they are visited and every effort is made to secure that work is carried on safely. This is the usual practice in such circumstances and no special instructions have been found necessary.
    Mr. R. SMITH: May I ask if there are any Government Regulations as to the amount of royalty that can be charged per ton?
    Colonel LANE FOX: There are no Government Regulations about royalties. It is a matter of private contract
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that as much as 7s. 6d. per ton is being charged for royalties?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that coal is being produced from outcrop seams at Handsworth, near Sheffield; that blasting with gelignite has taken place within 14 yards from the public footpath; and will he state whether any of his inspectors have visited this place to ensure the public safety and to see that the mining regulations are being observed?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am aware of the facts stated. Four visits have been made by Inspectors of Mines to these workings during this month and I am informed that they are being carried on under competent supervision and with proper regard to safety.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the use of gelignite within 14 yards of the footpath is within the bounds of safety, and does his inspector agree that this work should continue so close to a public footpath?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. The occurrence took place on the 18th July, and nothing of the sort has occurred since. I am informed that on the day when the last shot was fired the footpath was cleared for a considerable distance, and the use of the explosive has since been stopped.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the use of gelignite within a distance of 14 yards of a public footpath comply with the Regulations laid down with regard to the use of explosives?
    Colonel LANE FOX: It is not a question which comes under the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act. Outcrop working is a different thing. It is not a mine within the definition of the Act.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Under what special Act, or under what ordinary Act, would the use of explosives come? How can we ascertain whether or not the law was broken in this instance?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The position is rather a difficult one. Outcrop working is half-way between a quarry and a mine, and the definition is that the moment an outcrop working goes out of daylight it becomes a mine. But the Regulation is a little obscure.
    Mr. PALING: Does it mean that nobody has any control over this outcrop working; that nobody is responsible for the use of gelignite?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, nothing of the sort. Work of that sort above ground would constitute it a quarry.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Would not all this be perfectly safe if people from the surrounding districts did not try to obstruct this work?
    Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for looking after the safety of the public?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The inspector.
    Mr. PALING: Under what Department?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Under the Mines Department.
    Mr. WILLIAMSalso asked how many accidents have taken place at outcrop workings during the present dispute, fatal and non-fatal; and in how many cases persons have been granted permission to use explosives for the purpose of producing coal from outcrop seams?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Nine fatal accidents, causing 10 deaths, and 12 non-fatal accidents injuring 14 persons, have come to my knowledge. So far as my Department is concerned, no permission to use explosives for outcrop workings is required.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if, in all these fatal cases, the normal Regulations have been complied with; and, if not, will he tell the House how frequently his inspectors have visited these places?
    Mr. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most serious danger in regard to these outcrops is the lack of suitable timber for the support of the roof; and will he give instructions to his inspectors that where suitable timber cannot be provided the works should be stopped?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The report which I have received on these cases shows that my inspectors have visited the place and have found that the roads are well timbered and the work had been carried on in a safe manner.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether or not in these cases, where fatal accidents have taken place, the normal Regulations have been complied with; whether his inspectors have inquired into these cases, and, if so, with what result?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have already told the hon. Member that the position with regard to outcrop workings are rather peculiar. These outcrop workings have been visited by inspectors, and they report that, on the whole, everything is satisfactory.
    Mr. PALING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, having regard to the small number of men employed, the accident rate is very high and, in the circumstances, cannot something be done in order to safeguard these places?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I hope that in a very short time the outcrop workings will be no longer necessary.
    Mr. HARDIE: Do the inspectors ask where such explosives have been purchased, and ascertain if they have been purchased through the ordinary channels and in accordance with Act of Parliament?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. If the hon. Member had listened to the answer which I gave—
    Mr. HARD1E: I did.
    Colonel LANE FOX: —he would have understood that in these cases the permission of the inspectors is not required in regard to explosives. It is not the case of an ordinary mine.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be raising a new question.
    Mr. HARDIE: No, Sir.
    Mr. SPEAKER: He asked where the explosives can be obtained.
    Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I asked about the right hon. Gentleman's own inspectors.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Whatever the question is about, I suggest that it should be put on the Paper.

    WELFARE FUND (EDUCATION).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in the event of Clause 22 of the Mining Industry Bill becoming law, local welfare committees will be enabled to divert any part of the sums allocated for mining education to other purposes?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The allocation of the Miners' Welfare Fund, whether for education or any other purpose is in the hands not of the local welfare committees, but of the Miners' Welfare Committee, and their powers and duties are not affected in any way by Clause 22 of the Mining Industry Bill. Indeed, I do not see that there is any connection between the two.
    Mr. LUNN: The right hon. Gentleman, in an answer the other day, said that £200,000 is being applied this year for mining education, and does he not think that if Clause 22 is passed, it will have a great effect in retarding young miners going in for education of a mining character?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir. It will have no effect of that kind. The hon. Member need not be so anxious about Clause 22. It is not certainly so serious as he thinks.

    CO-OPERATIVE SELLING (TERMS OF REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary for Mines the terms of reference to the Committee on Co-operative Selling in the Coal-mining Industry?
    Colonel LANE FOX: The terms of reference are as follow:
    "To inquire into and report upon the desirability and practicability of developing co-operative selling in the coal-mining industry and to make recommendations."
    Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether, in view of the presence of representatives of the coalowners and miners on this Committee, any member is specially charged with looking after the interests of the domestic consumer?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, the members of this Committee do not represent any particular interest. We have selected the best men we can.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Have not the Government neglected to do what they have specifically asked to do; appoint representatives of the co-operative movement?
    Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, we have not been asked, and we have not excluded them or anybody else.

    HOT WATER RESTRICTIONS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
    Captain BOURNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the saving of coal resulting from the removal of certain of the hot-water taps in the lavatories of this House?
    Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): A saving of approximately 10 tons of coal per month is effected by a general restriction of services at the Houses of Parliament. I regret that it is not possible to state what proportion of this saving is due to the item referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY WAGONS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the unequal treatment suffered by certain traders under the Prevention of Accidents (Extension of Time) Rules, 1926, according to which all companies or persons owning less than 20,000

    1897
    wagons are obliged to secure the proper equipment of all wagons with either-side brakes within the extended period, that is before November, 1931; and whether he will take steps to secure that equal treatment be extended to all classes of traders?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)I am afraid I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's question. Under the Prevention of Accidents Rules now in force all railway wagons are required to be fitted with either-side brakes within the same period.

    FATAL ACCIDENTS, BRABYNS BROW, MARPLE.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the number of fatal accidents which have occurred on Brabyns Brow, Marple, Cheshire, including one during the past week; and will he cause an inquiry to be undertaken with the local authorities concerned, together with the Derbyshire and Cheshire County Councils, to see by what means this state of affairs can be remedied?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If my hon. Friend will send me further details as to the nature of these accidents I will inquire into the matter and see whether any action can usefully be taken by my Department.
    Mr. REMER: I shall be very glad to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman particulars. Is he aware that the whole trouble in this matter arises from the dual control of the two county councils?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will bring the facts to my notice, and if I can do anything useful by bringing the two county councils together, I shall be glad to do so.
    Dr. WATTS: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a proof of the dangerous condition of this hill is the fact that a notice board has been put up inscribed with the words "Deathtrap"?

    EDINBURGH-GLASGOW ROAD.
    Sir ALEXANDER SPROTasked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made with the new Edinburgh and Glasgow road; and if any decision
    1898
    has been arrived at as regards the course of this road in the neighbourhood of Harthill, in view of the wishes expressed by the inhabitants that the new road should not pass through this village?
    Colonel ASHLEY: This route, 40 miles in length, comprises 24 miles of new construction and 16 miles of road widening. It is divided, for purposes of execution, into nine sections, for eight of which contracts have been let, covering 31 miles in all. Work is proceeding steadily on these sections. Final details as regards railway bridges have not yet been settled with the various companies concerned, and until the cost of these eight sections and the bridges thereon can be more closely determined, no contract is being let for the remaining section, which includes work in the neighbourhood of Harthill. Meanwhile, no definite decision has been reached as to the course to be followed by the road near this village.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it possible to give the approximate debt when this road will be completed.
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, that is quite impossible. It depends on the cost of these sections.

    MOTOR PASSENGER VEHICLES (ACCIDENTS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of accidents to motor chars-à-banc and lorries conveying large numbers of people owing to the failure of brakes and other defective components; and will he consider legislation with a view to the compulsory examination of vehicles utilised for road passenger traffic?
    Colonel ASHLEY: As regards the first part of the question, such information as I have received does not furnish any evidence that the number of accidents due to defective equipment on public passenger carrying vehicles is increasing. As regards the second part of the question, it is proposed to deal with the regulation and inspection of public service vehicles in the general Bill on the subject of road transport, which I hope to present to the House as soon as Parliamentary time is available.

  POST OFFICE.

    RUGBY WIRELESS STATION.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Postmaster-General what the geographical limitations are to the ability of the Rugby wireless station to reach ships at sea; whether he can give a list of the almost blind and the difficult spots for reception; and whether progress is being made in circumventing this difficulty?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The most difficult localities for reception appear to be in the eastern part of the Pacific Ocean between Honolulu and Valparaiso. The power of the transmissions from Rugby has recently been increased in order to facilitate reception in such difficult localities. All radiotelegrams sent from Rugby are transmitted twice, once during the day and once during the night; and experience shows that the messages are regularly and reliably received during one transmission or the other by ships in all parts of the world.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Postmaster-General when the Rugby wireless station is likely to be capable of and to undertake telephonic inter-communication between this country and the whole world; when such communication is likely to be available for the public with the United States; and what is preventing this at present?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are still certain technical difficulties to be overcome before a trans-Atlantic wireless telephone service can be offered to the public, and no definite date can yet be fixed for the opening of such a service. Experiments are still proceeding, and until the results are known and experience has been obtained of the working of a trans-Atlantic service under commercial conditions, it is not possible to make any useful forecast concerning the possibility of extension to other countries.

    INTERNATIONAL REPLY COUPON.
    Captain FRASERasked the Postmaster-General the original price of the international reply coupon; and why, seeing that the exchanges of the world are in favour of England, this coupon should now cost 4d., since it is issued in order that it may be exchanged in any
    1900
    country of the postal union for a postage stamp or stamps representing the postage on a single-rate letter, which is 2½d.?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The original price of an international reply coupon in this country was 3d.; but at that time the minimum selling price under the international Regulations was 28 centimes gold, and the coupon was exchangeable for a postage stamp of the value of 25 centimes gold. At present the postage on a single-rate letter may be as much as 40 centimes gold, and the minimum selling price has therefore been fixed, internationally, at 40 centimes gold. The selling price in this country cannot therefore at present be less than 4d.

    TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE SERVICES.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Postmaster-General if he has considered the advisability of fusion of the telegraph and telephone services, and what conclusion he has reached?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: From the point of view of practical working, the services are combined as far as possible. I do not think that there would at the present time be advantage, but rather the reverse, in a fusion of the two services on the financial side.

    MOUNT PLEASANT (ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS).
    Mr. NAYLOR (for Mr. BOWER-MAN)asked the Postmaster-General the total cost of the additional buildings erected at Mount Pleasant; the number of the staff to be accommodated therein; and when and the manner in which it is contemplated to utilise the vacant land facing the main road?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The cost of the new Mount Pleasant letter office is estimated at £208,500. The staff to be eventually accommodated therein numbers 2,820. On the vacant land fronting Farringdon Road it is proposed, when financial exigencies permit, to erect a stamp office and branch post office.

    LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (ADVERTISEMENTS).
    Mr. NAYLOR (for Mr. BOWERMAN)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of revenue derived from advertisements appearing in the London Telephone Directory for each of the three years 1923 to 1925?
    Mr. McNEILL: The amount of revenue derived by the Stationery Office from advertisements appearing in the London Telephone Directory for each of the three years 1923 to 1925 was as follows:

    1923

    …

    …

    …

    …

    £43,982

    1924

    …

    …

    …

    …

    £45,512

    1925

    …

    …

    …

    …

    £48,794

    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these advertisements are let out to contractors?
    Mr. McNEILL: Yes, I think so; but I should like notice of the question before I give a positive answer.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the circulation of this directory?
    Mr. McNEILL: Not without notice.
    Colonel DAY: Are the contracts put out to public tender?

  BROADCASTING.

    MR. G. B. SHAW'S SPEECH.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Postmaster-General for what reason his Department vetoed the proposal to broadcast the speeches at the House of Commons on the 26th instant, on the occasion of the dinner given to celebrate the 70th birthday of Mr. George Bernard Shaw?
    Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: I should have been glad to give permission for the broadcasting of Mr. Shaw's speech if an assurance could have been obtained that argumentative political controversy would be avoided. Such an assurance could not be obtained, and permission was accordingly refused.

    NEW ORGANISATION (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to safeguard the impartiality of the broadcasting service, the representation of all sections of political opinion will be secured on the body that will conduct that service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not yet in a position to make any announcement as regards appointments to the new organisation. The need for securing the impartiality of the broadcasting service will not be overlooked

  GENERAL STRIKE.

    MAGISTRATES (TRADE UNION OFFICIALS).
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that communications have been sent to Labour magistrates from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asking for an explanation as to their conduct as trade union officials and representatives during the general strike; and if, in view of the fact that there is no representative of the Duchy of Lancaster in this House, he will state why this action was taken?
    Mr. DAVIDSON (for The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER): My Noble Friend has in certain cases sent communications to magistrates about whom he has received allegations that in connection with the general strike they committed breaches of the law or took action incompatible with their position as magistrates. It is only right when such allegations are made to give the gentlemen concerned an opportunity of replying to them.
    Mr. SEXTON: In what way have they committed a breach of the law in exercising their functions as trade union secretaries; and in what way does that conflict with their duty as magistrates?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: When their replies have been received, they will be considered.
    Mr. SEXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman point out where the breach of the law has been committed, and what particular law has been broken by these men acting in a purely trade union manner and as the representatives of trade unions?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: A breach of the law has not yet been established.
    Lord APSLEY: Is it right to use the expression "Labour magistrates," since all magistrates are supposed to act irrespective of party?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: How does the hon. Gentleman account for the differentiation between the General Council and these men, if these men are to be disqualified from holding such positions, while the members of the General Council, on whose instructions they were acting, are invited to a garden party as leading guests of the State?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: There is no decision that these gentlemen must be disqualified.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: As they are likely to be disqualified, can the hon. Gentlemen account for the differentiation which deprives them of their positions, and includes the members of the General Council among the guests of the highest in the land?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The hon. Member is putting a purely hypothetical question.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: What prima facie evidence was there, that there had been any breach of the law when inquiries were first instituted?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Were any charges brought against these men?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I understand that allegations have been made—[HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"]—and when allegations are made it is right that there should be an opportunity of reply.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Were any charges made in the law courts?
    Mr. HUDSON: By whom were the allegations made?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I should want notice of that question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: If I am in order, I intend to take the first opportunity of raising this matter.

    UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now completed his inquiries into the allegations of disloyalty made against the Union of Post Office Workers in connection with their activities during the general strike; if so, what is the result of such inquiries; and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) on the 14th instant. I am not at present able to add anything to that reply.
    Major COLFOX (for Mr. GERALD HURST)asked the Postmaster-General the number of Post Office servants whose adherence to the general strike policy of
    1904
    the Trade Union Congress was pledged by the executive of the Union of Post Office Workers on 1st May; how many of such servants belonged to the union in question; and whether he proposes to continue to recognise this union?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am unable to answer the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question. The membership of the Union of Post Office Workers, according to the latest figures supplied to me, was 91,359 in December last. As regards the last part of the question, I can only refer my hon. and learned Friend to my reply to a similar question which he put to me on 14th instant
    Major COLFOX: Does the Postmaster-General not think it is time that Government servants owed allegiance to the Government, and not to any particular union?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have already said that on the general question of policy I am unable to add anything to the statement already made.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: They are not slaves, you know.

    ESPERANTO.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the growing importance of the Esperanto World Congress, which is to be held this year in Edinburgh at the beginning of August, he will arrange for an official welcome to be extended to the Congress on behalf of His Majesty's Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. As His Majesty's Government are not taking part in this Congress, they feel unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.

    SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELERasked the Prime Minister whether he can give facilities for the passing of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment Bill during the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I see no prospect of time being found for this Bill, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Bill which was introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier - General Clifton Brown) has been dropped.

    WAR PENSION (WIDOW AND CHILDREN'S CLAIM).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the entitlement appeal tribunal that the widow and children of the late Edwin Pritchard, No. 23507, Army Veterinary Corps, are not entitled to a continuance of the pension received up to the date of his death, on the ground that the phthisis from which he suffered and died was not caused or hastened by the effect of his war service; whether he is aware that Pritchard had not been in hospital for seven years; that the appeal tribunal, on his discharge from the Army, unanimously decided that his unfitness was attributable to, or aggravated by, military service; and whether, seeing that another tribunal, after the man's death, when his evidence was no longer available, reversed the decision of the first tribunal, and so deprived the widow and children of their right to a pension, he will reconsider the case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): Mr. Pritchard was admitted to hospital with phthisis within a fortnight of his enlistment and was discharged from the Army two months later. Pension was awarded to him in consequence of the decision by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1917 that his disability had been aggravated by his war service. The tribunal which heard the widow's appeal did not reverse the decision that the man's appeal should be allowed—which, indeed, it had no power to do—but decided that the aggravation was not so severe that the man's death over eight years after discharge could be regarded as wholly due to the nature or condition of the disability as resulting directly from war service.

    GOLD RESERVE.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net amount by which the gold reserve in this country has been increased since the beginning of the year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The increase in the gold coin and bullion in the Issue Department of the Bank of England between the 6th January last and the 21st July was £7,505,795.

    CUSTOMS DECLARATIONS (REFEREES).
    Mr. REMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any cases have been referred to a board of referees as to Customs declarations, as provided for by Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1925; if so, what class of goods has been so referred; and what was the result in each case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second and third parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.
    Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the commencement of the appointment of a board of referees comes through him, or can the public put names before him?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that question.

    BETTING DUTY.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a bet made on a racecourse during a race meeting between a backer and a bookmaker both attending that particular race meeting but on a horse, or horses, running at another race meeting in another part of the country on a future day will be taxed at the higher or lower scale?
    51. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax is chargeable in the case of a backer who lays a bet on a racecourse with a bookmaker also on the racecourse but on a horse or horses not running on that day but at some future race meeting not to be held on that particular racecourse?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The bet in question would be taxed at 2 per cent.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what would happen in the case of a dead heat—whether half the tax would be refunded?

    INCOME TAX.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of duty in arrear up to 1924–25, inclusive, in respect of Income Tax assessments on aliens for theatrical and music hall profits under Schedules D and E?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that this information is not available. It would be necessary to call for a special return to obtain the figure asked for. The amount of duty in arrear would be comparatively very small.

    ALCOHOLIC SPIRITS (EXPORT TAX).
    Colonel MORDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the question of an export tax on alcoholic spirits?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have had the question of this tax thoroughly investigated, and I have not seen my way to incorporate it in the Budget proposals.
    Colonel MORDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the indignation of all classes of the taxpayers in this country at the fact that they have to pay £5 a case duty on whiskey when the American bootlegger pays no tax at all?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I canvassed this question most hopefully, and an expert Committee laboured for many months last autumn on the subject, but, in the result, I came to the conclusion that it was not a proposal which would be likely to have good results or yield a substantial financial return. I should have been delighted to argue the matter at any time during the Budget discussions but, unhappily, those are already terminated for the year.
    Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of the presence
    1908
    of General Andrews in this country at this time to discuss this subject with him?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He is dealing with another branch of the subject.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he actually gives a rebate on the duty to people who export whiskey surreptitiously abroad?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I say, all these things were most carefully considered, and the proposal did not hold water.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the granting of short-term loans to established and prospective smallholders for the purchase of stock and equipment?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Loans for the purposes mentioned can at present be guaranteed by county councils and the councils of county boroughs, in accordance with Section 18 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919. It is proposed, however, in the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill to repeal the Section referred to. The grounds for this proposal will no doubt be fully discussed during the Committee stages of the Bill.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, while considering that, consider also some limited amount for implements to these smallholders?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think that is a matter which had better be discussed on the Committee stage.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that many men who desire to go back to the land lack experience in small husbandry, and that the difficulty of marketing small lots of produce is a great handicap to success, he can see his way to consider the advisability of county councils establishing smallholders in groups, according to their class of produce, such groups thereby having facilities for marketing their produce in bulk?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I can assure my hon. Friend that the advantages of settling

    1909
    smallholders in groups are realised by county councils and that there is no reason why this method, which has been followed in a number of cases already, should not be continued and extended under the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture how many ex-service men who made application under the Land Settlement Facilities Act, 1919, have not yet been examined as to their suitability, and how many have been approved but not yet provided with holdings; whether he can say if the above classes will receive priority treatment under the Small Holdings Act, 1926; and whether he will consider giving power of appeal to an impartial authority in cases where undue delay has occurred in the provision of such small holdings?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The number of ex-service applicants who had not been interviewed, or whose applications were standing over, on the 31st March, 1926, was 4,061, of whom 771 applied before 1st December, 1920, and were consequently entitled to preferential treatment. The number of ex-service applicants approved but not provided with holdings on the same date was 3,842, of whom 2,526 applied before 1st December, 1920, and 1,316 after that date. With regard to the last two parts of the question, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Committee stage of the Small Holdings Bill, when these points will doubtless receive consideration.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that in many cases where land was compulsorily acquired for ex-service men, that land is to-day occupied by people who are not ex-service men?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Under the Act of 1919, a preference had to be given to ex-service men.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that the expenditure of money for settling ex-service men on small holdings actually ceased in 1921, merely because of the colossal expense of providing small holdings for these men?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The expenditure is going on now. We are settling a certain number of men, and money was actually expended last year.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that there was a large number of ex-service men who were actually examined and passed as suitable candidates, but did not get holdings under that scheme, and who are still waiting?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I have given those figures in my answer.
    Mr. PALING: Is that not in regard to men who made applications, but were not passed as suitable?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I have given in my answer the numbers of those who have been approved and who have not yet received holdings.

    INDIAN TROOPS (SERVICE ABROAD).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many troops raised in India are serving outside India; and the countries or territories in which these trops are serving, without stating the numbers of troops in the several countries or territories?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Excluding Aden, there are at present Indian troops serving at the expense of His Majesty's Government in South China, the Malay States, and Iraq. I have not the exact strength of the units so employed; but the total number is approximately 4,000.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the Noble Lord says "at the expense of His Majesty's Government," I presume that means the whole of the troops serving outside India, because there are no Imperial Service troops outside India?
    Earl WINTERTON: It does not mean the whole of the troops outside India. It excludes troops at Aden, where they serve at the expense of the Indian Government. The figures I have given are as to the whole of the Indian troops serving outside India at the expense of His Majesty's Government. Imperial Service troops do not serve outside India except in time of war.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With the exception of Aden, are any Indian troops serving outside India at the expense of any local Government?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think so, but I should like to have notice of that question. That is not the question on the Paper, but, so far I know, there is none, and never has been.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, is the Noble Lord aware that the question I put on the Paper, which was a military question and addressed to the Secretary of State for War, was in regard to the total number of Indian troops serving outside India?
    Earl WINTERTON: That is exactly the answer I have given. I will read it out again, if the hon. and gallant Member is not satisfied.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I caught the answer.

    PROOFKOVSKI (DEPORTATION).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Proofkovski, Communist, who has several times been convicted in this country and who, during the general strike, was again convicted and sentenced to be deported, has yet been deported to Russia?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): The answer is in the negative. A deportation order has already been made against this man, and my right hon. Friend gave instructions for its enforcement the other day. Although, however, the man was in possession of valid national recognition as a citizen of the Soviet Union, the master of the ship in which he should have sailed refused on some technical plea to take him on board. Appropriate steps are being taken, and meantime the man continues to serve his sentence.
    Sir P. GOFF: If a master of a ship refuses to take a deported man, cannot the Customs officials refuse to give that ship a clearance?
    Captain HACKING: We are taking the appropriate measures. I cannot say more than that for the moment.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say, with reference to the wording of this question, whether this person has been convicted of being a Communist?
    Captain HACKING: I must have notice of that question.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say he cannot answer, in general, whether people are being convicted of being Communists?
    Captain HACKING: This man was convicted of breaking the law, whether he was a Communist or not.

    ELLIS ISLAND (TREATMENT OF BRITISH IMMIGRANTS).
    Captain FAIRFAXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs precisely the effect of the relaxations which have been made in the treatment of British immigrants at Ellis Island; and whether they were arrived at as the result of representations by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am not aware that any relaxations have been made in the treatment of immigrants at Ellis Island; my hon. Friend may perhaps have in mind an arrangement which was made about a year ago at the suggestion of the United States Government by which emigrants from this country to the United States are medically examined by United States officials at the port of departure.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the importance of the forthcoming session of the League of Nations, whether he proposes to make any statement to the House before the House rises?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. The circumstances would not appear to my right hon. Friend to call for any special statement.

  LIQUOR SMUGGLING.

    STATEMENT BY MR. LOCKER-LAMPSON.
    Colonel MORDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has fully consulted the British Dominions and Colonies before commencing his negotiations with General Andrews of the

    1913
    United States Government; and can he give full assurance that no further concessions as to the right of search of British ships will be given?
    Mr. REMERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement as to the negotiations which are taking place with General Andrews as to the liquor laws in the United States of America; and if he can give an undertaking that no further concessions will be made affecting British shipping?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will, if I may, answer these questions together, and apologise for the length of the reply.
    As vessels engaged in liquor smuggling frequently make use of the British flag, and proceed from ports and places within British jurisdiction, questions have from time to time arisen between the Government of the United States and His Majesty's Government with regard to this traffic, and it was decided that a meeting should take place in London between officials of the two Governments to go fully into the matter.
    As the discussion was one between officials, no question of policy or politics could arise, nor was any past practice or incident called in question save with a view to avoiding future difficulties. The first object of those present was to ascertain all the facts so that both sides could understand clearly and fully exactly what was taking place. It was felt that if this were done with goodwill and in a scientific spirit it should be possible to devise means for meeting the difficulties that had been encountered in the respective countries in administering the law. The discussion was, therefore, of a very frank nature, every fact or difficulty in the minds of either side being brought forward and discussed without reserve.
    The information in the possession of each side supplemented that possessed by the other, and attention was concentrated on the infringements of the law that have been, and are being, committed by the persons engaged in this traffic. In many cases the vessels have been placed on the British register illegally, and in certain cases where they use ports or places within British Colonies there appears to be a failure to comply with definite pro-
    1914
    visions of the law relating to clearances, quarantine and other matters. The object of the officials was to secure that these infractions of the law shall be dealt with and shall cease. There is no question whatever of interfering in any way with legitimate trade, which should have no difficulty in distinguishing itself from the illicit traffic.
    If the information possessed by both sides is pooled, and a close working liaison established between the officers engaged in dealing with the traffic, so that each side knows what the other is doing, and can render any proper and requisite assistance to the other, and if any additional force that may be necessary to secure the strict observance of the law is supplied, it should be possible to reduce very materially the causes for complaint or misunderstanding.
    With this object, the officials have made definite suggestions of an administrative nature, and these are now being considered by the two Governments. For obvious reasons it is not desirable that the text of the suggestions should be published until they have been fully considered and have become effective. There has been no question at these meetings of any extension of the right of search.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, in cases where vessels have got upon the British register illegally, they will at once be taken off that register?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have given a very full statement. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will study it, and then put down any question he wishes to ask.
    Mr. REMER: May I ask whether the British Colonies and Dominions have been consulted on this subject?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, at all these meetings a representative of the Colonial Office has been present.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the fact that it has been discovered that the smuggling is entirely done by Americans, and that British subjects do not break the law? They may sell to people who are smuggling, but they themselves are not breaking the law.

    RUSSIAN TRADE DELEGATION.
    Sir P. GOFFasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Foreign Office to withdraw diplomatic privilege from the Russian trade delegation, in view of the fact that the Soviet Government was granted recognition by the late Government of His Majesty and are now represented in this country by an Embassy in possession of full diplomatic privilege?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer is in the negative. Under the terms of the trade agreement, only the chairman of the Soviet Trade Delegation enjoys diplomatic privileges.
    Sir P. GOFF: Are the Government prepared to give diplomatic privileges to any other foreign Power which wishes to institute a trade delegation to this country?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already explained that this is a very special agreement, owing to the fact that Russia is the only country which has a foreign trade monopoly.

    MUNICIPAL TELEPHONE SERVICES.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health the number and names of municipalities owning and operating their own telephone services?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply. Kingston-upon-Hull is the only municipality in this country which owns and operates a public telephone service; but the States of Jersey and Guernsey own and operate the telephone services in those islands. The services mentioned are operated under licence from the Post Office.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say with what success they are operated, whether they make a substantial profit?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I should require notice of that question.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL COMMITTEE FINDINGS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Health whether the findings of the Dental Committee will be sub-
    1916
    mitted to each approved society for consideration before any action is taken thereon?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Any agreement which may be arrived at as the result of the discussions now in progress between representatives of the approved societies and of the dental profession will be submitted before any action is taken thereon to the Consultative Council on Approved Societies' Work, which is the recognised statutory body representative of approved societies.

    SHOOTING RENTS, SCOTLAND.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will instruct the Board of Agriculture to include in the annual agricultural returns those areas over which game is shot or for which shooting rents are paid, comprised in grass lands, totalling 2,419,014 acres for 1925, and mountain and heath lands, totalling 9,643,996 acres for 1925, together with the shooting rents for those areas?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, which now defines the scope of the annual agricultural returns does not empower the Board to require the occupiers of agricultural land to furnish particulars of the nature indicated in the question; nor would it have been practicable to provide for the collection of information of this character in the returns.

    DWELLING HOUSES (CONVERSION INTO SHOPS).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from the Deptford Borough Council regarding the practice of converting dwelling-houses on main roads into business premises; whether any statistics are available showing the number of private houses which have been converted into shops during the last few years within the Metropolitan area: and whether he will take steps to prevent further conversion during the time the shortage of housing accommodation remains acute?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received the representations in question and has given them careful consideration. Statistics are not available showing the total number of houses which have been converted into shops in the Metropolitan area during the last few years. With regard to the last part of the question, as my right hon. Friend has previously stated in the House, he does not think that a case has been established for the further restrictive legislation which would be necessary to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Could the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: The continuation of the Emergency Regulations.
Mr. MacDONALD: Could we be told if there is any change in the procedure of bringing these Regulations before us, or is it just the usual method of the Royal Message?
The PRIME MINISTER: Following the precedent of 1921, we propose only discussing the Emergency Regulations.
Mr. MacDONALD: Will it be done in such a way that we can have a general discussion—a sort of Committee stage—on the Regulations?
The PRIME MINISTER: That must rest with Mr. Speaker.
Captain BENN: Will the usual opportunity be afforded to move Amendments to leave out some of the Regulations?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly.
Captain BENN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will be continued?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot, but certainly not to-night.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Mining, Industry Bill and on the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 119.

Division No. 402.]

AYES

[3.45 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bullock, Captain M.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Burman, J. B.

Drewe, C.

Albery, Irving James

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Apsley, Lord

Campbell. E. T.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Ashley, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Elveden, viscount

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Atkinson, C.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Everard, W. Lindsay

Balniel, Lord

Chapman, Sir S.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Falls, Sir Bertram G.

Barrnett, Major Sir Richard

Christie, J. A.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fermoy, Lord

Backett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Clarry, Reginald George

Forrest, W.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Clayton, G. C.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Bennett, A. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Fraser, Captain Ian

Berry, Sir George

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Frece, Sir Walter de

Bethel, A.

Cockeri1l, Brig-General Sir G. K.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Betterton, Henry B.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Ganzonl, Sir John

Boothby, R. J. G.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Cope, Major William

Goff, Sir Park

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Gower, Sir Robert

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Grant, Sir J. A.

Braithwaite, A. N.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Brass, Captain W.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Grotrian, H. Brent

Briggs, J. Harold

Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Briscoe, Richard George

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hampst'd)

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Hammersley, S. S.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Hanbury, C.

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Harland, A.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Hartington, Marquess of

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Skelton, A. N.

Hawke, John Anthony

Meyer, Sir Frank

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Moles, Thomas

Smithers, Waldron

Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hills, Major John Waller

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Hilton, Cecil

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Holland, Sir Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Murchison, C. K.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Templeton, W. P.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Huntinglield, Lord

Nuttall, Ellis

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Hurd, Percy A.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Pennefather, Sir John

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Illffe, Sir Edward M.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Tinne, J. A.

Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Jacob, A. E.

Perring, Sir William George

Waddington, R.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Jephcott, A. R.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Power, Sir John Cecil

Warrender, Sir Victor

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Preston, William

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Price, Major C. W. M.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Radford, E. A.

Watts, Dr. T.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Ralne, W.

Wells, S. R.

Lamb, J. Q.

Ramsden, E.

Wheler, Major Sir. Granville C. H.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Reld, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Remer, J. R.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Loder, J. de V.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Rice, Sir Frederick

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Rye, F. G.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Macintyre, Ian

Salmon, Major I.

Womersley, W. J.

McLean, Major A.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Macmillan, Captain H.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Macquisten, F. A.

Sandon, Lord

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Savery, S. S.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

Malone, Major P. B.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Shepperson, E. W.

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir

Margesson, Captain D.

Simms, Dr. John M (Co. Down)

Harry Barnston.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife,West)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro')

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Gibbins, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Gillett, George M.

Kennedy, T.

Barr, J.

Gosling, Harry

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Batey, Joseph

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Kenyon, Barnet

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Lawrence, Susan

Briant, Frank

Greenall, T.

Lee, F.

Bromfield, William

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Livingstone, A. M.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lowth, T.

Buchanan, G.

Groves, T.

Lunn, William

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Grundy, T. W.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Cape, Thomas

Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

March, S.

Charleton, H. C.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Montague, Frederick

Clowes, S.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Morris, R. H.

Cluse, W. S.

Hardie, George D.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

Harney, E. A.

Naylor, T. E.

Compton, Joseph

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Owen, Major G.

Connolly, M.

Hayes, John Henry

Palin, John Henry

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Paling, W.

Dalton, Hugh

Hirst, G. H.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Potts, John S.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Day, Colonel Harry

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Riley, Ben

Dennison, R.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Ritson, J.

Dunnico, H.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Salter, Dr, Alfred

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Morioneth)

Sexton, James

1920

1921

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Westwood, J.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Thurtle, Ernest

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Tinker, John Joseph

Whiteley, W.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Townend, A. E.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Varley, Frank B.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Snell, Harry

Viant, S. P.

Wilson, R. .J. (Jarrow)

Spencor, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Windsor, Walter

Stamford, T. W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Wright, W.

Stephen, Campbell

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Sullivan, J.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Sutton, J. E.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.

Taylor, R. A.

Welsh, J. C.

Barnes.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (PROCLAMATION).
At the end of Questions—
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)A Message from the King, signed by his own hand.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Royal Message (all the Members of the House being uncovered) and it was as followeth:
The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 26th day of July, 1926, having constituted, in the opinion of His Majesty, a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 26th day of July, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exits.

BURGH REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Petroleum Bill [Lords],
Mexorough and Swinton Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

FEU DUTIES AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL,
"to amend the Law of Scotland with regard to feus and long leases," presented by Mr. SKELTON; supported by Major MacAndrew, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, and Major Sir Archibald Sinclair; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. FREDERICK HALLreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Police Pensions Bill and the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Bill): Sir Gervase Beckett; Mr. Clayton, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir Bertram Falle, Captain Hacking, Mr. Harney, Mr. George Harvey, Mr. Hayes, Secretary Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Moles, Mr. Montague, Mr. Russell, Viscount Sandon, Sir Henry Slesser, and Dr. Watts.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
  First Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed, [No. 118.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
the Government has seen fit to introduce this provision, because that knowledge is so important in mining. Without being a prophet or a son of a prophet, I can see many coal mine explosions with heavy loss of life as a result of bringing in these paper-educated men. In coal mining one must have personal knowledge of what is meant by running a coal mine. One cannot get that at a university, no matter how much a man may know of pressure of air, and of gas in every form in which it may be found. When it comes to the practical side, one must know the conditions that apply in the actual getting of coal, and especially of the human relation, in which practical experience can alone assist one. This Bill, instead of being a reorganisation of the industry, cannot claim to be any reorganisation at all. There is nothing in the Bill that calls upon anyone to do anything. It is simply a permissive Bill and it makes one sad to think that to-day, when the whole of our wealth and the foundation of our industry is in such a state, all that the brains of this majority of 200 can produce is something that resembles an invitation to a dance.
Question put, "That the word "now" stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 125.

Division No. 407.]

AYES

[11.13 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Cope, Major William

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Alnsworth, Major Charles

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. Bergs, Newb'y)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M S.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Bullock, Captain M.

Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Burman, J. B.

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Atholl, Duchess of

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Atkinson, C.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Davidson, Major-General Sir John H

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Calne, Gordon Hall

Davies, David (Montgomery)

Balniel, Lord

Campbell, E, T.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Cassels, J. D.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Barnett, Major Sir R.

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth S.)

Duckworth, John

Beckett, sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Cazalet, Captain victor A.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Bennett, A. J.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Berry, Sir George

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Betterton, Henry B.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Ellis, R. G.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Chapman, Sir S.

Elveden, Viscount

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

England, Colonel A.

Blundell, F. N.

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.-s.-M.)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Christle, J. A.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Clarry, Reginald George

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Clayton, G. C.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Braithwaite, A. N.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Fermoy, Lord

Bridgeman, Rt, Hon. William Clive

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

Fielden, E. B.

Briggs, J. Harold

Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips

Ford, Sir P. J.

Briscoe, Richard George

Cooper, A. Duff

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Forrest, W.

Loder, J. de V.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Looker, Herbert William

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Lord, Walter Greaves

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lougher, L.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Frece, Sir Walter de

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Sandon, Lord

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Savery, S. S.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.F., Sowerby)

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

Ganzoni, Sir John

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Macintyre, tan

Shepperson, E. W.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

McLean, Major A.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Goff, Sir Park

Macmillan, Captain H.

Skelton, A. N.

Gower, Sir Robert

Macnaghton, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Grace, John

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Grant, Sir J A.

Macquisten, F. A.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

MacRobert Alexander M.

Smithers, Waldron

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Malone, Major P. B.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Grotrian, H. Brent

Margesson, Captain D.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Merriman, F. B,

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Storry-Deans, R.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Moles, Thomas

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Hammersley, S. S.

Mond, Bt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Hanbury, C.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Harland, A.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Colonel J. C. T.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Harrison, G. J. C.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sykes, major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Hasiam, Henry C.

Murchison, C. K.

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Hawke, John Anthony

Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Neville, R. J.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Henderson, Lieut.-Cot. V. L. (Bootle)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Tinne, J. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nutall, Ellis

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Herbert, S. (York, N.R, Scar. & Wh'by)

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Hills, Major John Waller

O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Waddington, R.

Hilton, Cecil

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Ormsby-Core, Hon. William

Warner Brigadier- General W. W.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pennefather, Sir John

Warrender, Sir Victor

Holland, Sir Arthur

Penny, Frederick George

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hopkins. J. W. W.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Horne, Fit. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Peering, Sir William George

Watts, Dr. T.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wells, S. R.

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

Hume, Sir G. H.

Pielou, D. P.

Wiggins, William Martin

Huntingfield, Lord

Pilcher, G

Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Hurd, Percy A.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hutchison, G.A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

Preston, William

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Illffe, Sir Edward M.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Inskin, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Radford, E. A.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Raine, W.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Jacob, A. E.

Ramsden, E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Jephcott, A. R.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Wise, Sir Fredric

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Wormer, Viscount

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Ramer, J. R.

Womersley, W. J

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Rentoul, G. S.

Wood, E.(Chest'r.Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Rice, Sir Frederick

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Wragg, Herbert

Lamb, J. O.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Yerburqh, Major Robert D. T.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Little. Dr. E. Graham

Rye, F. G.

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir

Lloyd, Cyril E (Dudley)

Salmon, Major I.

Harry Barnston.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Bromfield, William

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Ammon, Charles George

Bromley, J

Compton, Joseph

Barnes, A.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Connolly, M.

Barr. J.

Buchanan, G.

Cove, W. G.

Batey, Joseph

Cape, Thomas

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Charleton, H. C.

Dalton, Hugh

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Clowes, S.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Bondfield, Margaret

Cluse, W. S.

Day, Colonel Harry

2064

2065

Dennison, R

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Smith, H. S. Lees- (Keighley)

Duncan, C.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Dunnico, H.

Kennedy, T.

Snell, Harry

Fenby, T. D.

Lawrence, Susan

Stamford, T. W.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Lee, F.

Stephen, Campbell

Gardner, J. P.

Lunn, William

Sullivan, J.

Gibbins, Joseph

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Sutton, J. E.

Gillett, George M.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Taylor, R. A.

Gosling, Harry

March, S.

Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Montague, Fredrick

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Greenall, T.

Naylor, T. E.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Oliver, George Harold

Tinker, John Joseph

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Owen, Major G.

Townend, A. E.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Palin, John Henry

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Grundy, T. W.

Paling, W.

Varley, Frank B.

Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Viant, S. P.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wallhead, Richard C.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Potts, John S.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Purcell, A. A.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Hardie, George D.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)

Watts-Morgan, Lt.- Col. D. (Rhondda)

Harris, Percy A.

Riley, Ben

Welsh, J. C.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Ritson, J.

Westwood, J.

Hayday, Arthur

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Hayes, John Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Whiteley, W.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Scrymgeour, E.

Wilkinson, Eilen C.

Hirst, G. H.

Scurr, John

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Sexton, James

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Windsor, Walter

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wright, W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Smillie, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Charles Edwards.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MINING INDUSTRY BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MINING INDUSTRY BILL.

    CLAUSE. 1.—(Power to prepare amalgamation and absorption schemes.)
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "no partial absorption scheme shall, without the consent of the owner of the absorbed company, provide for the separation of the treating or disposing of coal from the working thereof, or, in the case of an undertaking of which the primary object is not coal mining, provide for the separation from the undertaking of any coal mine worked as ancillary to such primary object."
    I do not think I need trouble the House with a long statement regarding this Amendment. The first part is practically a re-enactment of the words left out, with one exception, namely, that, with the consent of the owner something can be done which is prohibited by the Clause as it at present stands. The second part of the Amendment, namely, the last three lines, has for its object the prevention of a compulsory absorption scheme which would break up a vertical amalgamation, that is to say, would take a coal mine which was part of an existing organisation consisting also of, say, steel works or iron works, from those steel works or iron works. The intention of absorption is not to prevent an amalgamation which already exists, but to improve the efficiency of the working of coal mines by amalgamating two or more which can be more usefully worked together.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Contents of total amalgamation schemes.)
    Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert the words
    "(f) shall provide for the annual publication of the accounts of the new or continued company, or any of the new or continued companies, including particulars as to the amount of coal used for the purpose of any business or operations carried on
    1936
    by a constituent company or in the common interest of the constituent companies and the price charged therefor, and particulars as to the number of persons employed in each grade or class by the new or continued company or any of the new or continued companies, and the aggregate wages paid to each grade or class, such accounts to be published in a form to be prescribed by the Board of Trade."
    I am moving this Amendment for the purpose of enabling the miners to get the fullest possible information regarding the industry in which they are engaged. The principle behind this Amendment is one that ought to be responded to both by the coalowners and by the Government. It is a demand that is not confined to the mining industry alone, but applies to the whole of British industry. Workmen in British industry to-day, like the miners, are anxious to get the fullest possible information regarding the operation of the industry in which they are engaged. The withholding of information regarding the matters mentioned in this Amendment is one of the causes of dissatisfaction and unrest in our industrial system to-day. If we are to have peace in industry, the employers ought to put all their cards on the table, and give the workmen the fullest possible information. The Report of the Coal Commission admits the justice of the claim put forward in the Amendment which I am now moving. We believe that it is in the interests of industry as a whole for the information mentioned here to be supplied to the workmen in the mining industry.
    Many of our mining companies to-day are engaged, and will continue, after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, to be engaged, in ancillary occupations such as iron works, steel works, coking plant and similar subsidiary works. The money earned in these ancillary operations is not brought within our ascertainment in the industry for wages purposes, and, naturally, the workmen are anxious to get the fullest information regarding this matter, so that they may be in a position to see the exact amount of money that is not finding its way into the common fund from which wages and profits are paid. Large quantities of coal produced in the coalfields are transferred to these ancillary companies, and we are anxious to know, not only the exact amount of coal that finds its way into such concerns, but also the exact price that is charged for the

    1937
    coal so transferred. Coal is also transferred in considerable quantity to selling agencies, with which a considerable number of the coalowners of this country are connected, and we also desire to have the fullest information regarding them. I can assure the House that the want of the necessary information with respect to the matters with which this Amendment deals is causing a considerable amount of suspicion to exist in the minds of our men, and I believe it would be to the advantage of the coalowners and the country if we had the information for which this Amendment provides. We also want to get the pit-head price of the coal sold at the particular colliery and the price paid for the coal transferred as I have already said, so that we shall be in the position of being able to ascertain whether these large quantities of coal are transferred to these subsidiary companies at anything like a fair and just price.
    4.0 P.M.
    We also desire to have full information regarding the number of persons employed in the grade or class in mining companies, and the exact amount of wages paid to each class or grade of workers. As a matter of fact, we want the fullest information as to the total production, the costs of production, and the profits made. I may be told, in the course of the reply to be given by the right hon. Gentleman, that we get this information in the quarterly ascertainments that are supplied to us in our respective districts through the accountants appointed for that purpose. It is true that we get a considerable amount of information, but it is supplied in the aggregate and it does not apply to each particular concern as is provided in this Amendment. We think that we are entitled to this information. We believe that it would be for the interests of the industry, and certainly it would be in the interests of the workers, I may point out that in this respect we are a long way behind some of our competitors. We are informed that the workmen in the mining industry in America get the most complete information as to the amount of production, the wages paid, and the profits earned by the respective companies. We do not see why the workmen in this country should be put in a worse position than their fellows in the coal
    1938
    mining industry of America. We believe that we are just as much entitled to that information as the workmen in America or any other industrial country with which we are in competition. If the fullest information; were provided, we believe that it would tend to remove a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and suspicion and unrest that now prevails. We believe that it would tend to promote an entirely different spirit in our industrial system.
    I think I am right in saying that during the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill promised that he would give this Amendment some consideration before the Report stage. I hope, when he rises to reply, that he will be in a position to intimate that he is prepared to accept the Amendment. As has been pointed out on more than one occasion, we do not look for much benefit from this Bill. We believe that it is a mere shadow of what is required in order to give effect to the Coal Commission's Report. If the Amendments which were put down for the Committee stage and for this Report stage in the names of my hon. Friends and myself had been adopted, the Bill would have come much nearer to giving effect to the, Coal Commission's Report. I hope that this Amendment will not share the fate of some others that have gone before, and be rejected by the Secretary of State for War. I hope that he will see his way to accept it.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment in Committee upstairs was quite right in saying that I said I would give consideration to it with a view to removing any suspicion that there might be in the minds of the men that full information is not given to them. Anything that we can do to remove that suspicion is obviously most desirable. I got two of his colleagues to confer with two Members on the opposite side of the Committee to see whether together they could find some way, within the framework of the Bill, of getting information which would in fact remove suspicion, but, although I am sure they tried, they have not been able to make any suggestion to me which would enable me to include some Clause in the Bill which would carry out the object of removing suspicion. I cannot accept this Amend-

    1939
    ment. It would really defeat or tend to defeat the whole object of the Bill, by putting certain companies which amalgamated under terms and conditions different from companies which are carried on without amalgamation. As far as publication of accounts is a hindrance or a handicap, it would be hindering and handicapping the absorptions and amalgamations that we hope will go through under this Bill.
    If, on the other hand, it is not intended to deal with it purely from the mining industry point of view, it should not be in this Bill, but should be an alteration in the general law under which limited companies are carried on. Really, the details for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking are such as are not commonly disclosed by any trading company. But the mining industry has special facilities for getting information, facilities which are not generally enjoyed by workers in other industries. They have their own accountant who meets the accountant appointed by the owners, and those two accountants examine the books and the figures and get a degree of information which is infinitely greater than is given in any other industry in the country. The proper line of progress towards removing suspicion is through those accountants, and I feel sure, if the view of the right hon. Gentleman is generally shared, that it is in that direction that redress should be found.
    Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The speech, to which we have just listened has filled us with greater suspicion than we had before. If it be true that there is nothing which amalgamated companies need feel ashamed of, why should the publication of quite ordinary information hamper the formation of amalgamations? The right hon. Gentleman's speech has proved the need for an Amendment on these lines. There is a very large body of opinion, not confined to this side of the House, which to-day believes in a wide extension of publication of information on all industrial matters. Only within the last two or three weeks a very strong committee of business men and economists and accountants have published a document, of which the right hon. Gentleman must have some knowledge, stressing the im-
    1940
    portance of this industrial publicity; and here is the Government's first opportunity of carrying a policy of this kind into effect. We are not asking for any new favour. There is no industry in the country to-day which has regularly and systematically to provide more information with regard to output and costs than the coal mining industry. All we are asking is, that this information should now be carried to the point of publication, not as regards all the firms in the industry but as regards such undertakings as form amalgamations.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that it would impede amalgamation. If that be so, I do not think he is going to get much in the way of amalgamation out of this Bill, because, if this Amendment will have the effect of destroying the desire for amalgamation, it must be a feeble, flickering desire that exists among them to amalgamate. The right hon. Gentleman has said time and time again, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House, that in Clause 1 there is an element of compulsion. If he means to use this element of compulsion, in what respect can this Amendment hamper amalgamation carried out by his powers of compulsion? I think we have been treated most unfairly by the right hon. Gentleman on this Amendment. We attach a great deal of importance to it, and we have been put off with a reply which I think is most unconvincing. When he urges that the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill would destroy the possibilities of amalgamation all that the Secretary of State for War succeeds in doing is to prove more than ever the need for industrial publicity, because surely, if that means anything at all, it means that, there is something to hide of which the undertakings are ashamed. If he does not, mean that, he does not mean anything and his argument has no weight. I hope the House will support the Amendment.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I certainly do not think that he did anything like justice to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). He said nothing but this: I considered this question in Committee, and I promised to look into it. In the meantime, I have done so, and I cannot accept it. That was his

    1941
    major argument. His minor argument was that, if it were applied to amalgamated companies, it must be applied to all companies. Why not? If this particular information were given frankly, it would remove one of the greatest grievances one constantly hears mentioned in connection with the ascertainment of wages. Why should it not be done? Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the publication of fuller information by companies employing workmen would make for industrial co-operation and higher production, or is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that it would impede it? He must have some mind on the subject. We think that one thing that could be done to assist a better spirit in industry would be a fuller supply of information to all the parties concerned in the industry, and, in my view, the right hon. Gentleman has advanced no argument whatever against the Amendment unless he believes that the supply of information to those engaged in the industry, information on which their own estimate of the justice of the wage depends, especially in the case of the coal industry where there is a special ascertainment, would hamper that spirit in industry, and in that case we know where the Government stand. But I am perfectly certain that many hon. Members opposite believe that something might be done to improve the spirit in industry by a fuller supply of information, and I do hope that some of them will ask the Government whether they could not accept this Amendment or some form of it which we believe is a step in advance.
    Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I want to say one word in support of what the Secretary of State for War has said. Time and time again in Committee questions were asked regarding these transfer prices, and I think it would be well to tell the House how these transfer prices are operated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), who moved the Amendment, is well aware that, prior to the agreement of 1921, the wages of the men fluctuated either by an addition or a reduction according to the basic rate, but that with the inception of the 1921 agreement there were certain activities excluded from the ascertainment of these wages, such as coke ovens and so forth. These ancillary
    1942
    trades were placed on exactly the same basis as those activities outside. I could give quite a list of those excluded activities. When they were excluded it was necessary to have some arrangement, and these things were defined by the national board, whose reports were sent up and agreed to by the auditors of the masters and the men, and an audit was made on the recommendation of this national board which was called the terms of settlement audit, and it is on that basis that these transfer prices are defined.
    It must be obvious that, immediately these activities were excluded, it would be necessary to define the transfer price, and the award of the National Board set out in the following terms. All figures relating to an excluded activity are to be excluded from the ascertainment. Things relating partly to a colliery and partly to an excluded activity are to be apportioned on an equitable basis. Fair transfer prices, based on fair market values, are to be charged in respect of transactions between a colliery and allied concerns excluded in the ascertainment. It will be seen that the fundamental basis was an equitable transfer price. It is left entirely to the Accountants on these two sides to define what is a fair marketable transfer price, and what obtains to-day is this, that the auditors of the two sides are responsible for fixing a correct transfer price to these excluded activities. There is also in that National Award a safeguard to the men in this, that if there is any question in dispute between these auditors in getting these ascertained prices, any question on which the independent accountants fail to agree is to be submitted to the independent chairman of the District Board, so it really comes to this, that in these transfer prices there is every provision made that an equitable price should be charged. It is rather a serious charge for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to suggest that these are not equitable because it is casting a very grave reflection upon the accountants appointed by those on the other side. If they are not satisfied with the transfer prices, it is for them to find out from their duly accredited accountants that these prices are charged on an equitable and a reasonable and commercial basis.
    Mr. WALSH: Perhaps there has been no statement repeated by the repre-

    1943
    sentatives of the owners more often and with less ground than that any statement we make as to suspicion of the transfer prices is a charge against the independent accountants. The independent accountants do not fix the transfer prices, to begin with. The transfer prices are fixed by the employers themselves, or by the officials acting on their behalf. [Interruption.] The transfer prices are fixed by officials acting on behalf of the colliery owners. It is they who fix the transfer prices and not the independent accountants. Is that sufficiently explicit?
    Mr. THOMPSON: No. Suppose the men's accountants disagree with the transfer price, they have a right to refer the question to the chairman of the district board and have it adjusted.
    Mr. WALSH: When they disagree with the transfer price the transfer price has already been fixed.
    Mr. THOMPSON: No.
    Mr. WALSH: Common sense tells you that. Let us see what the Royal Commission itself says:
    "Wherever the boundary of the mining industry be drawn, the problem of transfer prices arises. The proceeds of the industry are to determine the wages; the proceeds depend mainly upon the quantity of coal sold and the price at which it is sold."
    I will not read two long paragraphs in full, but this is what they say:
    "Leading representatives of two of those firms appeared before us as witnesses; we were impressed both by the thoroughness of their methods and by the spirit of fairness in which they approached their task. It is no reflection either on the fair dealing of the mine owners as a body, or upon the impartiality and efficiency of the joint accountants, if we think that a radical change in the treatment of transfer prices is needed to place the wage ascertainment beyond suspicion."
    We say first of all that this is a new departure that the State is undertaking. What possible logic or force can there be in the right hon. Gentleman's reply that there is at present a system existing which gives us in the aggregate the prices at which the transfer is made? In the aggregate, yes, but our wages depend upon the prices at which this commodity is transferred to the associated activities, and surely those whose wages
    1944
    depend upon this transaction have a right to know the price at which the transaction is effected. "But," it is said, "really that is to place existing companies not amalgamating at a disadvantage." Is the first regard not to be paid to the fact that the men's wages depend upon the prices at which these transfers are effected, and that in order to let the men know that their wages are being properly determined the figure at which the transfer takes place should also be known. Is not that the first consideration, to remove the suspicion, which even by the Report of the Royal Commission undoubtedly rests upon these transactions?
    This is a new departure. On the one hand they say "We are carrying out to the best of our ability the recommendations of the Royal Commission." All right! If you are starting on a new departure, which we did not ask for, we say to you, "This is a new departure. Bring in a new method which will remove the old suspicions." "Ah, no! that is to place those companies which are not in amalgamations or absorptions at a commercial disadvantage." The first point to consider is the right of the men to have such information as will enable them to see that they are not being defrauded of their wages. It is clearly what is due to the men. You say the method of regulating wages and profits came in in 1921. Of course it did, but it was never an agreement. It was forced upon the men against hundreds of thousands of a majority. When the men were called upon to vote they voted against this ascertainment—against this method—by hundreds of thousands of a majority. [Interruption.] In 1924 there has been a continuous protest, as the hon. Member knows if he knows anything at all about it, against this method of regulating wages and profits. It does not exist in any other country, nor in any industry except coal mining in this country. There has never been any agreement, and whenever we have pressed for fuller information to remove suspicion we have been met by the same argument as the right hon. Gentleman has given us to-day. "If we tell you any more than you know now you will be placing us at a very serious disadvantage." The fact that wages are regulated by those conditions seems to be not even a secondary but a subsidiary consideration. The Bill is a

    1945
    thing of shreds and patches as it is. It can never be very much good to the coalowners and I cannot see how it is going to be any good at all to the miners. We were hoping against hope that there might be a little backbone, a little something effected, a little something definite put into the Bill, but on every occasion, whatever may be the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman, "No, that cannot be done."
    It is true he suggested that he would be prepared to consider it, and he suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) and I might meet two hon. Members on the other side of the House to see what, if anything, could be done. The interview took place. We said, "Put in the transfer prices at which coal is transferred from the coal mines to your iron and steel works." "Oh, no, that cannot be done. You get that already in the aggregate from your independent accountants." A more nonsensical reply was never given. These independent accountants are bound to secrecy. Whatever questions we put to them we cannot elicit the information. That is no charge against the independent accountants. It is simply a recognition of the existing facts. "Put in the price at which you transfer the coal." "No, that cannot be clone. That would be to place the employers at a very serious disadvantage." "Put in the cost of the wages paid to the youths under 16 and to those above that age, not merely in the coal mining, but in your associated activities." "No, that cannot be done. That would duplicate accounts already in existence," which we could find if we made search in a hundred and one different departments. The whole thing is preposterous. If there is any desire, however weak, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government to make the Bill effective in the slightest particular, this is one of the means whereby he can effect his desire, but he has no desire. There has never been the slightest desire. It has been make believe from beginning to end, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman himself that this is part of the process of public bediddlement and befoolment. No one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman himself and hon.
    1946
    Members connected with coal mining opposite.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: There seems to have been engendered a vast amount of heat about a very small point.
    Mr. WALSH: We know all about that, and so do you.
    Sir A. MOND: I really do not know why the Government cannot accept this somewhat harmless Amendment. I confess that a good many Amendments moved in Committee on this Bill reflected very little of the object of my right hon. Friend. What the right hon. Gentleman obviously requires, and what, I think, would be quite reasonable, is that this should cover all the coal mines. Personally, I cannot see that the information asked for can be of very much advantage.
    Mr. WALSH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, within the terms of the Bill, this can only apply to amalgamations? It could not, under the terms of the Preamble itself, be applied to all the coal mines. What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman talking like that?
    Sir A. MOND: No doubt, there is a great amount of suspicion in the minds of those engaged in the reining industry, and certainly the agreement of 1921—or whatever you like to call it—for the ascertainment of wages in what was meant to be a profit-sharing scheme, for which I am not responsible, ought to carry with it the confidence of all those who participate. It always seemed to me a great mistake to make a mystery about the information. I do not think those who are seriously contemplating amalgamation on a large scale are going to keep back information, and, of course, there would be a way of dealing with this by legislation. But why cannot this terrible barrier of secrecy be removed by mutual consent? It would only require mutual agreement. Why should not the accountants disclose the information? The figures ought to be public. I quite agree that the man whose wages are determined by the price of coal, ought to know what that price is, and not have lurking in his mind the suspicion that a large amount is being transferred to some other company, or that he is not getting his fair share. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to meet this

    1947
    point, it would be a good thing. This Bill is not quite the flapdoodle that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has made out. This is not the proper time to enlarge upon it, but I could enlarge upon it at some length. There is a good deal which is of value in this Bill, as events are beginning to prove to my knowledge, and to the knowledge of some of those associated with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But something should be done to satisfy the not unreasonable demand of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to make this Bill really an effective Measure.
    Mr. HARNEY: Although I quite agree that this Bill only applies to amalgamated companies, undoubtedly it would be better to have had it for all companies. But half a loaf is better than no bread. A grave suspicion existed among many miners, after this scheme of profit-sharing was introduced, that the mineowner cut down the profits he was to distribute by alleging fictitious prices for pit props, and so on, and in regard to sales to subsidiary companies. That may be true, or it may be false, but the suspicion exists, and it exists on reasonable grounds. Therefore, since the object of the Government by this Bill is to create an atmosphere of good will, one would think they would not go out of their way to increase that suspicion. If it be untrue to say that mineowners are making any of these surreptitious profits, the best way to dispel that suspicion to give the facts. If, on the other hand they are making these surreptitious profits, what could you expect them to do but to struggle hard to conceal their accounts? It is emphasised in this case, because in Committee the right hon. Gentleman had this subject drawn to his attention, and he said that he would reflect over it, and see if it were possible to do anything. He has reflected, and what we have heard to-day amounts to this, that, after thoroughly considering the matter, the mineowners are of opinion that it would be dangerous to give these particulars. Could it be wondered at if in those circumstances miners throughout the country said, "We were quite right in thinking they were wangling the profits against us." The Commission, having considered the evidence, could not
    1948
    say there was any proof that the mineowners had been acting unfairly, but, still, they did not form a definite view, and they go on to say:
    "There are many points in the fixing of transfer prices as to which genuine doubt is possible, and that, in the solution of these doubts the mine owner selling under associated conditions has no particular interest in securing the highest possible prices for coal as it leaves the colliery, since he can make up later on, while he has some motive for giving the benefit of any doubt against the colliery."
    Therefore, they recommend that something should be done to allay suspicion.
    Mr. CAPE: I think I am in rather a unique position as far as the question of transfer prices is concerned, as I have tested, to the best of my ability, the process by which these transfer prices are obtained. Some time ago, after audits by the accountants of the miners and the owners, the miners' representatives came to the conclusion that the transfer prices obtained for the transfer of the coal were too small. He approached me, and stated that we ought to make an application to have the transfer prices re-arranged. I was in the position of having to make an application to the employers for a change in the transfer prices, not knowing what the transfer prices were. The accountant, having been sworn to secrecy, could not divulge to me what the prices were, and, therefore, I had to assume certain things, and put in a claim. It was then decided that it should go to the independent chairman. I thought I would be quite right in taking with me the accountant, but when we arrived we found that the accountant was not allowed to give evidence, and I had to make my statement to the independent chairman asking for a higher price for the coal, not knowing the price charged. The coalowners representative knew all the figures which were obtainable, while I, who appeared on behalf of the men, knew nothing about the figures. The chairman had a private statement made to him by the accountants and, on that private statement, he came to the conclusion that the price charged for the transfer of the coal had been too small, but to this day I am not supposed to know what the real transfer price was. While I was not prepared to say we did not get a fair decision from the chair-

    1949
    man, I could not satisfy the Cumberland miners that it was a fair decision, because I could not tell them the price before the decision or after the decision. All I could tell them was that he gave us the 5 per cent. higher price.
    What I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to this Bill, is that while it may leave outside certain collieries which may amalgamate in course of time, if we can get a full statement as to what the transfer prices are, that, I think in due time will regulate itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) said this was a matter which could be arrived at by mutual agreement. We know it could, if you could get the other side mutually to agree, but we have never been able to get the other side mutually to agree, and we have been trying since 1921 to get an agreement. For once in a while, at any rate, in these Debates, the Government might show that they are slightly on the side of the workmen. As long as the present system remains in operation, there will be suspicion, and no one can allay it in the men's minds. We have been told that we get the prices in the aggregate, but we do not get them in the individual colliery. What we say is that before we can have any contentment or any satisfaction in the minds of the miners of this country, they must be able to know from facts and figures the prices charged for coal for export purposes, home consumption, domestic consumption, and also with regard to transfer. Therefore, I hope the Secretary for Mines and the Secretary of State for War will give this matter further consideration, and accede to our request to make fully known to everyone concerned what the actual prices of transfer are, and so give some satisfaction to the workmen employed in the industry.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that the Government have not been able to see their way to make some concession in this respect. But if they cannot accept the Amendment in its present form, surely they might recognise that there is a case for consideration with which they could promise to deal, at any rate, in another place? I think the speech made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down is unanswerable. What is the answer to the case he has made out? In 1921 there was an agreement entered into at the instance
    1950
    of the Government for a division of profits, and the figures were in the ratio of 87 and 13. That was the basis, and we all thought then that it was a very good new principle to be introduced. But, surely, in order that that should work fairly, both parties ought to be able to get access to the information to enable them to find out whether they have had a square deal in the transaction and unless they have, I do not see how it could work.
    Here is a case where my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) stated that, when he came to reckon in his district what should be the share of the miners, very important facts and figures were withheld from him by men who were dealing quite honestly. The accountants were bound by their employers, and they were not acting unfairly. But what was the impression left on the miners as to whether they were getting a fair deal or not? The impression was that something was being concealed to the advantage of the employers and to the disadvantage of the miners. That is a very bad impression to create. The right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) has experience of this matter. He has large subsidiary interests as well as interests in the collieries. There cannot be any objection, from the point of view of colliery owners who have nothing to conceal from their workers and who would infinitely prefer to have good feeling maintained between them and their workers rather than the possibility that here and there they might be able to get a little advantage at the expense of their workmen. Most of the trouble in the coalfields has arisen from this suspicion, and in many other industries as well. I cannot help thinking that the Government here have only consulted the coalowners and they have not consulted the best of them. I regret to say that, from my experience, I do not think the best of the coalowners are represented on the Mining Association. One of the coalowners said to me when I asked him why he was not a member of the Mining Association, "I am too busy; I cannot go to London to attend these committees constantly." The result is that men who are not representative of the best among the mineowners represent them, appear for them and present

    1951
    their case, and I do not think that, in these conditions, you are getting the best kind of deal between workmen and employers.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot promise the consideration of the Government to this Amendment. I am not in a position to say whether this is the best form in which it could be presented, but, if they will promise to consider it and to introduce something in another place, then, when it comes back, the House of Commons will have further cognisance of it, and, if it were inadequate, it could be amended. There are some parts of the Report which I can understand that, for very strong political reasons, they cannot accept. I can understand the very powerful interests they have to deal with when it is a question of the purchase of royalties or the setting up of selling agencies, but there cannot be anything of that kind here. There may be a few owners who are suspicious, and who do not want to give away their accounts, but in the main I do not believe they would find any really powerful interest against them in the matter. What is the object of sticking rigidly to the text of the Bill, when a concession of this kind would tend to remove suspicion? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible for him at any rate to promise reconsideration of this Amendment, because it does not vitally affect the structure of the Bill? It does not undermine the fabric of this wonderful Measure, and if he were to do this, he would do something at any rate to remove that suspicion which has done so much to provoke controversy in the coalfields.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The House, I am sure, will have every sympathy with the desire to do everything possible to remove what has done a great deal to cause suspicion in the mining industry. But I should like to remind the House that the coalowners' witnesses before the Commission said they had given every facility.
    Mr. LEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman read page 139 of the Report?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I heard the evidence that was given before the Commission. I hope the House will not be drawn on this occasion into a general discussion
    1952
    on this subject, because it is quite evident that the Amendment would not leave the situation in any completer form. This is a much bigger question than the question involved in this Amendment. The whole thing is a matter for agreement between the parties. [Laughter.] Do not let hon. Members opposite always jeer. It is high time that those who represent the miners began to realise that they must trust somebody. I would like to remind the House that an undertaking has been given by the coalowners, as was stated in the House by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, that they are prepared to consider the devising of machinery for the settlement of transfer prices which will leave no possible ground or doubt as to their fairness. That was said by them to the Coal Commission. They have expressed their intention of meeting the men and securing better arrangements, and I do beg the House not to try to impose on them something which I believe they are prepared to give in a much more complete form than this Amendment indicates. I hope this will be left as a matter for agreement, and that this Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I do not want to intervene in a discussion which is very largely technical, but the Government are constantly telling us that this Bill is carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission's Report. I should like to supplement what has been said by my hon. Friends around me on this point. The Royal Commission, having heard these accountants, dealt with this matter. On page 138 of the Report, referring to a table of figures included in the Annex, they say:
    "It is not too much to say that no definite conclusion can be drawn from them"—
    that is from the figures—
    "that disposal of coal under associated conditions depresses, on the whole, the price obtained. On the other hand, the indication that this may happen is sufficiently strong to make it impossible for us, as a result of our inquiry, to give the miners the assurance that it does not and cannot happen."
    That is the case. After having heard the accountants, after having heard the evidence that the Secretary for Mines heard, the Commission itself state that the assurances that the accountants gave

    1953
    was not sufficient for the Commission to accept as a good enough assurance for the miners. The Report goes on:
    "Without assurance on this point, the wage agreement cannot secure the object for which it was devised, of promoting good relations and settling wages without disputes."
    There is the whole case. What do the Government propose to do on that recommendation? It is quite true that on page 140 the Report says:
    "We are inclined to think that the only real solution of the difficulty is to leave out of account the transfer prices which the individual employer may enter in his books and to declare officially and publicly from time to time, through some impartial authority in each district, what shall be taken as the market price at that period of every kind of coal sold in the district."
    That is one way of doing it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the proposal in the Amendment may not be the best way of doing it, but the Government cannot indulge in the luxury of rejecting a proposal that has been made to meet what the Royal Commission's Report states to be a serious grievance on the part of the miners. If the proposal in this Amendment be not sound, if it applies only to a small field and applies unfairly to one field and not to another field, the Government, if they are justifying their claim to carry out the Royal Commission's Report, must give us another proposal which will be acceptable and which will carry to the miners the assurance that they are not being cheated by the various prices entered on the books of the companies. Therefore, we shall certainly ask the House to divide upon this Amendment of ours, because no other suggestion has been made as to how it can be secured to the miners by legislation.
    5.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I very much regret to see that the Government have not done anything to meet the views of those of us who in Committee have supported this Amendment. Although the Government gave us no satisfaction on the point in Committee, they said then that they would see what could be done before the Report stage. There is no doubt that a great deal of suspicion exists among the men, and I find myself up against it every time I have the privilege of speaking to the miners. They say that they do not know whether they
    1954
    are getting a fair share of the profits or not. They say that the accounts should be furnished in a form prescribed by the Board of Trade. What objection can the Government or the mineowners have to that? It seems to me that those who are arguing against this Amendment are really casting a slur on the miners. I would press most strongly on the Government, even at this late stage, that they should accept the Amendment. Some of my friends will have to vote for this Amendment unless the Government can do something that will at any rate tend to do away with the distrust between miners and owners. Most of the strikes in our day are due to distrust between owner and employés. Any little that we can do that will tend to create greater trust between mineowner and miner will at least do something to improve the position.
    Mr. SPENCER: There are two points with which I am going to deal. They are incomplete and inaccurate returns as the basis of suspicion that exists at the present time. I will give the returns in my own area and leave hon. Members to form their own opinion as to the completeness of those returns. If it is deliberately done, I can conceive of nothing that is more despicable and mean than the way of presenting the returns. Anyone in the coal trade knows that there are times of the year when a return can be given most favourable to the men. In January, 1925, the colliery companies presented 94·41 per cent. returns. In August in the same area, when the summer trade had come and the returns were of a character that was least beneficial to the workmen, they gave 99·61 per cent.; that is to say, that 6 per cent. of the collieries of the whole of the Eastern area did not present returns at the most favourable moment. Is anyone surprised at there being elements of suspicion with things of this kind going on? It is just the thing that creates suspicion. I do not say it is done deliberately, but if it is done deliberately, then it is mean and despicable. If it is not done deliberately, then the owners ought at least to be more careful in sending in their returns. If the matter rested there, one might not be able to draw any inference at all. In January, 1926, we come down again

    1955
    to 96 per cent. The thing that makes us suspicious is, that their returns are in August and September, not merely on August, and that it is when it was favourable to us to have a return, they are not made. I am justified in saying that returns of this character ought to be complete returns. Unless you get complete returns you will not remove suspicion.
    Let me give an instance of the inaccurate returns. Turning to the Government returns in their White Paper issued quarterly, you find the Eastern area is said to return 22,777,000 tons of coal for the quarter ending December, 1925. The area, presenting as it does for the same quarter 99 per cent. of returns, gives the return of 23,168,000 tons—400,000 tons of coal difference between the Government return and the return for the Eastern area. I am dealing in each instance with the same quarter. How can you expect men to divest their minds of suspicion if you get returns so different as that? Of course, it was explained with regard to the different price of coal, which I know was the right answer. But the point I want to make is that, if you want to remove suspicion, you must present accurate and complete accounts. We ought to have an Amendment of this character for a complete and accurate return, and until you furnish men with the financial side of the industry and with reliable statistics you will not remove suspicion nor will you bring to an end the distrust which is undoubtedly playing a prominent part in prolonging the present stoppage.
    Mr. MORRIS: The situation that has arisen is a very remarkable one. The Secretary of State for War and the Secretary for Mines have taken up an impassive attitude, even when their supporters like the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond)— who has a great interest in the coal trade—have appealed to them. What becomes of the main argument of the Secretary of State for War against accepting this Amendment? His argument was that if you accepted this Amendment it would tend to prevent amalgamations. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen gave a complete answer to that by saying that acceptance of this Amendment would do nothing to prevent any amalgamation,
    1956
    and he added that he knows there is a great deal more going on at the moment by way of bringing about amalgamations than is often accepted. The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is one that at the very least ought to be accepted by the Government—that consideration should be given to this question and that, if the Amendment cannot be accepted, an undertaking should be given that it would be considered in another place. Here is the Government given an opportunity to do something to introduce a better spirit in industry, After the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape)—in which he said that he himself went before a district board not knowing what the transfer figure was and that it was adjusted afterwards—it cannot be said that there was not a real basis in that case for suspicion. Here is a first-class opportunity at a time of crisis to abolish distrust, and it should be taken by the Government.
    Commander WILLIAMS: I have listened to some half-a-dozen speeches, all of which, except the last, have come from Members who have been mixed up in this coal industry. I do not apologise for getting up and trying to put the point of view of someone who has no connection with that industry and who is one of the ordinary people of this country who ought to be considered before either side. I do not think this Amendment is perfect or workable or the best Amendment, but everyone of us knows quite clearly that in some cases in this industry you have got to a point where it is difficult for men to know what their wages are or ought to be in relation to the selling price of coal. That cannot possibly go on. You have a feeling in the industry that as far as the owners are concerned, what they lose on the swings they make up on the roundabouts, while the men have a feeling that what they lose on the swings they lose on the roundabouts. I do not think anyone looking at this Amendment can possibly think it is serious in any way, because it does not meet the question. The Government cannot accept it, because it is not worth while accepting and will not help the industry, but I think they might give a very clear indication before this Bill leaves the House that they will make this matter

    1957
    quite clear, so that the men will have a real understanding of what is the price of coal.
    It is all very well to come down on the men's side and say, "We do not trust the accountants," and it is all very well to come down on the owners' side and say, "There are certain trade secrets." The whole trouble is that both sides in this industry do not trust anyone. It seems to me that you have got the worst men among the mineowners leading the owners, and that you have got the worst men among the miners leading the miners, and what you want to get is the reasonable person whether he is on one side or the other. The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) said this was done in America. I think it can be done, and probably is done, in America, but it is done there for this reason—that it does not matter which trade or industry you go to, employers and employed work for the good of the industry, and not for some political or outside purpose of any kind. If you could keep politics out of your industry, and work for the good of the industry, you would get along much faster. As far as I am concerned, it is impossible to vote for this Amendment. It does not meet the case or clear away the difficulties. But I think it is necessary that this matter should be made quite clear in the future by the Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to point out that, with the excep-
    tion of the Treasury Bench, opinion in this House is unanimous. May I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams)? He did not accept the Amendment, but he made an appeal to his leaders to do something in another place. That can be quite well done. An Amendment acceptable to the Government's draftsmen can be proposed in another place. I understand that the Unionist programme of the future is to be opposed to nationalisation but to have, as an alternative, co-partnership. I understand that the Government are hammering out a programme of that sort. That will be the alternative at the next General Election to nationalisation. Some strong alternative to nationalisation will be required for the mining industry. What will be the value of such a proposal to the Unionist party if the first essentials of cooperation, complete frankness and complete knowledge, are not accepted or allowed? Certain hon. Members opposite are not happy about the state of things in this country. They are not satisfied that all the causes of the trouble in the mining industry come from Russia. They feel that there is something wrong, which they wish to put right. Could not they bring pressure upon the Government in the usual way and through the usual channels to have something done in another place to put this matter right?
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 267.

    Division No. 403.]

    AYES.

    [5.17 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Dennison, R.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Dunnico, H.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Barr, J.

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Batey, Joseph

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Bean, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Gillett, George M.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Gosling, Harry

    Kelly, W. T.

    Briant, Frank

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Kennedy, T.

    Bromfield, William

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Bromley, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Buchanan, G.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lee, F.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Groves, T.

    Lowth, T.

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lunn, William

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Clowes, S.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    March, S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hardie, George D.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Harney, E. A.

    Montague, Frederick

    Compton, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Morris, R. H.

    Connolly, M.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Naylor, T. E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Owen, Major G.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Hurst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Palin, John Henry

    Paling, W.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Stephen, Campbell

    Welsh, J. C.

    Potts, John S.

    Sullivan, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Riley, Ben

    Taylor, R. A.

    Whiteley, W.

    Ritson, J.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Sexton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Townend, A. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Windsor, Walter

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Waddington, R.

    Wright, W.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Watson, W. M. (Dumfermilne)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Snell, Harry

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Charles Edwards.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cope, Major William

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Allen, Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Ansley, Lord

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Atkinson, C.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H

    Balniel, Lord

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Drewe, C.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Jacob, A. E.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Berry, Sir George

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bethel, A.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green)

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Loder, J. de V.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lougher, L.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macintyre, Ian

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks. Newb'y)

    Grace, John

    McLean, Major A.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Burman, J. B.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Grotrian, H. Brent.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hanbury, C.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harland, A.

    Moles, Thomas

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Christie, J. A.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxford, Henley)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    O'Neill, Molar Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hilton, Cecil

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    1960

    1961

    Perring, Sir William George

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    ShepperSon, E. W.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Pilcher, G.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Preston, William

    Smithers, Waldron

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wells, S. R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Raine, W.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Ramsden, E.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Strickland, Sir Gerald

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stuart, Hon. J (Moray and Nairn)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Rye, F. G.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Templeton, W. P.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Sandon, Lord

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Savery, S. S.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The next Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) and other hon. Members—in Clause 6, page 6, line 10, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided always that the Board of Trade shall not refer to the Railway and Canal Commission any scheme affecting a coal mine which is part of an undertaking engaged in the production, treatment, or manufacture of any commodity without the consent of such undertaking—"
    has been disposed of by the first Amendment on the Paper.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Power of Railway and Canal Commission to confirm schemes.)
    Amendment made: In page 6, line 30, leave out from the beginning to the word "order" in line 35, and insert instead thereof the words
    "(b) may in particular if, upon an objection lodged by the holder of any securities in a constituent or absorbed company to whom by the scheme securities in the amalgamated or principal company are allocated in substitution therefor, they are satisfied that the substitution would not be fair in his case.—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 26, to leave out Sub-sections (7) and (8).—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]
    Mr. HARTSHORN: What procedure is intended to be adopted in place of the procedure under these two Sub-sections?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It was inserted in Committee in Clause 24
    1962
    in an improved form. Therefore, we have to move out these Sub-sections.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Withdrawal of schemes.)
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 36, after the first "of" insert the words "any of."—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

    CLAUSE 12.—(Powers of the Board of Trade.)
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 6, to leave out from the word "Parliament" to the word "shall" in line 8, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "upon the operation of this Part of this Act including information as to the extent to which amalgamations and absorptions have taken place among undertakings to which this Part of this Act applies and all such other information and statistics relevant thereto, as they may think fit, and the Board."
    This is an Amendment which the Government have put down in order to fulfil a promise made in Committee that the Report of the Board of Trade at the end of two years should include information as to the extent of the absorptions and amalgamations that may have taken place in the preceding two years, and such other information and statistics as may be relevant, in order that the House at the expiration of the two years may see what success the Act has attained in regard to the amalgamations and absorptions which have taken place under it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13 (Amendment of 13 and 14 Geo. 5, c. 20, Part 1.)
    Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, at the end, to insert
    (3) Where the working of any coal or the working of any coal in the most efficient and economical manner is impeded by the same being included in a mining lease, or by any restrictions, terms, or conditions contained in a mining lease, or otherwise binding on the lessor, or by the absence of any such restrictions, terms, or conditions, a right to withdraw the minerals from the mining lease and to re-lease the same to parties other than the lessee, or to work the same, or otherwise to vary the terms of the mining lease, may, on an application for the purpose being made by the lessor and referred to the Railway and Canal Commission under the principal Act, be granted by the Commission in any case where the Commission consider that it is expedient in the national interest that the right applied for should be granted to the applicant.
    This Amendment is intended to clear up a point of importance with respect to the arrangement of leases. Under this Amendment, where the working of any portions of coal is impeded in any way by any restrictions or terms in a mining lease, and it is in the national interest to secure that coal, the lessor will have the power to go before the Canal Commission—in the same way that the lessee would have power to do if the lessee were held up by the action of the lessor—and ask for the right to withdraw the minerals from the mining lease and to re-lease it to parties other than the lessee. That is the sole object of the Amendment. It provides that this type of restriction on the working of a coalfield shall be abolished.
    Mr. RHYS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I think this Amendment was moved in precisely the same form in Committee.
    Sir G. WHELER: No, it did not deal with the lessees.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was under the impression that it was moved entirely in this form; at any rate, the question was raised in Committee, and the answer is this. If the lessor desires to rearrange the leases which he has granted, it must be in consequence of a
    1964
    desire on the part of his lessees to take some coal which at present is leased to somebody else, and the Bill provides that a lessee shall be in a position to make the necessary application to get a rearrangement of the lease in order to enable coal to be worked economically and in the national interest. Therefore, as far as any coal which is included in the lease is concerned, this Amendment is unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the intention is to give the lessor the right, over and above his lessees, to reshuffle his mineral leases, it is not the policy of the Bill that the lessor shall have the right to act in that way. The Government think that proper power is given under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 13, and we think this is unnecessary merely for the purpose of granting a lessor the same privileges as the lessee of making application on his own behalf. As the proposal appears to be unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose whatever, except to suggest that the lessor is to have power over everybody's head and come in and reshuffle leases which he has granted, the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. WHELER: The Solicitor-General has not grasped the point at all. The point, to my mind, is this—
    Mr. WALSH: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in speaking a second time?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If an hon. Member moves an Amendment, he has a right of reply.
    Sir G. WHELER: The point is this. There are sometimes, owing to faults which arise in our leases to-day, leases of coal which may be worked by an adjoining colliery itself, and there are difficulties which therefore arise. It is a small point, but one of substance. In this case we want the lessee who desires to get his coal worked to be met in the same way as the lessor. I do not want to detain the House and I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Royalties welfare levy.)
    Sir G. WHELER: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, to leave out the words

    1965
    "every subsequent financial year," and to insert instead thereof the words, "each of the subsequent four financial years."
    This is a limiting Amendment and brings under review the levy which is to be made on the mineral owners. No one objects to this levy of 5 per cent. for the purposes for which it is made, and especially as it is brought forward in a time of emergency when everybody has to play his part. But in the case of the Mines Eight Hours Act and the miners' welfare fund there is a period of five years, and we think that this form of taxation should also come under review in the same way; that is in five years' time. That is the gist of this Amendment. We believe it is reasonable and just. This is a form of special taxation, and it is possible that at the end of five years we shall see a great improvement in the coal trade—everyone hopes we shall. If that is so, if the owners are making more profits and then men are enjoying a higher standard of wages, surely it is only fair that this question, which has no effect on the selling price of coal, should be brought under review just as the miners' welfare levy and the Eight Hours Act. It may be said that this is not in the Report of the Commission.
    If the Government were accepting the whole of that Report it would be a valid argument, but, inasmuch as the Government do not accept the whole of it, then it is not a good argument. I think this point has rather escaped attention. In their Report the Commissioners say that this 5 per cent. levy should be taken, but if the coal industry is to be bought then this 5 per cent. must be taken into account when buying the mineral rights. It means that you start by taxation to reduce the value of a certain article, you make it cheaper. If that is a principle to be adopted by the Conservative party I do not know where the Conservative party stands. Having reduced an article by taxation you are then able to buy it more cheaply. It is only reasonable that this question shall be brought under review in five years time.
    Mr. BENNETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    While I agree with all my hon. Friend has said, I entirely object to this tax being imposed on the royalty owners. It is a most pernicious principle to impose a tax on a special class of property for a
    1966
    special purpose, which cannot in this case be proved to be an obligation on the persons on whom you are imposing the tax. I know perfectly well that the Secretary for Mines will ride off on the plea that the Government have been forced to impose this taxation on the royalty owners by the Royal Commission. If the Government had accepted the whole of that Report there might be some force in that argument, but it is not so, and especially after what the Prime Minister said yesterday to the effect that because the Government appointed a Royal Commission it did not follow that they were obliged to accept all the recommendations, it loses its force altogether. But as the Government are relying on this argument, let us look at the reason given by the Royal Commission for imposing this tax on the royalty owners. They say:
    "In view of the fact that their income from royalties is largely dependent upon the labour of the miners, it is legitimate to require them to join in the measures which are regarded as necessary for the miners' well-being. A mineral owner has a moral obligation to aid the well-being of the population that works his minerals, in the same way that a landowner has a moral obligation towards the population that works on his estate"
    The analogy is rather unfortunate If there is a moral obligation which rests on landowners it is surprising that no Government has yet attempted to tax them in order to provide amenities in a tenant's house. If you impose taxes because of moral obligations von are skating on very thin ice. I have never been able to find people who can agree on the definition of a moral obligation. Hon. Members opposite would no doubt differ very widely in their interpretation of a moral obligation from Members on this side of the House, and I doubt whether they would agree with us even on the application of the word property to mineral rights. In this case, however, we need not trouble about the moral obligation, because there is an actual obligation which has been brought out in the preceding paragraph of the Royal Commission's Report, in which they say:
    "Pit-head baths are clearly a part of the necessary equipment of the collieries, and the obligation should properly rest, in this country as it rests in others, upon the colliery proprietors."
    I entirely agree with that. What is the reason why they did not put this burden

    1967
    on the colliery owner? Here follows a delightful non sequitor, as the Commissioners go on to say:
    "In the present economic condition of the industry, however, we consider that the Welfare Fund should bear the cost; but as the claims upon its present resources are very many, and can barely be met, we recommend that its income should be expanded for this purpose. This, we consider, can properly be done by requiring a contribution to be made to the fund by the mineral owners."
    There was, however, another solution to this problem. I admit that the present economic condition of the mining industry is bad and possibly this tax would to-day be too great a burden on the colliery owners. Why not raise a loan under, say, the Trades Facilities Act? Does anyone suggest that the mining industry is going to continue in such a bad condition that it will never be able to pay the service of such a loan? However, I see no hope of the Government altering this tax. We therefore ask that it shall not be made permanent on the royalty owners. Only one argument has been advanced against this, and here again we come to the Report of the Commission; they state:
    "In a later chapter dealing with welfare, we propose a charge of 5 per cent. on royalties as a contribution towards the cost of providing pit-head baths. This contribution, after acquisition of the minerals by the State, will be paid by the State. The fact that it has to be paid will be taken into account in determining the market value of the minerals and will thus reduce the sums received by the present owners. The State would neither gain nor lose by this, since it would purchase the royalties at a lessened price on the one hand and would make an equivalent contribution to the Welfare Fund on the other."
    I hope the Government will not advance this argument, because it will put a considerable strain upon party loyalty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I say quite frankly what I think, and it is certainly straining my party loyalty very considerably to ask me to vote for something which I consider to be pure confiscation. If the Government reject this Amendment, I shall be interested to hear what arguments they will advance against another Amendment which is, I understand, to be moved from the other side of the House, proposing that instead of 1s. the new levy should be 5s. If a levy of 1s. is good, a levy of 5s. must be better, and if it is legitimate to charge 1s., why not
    1968
    go further and charge 5s.? I hope, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines will listen to the views of his supporters on this side and will concede this Amendment.
    Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken told us that the effect of the Amendment would be that this levy would not be permanent. The actual effect of it would be to confine it to five years—to make the levy operate only in this year and in each of the subsequent four financial years. I think both the Mover of the Amendment and the last speaker also suggested that I should not be justified in basing any argument against this Amendment on the Report of the Coal Commission, but the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment has quoted the Royal Commission himself—when it suited him, as indeed many of us do—and, therefore, though it may appear an impertinence to do so I would suggest to him that in two separate passages in the Commission's Report there are definite recommendations on this point and there is no doubt as to what they mean. I quite agree that, it is not necessary, and, indeed, it would be wrong, for any Government so to delegate its functions as to accept without qualification every word of every Report of every Commission which they appointed. Obviously, a Commission is appointed to advise the Government, and it is for the Government to act as they think fit. But I suggest to the House that there is a stronger reason against this Amendment than the Report of the Royal Commission. We all hope that the provision of pit-head baths is going to be, I do not say a very substantial, but a real assistance and a real advantage to the coal industry. I am sure that a very large number of royalty owners—I am a small royalty owner myself, and I can speak for myself—will not be sorry to give this contribution towards the erection of pit-head baths. It has been suggested that the whole country will be equipped in a short time with these baths, and that there will be no further need for this fund. All I can say is that there will always be need for a welfare fund, and, I believe, a great many owners in the country will be glad to pay this

    1969
    contribution. On that ground alone, even if it were the only ground, I think this Clause as it stands is justified.
    We have also the very distinct recommendations which the Royal Commission has made on pages 84 and 209 of their Report, and I think, in consideration of all these circumstances, the Government obviously must refuse the Amendment. On page 84 the Commission have laid down that this charge on royalties is to be taken into account in determining the market value of the minerals, and it is obviously contemplated that it will be a permanent charge. This view is amplified on page 209 of the Report, where the Commission suggest that an alternative might be an annual charge on royalties for the benefit of the welfare fund of an average of one halfpenny per ton, and then proceed to recommend the Government to impose an additional charge of 5 per cent. upon royalties averaging one farthing per ton to be paid into the welfare fund. Obviously it is intended that it should be permanent and, in the circumstances, I am sure my hon. Friends do not expect the Government to accede to the Amendment.
    Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: One may ask whether this is a justifiable imposition or levy upon the owners of royalties—of whom I am not myself one—but this question is entirely separate from that point. The object of this levy is to provide pit-head baths. That is an excellent idea of which I thoroughly approve, but I would like to ask: What is to be done with the rest of the money when the pithead baths are provided all over the country? Some of the pits have already been provided with baths under the old welfare levy, and it is now proposed to put on a new welfare levy on the same people—[HON. MEMBERS: "No?"]—for the purpose of providing pit-head baths. I argue that when the baths have been provided, the new levy ought to cease. That is the object of the Amendment, which I support in justice to the people who have to pay.
    Sir G. WHELER: I fully realise that there is no point in taking a Division on this Amendment, and therefore I propose to ask leave to withdraw it. But in doing so, I wish to say that I am very disappointed that the Amendment has not been accepted by the Government,
    1970
    because it deals with a matter of substance and of principle. It is a question of a special form of taxation upon a special form of property. The mineral owners themselves—and I can speak as a mineral owners—desire to play their proper part in connection with the industry, and all that they ask is that as long as the rights of mineral owners are treated as rights of property, they should not be subjected to unfair special taxes. Though I withdraw the Amendment, I think, had it gone to a Division, I should have received a measure of support from those who do not approve of this sort of thing.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in page 10, line 26, to leave out the word "one," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
    The Government propose in this Clause that the royalty owner shall pay 1s. out of every 20s. to the welfare fund, and I desire to increase that amount to 5s. out of every 20s. It will be agreed that we have come down a long way in our demands since we were in Committee, because in Committee we wanted the royalty owners to pay the whole 20s., but we do not wish to frighten hon. Members opposite who are concerned about the royalty owners. So we have reduced our demand, and will be content with 5s.
    Captain BOURNE: Is the hon. Member in order in moving this Amendment? Surely this is an Amendment which increases the charge on the subject, and as such, cannot be moved unless Mr. Speaker is in the Chair.
    Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that, when the Welfare Levy was first made in an earlier Bill, the same point was put to the Chair, and it was then held that this was not a levy upon the subject, but a levy of a particular kind for a special object?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): That is exactly the answer which I was going to return to the hon. and gallant Member who raised the point of Order.
    Mr. BATEY: It may be wise that I should repeat that, in Committee, we wanted the royalty owners to pay the whole 20s. and to-day we are satisfied that the Government should make the

    1971
    royalty owner pay 5s. out of every 20s. An hon. Member opposite said that the payment of 1s. out of 20s. would stretch party loyalty. I want the Government to accept this Amendment and smash party loyalty. I would like to see party loyalty on the other side smashed at the present time, so that we might have a General Election. If the electors had an opportunity of passing their opinion on the question of how much the royalty owners ought to pay, I am certain in my own district they would consider that the royalty owners got off cheaply at 5s. in the £, and, indeed, would be lucky to get off with paying 19s. in the £. Hon. Members opposite have deplored this tax. I rejoice that at last somebody is beginning to tax the royalty owner. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is already taxed!"] He is a lucky man. He has plenty of money with which to pay the taxes.
    When the Commission reported in favour of nationalising royalties, buying out the royalty owners and paying £100,000,000 to buy them out, I strongly disagreed with the Commission. I would not give £100,000,000 to buy out the royalty owners. I consider that instead of the royalty owners being bought out, they ought to consider themselves lucky if they get off without having to pay some of the money back. We are not asking the royalty owner to pay too much out of the money which he gets but does not earn and we are asking that this should be done for the erection of pit-head baths. The Royal Commission put the claim for pit-head baths in language better than mine. They say:
    "We are satisfied that the movement for the provision of pit-head baths is fully justified, and that it is a matter of real importance to secure their establishment throughout the coalfields. We are convinced that the effect upon the health and comfort of the miners, upon the well-being of their wives and families, and, therefore, upon the general contentedness of the population, would be so considerable as to make this a subject which should engage immediate and effective attention."
    6.0 P.M.
    No one will disagree with the language of the Royal Commission in that respect. An hon. Member opposite asked what would be done with the money after the pit-head baths were erected. The Commission say that to erect pit-head baths throughout this country would cost
    1972
    £10,000,000 and the contribution of the royalty owners they estimate to be £250,000 a year, so that at that rate it will be 40 years before we get the pit-head baths erected. Therefore, the matter scarcely concerns us, and I think we can leave that question to somebody else. I I was glad to hear an hon. Member opposite refer to the moral obligation of the royalty owners in this matter. He read only half of that paragraph, and for his benefit I will read the rest. It says:
    "In view of the fact that their income from royalties is largely dependent upon the labour of the miners, it is legitimate to require them to join in the measures which are regarded as necessary for the miners' well-being."
    Those words are well worth reading and remembering by every Member in this House. The paragraph goes on:
    "A mineral owner has a moral obligation to aid the well-being of the population that works his minerals, in the same way that a landowner has a moral obligation towards the population that works on his estate."
    One of our complaints against the royalty owners has been that they have been allowed to escape their moral obligation during all the difficult times through which the coal industry has been passing. During the last five or six years, when the coal mines have been pressed so heavily by local rates, the royalty owners have been pocketing their royalties and not paying a halfpenny towards the local rates. During the last nine months prior to the stoppage of the collieries, when the Government had to come to the aid of the coal industry with a subvention, the royalty owners put in their pockets, from royalties, £4,500,000. I heard several hon. Members opposite yesterday, while speakers were dealing with the mining situation, saying every now and again "Subsidy," as if a subsidy was the thing that was preventing a settlement at the present time, but during the whole period of the subsidy, when the coalowners did so well out of it, these royalty owners received £4,500,000, and we consider that at a time when the coal industry is going through such a difficult period, it cannot be justified that these people should be allowed to pocket such a sum out of the industry.
    We are glad that at last something is being done, small though it be, to get

    1973
    some of the money back from these people. In Committee I said, and I want to repeat it here, that our comrade, the Duke of Northumberland, who never misses a chance of kicking the Labour movement, is receiving from royalties to-day, upon the evidence that he gave before the Royal Commission, no less than £234 a day. There are a lot of hon. Members opposite who think that thousands of our Durham miners, who were paid prior to the stoppage 7s. 6½d. a day, were paid too much, and they are voting that that rate should be reduced to 6s. 8½d. a day. I want to submit that no one can justify one person, simply because he happens to be a duke, drawing £234 a day from an industry and another man, who has to go down into the pit, drawing only 6s. 8½d. and having to work hard to do it. The Government say now that he has to work eight hours a day and to risk all the danger of the mine for his 6s. 8½d. a day, and yet the other person can take from the coal industry £234 a day and never go near a coal mine. There is not only the Duke of Northumberland against whom we have a grievance. We have a grievance against all royalty owners. We believe that they are a drag upon industry and that nothing can justify them.
    Up in the North of England £400,000 a year is drawn from royalties by the Church, and the great bulk of it is drawn in Durham county. What the Government propose to do with the Church is to say that on that £400,000 they will ask for 1s. in the £, which means that all that the Government are asking the Church to pay towards the erection of pithead baths—and the Church teaches that cleanliness is next to godliness—is £20,000 a year out of the £400,000. We believe that the Church in the North of England ought to be called upon to pay far more than £20,000, and I urge hon. Members opposite to regard this Amendment as reasonable. Seeing that we are satisfied to-day with only moving for 5s. instead of the full 20s. in the £—I would tax the royalty owners out of existence and never feel the slightest qualm of conscience at all—I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. RITSON: I beg to Second the Amendment.
    We put this forward, and particularly in Durham, with all the strength that
    1974
    we can, and we ask that the provision for pithead baths should be increased from a miserable 5 per cent. to 25 per cent. We are asking this for the sake of the women particularly. On the Bill for increasing the hours of work in the mines, I said, in my last speech, that the Government were increasing a man's hours by one but a woman's hours by three, and we are anxious that with the tremendous work that she puts in, with three shifts going in one day, she should be relieved by having pithead baths provided, so that the dirt may be left at the pit. In my own experience, there were six brothers who worked together, and we were all at home at once. We all did one shift at that time, and when we came to wash, young men anxious to get out into the fresh air or to some form of study, we had three, four, or five buckets on the floor at once, and only one room to do it in, and hon. Members can imagine the semi-circle round the fireside on a winter's night, every one of us hurrying to get done before the others. That was all right for vigorous, healthy young men, but the mother had to wash every one of the dirty stockings and shirts that we had thrown off, and her whole life was worried and shortened by that sort of thing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has referred to the amount we pay in Durham in royalties to the Ecclesiastical Commission. I have often said that we are burdened with two or three Bishops in Durham against our will, and the poor Free Churchman and the devout Roman Catholic finds that he is producing coal to give somebody else a spiritual healing that he has to pay twice for himself. I would not object so much if they were worth it, but in Durham we have a fearful infliction in certain Bishops, who do not help us in regard to a settlement, but who always—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the substance of the Amendment.
    Mr. RITSON: As my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor pointed out, 5 per cent. for these pithead baths will take us years and years to provide what is now a very urgent thing in the coalfield. In regard to the Minister for Mines, I am very pleased that he has got rather sprightly in the last day or two. We

    1975
    were quite delighted when he put in a fighting speech. I was afraid he had got into that form of mind of which Swinburne sings, when he says:
    "I am tired of tears and laughter, and everything but sleep."
    I thought the right hon. Gentleman had got too tired, but now he has got the sparkling manner of a war horse, and we are delighted to see it. I was glad to hear the speech of my hon. friend the Member for Spennymoor. After all, however ungrammatical we may be, we are practical, and we come from the fields of knowledge and of hard toil. We come from parents who have had to fight for bread, and we are anxious to have some relief. If there is anything that has embittered the relationship between the owners and the men, it has been that tremendous doubt as to why some should work so hard for so little and others should be receiving amounts such as have been referred to by my hon. Friend. He called the Duke of Northumberland his comrade. I do not know how long they have been comrades, but people like the Duke of Northumberland are drawing huge grants of money out of the coal industry, and when it is put to the ordinary man-in-the-street, even the Tory working man, he will tell you that he is dead against royalties. We are saying, that being the spirit to-day, that if you were to take a vote in this country on the question of royalties, you would get an overwhelming majority to sweep them off the board altogether. It is because of that that we make this appeal to the Government to increase the provision from royalty owners for pit-head baths.
    My hon. Friend spoke to the point when he said he hoped this was only an instalment. I know that some people will be shocked that we should ask for 25 per cent. instead of 5 per cent., yet they have asked that much reduction from our people. In the last six years we have suffered an enormous reduction in our wages, and we are not asking so much when we ask that somebody who does not do anything at all for it should pay this increased contribution. I am surprised at hon. Members opposite, keen business men, objecting to this Amend-
    1976
    ment. Some of them are men who sink their capital in mines and have to stand the pressure of trade and commerce, and they find that a shaft sometimes costs £500,000 to sink, yet they are satisfied that on the first ton of coal that is raised so much should go to the man who does nothing at all for it. We are only asking a fair thing when we ask that a quarter of the unearned increment should go to the benefit and the domestic happiness of the people who risk their lives in getting it.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: I hoped the Secretary for Mines was going to reply at once to the arguments put forward in support of this Amendment. It is high time the Government realise that if they really intend the Miners' Welfare Fund to be successful, they must not tinker with it as they are doing now, but take it very seriously. For more than a generation miners and their wives have been calling upon successive Governments to deal with this matter. It is true that in the Mines Act of 1911 there is an optional Clause under which mineowners and miners can provide a fund by joint contributions, and it is to the credit of certain colliery companies and the miners in these districts that a start has been made; but I believe only 20 or 25 pit-head bath schemes are in operation throughout the country among 1,500 collieries. The main reason why so few have been started is the heavy cost. It has been generally admitted that the maximum sum obtainable under the Act of 1911 is far too low to meet the cost. In the scheme under this Bill the annual contribution towards this purpose will not be more than a quarter to a third of a million. It has been estimated by the Commission that the capital cost of building pit-head baths at all the collieries would be something like £10,000,000, and, therefore, it will be seen that the proposal in the Bill for a levy of 1s. in the pound merely touches the fringe of the problem. If we are to have a pit-head bath at every large colliery a much larger sum than is proposed here will be necessary, and, therefore, I am strongly in favour of this Amendment to give us 5s. instead of 1s.
    Some hon. Members may say this would be a very heavy charge on royalty owners. We say the royalty owner has made no contribution whatsoever to the value of

    1977
    the royalty. The minerals are Nature's gifts to the community. No landlord, however historic his family, has done anything to enhance the value of a single ton of coal. It gets its value from the social demand and the different values of minerals because we know that the royalties on certain rich coalfields are higher than on others. We say the natural value ought to belong to the community as a whole. Royalty owners have no moral right to, and I doubt whether they have any legal right to, the ownership of minerals. It has been a matter of common law for many centuries that all minerals belong to the Crown, and prior to the reign of Queen Elizabeth there is no record of any owner of land claiming anything below the surface; but because people of the landlord class have dominated Parliament for centuries they have twisted the law to suit themselves, so that to-day ownership of the surface carries with it ownership of everything beneath the surface right down to the centre of the earth—and even farther if the landlord on the other side does not object! The royalty system in this country is one of the biggest curses afflicting the development of British industry. I know of no greater obstacle to a development of industry than private ownership of land and minerals. Every landlord in this country has the power when leasing land to a colliery company for a royalty on the coal to insist upon payment of a "dead rent" from the first day the lease is signed. It may take two, three, four or five years to sink a pair of modern pits and start the production of coal, but during all this time, when they are producing no coal at all, they yet have to pay the landlord a rent which may vary from a few hundreds to a few thousand pounds a year.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Had I known that this Amendment was intended to raise the whole question of royalties, I should not have accepted it. I thought it dealt with a more limited question, and I hope the hon. Member will confine his remarks more strictly to the Amendment.
    Mr. JONES: I understood that the object of the Amendment was to increase from 1s. to 5s. the tax or levy upon the mineral owners in this country, and I think one is justified in proving that the payment of 5s. ought to be readily agreed
    1978
    to by the House. One of the proofs is that the royalty system has been a serious burden upon the efficiency of the coalmining industry. If the miner is to be more efficient, more healthy and have more social amenities for himself and his family pithead baths ought to be provided at every colliery where a large number of people are employed, and if that is to be done we must have a larger sum of money, the 1s. provided in this Bill being quite inadequate. Under this royalty system we have allowed to waste underground over two billion tons of coal, coal that can never again be worked profitably; at the low figure of £2 per ton we have allowed to waste £8,000,000,000 worth of minerals in coal alone, more than enough to wipe off the whole of the National Debt.
    Mineral owners are drawing every year from £6,500,000 to £7,000,000, and 25 per cent. is not too large a levy on them in face of the fact that royalty owners have for 200 years, unchallenged, drawn huge sums in royalties. In the last 70 years they have taken at least £300,000,000. It is a small thing to ask them to agree to this 5s. If the Government agree, the royalty owners will agree. [Laughter.] Yes, because the Government and the royalty owners are synonymous terms. [Laughter.] Oh, yes, I have no hesitation in saying that this Government stand for the landlord class every time, and will fight every inch of the way to increase the chances of that class. I am not expecting them to support the Amendment asking for 5s., because if they did so they would be kicked out by their own supporters.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad the hon. Member does not expect the Amendment to be supported from the Government Benches. The hon. Member who moved it took another line. He said he was in favour of a levy of 20s. in the £ on royalties, and asked the House to praise him for his great reasonableness in asking for only 5s. on this occasion. I propose to be quite brief, but still more reasonable, and to ask the House to reject the Amendment and to be content with 1s.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to allow the royalty owners to get clear of all their liabilities? Does he remember

    1979
    all that the royalty owners have taken out of the earth and how little they have paid in return? They pay nothing towards local rates. The colliery owner has to pay rates, but those gentleman who are said to own the royalties keep clear of the rates. I think the Amendment is quite a reasonable one. At present the community get nothing whatever from the royalty owner except Income Tax. This is a source of revenue which ought to have been taxed long ago.
    Captain BENN: I think hon. Members have some cause of complaint against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The Amendment has been supported by arguments. It may be that we do not agree with everything said in favour of the Amendment, but what the right hon. Gentleman has done has been to treat these arguments with
    scarcely any courtesy at all. All he said was: "I am going to be brief. We think 1s. is the right figure." That was the whole speech. I think other Members have the right to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that 1s. is sufficient to provide the social services for which the levy is made within a reasonable time. That is an argument which has nothing to do with the question of who should own royalties or whether they should be taxed 100 per cent.; and if the Minister thinks to curtail debate by treating Amendments and arguments with contempt, with obvious contempt, I think he will find before the end of the evening that he has made a tactical blunder.
    Question put, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 404.]

    AYES.

    [6.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hn.Sir.J.A.(Birm.,W.)

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Ganzoni. Sir John.

    Apsley, Lord

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Grace, John

    Atkinson, C.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Grattan Doyle, Sir N.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cope, Major William

    Hanbury, C.

    Bethel, A.

    Couper, J. B.

    Harland, A.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Drewe, C.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    England, Colonel A.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Burman, J. B.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Fermoy, Lord

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Forrest, W.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Jephcott, A. R.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Owen, Major G.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Perring, Sir William George

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Pielou, D. P.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Pilcher, G.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Preston, William

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Lougher, L.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Radford, E. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Raine, W.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Ramsden, E.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Remer, J. R.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Macintyre, Ian

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    McLean, Major A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Wells, S. R.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    McNeill, Rt. Hon, Ronald John

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Rye, F. G.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Sandon, Lord

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Savery, S. S.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wood, E. (Chest'n, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)

    Moles, Thomas

    Skelton, A. N.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    TFLLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Thomson.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lunn, William

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Gosling, Harry

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Greenall, T.

    March, S.

    Barr, J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Montague, Frederick

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Morris, R. H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Groves, T.

    Morrison, R C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Grundy, T. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.

    Guest, J. (York, Hamsworth)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Briant, Frank

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Palin, John Henry

    Bromfield, William

    Hall, F, (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Paling, W.

    Bromley, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Buchanan, G.

    Hardie, George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Harris, Percy A.

    Richardson, R. (Honghton-le-Spring)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Riley, Ben

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ritson, J.

    Clowes, S.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Compton, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Connolly, M.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sexton, James

    Cove, W. G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Crawford, H. E.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Sitch, Charles H,

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smillie, Robert

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Dennison, R.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Duncan, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Dunnico, H.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Snell, Harry

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lee, F.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lowth, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    1982

    1983

    Sullivan, J.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Windsor, Walter

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Wright, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Welsh, J. C.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Townend, A. E.

    Westwood, J.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Varley, Frank B.

    Whiteley, W.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Viant, S. P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Charles Edwards.

    Sir A. SPROT: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
    "after deduction therefrom of Mineral Rights Duty and Income Tax, and, in the case of Scotland, of the amount paid by each person in respect of local rates."
    I am not concerned so much by the imposition of royalties, and the last Amendment dealt with that point. What I am proposing deals with the subject of giving those who are royalty owners fair play. I am not a royalty owner myself, but I do not want to inflict a charge upon a class of income which will have to be paid by other people, and which I should not like to have to pay myself, except under perfectly fair terms and conditions. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the owners of royalties are not taxed, but I would like to point out that they are already taxed, and taxed very heavily. One hon. Member mentioned the name of a certain Duke, but I know a great many people who are owners of royalties who are not Dukes, in fact they are quite poor people, and we ought to consider their interests when we are proposing a fresh levy upon them. The hon. Member argues that this new levy should be imposed upon the gross amount, but I think it should be upon the amount the person actually receives. That is the course which I advocate.
    With regard to Scotland, it is the case that the owners of mineral royalties have to pay local rates upon what they receive in royalties, but that is not the case in England, although in Scotland it has always been the case. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government, when imposing a new levy, to consider that point, and make allowance for the difference of the custom in Scotland as compared with England, otherwise we shall be treating unfairly those in Scotland who are royalty owners. Take, for example, a person who draws £1,000 a year from mineral royalties in Scotland. That sounds a very comfortable income, but how much does
    1984
    he actually receive? His gross income may be almost any figure you like, but what you have to deal with is the money which comes actually into his pocket. In the case I am taking of a person in Scotland receiving £1,000 a year in mineral royalties, the rates on that amount would leave £800. Then you must deduct Income Tax amounting to £160, which brings the amount down to £640. Then you have to take off the Mineral Rights Duty, which leaves £608, and we are now proposing to put on a fresh levy which will reduce the net receipts in this case to £570 a year out of £1,000. You do not take any other class of income and tax it in the same proportion, and there are a great many quite poor people who draw incomes from this source. I am not so sure that my Amendment is necessary, because the expression in the Clause of the Bill is 1s. for every 20s., but that appears to me to indicate that it is intended to tax the gross amount. There is a good deal more in the Clause which I am not able to interpret clearly, and I should like some assurance that the purpose of my Amendment is going to be accepted.
    Sir G. WHELER: I have an Amendment on the Paper, to insert in this Clause the words "save that mineral rights duty shall be deducted therefrom." We are only asking that when you are proposing to take this 1s. off half the mineral rights you should assess that for the purpose of the new levy on the 19s. as against the 20s., because you have already taken 1s. This is a special form of taxation, but you have this proposal of 1s. and the mineral right, which makes 2s., to come off, and the general Income Tax, 4s., brings it to 6s. Then there is the Super-tax. When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the Duke of Northumberland getting this and that, let me point out that at least half of the £6,000,000 which has been referred to as the amount of royalties is taken by the State in taxa-

    1985
    tion, and this special taxation is therefore very high. For these reasons we ask that it should receive attention.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It may be some satisfaction to my hon. Friend to know that, at any rate, half of this Amendment is not required. It has long been the law that Income Tax and rates, in the case of lessors of minerals in Scotland, may be deducted before the Mineral Rights Duty is computed.
    Sir A. SPROT: Does that apply to the new tax?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: That will also apply to the new tax. I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants me to explain why that is so, but I think I can do so quite shortly. The 1s. is to be paid on the rental value which is defined as the rent that is paid to the landlord, and it was decided some 13 or 14 years ago that what is paid to the landlord is that which the landlord receives after Income Tax has been deducted. So far as rates are concerned, it was provided, by a special Clause in the Finance Act of 1912 that rates may be deducted. Therefore, the Amendment before the House comes down to a proposal that the Mineral Rights Duty shall be deducted before the 1s. or the 5 per cent. is computed. If there were any reason for choosing the rate of 5 per cent., it might be said that there was some reason for making deductions from the gross sum before the 5 per cent. was deducted, but the basis of this proposal is really to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission, on page 209. Whatever may be said about the proposals of the Government, at any rate this proposal is not one which has been put into the Bill because it is particularly congenial to the spirit of those who might be supposed to support the Government; it has been put into the Bill because the Commission recommended it and the Government think that it is something which they ought to adopt upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
    The recommendation of the Royal Commission on this point was not that a particular proportion of a sum should be paid by the lessor, but that a certain amount should be raised in each year, which they computed at about £250,000; and, in order to raise that sum, it appeared to them to be necessary that
    1986
    an additional charge of 5 per cent. upon the royalties, averaging ¼d. per ton, should be paid into the Welfare Fund. It is quite obvious that, if you are going to deduct the Mineral Rights Duty and assess the 5 per cent. upon what is left, it will raise a less sum than if you compute the 5 per cent. upon the gross amount before deducting the Mineral Rights Duty. Acordingly, if the proposal of my hon. Friend were to be accepted, and the Mineral Rights Duty were to be deducted first of all, then, if you are going to raise £250,000, it would have to be, not 5 per cent. but perhaps 5½ per cent. or 6 per cent., or whatever the necessary figure might be. Five per cent. is a purely arbitrary rate. There is no particular justice or injustice in 5 per cent. as contrasted with 4½ per cent. or 5½ per cent., but it happens to be the percentage which the Royal Commission, upon a broad view of all the circumstances, recommended as something which they thought would be reasonable and fair in the circumstances, and would produce a sum of about £250,000 a year. Their intention, obviously, was that it should be upon the same plane as, and, in fact, a reproduction of, the Mineral Rights Duty, the only difference between the two levies being that, in the case of the Mineral Rights Duty, it is a subvention which goes into the national Exchequer, while in the case of the duty or charge which is now proposed it is a sum which is to be used for the benefit of the miners who are in the industry.
    The proposal and the obvious intention of the Royal Commission was that it should be charged upon the same basis as the Mineral Rights Duty, and the Government have taken the recommendation of the Royal Commission in the letter and in the spirit in which it was made, and not, as I have said, out of any feeling at all that it is in the interests of the royalty owners. An hon. Member opposite was good enough to say a little while ago that the Government are the friends of the royalty owners. It is a singular way of showing our friendliness to the royalty owners to add this 5 per cent. to the sums which they have to pay. The Government have put this charge upon the royalty owners because they think it is one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission which will commend itself to the country

    1987
    at large and to the royalty owners themselves, and which, as my hon. Friend said a little while ago, they are prepared in a public-spirited way to accept. Hon. Members opposite may say that it is otherwise, but I think it is the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines said a few minutes ago, whether the proposal is liked or not there is a readiness on the part of the royalty owners to accept the decision of the Government on this and other matters which might bear hardly upon them. At any rate, whether the mineral royalty owners would escape more lightly or not under my hon. Friend's proposal, if it were adapted an increased percentage would be necessary. The Government cannot accept his Amendment, partly because some of it is unnecessary, and partly because the adoption of the other part would compel the Government to raise the percentage, which, as I have already said, is purely arbitrary.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?
    Sir A. SPROT: I am much obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for his explanation, and desire to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Increase in number of welfare committee.)
    Mr. LEE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    This Clause was not in the Bill when it was originally before the House. We have been told that the royalty owners are acknowledging the moral obligation that there is upon them to do something for the mining industry, and are willing to pay at least their 1s., although the last two Amendments have been moved with the object of reducing that amount. While, however, they are prepared to do that, this Clause has been put into the Bill with the idea of giving them representation on the already formed Miners' Welfare Committee. I personally am not going to argue against the principle of representation where there is taxation, but my complaint with regard to this Clause is that it brings in representation in connection with a part of the Committee's work in which taxation
    1988
    is not involved. The whole of this money has been earmarked for pit-head baths, and, if the royalty owners are brought into an already formed committee which deals with other matters, they are brought in in connection with other work for which they do not find the money, and in connection with which I suggest they have no right to any representation. The whole balance of the Miners' Welfare Committee as it is now constituted will be changed if this Clause is allowed to stand
    The whole theory of the representation on these Committees, national, district and local, has been that there shall be equal numbers of owners' representatives and of miners' representatives. That principle is carried out right through the National Board and the district and local committees. If a royalty owner is put on the National Board, it upsets the balance, and for that reason alone I say that this Clause ought not to be included in the Bill. If they were going to deal only with the £250,000 that they are going to contribute. I should not complain, but should say that they were entitled to such representation as that sum would involve, but they are being brought into a Committee which is dealing, not with £250,000, but with £1,250,000, which is to be applied to many objects for which the royalty owners have done nothing in the past and in which they have never shown any interest at all. Therefore, I think they have no right to come on to the National Board and have a voice in what shall be done with the £1,000,000 also. The present Committee consists of two representatives nominated by the Mining Association and two nominated by the Miners' Federation. The Government themselves have difficulty with regard to the representation of the royalty owners. They have no association—
    Sir G. WHELER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; there is an association of royalty owners.
    Mr. LEE: Evidently, the Government do not know what it is called. They say in the Bill that the royalty owners' representative shall be appointed by the Board of Trade,
    "after consultation with such associations or bodies as may appear to the Board to represent persons"—

    1989
    and so on. They do not know what the name of the association is, and have put it in a very vague way. A certain gentleman's name has been mentioned in these Debates. I do nut like to bring in personalities, but the most prominent name in the royalty world to-day—I do not want what I am saying to be misunderstood—is that of the Duke of Northumberland. I am moving this Amendment with more than one object in view. The Government say they want to get peace in the mining industry. I do not know whether to bring the Duke of Northumberland into a committee with Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith would be likely to bring peace to the mining industry, but I, at any rate, think it would be well to keep them as far apart as possible.
    Mr. WHITELEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    We feel that there is no real necessity for such a Clause as this, even though this levy has been put on the royalty owners and they are going to make a contribution of £250,000 a year. If the Government are sincere in the statements that have been made, during the discussion of this Bill, that they are anxious to allay suspicion, and if at the same time they are not prepared to agree to the deletion of this Clause, why not ask the other side of the industry also to appoint a representative in order to make the balance equal again? We cannot see why these people, because they have to make some little contribution for a specific purpose, ought to have the advantage of having representation in dealing with the Welfare Fund, which is very largely contributed by the efforts of the workers themselves. The Welfare Fund is raised by a levy of 1d. per ton on output, and we say that that Fund is in the interests of the welfare of the miners and of the community at large in our mining districts, and that the people who ought to have the administration of it, and the power to see that it is carried on in a proper way for the advantage of everyone concerned, are the persons who are directly interested, and that, even if you go so far as to say that because these people are taxed they ought to have representation, at least it ought to be fair, and there should be equal representation, so that our people may have the opportunity of adding their voice as to the kind of welfare that is essential in our colliery districts, and particularly, as
    1990
    regards pithead baths, to hurry them up as rapidly as possible, so that the men and women in our districts may have the full advantage of them.
    7.0 P. M.
    Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that this will affect the district committees. That is an error. It will affect only the Central Committee and not the district committees at all. I am sure the House will agree that an in-and-out system is never a workable one and never has satisfactory results. You never get any man who is worth having to spare the time to take part in a system of that sort. You would have to have those particular representatives going away for one item and coming back for another. I hope that this representative, which the House agrees they are entitled to, will have a considerable knowledge of the district and will be able to give assistance to the Committee.
    Mr. SPENCER: I think we should consider giving another representative to the workers to keep them equal. If you do that, we could possibly accept, and there would be no difference of opinion. I do not think the Central Committee have had any trouble, and there never has been much division between them. Why should you not keep the balance equal now?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Because this is a different proposal.
    Mr. LEE: That would meet my objection.
    Colonel LANE FOX: It is not quite the same thing as the balancing of the existing Committee. That was a balance between coalowners and those they employed. This is a different thing. It is a small matter, but if it is going to secure justice in representation to the royalty owners I think the Government could have no objection.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: I understood from the Secretary of State for War, when he quoted the Report, that this 5 per cent. on royalties, calculated to yield £250,000 a year, is meant specifically to encourage the construction of new pit-head baths. That is what I understood was the purpose of this 5 per cent. Is that so or not?
    Colonel LANE FOX: We are on a different Clause.
    Mr. JONES: But it affects the whole question. The existing Central Committee dealing with the Miners' Welfare Fund deals with one penny per ton on the sale of coal. This is a specific tax now upon the rental values of mineral royalties, I understand, and it is intended, according to the Commission's recommendations, that it should be specifically spent for one purpose, and that is the construction and use of pit-head baths. That has been the general impression.
    Colonel LANE FOX: What the Royal Commission say is that pit-head baths should be provided out of the Fund to which the royalties will contribute.
    Mr. LEE: I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that he was going to meet my objection about the balancing of the National Committee. On that understanding I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir G. WHELER: Before it is withdrawn, may I say a word or two. I know a considerable number of colliery owners who have been put on at the request of the men. I regret a tone is taken up which seems to endeavour to make the mineral owners appear as hostile as possible. You simply take the idea that one mineral owner and two colliery proprietors would be against the men. I venture to say in a great part of England that feeling does not exist.
    Mr. SPENCER: May I move an Amendment now, in page 11, line 26. after the word "levy," to insert the words "and one by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain"? That would make the thing balance.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think it is much safer to put it in another place later.
    Mr. SPENCER: As long as we get a definite promise.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I agree.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Application of royalties welfare levy.)
    Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, in page 11, line 38, to leave out from the beginning to the word "shall" in line 41. and to insert instead thereof the words
    1992
    "(3) the Miners' Welfare Committee." This is merely a drafting Amendment. Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 1 to 3, inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words
    "out of those proceeds establish a scheme for the provision of weekly pensions for persons who have been regularly employed in the mining industry, and who have reached the age of sixty years."
    The proposal is that this money should be earmarked to establish the nucleus of a pension scheme. I look upon this as far more important. It might be that the Commissioners supported or recommended pit-head baths, but they recommend many other things. They recommended the nationalisation of the minerals, and not a deduction of 5 per cent. from the proceeds as proposed here. That therefore cannot have much weight, because we have got a long way from the Commissioner's Report already. A pension scheme for aged miners, I consider, the most important and urgent need there is. There are many things that one approves of. This is the most urgent of all. When we have only so much money to deal with, I think we should consider which is the most urgent object to which it should be put. What I am proposing is the policy of the Miners' Federation. For a long time they have been receiving resolutions from different parts of the country on this question, and they themselves at their annual conference approved of a pension scheme for aged miners. This question becomes now more important than ever before because of the number of men who will be left out whenever a settlement is arrived at, as it will be one of those days. The Commissioners themselves, I think, said that there would be at least 130,000 men unemployed in the mining industry. These 130,000 men will have to be provided for in some way or other.
    I put down a question some time ago asking as to the number of men engaged in the industry who were over 60 years of age, and the reply I had was that there was a certain percentage between 59 and 65 and over 65 years of age, making, I think, about 6 per cent. of the total. I should say that there would be about 60,000 men over 60 years of age in the mining industry who ought to be with-

    1993
    drawn and placed upon a pension, because most of them have been already 50 years at work in the mines. That is sufficient for any man to have done. We never knew what unemployment was in 1921, but what we have seen since is aged men struggling to get to work and young men walking the roads with nothing to do. That is unemployment at the wrong end of the scale. For this reason, I am moving that this pension scheme should be applied. That would put right a considerable number of the men left out of employment. The Commissioners knew that a large number of men would be unemployed, and they make a recommendation in which they say that the Government should be ready to take all practicable means for the assistance of any labour that may be displaced, and to furnish such funds as may be required for this purpose. I think that is very plain and distinct, and, if this 5 per cent. deduction from royalty owners was made the nucleus of a fund, and if unemployment pay that will have to be used to allow these men to live was added also, there would be a very substantial pension scheme already.
    I know the Minister will say that cannot be done; that it is illegal. But, it is wonderful the things we can legalise if we wish to. There was the Eight Hours Bill which was got through in three or four days. This alteration too could be made in a shorter time than that, because there would not be the opposition to it from our standpoint. I know that the £200,000 which is talked about, which would be brought in by this, would not go very far, but it would be a help. I believe the workmen, notwithstanding the heavy deductions made from their pay every week, would be willing to make a contribution too. I think from the youngest to the oldest they would be quite pleased to make some contribution towards a pension scheme because every one of them would look forward to the day when they became eligible for it, and some provision for old age would have been made.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Did they not all vote against it last year?
    Mr. EDWARDS: I have the account here of a meeting which was held in 1924 between the Central Committee of the Mining Association and the Executive
    1994
    of the Miners' Federation. Mr. Evan Williams said:
    "What we did say was that in our opinion, an opinion endorsed by the Chairman of the Central Committee and other members of the Committee, the amount of a penny to be restricted to the use of private recreation grounds and that sort of thing is more than is necessary, and it is not to the interest of anyone connected with the industry to have an expenditure in excess of that which is necessary."
    It appears to me that there could be a contribution taken from what is going into the welfare fund already, possibly a halfpenny out of the penny. That would make from the beginning a very substantial pension scheme, and it would immediately withdraw a large number of those older men and would give a chance to the younger ones to obtain work. The present welfare schemes are doing a lot of good. I have spoken in favour of them many times, and am in favour of them still, but when there is only so much money to deal with I consider only what is most urgent, and certainly a cricket ground or tennis court or bowling green and all that sort of thing, although useful and serving a good purpose, would not be put by anyone against pensions schemes for aged miners. I do not think these things are used by our men so much as by people who are outside the industry altogether. They are used more particularly by the young people who are not engaged in manual work, such as shopkeepers and clerks, and I think you would find a much larger volume of that class using them than men who work hard at the pits and require rest. I cannot conceive anybody arguing that these things are as necessary as this scheme I have talked about now.
    Then we have heard a lot about pithead baths, another necessary thing, a thing that I approve of. I should like to see them brought about. I know the homes would be much sweeter and better and the hard work the miners' wives now have to do would be at least less because of that. I know all that very well and I am taking that into consideration, but I do not place even that as against pensions for miners. I have had several letters since this Amendment was moved upstairs from different people asking that this should be pressed and expressing the hope that it would be agreed to. I defy any man on either side of the

    1995
    House to say he has received a single letter from a working miner in favour of pit-head baths. Pit-head baths have been really an agitation by the leaders. I have been one of them and I entirely agree with it, but I do not place it in the same category as I do pensions for old miners. A pensions scheme would be the greatest boon that has yet been proposed for miners. I think it would be the greatest contribution we have yet made towards the personal welfare of the men engaged in this industry. We have many of these schemes already. The railway men have had a very excellent scheme for many years. The teaching profession have a very excellent scheme, as have the Civil Service. I believe there ought to be pensions in every industry and it is one of the things we ought to be ashamed of in an organisation like the Miners' Federation that we have not got a pensions scheme in connection with our organisation. I hope to see this adopted and to see the time come when we shall say, like they do to the teachers when they get to a certain age, "You have to retire whether you want to or not." I want to see the young men working and the old men resting.
    Mr. D. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I can conceive of no better means of utilising this fund than making provision for those who have given at least 40 or 45 years of their lives to winning coal from the bowels of the earth. Anyone who has had any experience in and about mines, seeing the conditions under which these men come to the surface after doing their day's work, must realise that at 60 years of age they ought to be going into retirement and have provided for them a decent subsistence. It is for that reason that I wish to associate myself with the Amendment and to put it to the right hon. Gentleman very strongly that he should accept it as being a reasonable Amendment and one which would make provision for those who have helped to create the wealth of the nation.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Naturally, everyone would like to see a pensions scheme adopted for miners at the age of 60 and pensions schemes increased in every direction for every-
    1996
    one. That can go without saying. But this proposal would mean that the £250,000 a year which is provided for the purpose of pit-head baths would be used entirely for a pension scheme and not for pit-head baths at all. Not only that, but the hon. Member, realising how inadequate that fund would be for pensions—I understand it would not give a pensioner more than half a crown a week if the whole £250,000 were taken—proposed also to take half the levy fund in addition—that is another £500,000 a year—adding 5s. a week to the pension. At the same time, he explained that he was in favour of pit-head baths. He knew they were a good thing, that they improved the morale and saved trouble in the homes, and he also approved of the welfare fund. He approved of everything, but he only supplied the money for half. I approve of everything, but I have only a little money. I have £250,000, which is allocated to pit-head baths. If I were to accept the Amendment, it would do away with pit-head baths, the very purpose for which the fund is being taken from the royalty owners. I am sorry, therefore, that much as I sympathise with the desire for pensions, it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment, which would destroy the purpose for which the fund is set up.
    Mr. TINKER: I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. As I understand it, it means that the whole of the money has to go to a pension scheme. I am more in favour of pit-head baths than of a pension scheme. I want pensions to come nationally for everyone, and at this juncture I would far rather have a pit-head bath scheme out of this money than a pension scheme. I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Provision of washing and drying accommodation.)
    Amendment made: In page 12, line 8, leave out the words "to endeavour."—[Mr. Bennett.]
    Mr. SPENCER: I beg to move, in page 12, line 11, at the end, to insert the words
    "and that the colliery owners shall maintain and repair the baths and buildings when erected."

    1997
    I think I am justified in moving an Amendment of this character, in view of the recommendations of the Commission. In dealing with this question they said:
    "Pit-head baths are clearly a part of the necessary equipment of the collieries and the obligation should properly rest in this country, as it rests in others, upon the colliery proprietors. In the present economic condition of the industry, however, we consider that the Welfare Fund should bear the cost."
    The Bill is making provision for the cost coming out of the welfare fund, but as far as I can see, the maintenance and repairs will be partly a charge on the workmen. In view of the fact that the coalowners are being relieved of the burden of capital expenditure, I think the maintenance charges and charges for repairs to the buildings should be borne by the coalowners themselves. I should like to call attention to what the Commission said with regard to the practice in other countries. Speaking of Germany they say:
    "In all cases the cost of providing and maintaining the installations is borne entirely by the owners."
    They give other instances where they are borne by the owners. Then with regard to our own Colonies, referring to New Zealand they say:
    "In New Zealand the provision of bathing accommodation is compulsory in mines employing more than 50 men if 30 per cent. request it, the entire cost being a charge on the industry."
    In both these instances, and in many others, the cost is entirely borne by the industry itself, and not merely the cost of maintenance, and in view of those facts, in conjunction with the fact that the 1911 Act contemplated coalowners bearing a considerable burden with regard to the initial outlay for the installation of these baths, I think now they are going to be relieved by this fund of finding the capital expenditure they certainly ought to undertake to maintain and repair the baths when they are installed.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It is a very useful one, and I hope the Government will accept it. It is the practice in Germany and New Zealand, and also in this country in other industries, and if the owners in those cases can make this provision, I do not see why it should not be done in the coal industry.
    1998
    In the first place the owners will be relieved very largely of the capital charge, which is in the right direction, and after all, the running costs of a colliery in maintaining the buildings and keeping them in repair and working condition cannot be very heavy. They will be on their own property and they will have the advantage that the power, lighting and heating and the supply of water will be an infinitesimal charge upon them because it will work in very easily with the rest of their charges.
    Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member who has just spoken suggested that this would be an infinitesimal charge. According to the experience we have of the pit-head baths that now exist under the welfare scheme, the figure comes out at about 1s. a week It depends on the conditions and the circumstances.
    Sir BEDDOE REES: A shilling a week per man or per bath?
    Colonel LANE FOX: Per man per week.
    Mr. TINKER: What is the authority for that figure?
    Colonel LANE FOX: It is the experience we have at present of schemes now existing under the welfare scheme. I can get complete figures justifying it. It is a perfectly genuine figure.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Does that shilling cover also the repayment of the capital outlay, or is it purely for the cost of maintenance and repair week by week? If it is, we cannot accept it so readily as that. I think it is an exorbitant charge.
    Colonel LANE FOX: Certainly it does not cover that.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the items that make up the shilling?
    Colonel LANE FOX: I have not got them with me now, but I will try to get them. I have verified them. If this Amendment is accepted it will upset the working of a great many schemes. The general arrangement has been that the arrangements are made according to the circumstances of each colliery. In some cases the costs will be higher than in others. In some cases there will be an opportunity of making contributions—

    1999
    steam, water, coal, or whatever it may be. As this is taken as part of the welfare scheme, it would be a very great pity to upset the existing arrangement. Arrangements can undoubtedly be made quite satisfactorily for the maintenance of the baths, and if this additional charge is put on, of course it will be to that extent a discouragement to apply for baths. There is no doubt that where a
    certain contribution is paid by the men, it does give them an interest, and does assist them in seeing that the places are well maintained. Therefore, I do hope the House will not upset the existing arrangement.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 272.

    Division NO. 405.]

    AYES.

    [7.32 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hardie, George D.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Blisten)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smillie, Robert

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snell, Harry

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clowes, S.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Connolly, M.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cove, W. G.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Varley, Frank B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Dennison, R.

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda,

    Dunnico, H.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Paling, W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C..

    Gosling, Harry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cont.)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Riley, Ben

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Scurr, John

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. R.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Sexton, James

    Smith

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Campbell, E. T.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cassels, J. D.

    Apsley, Lord

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Balniel, Lord

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Bennett, A. J.

    Burman, J. B.

    Couper, J. B.

    Bethel, A.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Rye, F. G.

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sandon, Lord

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Savery, S. S.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co Down)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Drewe, C.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyan

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Smithers, Waldron

    England, Colonel A.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Lougher, L.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden,E.)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Stott, Lieut,-Colonel W. H.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Forrest, W.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Maitland Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Murchison, C. K.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Grace, John

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Waddington, R.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Owen, Major G.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Hanbury, C

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wells, S. R.

    Harland, A.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Pielou, D. P.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Pilcher, G.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Preston, William

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hilton, Cecil

    Radford, E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Raine, W.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)

    Remer, J. R.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N).

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Hutchison, G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Major Cope and Lord Stanley.

    Amendment made: In page 12, line 12, leave out the words "as on the first day of April."—[Colonel Lane Fox.]
    Mr. DAVID DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, to leave out Subsection (3).
    This Sub-section repeals the provisions of Section 77 of the Act of 1911, in which
    2002
    provision is made for capital expenditure on pit-head baths. That capital expenditure has to be provided by the owners, if two-thirds of the men in a particular pit poll in favour of pit-head baths, and, with regard to maintenance, half the amount is to be found by the owners, and half by the persons employed in that par-

    2003
    ticular pit. This Sub-section also repeals Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act of 1920. There was no intention in that Act, when the welfare fund was established, that the fund should provide for the maintenance as well as the capital expenditure on pit-head baths. I do not understand how the Government intend to provide for the pit-head baths if they repeal Section 77 of the Act of 1911 and Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act of 1920. In the Committee stage, the Solicitor-General told us that the words in Clause 17 for the provision of accommodation and facilities included not only the capital charge but also the maintenance charge. I do not dispute his interpretation, because he is a lawyer, and I am not, but if he looks back to the Act of 1911 and the Act of 1920, he will see that the wording of both Acts is identical, and it is quite obvious that the meaning in both Section 77 of the Act of 1911 and Section 20 of the Act of 1920 only refer to capital expenditure, and do not include provisions for the maintenance of pit-head baths.
    If that be so, then we may have the spectacle of the money which is being appropriated by the new fund provided by the royalty owners being applied without any means whatever for the maintenance of these baths, the provision of hot water and other things necessary in connection with them. In addition to that, whatever sum you take out of the Welfare Fund for the maintenance of the baths, will decrease the amount which is available for the erection of new baths. Therefore, I maintain that if the interpretation of the Solicitor-General be the correct one, it is a retrograde policy to repeal the provisions in the Acts of 1911 and 1920, because by so doing you will, obviously, reduce the amount of the £250,000 which has been allocated under the Bill for capital expenditure in the erection of pit-head baths. We were told by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that he calculated that £10,000,000 would be required to provide these pit-head baths, and that it would take 40 years to establish them at every colliery. If from the capital funds there is to be taken the sum required for maintenance, there will be less money available, and it will take far longer to establish the baths.
    2004
    There is one other point I would like to touch on. That there is at present an obligation to supply the funds necessary for the maintenance of the baths by the management. There is also an obligation on behalf of the owners to erect these baths if, on a ballot, two-thirds of the persons employed ask that they shall be erected. I see no reason why this obligation should be removed, and why this particular Section should be repealed.
    Mr. BATEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I would like the Minister in charge of the Bill to explain the reason for the repeal of Section 77 of the 1911 Act. That Section provides for the workmen to take a ballot, and, if two-thirds of the workmen by ballot vote in favour of the provision of baths, then the owners are compelled to erect the baths and to provide for the maintenance of them up to an amount of 3d. per workman per week. If that provision is to be repealed it seems to me that we shall have to rely solely upon this new welfare levy which will take 40 years to provide the baths. Would it not be wise on the part of the Government to leave this Sub-section so that where baths are not provided under the welfare levy the workmen will be able to ballot as before, and, if they so decide by ballot, then the baths will be available for them? Further, I would like the Minister to explain why it should be necessary to repeal paragraph (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920? That paragraph says that the contribution of the workmen to the cost of maintenance shall be reduced, and it makes provision in certain circumstances for the contribution of the workmen to be reduced. I do not believe that we are going to get pit-head baths erected solely out of this welfare levy. I believe that if we are to get them within a reasonable time the workmen will have to contribute something towards the erection of the baths. If so, this paragraph (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the Act of 1920 should be allowed to stand, so that the workmen's contribution can be reduced. I hope the Minister will explain the reason for the repeal of these two Sections.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The object of Sub-section 3 is to leave out what

    2005
    was in a previous Act in order to tidy up matters. That is the only reason for the Sub-section. As matters stand now, the workmen contribute half the cost of maintenance, including interest on capital, the management of the baths is entrusted to a joint committee established under the Regulations, and the capital cost of the baths under this Section is provided by the owners, but where the total cost of maintenance, including interest, exceeds 3d. per man per week there is no obligation on the owner to provide the baths. The whole Section is now inoperative because the average cost of maintenance excluding interest is a shilling per man per week, and, as far as one can see, there is no reasonable probability of it ever falling below that figure. Section 77 is therefore entirely inoperative, and so we desire to repeal it, but, if there be any feeling on the part of hon. Members, and if it be thought that this might cause suspicion, I am quite content to accept the Amendment, although it is untidy, and I would much prefer to leave the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. WALSH: I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. It may very well be as was said in Committee that as things stand at present this is dead wood, but, as a matter of fact, this particular provision was discussed at very great length in the Committee in 1911, and it would be very inadvisable, to use no stronger expression, to take away from the mutual consent of both employers and workmen a method of erecting the baths which exists at present.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KIDD: I beg to move, in page 12, line 30, after the word "employment," to insert the words "or in the employment of shale mining."
    In moving this Amendment, I had in view the peculiarly intimate relationship between shale mining and coal mining in Scotland. I do not share the view of those who think that there should be no restriction as regards coal mining, but I think I shall be able to show to the Scottish coalminers' representatives in this House that I have clearly stated the case for the shale miners. As Members opposite well know, the shale area in
    2006
    Scotland is confined to the county of Linlithgow in particular. There is really a large shale area there—
    Mr. WALSH: On a point of Order. Having regard to the Preamble of this Bill, which states that this Bill is to make provision for facilitating the working of minerals and the better organisation of the coal-mining industry, may I ask if this Amendment is in order? I did not know before that shale was coal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I had some doubts, and indeed my note on the Paper was, "This goes beyond the title of the Bill." I have since had some conversation with hon. Members, who point out that, if we allowed a discussion on shale mining, we should not be able to prevent a discussion on tin mining and on a number of other kinds of mining, which clearly would be outside the scope of the Bill. But I will hear what the hon. Member has to say on that point.
    Mr. KIDD: I am quite prepared to be regarded with a certain degree of suspicion for the simple reason that the only people acquainted with the shale miners really among the representatives of the miners here are the Scottish representatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The only shale mining area in Great Britain is in the district I have mentioned, and I take it that the scarcity of shale is the very best consideration I can offer as to a very intimate knowledge of the shale mines. But that is not my point. There is a peculiarly intimate relationship between shale mining and coal mining, such as you have not between tin mining and coal mining, or between any other mining and coal mining. The shalefield lies normally about 300 yards below the lower carboniferous line of coal in Scotland. If that does not attract my hon. Friends opposite, I would explain to them that in the shale area you have a large force going through, with the result that the shale is brought up in such a position against the coal that you have the coal miner to-day being the shale miner to-morrow, and the shale miner to-day being the coal miner to-morrow.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is on the Amendment rather than on the point of Order which has been raised.
    Mr. KIDD: I want to say that the shalefield in Scotland is so intimate with coal that you have a coalfield in the centre of the shalefield. The result is that while the coal miner of yesterday is the shale miner of to-day, the shale miner of to-day is the coal miner of to-morrow, and under this Bill as now drafted the coal miner will not be allowed—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is again a speech on the Amendment. I am dealing with a point of order, as to whether or not this Amendment is within the scope of the Bill. I have already in the last few minutes spoken with some hon. Members who point out that, if shale mining be brought in, they will be able to move Amendments dealing with other kinds of mining, and I should not be able to resist them. Therefore, I am bound to conclude that the whole of the proposals are outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. KIDD: I submit respectfully that I was not really speaking on the Amendment. I was trying to explain the point which was raised as to whether this Amendment was in order, and the only way in which I could prove that it was in order was to discriminate between shale mining in relation to coal and tin mining in relation to coal and so forth. There is a peculiar relationship between shale mining and coal mining, and, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) were present, he would be able to support me in that matter. There is such a relationship between shale and coal as you have not between any other forms of mining and coal, and therefore I submit that there is nothing at all in this Bill to exclude me from bringing shale mining in.
    Mr. R. S. HUDSON: I am afraid I should be compelled to refer to iron-ore miners, and to use the same argument which the hon. Member is now putting forward in the case of shale, because the inter-connection between coal mining and iron-ore mining is almost as great if not greater.
    Mr. SPENCER: We should also have to use that argument in regard to lead mines in Derbyshire.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: May I point out that the statement that shale mining is
    2008
    limited to a certain area in Scotland is inaccurate. There are shale mines in Devonshire and in Somerset where very large schemes are now proposed for developing shale in that area, and this Amendment raises a large issue. If you bring in shale mining, certain other minerals, particularly tin, will have to come in.
    Mr. KIDD: If I may be allowed—
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have heard the hon. Member's description of the facts. While I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt which was in my mind a short time ago, I must say that, having heard what he has to say has removed the doubt which was in my mind. I could not accept this Amendment as being within the scope and Title of the Bill. I must therefore rule it out
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that no such regulations shall impose restrictions on the engagement for employment of any person in actual receipt of a pension granted out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of a disability arising out of his service with His Majesty's forces during the War."
    This is an Amendment which provides that no regulation made under this Clause shall impose restrictions on the engagement for employment of any person in actual receipt of a pension granted out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of a disability arising out of his service with His Majesty's Forces during the War. Of course the House is well aware that during the War there was no industry which behaved more patriotically than the coalmining industry, and after the War there was no industry which did more to reinstate the men in the industry in employment when the War was over. It is also true that the coalmining industry had its own disabled men to deal with, but notwithstanding all that the Government do feel that the exclusion of disabled ex-service men would be contrary to the policy not only of this Government but of every Government since the War, and therefore I ask the Committee to accept the Motion.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Power of coal-mining companies to establish profit-sharing schemes.)
    The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BASIL PETO:—
    In page 16, line 8, at the end, to insert the words
    "and notwithstanding any conditions as to the investment of trades union funds contained in any Acts regulating trades unions or friendly societies, or anything contained in the rules of trades unions or in the conditions laid down by the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies, it shall be lawful for any trades union to invest a portion not exceeding fifty per cent. of its funds in the debentures, bonds, obligations, preference or ordinary stock of any coal-mining company in which its members are employed."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Establishment of joint committees for coal mines.)
    Captain WALTER SHAW: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I may mention that this Clause was very unexpectedly brought forward in Committee by the Government, and those on the Committee knew nothing about it. I consider the Government are making a mistake in pressing forward this Clause. I want to make myself very plain in this matter to the Opposition that, in moving this Amendment, I am not in any way supporting the mineowners themselves in this matter, because I believe that they and the miners also have adopted a non possumus attitude which has been very destructive to the interest to the country. In moving to delete this Clause for the appointment of joint committees for the coal mines, it is not that I think it will affect the owners or the miners, but it is a question of non-union men, if there are any employed in the mines, and also of those members of the unions who are not in favour with their union. I bring this specially to the notice of the House because I have had considerable intercourse with men in the railway world during the big strike. I was intensely surprised to find that, though we adopted, under the Act of 1921, railway departmental committees, man after man came to me pointing out that those committees were clearly doing harm to the railroad world, because, after all, these men who are elected on the employés' or workers'
    2010
    side to be representatives on the departmental committees, which correspond to the pit committees in this case, are men high up in the union world, and it only gives them more chance of being hard on those men whom they do not favour.
    I am not talking haphazardly, but from information that has been brought to me by a good many men in the railway world where I am situated, and may I say also that I know personally that those Departmental Committees, which are similar to the pit committees, have added and do actually add to the expense of the running of the railroads. I think we shall find the same thing will happen with regard to these pit committees, if and when they are appointed, and they will only add to the expenses of the running of the mines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I could go into that, but Mr. Speaker would rule me out or order if I did so. I could very soon do it if I wished. The Act of 1920 allows the appointment of those pit committees, but they were never adopted. Therefore it shows there was not unanimity for the choice of the pit committees. Now the Government has made it, after a period of two years, a compulsory Act, on application, of course, to the Mines Department, and I ask the House, are the interests of the industries of the country helped by this legislation? I think we have far too much legislation in regard to our industries. It only helps to put them back.
    There is only just one other point which I want to draw the attention of the House to, and that is in the Report of the Coal Commission they make this statement in regard to these pit committees:
    "We would express also the opinion that when the pit committees have come into being, the last excuse for the so-called 'lightning strikes' would disappear."
    If that is correct, according to the assertion of that Commission, ought it not to have helped and done away with, to a large extent, the tendency in the railways for the lightning strike? I think we all realise that it really did not help at all. We have had that lightning strike in the railway world as in all other industries, and I am quite sure that if the Government would only take time to consider it they would agree that this is just a line which they are throwing out

    2011
    in order to help themselves by bolstering up these proposals, and I beg them to consider the matter, because I believe that by this hedging round of our industries we are only hampering them.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Does any hon. Member rise to second the Amendment. I think the Amendment falls.
    Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: You are too late.
    Sir J. NALL: On a point of Order. I understood an hon. Member below the Gangway rose to second the Amendment.
    Captain STREATFEILD: I rose intending to oppose the Amendment as much as I could.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If hon. Members insist, I shall be obliged to rule that the hon. Member is too late, but perhaps hon. Members may have no objection to its being moved.
    Sir J. NALL: May I say I would have risen earlier to second the Amendment?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps in the circumstances, as it appears to have been a case of misunderstanding, hon. Members will allow it.
    HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The history of Part II of the Mining Industries Act with reference to pit committees is very well known. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Amendment has certain apprehensions with regard to the effect of the establishment of pit committees, but I believe the general opinion is that the events which led to the failure of Part II of the Mining Industry Act were most unfortunate. That Act made it possible for pit committees to be established by agreement between the parties. Unfortunately, on the miners' side there was not a willingness to join in the establishment of the committees at a time when the owners were prepared, or professed at any rate to be prepared and I believe were prepared, to establish them. When the miners began to see what I respectfully think was wisdom, the
    2012
    owners unfortunately were not prepared to adhere to their former attitude and the result was that of the lines
    "He that will not when he may,
    When he will he shall have nay."
    and the pit committees had to be abandoned in consequence of the failure of each side to adopt a reasonable course at the right time.
    The Royal Commission considered the whole question and those parts of their Report are familiar to hon. Members who take an interest in this question. They expressed the opinion that the fears in regard to the establishment of pit committees were not well founded, that friction was not likely to arise in their establishment, and that interference with the management was not likely to take place and that at any rate it could be avoided by the inclusion of some proviso that pit committees should not interfere with the management of the pits. It will be seen that in Clause 21 of this present Bill there is included a provision of that sort. My hon. and gallant Friend has suggested that the establishment of the pit committees would lead to an increase in the cost of working the pits. I am not able to follow him on that point. He said that Mr. Speaker would have ruled him out of order if he had explained the reason he thought that it would increase the cost of management. At any rate, speaking for the Government and for myself, with all my heart, we believe that what is wanted to improve the conditions in this and many other industries is an increase of means by which those interested on both sides in the industry may get together to discuss as far as possible the problems which interest both sides of the industry. Although there has been an unhappy past with reference to pit committees, we think that the time is ripe, after the Report of the Royal Commission, to make another effort to encourage both sides to co-operate in his hopeful movement.
    The Clause is drawn in such a way that we shall avoid, as much as possible, the element of compulsion which the Commission thought was likely to interfere with the success of the scheme. It is quite obvious that the pit committee which is based on compulsion is not likely to be a very harmonious body, at any rate in its

    2013
    earlier stages. Whether compulsory meetings would result in establishing a better feeling after a time may, perhaps, be the right view about it, but at any rate we thought it was desirable to give full opportunity to both sides to make arrangements for the discussion of the matters which interested them. There is a great deal of elasticity of phraseology in the Clause which may seem to some hon. Members a little wide and general. It was deliberately drawn in that way, and in no way was the language used for the purpose of discouraging the establishment of pit committees but rather the reverse.
    We thought that if the expression were used "if adequate opportunity has been afforded for the establishment of machinery" for discussing questions, it would prevent anybody from saying that they were being kept within a rigid formula which they were not prepared to apply to the facts of the situation. If the owner or the agent of the collier does not give that adequate opportunity, there is power to make Regulations, which may perhaps fill up the deficiencies of the owner or the manager. If the owner or the manager offers opportunities to the men for the establishment of pit committees and the men are not prepared to cooperate, there is no power to make Regulations; but we believe that that is not likely to happen, or we hope that it is not likely to happen in the history of the industry. We hope that if the owners and the agents do give adequate opportunity for the establishment of the machinery, there will be a response in. a more hopeful spirit than happened under the Mining Industry Act, 1920. So far from increasing the cost to the industry, we hope it will produce a better spirit and produce what always comes when there is a good spirit in industry— economic and whole-hearted co-operation between the two partners in the industry in which the pit committees will be established. We therefore ask the House to maintain the Clause in its present form.
    Amendment negatived.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 17, line. 23, at the end, to insert
    "(5) An Order under this Section may be made so as to be in force either permanently or for a limited period, and may
    2014
    be amended or revoked he any subsequent Order."
    It has been considered, in the light of experience, advisable to insert this provision. If this provision were not inserted, speaking from experience, I believe there would be great inconvenience resulting from the omission.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Power to vary 1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 50. ss. 9 and 10.)
    Mr. WALSH: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    Clause 22 is entirely new to the House. It was not in existence when the Second Reading of the Bill was passed. It refers to the conditions under which examinations take place for the grant of certificates of competency, first and second class certificates, in the management of mines. I can imagine no matter of greater importance to the well-being of the mining population or to the safe working of the mines than the examination necessary to find out the competency of those who are to take part in the management of the mines, and in the control of the lives of the miners. The whole question of the conditions of examination for those who aspire to become mine managers goes back more than half a century.
    When the Second Reading of the Bill was obtained, there was no intimation that such a Clause was to be put in, and it seems to me somewhat unfair, to use no stronger expression, that the whole course of mining examinations and the experience that has been built upon half a century of mining conditions should be overturned, or should he liable to be overturned, at the will of the President of the Board of Trade, who may be a very admirable man but who in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him, will be purely a bureaucrat. Let me tell the House what happened in 1872, when the first great Coal Mines Regulation Act was passed. Up to that time, there had been a terrible accident rate in the mines. There had been many grievous explosions; the accident and disablement rate was terrible, and it was forced upon the attention of Parliament that men who might possess practical experience but who did not possess technical experience were not in themselves competent to undertake the management of

    2015
    mines, because of the absence of the joint qualification.
    Practical experience is very good, and it is essential, but it is necessary to combine knowledge of gases, chemical knowledge, knowledge of mechanics, knowledge of chemical forces, and a hundred and one things which are necessary if a man is to be a competent mine manager, having regard, not merely to the product of the mine, but to the safety of the lives of the men. Therefore, a system of examination was set up, which recognised that those men who had been engaged in the management of mines inasmuch as they had given long years of service, should have a certificate granted to them. Fifteen years later, in 1887, a consolidating Act was passed, which strengthened the method of examination, increased very substantially the qualifications necessary, made the examinations more stiff, and called upon those who were aspiring to the management of mines to possess, not merely practical knowledge of a high degree, but technical knowledge. That was entirely on the right lines. Before any amending Act was passed, 24 years elapsed I am speaking of that of which I have first-hand knowledge, when I say that the Regulations at present existing in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911, are the result of joint agreement between employers and workmen. I sat upon the Committee and consulted for many weeks, while the Act was being passed through Grand Committee upstairs, with the coalowners upon the Regulations at present existing in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, which are the result of joint agreement between the employers and the workmen.
    It may very well be said that that does not of necessity make the Regulations any better. In consequence of the highly improved and greatly raised standard of examination, five years' practical experience was made necessary in the case of those who did not possess an approved diploma or an approved degree. They had to put in five years' practical experience in the getting of coal and the working of a mine. If, however, a person has educated himself to such a degree as to be able to obtain a diploma from an approved institution or university he can have two years taken off the five, making three years in all, and for one year and
    2016
    seven months only out of these three years is it necessary for him to work in the mine at the face, or in direct supervision over the other workers. He need not actually get coal, but he must work in the mine. These conditions have had the result of bringing into the management of the mines a class of man as skilled in the management of mines as any class in any country on earth.
    When we pay compliments, or rather when we speak the truth, we are asked, "How on earth is it that the mines are so inefficient if these men are so competent?" These men have nothing at all to do with the commercial management of the mines. They look after the ventilation, control the output, and the conditions under which the men work below and at the surface. They are almost wholly cut off from the commercial direction of the undertaking. The two qualifications, one which makes for high commercial success, and the other which makes for the safe conduct of the mine and the safety of the men below, are entirely distinct, and I say quite frankly that since 1911, when this examination was established on its present basis, we have developed a class of man in control of the underground workings of our mines that cannot be bettered by any nation on earth. Here, again, I suppose the Government will base themselves on the Commission's Report. It is really wonderful how, whenever it suits their purpose, they can find something in the Report with which to sustain themselves, but with equal celerity they can turn anything down in the Report which does not suit them. On this point, the Commission says:
    "The managers and under-managers alike must hold certificates of competency, issued after examinations held in accordance with the Coal Mines Act of 1911, and Regulations made under the Act. For under-managers a second-class certificate is sufficient; the examination for this is required by statute to be 'suitable for practical working miners.' For managers a first-class certificate is required; there is nothing in the statute which, as for the second-class certificate, could he interpreted as excluding the application of any test of good general education, but by custom the examinations here also are purely technical. For both classes of certificates it is a condition of sitting for examination at all that the candidate should have had either five years' practical experience in mining, or three years of such practical experience if he holds an approved degree or diploma; half

    2017
    of this five or three years must have been spent in 'actual practical work' at the face or elsewhere underground, or in its direct supervision or direction."
    Colonel LANE FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the paragraph which follows?
    Mr. WALSH:
    The effect of such regulations, however, is necessarily to narrow the field from which managers can be appointed, and thus to diminish the number of men of high ability and good general education who are likely to be drawn into the industry. In practice, entry into the managerial side of coal mining is made far from easy to men of general education not already having family connections with it."
    I will stop there. The Commissioners say that men of good general education find it far from easy to pass the examination that is set. That may be true of men like myself, who have not had a university education and who know very little beyond the rules of arithmetic, but there are hundreds of miners working below, who have never had a university education, who have never come within sight of a college, who themselves have passed the technical education required for a certificate as first-class managers, and how the Commissioners arrive at their conclusion that it is far from easy for a man of good general education to pass these examinations, I fail to understand. As a matter of fact, it is comparatively easy for a man with a good general education and the technical education required, and the only thing that is required is that they shall have at least one year and seven months' practical experience down below in order to acquaint themselves with the dangers and difficulties that encompass a miner's life. "No," says the Commission—perhaps it is the Government— "men of little education are to be brought into the management of mines; it is far from easy to men of general education'; we will, therefore, make it unnecessary, whenever the President of the Board of Trade is disposed, for them to have the practical experience."
    Colonel LANE FOX: When did the Government say that?
    Mr. WALSH: I have not heard the Government say that, but I say that, as the Clause is drawn, the President of the Board of Trade has the power any time to vary Sections 9 and 10 of the Coal
    2018
    Mines Act, 1911, after consultation with the Board of Mining Examinations. The Secretary for Mines knows that this Board is a child of his own, that it can be set aside by the President of the Board of Trade at any time—and he is the President of the Board of Trade in this instance. The Secretary for Mines is the operating authority, and he may, after consultation with the Board, vary or modify the provisions of Sections 9 and 10.
    Colonel LANE FOX: What he suggested was that the Government proposed to do away with the qualification of practical experience. Nothing of the kind.
    Mr. WALSH: If I suggested that—and I hope I did not say that—what I meant to convey to the House was that the power was vested in the President of the Board of Trade to do so, if he cared to do it, and that the power contained in this Clause was purely bureaucratic. Hitherto the practice was dependent upon a definite Section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act. That law was laid down after long deliberation and mutual agreement between employers and workmen, and this Clause provides that the practice at present is carried out in accordance with a definite law, will become entirely subject to the will of a bureaucrat. I am not saying that the bureaucrat is necessarily a bad person. Bureaucrats may be extremely amiable persons, and in the case of either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War or my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines, I would not raise strong objection, because I feel that they would be animated by the best motives. But when a Labour Government comes in, how will you go on? How will this matter stand when such a disaster as that falls upon the country? In any case, is it denied that this power is vested in the President of the Board of Trade? It cannot be denied. You cannot argue that proposals of this kind passed in this House shall only be considered in the light of what good-meaning people may do. You have to debate these powers on the assumption that they may be exercised by ill-minded people.
    For what purpose can this Clause have been introduced? My right hon. Friend admits it is not for the purpose of

    2019
    bringing in men of greater practical experience, or of higher technical knowledge. It is not to bring in men with these high qualifications combined in a high degree. It is to bring in men who have neither practical experience nor technical knowledge, so long as they possess that particular kind of liberal education which will satisfy the President of the Board of Trade for the time being. The statement of the Commission upon this point is not really a recommendation at all. Notice what they say:
    "In coal mining, as in every other occupation, a balance has to be struck between the advantages of practical experience and those of ability and liberal education, between organising the industry so as to give a free avenue for promotion of exceptional ability from the bottom to the top and organising it so as to draw in, well above the bottom, men fitted to be its leaders. Whether, in coal mining, this balance has been rightly struck or inclines too much in the direction of favouring practical experience at the expense of general education, we cannot say, for we have taken no evidence upon the matter. We are deeply impressed, however, by the necessity of securing in this vital industry its full proportion of all the exceptional ability in the nation and of men of broad views and imagination."
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman read two more lines?
    Mr. WALSH: Yes. They continue:
    "We are not certain that this is likely to happen under the existing regulations. We recommend accordingly—"
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman might finish that sentence.
    Mr. WALSH: It is—
    "We recommend accordingly that the Minas Department should at an early date take the regulations into further consideration from this point of view."
    But they do not say that the Department are to take the Act of Parliament into consideration. The Regulations could have been expanded or narrowed by the Board for mining examinations. I have sat upon the Board myself since 1912, and I know that we have shortened the period of practical experience and generally expanded the Regulations in other respects. It does not say here—even they in their backboneless and indeterminate manner do not say—that the Act
    2020
    of Parliament shall be overturned. They say that the Regulations governing the granting of certificates and examinations for certificates of competency are to he reviewed and taken into consideration from this point of view.
    I do not wish to use any strong language, but this is a most reactionary proposal. If there is one industry on earth in which men of practical experience, combined with technical knowledge, are necessary for the safety of the men employed, it is coal mining. Terrible disasters which have taken place, even under the most skilled management, are too recent in our memories for us to agree easily to this proposal or to view without the greatest alarm a Clause of this character. A liberal education may he very well, and I suppose is very well, for the commercial management of great undertakings but in dealing with the dangers that lurk underground and with conditions involving the safety of tens of thousands of lives, you must have men of practical experience, men who know what the inside of a mine is and who have the necessary technical knowledge. A liberal education is good for many purposes but it is not good for the work of managing mines. Has there been any demand for this change by the employers of the country? Next to the workpeople they are most intimately concerned. I have had no consultation with one of them. I had consultations in past years with scores of them and Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1911 were agreed upon between the employers and ourselves. From that day to this not one single word of objection has been taken to those Sections of the Act, and I venture to say that not a single colliery owner has ever asked for those Sections to be altered. But here, in this indeterminate Report, which says that they have taken no evidence on the point, they recommend a certain course. In this is involved the safety of our people, and that alone is a fundamental consideration that ought to determine the Government to abandon the Clause. There has been no call for it on the part of the employers or even of men of liberal education. The workpeople, I am certain, are unanimously opposed to such a Clause, and, after all, it is their voice that ought to be the determining factor.
    Mr. LUNN: I suppose, even though I have no hope whatever that this Bill will do anything to reorganise the industry, I can be disappointed at the insertion of a Clause like this. It would be impossible for me to deal with the history of coal mining comparably with the manner in which it has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh). I do not suppose there is any Member of the House, in any party, who has a more intimate knowledge of the industry than he has to deal with the legislation for that industry over a generation in this House. I am sorry the Government have inserted this Clause, and I hope that before we pass from the Report stage to-night, we may hear that they are not going to insist upon it. I make that appeal, even though I have no faith whatever in the Government or in this Bill to do anything in the direction of reorganising the industry. When this Bill had been passed in Committee a few days ago, one Member of the Committee, a very prominent Conservative Member, came to me and said: "This Clause is what I should describe as one to provide jobs for nobs." It would be impossible for me to give a more correct description than that of this Clause, which seeks to give power to the Minister of Mines or the Board of Trade to vary Regulations so that jobs may be provided for, I should say not only nobs, but snobs, because that is really what is contained in this proposal.
    I have no objection whatever to the best possible education being given to anyone, and we are anxious to see that every facility is given in the way of education to those who are engaged in the manual side of industry, and of our own particular industry. I think it can be said that in that industry there has been a development which is incomparable with that in any other industry during the last five or six years. Let me give the House what is the position which is sought to be varied by this new Clause. In Section 9, Sub-section (2, b) of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, it is provided:
    "That no person shall be qualified to be an applicant for a certificate unless he—

    (i) is twenty-three years of age or upwards; and

    (ii) has had such practical experience in mining (either in the United Kingdom or partly in the United Kingdom and partly elsewhere) as may be required by the rules for a period of not less than five years, or (in the case of an applicant who
    2022
    has received an approved diploma, or has taken an approved degree) of not less than three years; and

    (iii) has given satisfactory evidence his sobriety, experience, and general good conduct."

    That is the Sub-section which applies to those who have to seek examinations to secure a certificate at the present time, and there are in the mines of this country thousands of men who have, through study and sometimes through great hardships to follow that study—men who have lived miles away from any means of transit, except walking, to their classes—won for themselves certificates in mining, and become surveyors, managers, and so on. I know a good number of men of that character, who are of the best in the management of mines, and if this Clause is to be carried, I should say that I know some others for whom this Clause is meant to provide, who have had that liberal education which has made them remarkable men, on paper, but thoroughly unqualified to take the management of a mine or of any portion of any industry whatever. It does not follow at all that, because a man has had a liberal education, as it is understood by the Government in this Clause, he is competent to manage a colliery, and I look upon this Clause, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince, as playing loosely with the matter of management and the safety of the men employed in this industry. There is nothing on earth that we feel more painful about than the fact that there are such a large death roll and such a large accident roll in the mining industry, and we say that we should not relax Regulations in this way simply to provide for a class of individuals who have no other qualification than that of having had a good liberal education to make them colliery managers.
    I said just now that the miners have done a great deal with regard to mining education. It is only five or six years ago since the Miners' Welfare Fund was established, and the other day I put a question to the Minister for Mines to ask him how much of this fund had already been used for the purpose of mining education. His reply, given to me a day or two ago, was that the total amount allocated to date for the purpose of mining education was £540,805. I think that is a remarkable sum of money to have been allocated in the last five or six years for this purpose of mining

    2023
    education, and this year there has already been allocated for the same purpose from the Miners' Welfare Fund over £200,000. I do not complain—I am very pleased to know—that education in their particular industry is being taken up by those who work in the industry. I am very pleased to know that there are classes everywhere, that institutes have been established for the purpose of mining education, and that our county council education committees are finding, generally, good support for their classes in mining instruction. But what is going to happen? To-day I asked another question, and behind that question was this possible state of affairs, in my opinion, that many of these local welfare committees which have applied to the National Welfare Fund for a sum to support a scheme in their area will perhaps divert or change their scheme as a result of this Clause. That is what might happen.
    Many areas in the country have applied for part of that £200,000 to provide mining education, being urged on by the young men working in the mines and by those interested in education; but when they see that these Regulations narrow the opportunity for them to become managers they will advocate other schemes, perhaps a recreation scheme or a nursing scheme, rather than the application of this money to mining education. As the Section of the 1911 Act has been working so satisfactorily I think it is preposterous for the Government to bring forward a Clause like this to weaken, and perhaps destroy, the growth of educational development in our industry. I am anxious that everything should be done to give young men who attend classes and obtain certificates the opportunity of rising from wielding the pick to positions of control. The idea of the Government is to reduce that opportunity; but I sincerely hope that the Government, realising the feeling of every one on this side who represents a, mining industry, will withdraw this Clause from the Bill. It is a most reactionary one, a most obnoxious one, and one which will not do anything to improve education or increase the possibility of protecting life and limb in the pits.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: I seriously suggest to the Government that, even at this late hour, it would be advisable, in
    2024
    the interests of the mining industry, not to press this Clause. The mover of the Amendment to delete the Clause, speaking from his long experience of the industry, outlined the advance in mining legislation from the Act of 1872 to the Act of 1887 and the Act of 1911. In the old days, before the appointment of officials in the mines was limited to men possessing a certificate proving that they had practical experience of mining, many of the men who held high and well paid positions in the industry, the nobs who got the jobs, were men of no experience in mining, and a great deal of the inefficiency and the lack of safety in those days was due to that state of affairs. The Acts of Parliament of 1872, 1887 and 1911 were passed as the result of the unanimous demand of the miners of Great Britain, supported by public opinion, for the measure of protection that would be afforded to them by the requirement that any man or body of men set over them in the management of the pits should be competent. One of the vital tests of competency is not their technical training in a university but their practical experience underground. If this Clause be allowed to go through, the President of the Board of Trade will have power, without coming to this House, to give a new definition of the qualifications required. The Commission say that at present the regulations debar a certain number of men of ability and liberal education from coming into the industry to organise it. It seems to be taken for granted that in the future the mining industry will be worked on a much bigger scale than in the past, and that with huge amalgamations and combinations there will be a more scientific system of working on the productive and utilisation side, and that we cannot recruit from the existing mining population, from either miners or mine managers, men who are fully equipped to undertake this work. I respectfully submit that we can. Our complaint is that there is no definition of what is to be the test of a liberal education. What is a liberal education? According to the Debates in Committee upstairs—
    Mr. R. HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members to read in the House the latest news of the Test Match?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): It depends on the form in which the information is conveyed. It is not in order to read a newspaper in the House.
    Mr. JONES: Interest in the Test Match is one test of a liberal education. One of the terms employed in the report of the Commission speaks of "a liberal education," and it is assumed that it means a university education. Are we to anticipate that in selecting men of ability and education one qualification will be a university education? Does one require to have been in residence at a university for a certain number of years, does one require a degree in the humanities or the arts and sciences, to be possessed of a liberal education? What is the test of a liberal education? A university education is no proof of it. As a rule a university education debars a man from having the broad mind which a liberal education bestows. Most of the, great minds this country has produced never had a university education. Shakespeare never had a university education. The man we were honouring last night, George Bernard Shaw, never had a university education. Many of the biggest men in the country to-day, as well as those of past generations, have never gone through a university, and venture to say there are many thousands—not a few hundreds, but many thousands—of miners working underground to-day who have had a more liberal education than many men in the universities. John Ruskin once said a man may read all the books in the British Museum and still be an uneducated man. What we are afraid of is that the President of the Board of Trade will propose regulations making a university training, or a certain number of years' residence in a university, the test of a liberal education.
    I want to make it clear that we are not anxious that positions in the mining industry in future should be the preserve of those who are now in the industry. We will welcome any men of ability and liberal education who come in with those advantages, and who will be able to make the industry better in the future than it has been in the past; but I am opposing this Clause because the president will have the power to lay down what is to be regarded as a liberal education. It is
    2026
    much better to leave the law as it stands, and if there are men of ability and of a liberal education not now in the industry—not now connected with it by family ties, as is suggested in the Commission's Report—there will be scope for them to enter it and to assist in organising it without necessarily becoming managèrs of collieries.
    The manager is the man responsible not only for efficiency from a commercial point of view of the productivity of the mine, but he is also responsible for the health and safety of the men in the mine. Therefore we want two types of manager, one possessing the engineering and the technical knowledge and the other abilities to be a captain of men. We want a man who understands the technical and geological side of the mine, and although you may get such a man from the university he may not necessarily he qualified to be a captain of men. There is plenty of scope for men to come into this business on the human side without making conditions such as are laid down in this Clause. Why cannot such men of ability as I have described have a seat on the board of directors, for they would he a blessing to the other members of the board, and they would introduce a little more human sympathy into the management. The difficulty is the lack of sympathy between the man at the top and the man who grinds every day in the mine. You could bring in these men through the board of directors, but do not lay down a condition that such and such a man is to become a manager simply because he has had a liberal education. Do not make the test that a man has been to Oxford or Cambridge, because that is no test of a man's ability or of his real education. There are in the coal industry plenty of men of ability and real education who could be recruited for the positions which the Commissioners have in mind. If it is thought that there are not enough such men then let them come in as members of the board of directors or let the board appoint men specifically as special advisers. There is plenty of scope in these various directions for men of ability without broadening the Regulations under the existing Mining Acts.
    What will really happen will not be perhaps in every case, but in too many

    2027
    cases that favouritism will come in because the President will have the power to define a liberal education. The House is entitled to a definition as to what is to be considered the required ability and what is to be the real education provided for in the Regulation. I think we ought to see the Regulation before we are called upon to pass this Clause. I can assure the House that unless the Minister who is going to reply can tell us much more than was said by the Government in Committee on this point we shall still be dissatisfied. There is a real suspicion in the mind, not only of the ordinary miners, but among the men who are in managerial positions in the industry, that many of them will be actually shouldered by men who will be brought in under the method suggested in this Clause. By this proposal you are reverting to what was done in the past under the old conditions which applied prior to 1872. As miners we object to this and we hope the Government will reconsider this position and decide to withdraw this Clause.
    Mr. HARNEY: I am in favour of this Amendment. I think this Clause which was introduced at the last moment by the Government is a very dangerous one. The meaning of the Clause, as I read it, is that, as far as Sections 9 and 10 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, are concerned, they can practically be abrogated or modified to any extent by administrative action. What are Sections 9 and 10 which are so to be dealt with? I understand that, after a long struggle, the miners succeeded in getting imported into that Statute a provision that managers and sub-managers and engineers, and all those in a superior position would not be foisted upon the men simply because they had had an academic training. As a result of length controversy and acute debate, these two Sections were put in which, in effect, said that the young gentlemen from Oxford and Cambridge, Sheffield and other districts should not be put over other men unless they have spent three years working in the pit. If men have not been so fortunate as to have had this academic education then they are to spend five years in the pit. It is very much the same in the legal profession, because, where a clerk becomes a solicitor, he has to have a longer
    2028
    apprenticeship than the man who is certified as possessing a certain amount of technical training.
    What has been done in this case? This Bill contains a provision by which the advantages I have just enumerated can be entirely swept away by the action of the President of the Board of Trade. It is true that Sub-section (2) of this Clause says that the machinery for sweeping it away is somewhat of a protective character, but the President can of his own sweet will say to a young man from the University, "You need not, serve any practical apprenticeship at all." If a third of the miners make an objection then he has to send the matter before a referee, who can give any decision he likes. Therefore it comes to this, that these two sections which deal with the qualification of the men who are to be managers and govern the general body of miners, so far from being left as was intended to the view that Parliament felt to be necessary for qualification, is henceforth to be left to the view of the referee in the last resort. That is a very drastic and a very improper proceeding.
    When one looks at Sub-section (1) it will be seen that it puts this matter rather innocently, "All we are asking is that some machinery should be introduced for removing the rigidity from Clauses 9 and 10 which we have in reference to other Clauses of the Act of 1911." What are the other Sections in the Act of 1911 which can be amplified or made more elastic by this administrative machinery? They are the Sections that have to do with Regulations for the safety of persons in mines and the good care of horses in mines. It is quite natural to give to a Minister or a referee power to deal with questions of the safety of horses and the safety of men in the mines, and, in fact, one wonders why it was necessary to put any Regulations at all into the Act of 1911. It would have been quite reasonable to say that, with regard to the safety of men and the care of horses in mines, it should be entirely a matter of regulation, altering from clay to day as the conditions change, and that the Minister could do it by Order in Council. But to say that that loose administrative method shall be applied to the qualifications of men who are to govern other men is a very different matter indeed.

    2029
    I happened to be in the Committee at the time when this new Clause was proposed by the Minister, and I asked what was the meaning of it; what was the point of the proposal; what was intended to be done? If it were really meant that occasions might arise when it might be necessary quickly, before Parliament could express a view on the matter, to change the qualification for a manager, what put that into the heads of the Government? On consideration—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply will say whether I am entirely in the region of fancy or not—I saw that in Clause 18 of the Bill it was said that for the next two or three years, in the recruitment for the mines, a preference would be given to those who were at work at the time of the stoppage. That I regard as, shall I say, a sop to Cerberus. "We are doing a lot against you men, but this shows how friendly we are." That was put in, and nobody thought of the consequences of it for some days. Then, at the eleventh hour, the mineowners came to the Minister and said: "Do you know what the consequences of this recruitment Clause of yours are?" "No," said the Minister. "I will tell you," said the mineowner. "You see, at the present moment, if I want to get my son, or my cousin, or my friend to become a boss, a manager, a sub-manager, an engineer, or something of the kind, I have to put him to practical work for some years, and, now that you are giving preference, in a diminishing employment, to those who were at work at the time of the stoppage, there will he no Vacancy for him." "Oh," said the Minister, "we must not shut you out, and we will do two things at the eleventh hour, one of which will be a counterpoise to the other. We will put in, with a virtuous regard for the feelings of the heroes who have fought in the War, a Clause openly which says that this preference that is given to the men who were at work at the time of the stoppage shall not extend to these disabled ex-service men." They knew that that would be accepted by every patriotic person. But they also wanted to put in a provision that it should not apply to young gentlemen from the universities who also wanted to get in.
    2030
    "We will not," they said, "put that in openly, because, if we did, people would see what we were at. Therefore, we will use what, to the ordinary reader, are a number of algebraic signs" —and they referred to Section 86 and Section 117 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and Part I of the Second Schedule to that Act, which they said should have application to this Act. What they really meant was this: "We are now brought face to face, by the representation of the mineowners, with this difficulty that has been created by our sop to Cerebus, that we have shut out the way to our sons, and cousins, and nephews, and friends getting these nice billets that we intended for them, and, accordingly, we will put in this number of algebraic signs that will probably pass through Committee without anyone knowing what they will do—the Minister will just get up and say that this was merely put in to avoid rigidity."
    They had something in their minds, and in my humble submission it was this. The Minister is now to be at liberty to say: "I would like to make this young man have practical experience as well as a university education, but I find that really there is no room for him in the pit, and so I will foist him upon you with this mere theoretical education." That was the notion. I do not want to delay the House too long, but it is astonishing that anyone, should get up in the presence of an assembly of common-sense individuals who know the world, and seriously argue, as I heard an hon. Gentleman in the Committee argue, before I had looked at the Clause and understood it: "Why place so much weight upon experience? After all, what you need in your manager, sub-manager, or boss of men, is that he should have a knowledge of the humanities, and be conversant with the big thoughts of the ancient writers." I myself had the misfortune to have a university education, but I also went through the world, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, if a man has to trust through life to what he has carried away with him from the university, he will be a poor thing. The only book that will teach a human being that tact, that sympathy, that discernment which makes him respected and appreciated by his subordinates, is the book of rife. No other book will do it, and .I therefore—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid this is getting rather far from the coal mines.
    Mr. HARNEY: I am sorry. It may, perhaps, have been a little remote, but it was relevant logically. I, therefore, say seriously that we ought to reject this Clause. It is alien to the character of the Bill; it was not found necessary to import any such Clause to give symmetry to the original structure of the Bill. It is brought in at the last moment, and it is more likely to create among the miners. Their minds at this moment are filled with suspicion that the only voice listened to in the Cabinet is the voice of the mineowners. [An HON. MEMBER: "I think they are right!"] I am not saying whether they are right or wrong. Here you have now, quite foreign to the general purpose of the Bill, at the eleventh hour, imported into it a Clause which is perfectly meaningless, unless it is intended to do that which the miners have always rejected, foist upon them young men—excellent young men, no doubt—who have no practical knowledge of the work, and who simply use the cult and the accent and the academic learning which they bring from the university to impose a superiority that their knowledge of the busineses does not justify.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been surprised that the hon. Gentlemen opposite should have taken so strong a view against this Clause. The object of the Clause is to get the best brains of all classes with practical experience for mine managers. That is in direct accordance with the Royal Commission's Report. I am going to trouble the House with rather a long extract. Part of it has been quoted already. There have not been many speaking from this bench and there have been five or six from that bench. It is a matter of real importance. The Clause seems to be surrounded with a great deal of suspicion, and I really want to meet the case which has been made against it. I am more anxious to remove the suspicion than anything else in this connection, so I must make good the case from the Commission's Report. I want to get the best brains of all classes at the service of the industry. The Commission's Report says, on page 190:
    "The effect of such regulations, however, is necessarily to narrow the field from
    2032
    which managers can be appointed, and thus to diminish the number of men of high ability and good general education who are likely to be drawn into the industry."
    That is their comment upon the present regulations, which are based upon the Act of 1911 which we are by this Clause seeking to vary. They say:
    "Ws are deeply impressed, however, by the necessity of securing in this vital industry its full proportion of all the exceptional ability in the nation, and of men of broad views and imagination; we are not certain that this is likely to happen under the existing regulations."
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind reading the previous sentence which he has missed?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to read the whole Report. The previous sentence says:
    "Whether in coal mining this balance has been rightly struck, or inclines too much in the direction of favouring practical experience at the expense of general education, we cannot say, for we have no evidence upon the matter."
    What they go on to say is this:
    We recommend accordingly that the Mines Department should, at an early date, take the regulations into further consideration from this point of view."
    The point of view is to get the full proportion of all the exceptional ability in the nation at the service of the industry. We have taken those Regulations into consideration. No one who has followed this Bill and its main objects, the assistance in the reorganisation of the industry and the creation of larger units, can fail to appreciate that, however good to-day's managers are, you ought not to restrict the scope from which you can get the managers of the future seeing that they are to have larger units and more and more complicated work to do. That is what we are trying to do by this Clause We are trying to remove the limits of the present law. Let us consider for moment what these limits are.
    Under the Act of 1911 a man can get a manager's certificate if he has had three years in the pit or three years' experience and then has obtained either an approved diploma or an approved degree. That is the ladder upwards with which I entirely agree. I am not going to do anything which will take away the opportunity of those working in the pits to add to their practical

    2033
    experience a diploma which will give them the right to managers' certificates. I am not taking away. What I am hoping to do is to add to them men who start at the other end; not men who start in the pits, but men who start with a general education. The hon. Member opposite said they were snobs. Why should a man, who may be a miner's son or a son of other working men and gets a secondary education, goes to the university and then gets a degree in natural science perhaps, be deprived of getting the advantage of the three years' practical experience?
    Mr. WALSH: If he gets an approved degree or an approved diploma, one year and seven months' practical experience would be sufficient.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is what he does not get. If he gets a degree in natural science, it is not an approved diploma and it is not an approved degree. As the Bill stands now, an approved degree is a degree of any university approved by the Secretary of State which involves training in and knowledge of scientific and mining subjects. I suggest to the House that it is very unwise that a man who has gone through, we will say, a secondary school has gone to the university and has got a high degree at the university, perhaps in natural science and chemistry, should be shut out from using that degree as a stepping stone to a manager's certificate unless he also has five years in a mine. What I would suggest is that both ends of the ladder should be put into operation so that the man could have his three years' practical experience first, and also that he could go in the other direction, get his degree first and then have three years' practical experience and be qualified.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the medical service will permit any man with any degree unless he has a degree in medicine to practise as a medical practitioner?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is really not in the least parallel.
    Mr. JONES: Yes, it is.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: The hon. Member is entitled to think so.
    2034
    I submit that a man with such an education as I have suggested, who has three years' practical experience in the mine, is just as well qualified as the man who starts with three years, perhaps, as a pit boy or in the mine, and gets a. diploma in the course the hon. Member opposite has described.
    Mr. HARNEY rose—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have the Third Reading still to come. We have had four or five speeches from the other side, and hon. Members might listen to one at least on this side. We ought to remove what is at present a limitation on the class of people who can get mine managers' certificates in that one way. One hon. Member has pointed out that the Minister is to be entitled to make Regulations. That is true. They are Regulations which will be subject to the provisions of the Mines Act of 1911. He has had that power in other directions for the last 15 years, and no one has complained. They are not Regulations which he can make without review. Every party who is affected by them has power to appeal to the referees, independent persons appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and if there is anything in the Regulations to which anyone can reasonably object, he can appeal to the referee appointed by the Lord Chief Justice. I do not much care about legislation which includes Regulations which enable any Minister to vary an Act of Parliament. I frankly say that is not a form of legislation I very much like, but on the other hand, here in the mining industry it has been the practice for the last 15 years, and all we have done is to follow the practice which has been established there, and to put the Regulations the Minister can now make subject to exactly the same checks and safeguards as already exist. Hon. Members opposite now complain that in some way or another this is going to deprive men who are working in the mines of a reasonable prospect by their industry and education of rising to the position of managers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member says that, and I am sure he believes it. Let us see what that means.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We know it by experience.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not yet, because the experience has not been had. Really what that means is that if there are two competitors for the post of manager, one coining direct from a university plus the practical experience subsequently gained, and the other competing after having gone through a previous course of experience first plus the diploma that is conferred, that man will be beaten by the man coming in the other direction. If that were the case—I see no reason why it should be—it means that he wishes to keep less skilled men, less well-educated men, less good men in a position which they cannot hold in competition with better men. I do not believe it is the case, but I am certain it is unwise to shut out from these positions any man who can qualify by both theoretical and practical experience. It is not reactionary; it is opening the door to talent, and I hope the House will not be misled, because I feel certain if there is greater competition—and I hope there will be—it means that better results will come from the better brains that are brought into the industry.
    Mr. PALING: It appears to me the Government are approaching this Clause from an entirely different angle from what they have approached any other clause in the Report. The Report has made a good many suggestions, and a lot of the suggestions it has made have been left out of the Bill. One of the reasons for leaving them out was that sufficient time and care had not been given to them, and therefore it was not possible to embody them in the Bill until that time and care had been given. But the Government appear to have turned the question round as regards this Clause. In spite of the fact that the Commission say they do not recommend this because they have given little or no thought to it, and have taken no evidence upon it, the Government think it worth while to include such a Clause as this in the Bill. If it was good business to leave out other suggestions the Commission have made because they did not know enough about them, it would have been equally good business to omit this Clause, because on the Commission's own evidence they do not know enough about it. In the next place, what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the difficulty of a
    2036
    University student or a man who had a liberal education getting to be the manager of a mine, is not so great as he has tried to picture. The Report reads:
    "The effect of such regulations, however, is necessarily to narrow the field from which managers can be appointed, and thus to diminish the number of men of high ability and good general education."
    I want to know, why should it? The right hon. Gentleman suggests, in order to prove his point, that it is the son of the worker who may have had the university education and may want to become a manager, but I suggest that they have not put this Clause in for the son of the worker. It has been put in for the sons of other people than workers, and in order to get these people manager's jobs without the necessity of going down a pit and having any practical experience. That is a part of the business that they do not relish, and it is intended to give the President of the Board of Trade power to cut that part of the business out. But supposing a young man does come from a university. What is to prevent him from becoming a manager, supposing he holds a diploma in natural science? Even then in the three years time that will be necessary he would be able to get, in addition, the university diploma connected with mining, and also to put in the practical experience that is necessary. He could complete both within the three years time, as a matter of fact if he had only been down the pit a year and seven months out of the entire three years. If it is possible for working lads brought up in the pit, working the whole of their time, to put in hours of study and to get a manager's certificate, why should it not be possible for a young man coming from a university to put in his practical experience and at the same time gain his mining diploma, which would allow him to have only to nut in three years of practical work? There is nothing to stop it, and if these people are so eager to come into the mining world, there is no reason why they should not have the practical experience in addition to the university education.
    Hon. Members opposite are always complaining that one of the reasons for the decay of our industry is because the managers and the people in the high positions are not in sufficient personal touch with the men who have to perform the

    2037
    necessary work. This provision is going to carry that out still more. It will be possible for a man from a University to become the manager of a mine, or a higher official, without having had any experience of working men, with no personal touch whatever with them. It will be possible for a young man from the University to come into one of those posts without having known anything about working men, except those who have blacked his boots or touched their hats and called him "Sir." Such a man would probably be the man who would make the biggest failure in the business, mainly because be would lack the personal touch which personal experience would have enabled him to obtain. The Commission's Report says:
    "In practice, entry into the managerial side of coal mining is made far from easy to men of general education not already having family connections with it."
    I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there may be something in the question of family connections. There is no doubt that influence with those people who are connected with pits does have something to do with the appointment of men who are not the fittest men for the posts to which they are appointed. If the Government had restricted their operation into an inquiry into the question of how far family connections have put men into managerial posts for which they are not fitted, I do not think they would have found much opposition from this side of the House. I do not think there is any industry in this country which has a greater number of men working in it who have a finer technical knowledge of the industry than those in the mining industry. There are to-day thousands upon thousands of working men, holding certificates of competency, who do not stand the slightest chance of ever getting a job. If the door were to be open in the direction this Clause is going to open it, the opportunity of getting a job of any description will be more difficult in future even that it has been in the past.
    I suggest that, while we may throw the door open to anybody, it is not too much to ask these people that, in addition to having a liberal education, they should have some practical experience before being allowed to take up a manager's position. I know some of the time, thought and labour which thousands of
    2038
    these men, working themselves up from the bottom, have put into this business, going to work for five or six days a week in probably the most arduous occupation in the land, spending their evenings at a night school, may be getting a scholarship to attend a local college at weekends, perhaps for three, four or five years, and then eventually gaining certificates of competency. There are to-day thousands of these men who find it impossible to get jobs, men who are as competent to take managerial posts as any man could be who came from the university with the most liberal education which could be imagined. If you are going to circumscribe these men in getting jobs, where they prove themselves efficient, by allowing men with liberal education to come in without any practical experience whatever, you are making the position of these men infinitely worse than at the present time. Because of that, we are asking the Government to reconsider this question, and to withdraw the Clause even at this late hour.
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I hope the Minister in charge of the Bill will yet see his way to withdraw this Clause, which has met with such strenuous opposition from Members on the benches on this side of the House. The Minister pointed out that the only object they had in view in inserting a Clause of this character was that there might he a higher degree of efficiency. I want to point out to the Minister in charge that the Members on this side of the House are just as anxious as he or anyone is to have as high a degree of efficiency as possible. Many Members on this side of the House have spent the greater part of their lives in the mining industry. They are still closely connected with that industry, and want to see it in as flourishing a condition as possible. We want to see the men who are to handle this industry as highly equipped as it is possible to have them. But the difference between the Secretary of State for War and Members on this side of the House is that we do not consider a man can be properly equipped to handle the mining industry unless he has practical experience in the mine.
    We believe that practical experience is absolutely necessary for the man who has to handle an industry which has more danger connected with it than any other

    2039
    industry in the country. We believe that in order to take the necessary precautions to insure the safety of life and limb in this industry, the men to be in charge should have both practical experience and technical education. That is why some of us fought so strenuously in 1911 in order to get the two Sections in the Bill of 1911, which the Secretary for Mines, by this reactionary Clause, is destroying. All the arguments which the Secretary of State for War produced tonight were put forward 15 years ago against the insertion of those two Sections. Notwithstanding that the Government of that day took up the same position as the Government are taking today, we had mining men on both sides of the House joining together and inserting those two Sections. Not a single Member representing the owners on the other side of the House has said a word tonight regarding the Bill. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War has laid down the law to those people.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No.
    Mr. ADAMSON: When no-one but the right hon. Gentleman himself has spoken from that side, it makes us very suspicious that the right hon. Gentleman has laid down the law. We were more fortunate in Committee. One or two took part, including the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), and he gave the show away. He told us, that unless an Amendment of this kind were inserted in the Bill, the men who were receiving university education would have to wait, and they were not likely to wait for 12 years for one of the higher posts in mining. That gave the whole show away. It simply means that we are having a reactionary proposal of this kind put into the Bill for the special purpose of enabling the sons and relatives of those families who are engaged in mining to get the higher posts. These higher posts are at the disposal of the directors of the various companies and it is their own sons or their relatives who are to be put into these higher posts so that there is no competition at all. I would not fear the result if there were fair competition. A man who has been trained practically and technically in the work would easily secure the post in fair competition, but this is simply appoint-
    2040
    ment by favour of the directors of some of the mining companies, and the tragedy of the whole matter is that these higher posts are given to men by favour while our men's lives are at stake all the time. If there was only competition we should have no fear at all.
    My final word of protest is this: this is not a question of competition at all, it is a question of reserving for certain families the higher posts in the mines. Within recent years scientific development has meant the creation of higher posts, and this Bill will mean the creation of still higher hosts. But these posts are to be reserved for certain people, and the men who have spent their lives in mining and who have taken, trouble and who have spent time and who have made sacrifices in order to qualify by practical experience and practical attention are to be kept in the lower posts, and the higher posts are to be reserved for the men who have passed through the universities and who have had no practical experience and no knowledge of mining. Their only qualification is that they have had a university education. I am not one of those who are against a university education. I want people to have the highest education possible, but a university education without practical experience is of no use at all for the mines. You might as well send people to a university and give then a general education and then appoint them to one of the big medical posts. You might do the same in regard to law. You might give a man a general education at the university and then make him Attorney-General or Solicitor-General without his having any practical legal experience or practical training. This is one of the most reactionary proposals in the Bill. I am not very sure that the Minister of Mines was very well aware of what he was doing. I would like to know who was behind him in making such a suggestion. The man who made that suggestion was no friend of the mining industry. I would like to know who was behind the Minister for Mines, whether it was a coalowner or not.
    Colonel LANE FOX: The Royal Commission.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. ADAMSON: It is very amusing to hear the Secretary for Mines or the

    2041
    Secretary for War or any member of the Government quoting the recommendations of the Royal Commission. When the Prime Minister intimated that this Bill would be introduced, he described it as a Bill to put into operation the Report of the Royal Commission. But it is a mere shadow of that Report. The essential things in that Report are not in the Bill. No attempt has been made in the Bill to put into operation the Report of the Commission. If the Minister of Mines is not prepared to withdraw this Section, I hope hon. Members will be guided by men of practical experience in mining, and that they will oppose these reactionary proposals which will only make for worse evil in the mining industry. I hope that there will be a sufficient number of supporters in the Division Lobby to enable us to defeat the Government if they are not prepared to withdraw.
    Mr. BECKETT: May I ask hon. Members on the Government side before voting for this Clause to consider carefully all its implications? It seems very unfortunate that in a Bill brought in with the avowed intention of settling the dispute in the mining industry the Government should have introduced a Clause which can have no other result than to foment suspicion and to cause discontent and suspicion of the Government attitude to be even stronger than it is at present. As hon. Members and right hon. Members on this side associated with the industry have said, there is nothing which fills the miners' minds, or indeed the minds of any other workers, with more secret fear and doubt and dissatisfaction than when they see young men without experience brought into positions of responsibility in the industry. It is represented to us that that is the cause of the class bias on the part of the workmen.
    I think hon. Members must delve rather deeper into the matter than that. When the workman whose life is involved in an industry finds that the higher control of that industry on which his living depends and, in the case of the mining industry, his actual safety and immunity from danger, is placed in the hands of people who have no other qualification except that they come from a certain limited class of the community and have a certain
    2042
    pull with the people who have the appointment to these posts, it simply means that you are absolutely putting a stopper on any progressive interests that the workmen can take in the industry at the present time. You are now going to put into the Bill a Clause which abolishes the workman's only safeguard against this great injustice. If the Secretary of State for War really wishes to do away with the suspicion which now exists he is going hopelessly wide of the mark in this Clause, and if hon. Members opposite are really sincere when they say that they want to do away with the suspicion in the minds of the mine workers that they are not getting a fair deal from this Government then, surely, a Clause like this which has no meaning whatever and which is not going to restrict to any extent the number of men available for these posts, should not be allowed to pass into law. Everyone who knows anything about the minefields knows that there are many men already fully qualified with diplomas who are unable to obtain the posts to which their diplomas and their knowledge entitles them, and therefore it is no good pretending that you have to rush this Clause through in order to throw open a field to still more men to obtain diplomas in order to obtain the position to which their diplomas entitle them. I would ask hon. Members, who are going to vote in the Division Lobby on this Bill, to consider whether it is wise to leave this Clause, which can only be a quite unasked, unrecommended and unsolicited class bias, in an Act which they claim, with very little justification, to be a conciliatory Measure on their part.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I would like to say a few words on this proposal, because I represent probably as many miners as any Member in this House, and I know the feeling among the miners, among those young men who have spent their limited leisure and scanty opportunities in equipping themselves to occupy the higher posts in the mining industry. I am not one of those who despise or profess to despise a university education. It has always been a matter of regret to me that I never had a chance of going to a university. At the same time I do not regard a university education as a full education. I do not believe that education consists merely of accent. I believe that a man trained in a

    2043
    university is only half equipped, and that full education means education of brain and hand combined. That is the fullest type of education. I know that men with a university education usually deride it, but that they take great care that their children get it and, therefore, I think that what is good enough for them is good enough for me. This is going to be an opening for men with an exclusively university education to the detriment of men who have not had that advantage. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. T. Williams) that it ought to be possible for a man coming from a university to earn his mining diplomas while he worked at the coal face, as it is for the miner to earn his diplomas coming from the bottom. The university man starts with a fully equipped mind and has a greater advantage, therefore, than a man who starts with only an elementary school education. Surely with that advantage this opportunity ought not to be taken away from the man at the bottom.
    It is curious to note than the Government, in all the proposals they are making, when they come down to those of a positive character to deal with this coal crisis, have selected exactly those particular things which the men resent the most. This particular Bill does not exactly bristle with suggestions of a positive or mandatory character. There is much of a permissive character in it, too much so far as we are concerned, and it is therefore curious to note that this particular matter is not permissive but is mandatory. The same thing applies to the Government's proposals with regard to the Hours' Bill. Where there has been anything touching the owners it is permissive, but where it touches the men it is mandatory and positive. That is
    the wickedness of the whole proposal that all the things affecting the miners are of a particularly positive character. This, for instance, is positive and there is nothing permissive about it. Everybody knows that, all things being equal, the class bias will tell in the appointment of mining managers. The pull will be on the social side and against the other side. It is a scandalous thing that the Government should now take away the poor little advantage that was given to the men some 15 years ago.
    It is in line with many of the Government's other proposals. They are going back, they are retrograding. The men will resent this as much as anything that is done in this Bill. They have learned by bitter experience that the class to whom it is proposed to extend an additional privilege is the class that has done its level best to defeat them by every retrograde step in its power and by every despicable means possible. The miners regard this class, which is to be helped to occupy these positions, as a class that has blacklegged them. I am not sure that the Government and the owners are not in league to provide themselves with a class which is inimical to the miners from every point of view. I want to add my protest to those already made on this side, and I want my protest placed on record to show that we, on this side, did our level best, both men who are miners and those who are not, to protect our people against the injustice you propose to do them by this Clause in your wretched Reorganisation Bill.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 130

    Division No. 406.]

    AYES

    [10.12 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Burman, J. B.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Campbell, E. T.

    Atttoll, Duchess of

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Braithwaite, A. N.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Balniel, Lord

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Christie, J. A.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Berry, Sir George

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Bethel, A.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Cotton, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Remer, J. R.

    Cope, Major William

    Hums, Sir G. H.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Croakshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Illffe, Sir Edward M.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Rye, F. G.

    Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

    Jacob, A. E.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Savery, S. S.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Drewe, C.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Duckworth, John

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Skelton, A. N

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Ellis, R. C

    Loder, .J. de V.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Looker, Herbert William

    Smithers, Waldron

    England, Colonel A.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir la Richard Harman

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Macintyre, I.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McLean, Major A.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Forrest, W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Foxcrott, Captain C. T.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Merriman F. B.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Galbraith, .J. F. W.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Moles, Thomas

    Tinne, J. A.

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Grace, John

    Murchison, C. K.

    Waddington, R.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Neville, R. J.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Wells, S. R.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. K.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hanbury, C.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Harland, A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Pitcher, G.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Preston, William

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Radford, E. A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Raine, W.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Ramsden, E.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Barnes, A.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Barr, J.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Batty, Joseph

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    2046

    2047

    Bromfield, William

    Hayes, John Henry

    Smillie, Robert

    Bromley, J.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Snell, Harry

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Clowes, S.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Connolly, M.

    Jones, T. I. Mandy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thomas, At. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kennedy, T.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dennison, R.

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Duncan, C.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Varley, Frank B.

    Fenby, T.D.

    March, S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Morris, R. H.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gosling, Harry

    Oliver, George Harold

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Owen, Major G.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilkinson, Elien C.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Groves, T.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Grundy. T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Ritson, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Windsor, Walter

    Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wright, W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scurr, John

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Sexton, James

    Hardie, George D.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Harney, E. A.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    M r. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Charles Edwards.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    CLAUSE 25.—(Definition of securities and debentures.)
    Colonel LANE FOX: I beg to move, in page 20, line 23, to leave out the words "this Part" and to insert instead thereof the words "Part I."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have, on the command of His Majesty, to say that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Mining Industry Bill, has given his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
    Mr. WALSH rose
    Colonel LANE FOX: I am sorry to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be better if he followed me rather than that I should follow him. We have had a long and very interesting Committee stage on this Bill, and I want to say
    2048
    how consistent has been the good humour, the temper and the real interest shown in the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition last night said that there was nothing in this Bill that could not be done already, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) said that it is a mere sham, and there is no attempt to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am precluded, under the strict Rules of Order governing a Third Reading Debate, from going into anything which is outside the Bill itself, and, therefore, I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman and deal with anything that is not actually in the Bill. But I find in the Bill itself a large number of most valuable proposals, which I am certain hon. Members opposite, when they have had time to get rid of any political anxieties they may have, will realise will be of great value to the country. Very shortly, let me remind the House what this Bill does contain. We have been told frequently that it contains nothing, and, perhaps, hon. Members who have said so have not taken the

    2049
    trouble to study the Bill or else are deliberately trying to give a wrong impression of the proposals contained in it. The first part of the Bill makes voluntary amalgamation easy by removing certain obstacles in connection with the transfer of leases and by providing a simpler, cheaper, and shorter procedure. It then proceeds to make compulsory amalgamations possible by giving power to absorb the undertakings of those who do not wish to come into amalgamations, and behind that there is a power with the Mines Department to make a report which can be followed by compulsory action.
    Part 11 so extends the operation of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, as to remove various qualifications and restrictions in connection with the right of working minerals such as that there must be a direct interest in the minerals and that there must be a risk of the minerals being unworked and many things are now allowed in this connection, which by the previous Act were not conceded. There can be no doubt about the fact that the removal of many of the obstructions and difficulties which have arisen owing to the incidence of private ownership of the soil on the surface not coinciding with the needs and requirements of the working of the minerals down below will be of great value to the industry and that, by the removal of those obstructions, the facilities for working minerals will be enormously increased by this Bill. Part III, as hon. Gentlemen will remember, deals with the levy on loyalty owners, and the provision of pit-head baths. Part IV limits recruitment for the next three years and allows those who are dispossessed, under operations which may take place as a result of this Measure, to be secured in their employment in the mining industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is a thing for which hon. Gentlemen opposite have frequently asked, and it is not for them to jeer at it.
    Clause 20 legalises the formation of profit-sharing schemes, and Clause 21 makes provision for the establishment of pit committees on a compulsory footing after a period of two years during which they may be set up voluntarily. Clause 22 provides that mining education shall be open to the very best brains of this
    2050
    country, and shall no longer be confined within narrow limits. Clause 23 gives facilities for geological surveys, and thereby secures that all the knowledge derived from new borings shall be available for general use in the national interest.
    I am perfectly certain any hon. Gentleman who takes the trouble to understand what is in the Bill will find that it contains the seeds of a great development of the mining industry. Any hon. Gentleman who, after this Debate, goes down to his constituents and repeats to them that there is nothing in this Bill, will make that statement neither truthfully nor honestly if he has taken the trouble to consider the Measure sincerely and fully. If he so considers it, he must realise that it is better to make the best of it, and to give it a fair wind and a good character throughout the country rather than to try deliberately to falsify what he knows to be the truth and to take away its character.
    Mr. WALSH: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
    I am sure the whole House is delighted with the new evidence that our right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines has given us of high spirits on the completion of a task to which he certainly has brought an urbanity of temper that could not be excelled. He suggests that we should try to make the best of the Bill, and that is a very proper suggestion. I am sure we can honestly say that in Committee, from the very first moment, we not only offered no kind of obstruction, but we put forward, to the best of our ability, Amendments having for their special purpose the improvement of the Measure. The necessity for reconstruction is admitted by everybody, and I am not going to waste another word upon that, but in order that reorganisation shall take place, in order that the very purpose of this Bill shall be effected, it is surely necessary that there should be some definite initiative placed upon some person or some organisation. From the first word of the Bill to the last, no initiative, no responsibility, is placed upon anybody, any organisation, any company, or any State Department, and we submit that, because of the lack of initiative and of direct responsibility,

    2051
    it is hopeless to expect any definite, useful results to come from this Bill.
    We tried to place responsibility upon the owners, but we were beaten; we tried to place responsibility upon a State Department, but we were beaten; we tried to make the Bill represent a single or unified ownership and control, but we were beaten; and, indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) reminds me, after being beaten on the method of unification, we tried district amalgamation, but again we were beaten. On not a single Amendment that we submitted or a single idea that we put forward with the hope of putting some definite backbone into the Bill were we successful, and the Bill remains at present a supine and back-boneless thing, a thing of shreds and patches, out of which not the most optimistic can hope to derive any improvement in the mining industry. Is there any hope from the employers? My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), who always has some entertainment and sometimes even instruction for us, described the attitude of the employers—and he put himself forward as speaking on their behalf—as saying that this Bill was "sloppy eyewash," and that the whole proposals of the Commission in respect to the reorganisation of the mining industry were "sloppy eyewash." It is to the employers in the mining industry, whose mind is indicated by that expression, that the fortunes of this Bill are to be entrusted.
    I said the Bill was a thing of shreds and patches, but we could afford to take it with all its imperfections on its head if it were not for Clause 22, which has no direct relation to the reorganisation of the industry, which was never contained in the Bill on the Second Reading, and which, to a certain extent, is really sharp practice in procedure, because when the Bill was submitted by the Prime Minister, neither the right hon. Gentleman himself nor the Secretary for Mines gave the slightest indication that the provisions of Clause 22 were to be embodied in this Measure. Now Clause 22 would, of itself, damn this Bill in the eyes of every working miner, and, if for no other reason, that it is so hopelessly opposed to the useful and admittedly beneficial provisions of Sections 9 and 10
    2052
    of the Act of 1911, which are now to be repealed. The repeal of those Sections, which were agreed to after years of discussion between the mining employers and the miners of the country, must be detrimental to the mining industry. They are to be repealed in order that men possessing a liberal education may be brought into the industry—men with no practical experience, not even the small amount that is required under the present Regulations; men with no technical knowledge, not even the knowledge which entitles a man to an approved diploma. These men of liberal education are to be brought into the industry at the whim or the caprice of the President of the Board of Trade.
    What nonsense it is to talk about General Regulations which can be referred to a referee! We require to have a request by one-third of the men before any action can be taken; and the workmen about a mine are taken to include the whole of the men, north, south, east and west—the men en the sidings, the men underground, the men on the surface. At a colliery employing 3,000 men the support of 1,000 must be obtained before action can be taken. The thing is nonsensical. As a matter of fact, no action has been taken under this provision for the last 15 years, and the Solicitor-General ought to have known that, and he does know it as a matter of fact. But that is the kind of nonsense that is thrown at us in Committee. I think it was John Bright who said that the Army and Navy provided a gigantic system of out-door relief for the younger members of the aristocracy. I suppose the mining industry is to be adapted to a similar purpose—is to become a gigantic system of outdoor relief for the younger members of the plutocracy and the "snobocracy." The care of the lives of workers in the pits, where 1,200 lives are lost and over 200,000 workers disabled every year, is not even a secondary consideration. People are to be put in control of the safety of the life and limb of the workers who have not a single atom of technical knowledge or practical experience. There was no call for this. The House did not give this Bill a Second Reading on the understanding that any such provision should be inserted, and it is disgraceful to utilise a Committee upstairs in order to incorporate in the Measure such a pro-

    2053
    vision as this, for which no demand has ever existed and which can have only dire results to the mining industry.
    Mr. KIDD: I have listened with interest to the views which have been so strongly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), and I am rather surprised and sorry that he should take the view he does on these questions. Might I suggest that if there is any real cause for disappointment on the Labour benches in regard to this Bill, it is largely due to the conditions obtaining in the mining industry at the present moment, and that state of things causes among Members in all parts of the House no little irritation, and hon. Members opposite have a peculiar responsibility towards the mining industry. The House has heard to-day an interesting speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), and I think hon. Members opposite, however much they differ from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his political views, will agree, I am sure, that he is no mean authority on the subject of mining. He has not been very long on this side of the House, but he was speaking as one well qualified to judge as to the merits of this Bill.
    In considering this Bill, one has to have regard to its value to the mining industry as a whole. Hon. Members really should concentrate on three parts of the Bill in order to discover its merits. The first is the part dealing with amalgamation; in the second place the Section dealing with grouping; and in the third place the part dealing with profit sharing. I do not think it is fair to the Bill to regard any one part alone, and I submit that apart from the irritation to which I have referred, and which is particularly strong at the moment, if we take those three parts together, then I am bound to say that we must come to the conclusion that there is much to be said for the Bill. I know that hon. Members opposite discount very much the proposals of this Bill with regard to amalgamation, but what are they? Hon. Members opposite are always hankering after compulsion in these matters, and why I do not know.
    What I do say is that in this Bill you lay down a policy that where amalgamation is desirable, then it can be compelled,
    2054
    and you do not want to compel amalgamation except in cases where it is desirable Any frantic efforts at compulsion may result in disastrous amalgamations, not only for the owners, but the miners as well. With regard to recruitment, I have done my best this afternoon to have the shale miners escape the possibilities of that scheme. But I am bound to say that I think there is every justification for the part of the Bill dealing with recruitment.
    Have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite visualised what these big amalgamations mean from the standpoint of employment? They mean, undoubtedly, a very big reduction in the numbers of men employed. Machines will be multiplied very extensively; there will be coal production on a very large scale at diminished cost; there will be introduced into the mines many more technically trained men, like electricians; and the miner will be brought back to the point when he is no longer a coal hewer, but approximates very nearly to the position of a labourer. As such a labourer, lifting coal from the coal cutting machine, he will presently, because of the bigger wage he enjoys as against the labourer on the surface, invite the competition of that surface labourer.
    Therefore, there is every reason, both from the standpoint of the mechanical production of coal and from the standpoint of the new competition that will have been introduced, for this new provision with regard to recruitment. The Bill is generous and wise—[Interruption.] I was trying to present an analysis of the Bill in a judicial spirit, to an assembly which I hoped, despite the lateness of the hour, would still retain some little judicial sense, and on that analysis of the Bill I maintain that amalgamation will lead to a very large reduction in the number of men employed in the mines, and such a reduction in the status of the miner, as we know him to-day, as will mean that he will have to face the competition of the surface labourer in the future. For all these reasons, the Clauses with regard to recruitment are justified, and ought to be received with much greater gratitude than they have been by hon. Members opposite who pretend in a special sense to represent the miners.
    There is only one other part of the Bill to which I desire to refer, and that is the

    2055
    part which deals with profit-sharing. I confess to hon. Members opposite that I am personally disappointed with this part of the Bill. The Commission did not propose profit-sharing. That is in existence now, and it has not brought peace to the industry. What the Commission did was this: They very acutely saw that the miner must be drawn back to the common point of sharing in the fixed capital of the industry. They did not wish to dwell any longer on the evanescence of wages, or a bonus in addition to wages in the shape of profit-sharing, but they intended to establish the miner in the permanent capital of the concern, so that all engaged in the industry would have a common outlook and a common purpose, and a mind necessarily rid of that suspicion of which we hear eternally, and of which we have heard time and again in this House to-day.
    If it be possible to contrive, by means of the Committee which the Government is now about to set up to consider the whole question of profit-sharing or common interest in the industry, if it be possible to contrive to get a common mind in the industry, if that common outlook can be obtained which comes automatically from the knowledge that is common to all in the industry, however varied may be the degree of the different interests, I submit to the House that this Bill, with the larger areas that it creates and the larger possibilities that it affords to the miners by those areas, with recruitment curtailed for the protection of the men who have had to bear the brunt of the battle, and, if, in addition to all that, in the future we are to have a common outlook, then my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines is entitled to entertain the hope he has expressed, and for which he was cheered to-night. That this Bill will warrant his best hopes is the feeling on this side of the House, and, apart from the distractions of the present difficulties of the coalfields, which must affect in a particular degree hon. Members on the other side, I cannot escape from the feeling that they would share with us the hopes that we entertain with regard to this Bill.
    Mr. TINKER: I support the Amendment for the rejection of the Third Reading of this Bill. I want to draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to a
    2056
    statement that he made to the effect that anyone who voted against the Bill could not have studied it properly. The right hon. Gentleman adopted a different attitude before this week. I have always looked upon him as a kindly disposed gentleman, who had not fallen into the Parliamentary habit of going for the other side; but this week he has adopted the attitude that he must carry the fight into the enemy's camp. I think he has been unjustified in going so far as to say that we on this side have not studied the Bill. At least he might have been fair, because all the mining Members have given the most careful consideration to the Bill, and I will show the right hon. Gentleman that that is so. The only good parts of the Bill, so far as we can see, are Parts III and IV.
    Part III, the levy put on the royalties for the provision of pit-head baths, is a provision to which no one on this side will object. It is a Measure long overdue and for which we have been agitating for a long time. Had that been left out of the Bill and made a separate Measure, everyone on this side would have supported it. It is only because it is included in this Bill that we have to vote against it. The other point I agree with is recruitment. That will add to the safety of the mine worker. People have been taken into the mines over 18 years of age without any training. The result has been accidents to those people and to others because of their lack of knowledge. I cannot see there would be any good, apart from safety, unless we get a better deal than we are getting now. If you want mineworkers in time to come, you will have to try to get them elsewhere, because very few people will go into the mines. Any miners' agent knows that when a man gets a job out of the pits, even though it is street sweeping, this man will tell you that never again will he go into the mines. That is the general position of any of our mine workers who get jobs out of the mines. The position will be much worse if the employers get their way. Apart from these two points, I do not find a single thing in this Bill that I can support.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Faversham (Sir G. Wheler) said the only solid thing in this Bill was Part III. Nothing else appealed to him. If you get one of your own Members speaking in

    2057
    that way, you can readily understand that on this side we see little good in it. The Title of the Bill is:
    "A Bill to make provision for facilitating…the better organisation of the mining industry."
    Can anybody see any real attempt at reorganization? There are only two things that I can see will reorganise the industry. One is unification or amalgamation, and the other is the scientific treatment of coal. These are the only two things that could remedy the evils in the coal-mining industry. Unless Parliament is prepared to take that up seriously, there will be no real solution. We are passing now through a stage that historians will reorganise as the greatest change ever seen in coal mining. Smoke will have to be eliminated. The burning of coal in its raw state in domestic hearths will have to be done away with. If the 34,000,000 tons of coal now used domestically were treated scientifically we would get from it all the oil we require to carry on our industries. It is on those lines that we can reorganise the industry.
    Take the second point, the amalgamation of mines. Is there anything in the Bill that will help to bring that about? There is no compulsion at all. It is left entirely to the coalowners to agree to amalgamation. After it has been said in the House and outside by their representatives that they are taking no interest at all in the recommendations, can we on this side expect them to do anything at all in that direction? There is no compulsion in the Bill. The word "may" appears 32 times up to Clause 4. It is "may" all the way through. There is no attempt at all to put pressure on them. Then we are told that at the end of two years time the Board of Trade will report to Parliament as to what has happened, and then Parliament must decide what shall be done. But now is the time that reorganisation ought to take place. Some compulsion ought to be put on the coalowners to put the thing in its proper order. Unification and amalgamation are not being tackled in a proper spirit. The Secretary for Mines in introducing the Second Reading said:
    "This Bill carries out some of the most immediately practicable recommendations of the Royal Commission."
    2058
    I do not see where they are. He followed that by saying:
    "What the Government have done is this. They have put into the Bill those things which are definitely and easily carried into effect, those things on which the ground is clear, those things which would offer the most immediate assistance with the least opposition, and which have an immediate effect in removing at any rate some of the difficulties under which the industry is now carried on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1926; col. 388, Vol. 197.]
    We fail to find any of those things in the Bill, with one or two exceptions. We think the Minister of Mines has not done all he could in this matter. Had there been any real attempt on the part of the Government to put in operation the Coal Commission's findings, help would have been given from this side. As we think it is simply backing the coalowners up in their attempt to prevent reorganisation schemes, you can expect opposition from this side. I heartily agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince in the fight he put up in trying to keep the Bill off the Statute Book. Clause 22 is quite sufficient for anyone on this side to oppose the Bill. I give my hearty support to the Motion for the rejection.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. BASIL PETO: In the very brief summary of the Bill that the Minister gave, it was necessary to pass over a very important Clause which, for the first time, authorises companies engaged in coal-mining to allot shares to persons employed by them. I was very glad the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) stressed this point, and gave it as one of the three provisions which he regarded as of great importance to the industry. When we were debating the question of amalgamation on Friday, this question came up in a somewhat acute form, whether the miners' trade union had or had not the power to invest their funds in a mining undertaking. The Secretary of State for War said:
    "If they take the financial risk and put their money into the collieries and become directors and shareholders, then they can bring in absorption schemes."
    But the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer), who immediately followed, said:
    "Nothing could be more preposterous than the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman. When he talks about trade unions investing their money in collieries,

    2059
    he knows very well, or he ought to know before he makes such a statement, that they have no right whatever to invest their money in that direction."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1926; col. 1662, Vol. 198.]
    I have looked at the 1871 Act, and, as far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent trade unions from investing their union funds in colliery undertakings. Surely, if they have that right, Clause 20 will operate very much more rapidly than it would through the operation of shares which individual miners could take up, and I think it is very important, before we pass the Third Reading of this Bill, that we should hear some authoritative statement from one of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether in law the Secretary of State for War is right, or the hon. Member for Broxtowe is right. It makes all the difference to the operation of Clause 20 in arriving at what, I believe, the Government desire to arrive at in the quickest possible manner, namely, some community of interest between the miners, either through their organisation or individually, and the owners of the mining undertakings. Therefore, I intervene, although the time is late, to raise this question, which, I think, is of very great importance, so that the House should be acquainted with the law on the matter.
    Mr. HARDIE: It is customary on the discussion of the Third Reading of a Bill to have some reference to the date at which the Act will begin to operate, but in this case there is no date in the Bill at which it comes into operation, and that seems to me to be a most serious thing, because it is essential, when we pass an Act of Parliament, that we should have in that Act a date when it really becomes law. Yet we are to-night asked to pass the Third Reading of a Bill without anyone being able to say when the Act is to come into operation. The Bill is full of "mays." It is just an invitation to a dance—you need not go to it. It is just an invitation to the miners in the coalfield to do certain things, but there is nothing to compel them to do them. We have heard the word "amalgamation," but never the word "reorganization" in its full relation to this, because there is no word in this Bill about the reorganisation of coal getting or of the industry. It only says, it may be possible for owners of coalfields to change their system of
    2060
    ownership as far as districts are concerned.
    That may be amalgamation, but there is certainly no reorganisation in spite of the speeches of the Prime Minister when he was broadcasting the great things which were to take place in the organisation of industry, and how coal was to be linked up with a national system of electricity. Yet here we are to-day with an Electricity Bill in which there is not a word in relation to coal or its use. There is nothing in the Bill about making the coal industry better, because those in charge of the Bill do not wish to do anything for the coal trade. If they had been serious about doing something for it, they would have had compulsory and not permissive powers in it. Reference has been made to the Clause about recruitment, but what those who made the reference did not understand was that while it is possible to shift a factory away from the bad conditions of the town away into the country where there is open spaces, we cannot do that with the coal miner, because his position is fixed by the position of the coal mine.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. HARDIE: If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead had included that in his argument, he would not have been saying "Hear, hear."
    Sir R. HORNE: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, that is the point I have been making—that the coal industry differs, as far as amalgamation is concerned, from any other industry.
    Mr. HARDIE: But the right hon. Gentleman did not pursue that in a logical way. Where you get the seams lying open by nature and where you get them lying clean, we on this side say that, since men have to produce coal from both the bad and the good seams, all of them are entitled to a living wage; but the right hon. Gentleman says that we should have a district wage, which means that the men in the areas where coal is difficult to get ought to be paid a lower wage. I want to come to the question of management. It is one thing to have a knowledge of how a thing should be done, but it is quite another to be able to do it. It is all very well for a man to come from a university or college saying he has been taught how to do it. I have had

    2061
    them under my own charge, from universities, and they showed me their honours and their passes, and I took them to the laboratory and I said: "Just do that." You cannot expect them to do a thing that they have no experience of. You have to start the training of them on the practical side. That is the difference between paper knowledge and practical knowledge. Mining is a dangerous business. I do not care how skilled, theoretically, a man may be in mining, the moment he arrives at the pit where he is to take charge he is up against all those things that only experience can deal with, and he is not efficient as a mine manager until he has gone through the experience.
    There is one thing in the management of mines that differs from any other kind of surface management. It is that the men cannot be seen as a whole as they are seen in the workshops. There is a sense of elation that is brought about by personal contact with men that gives you a sense of understanding, and a knowledge of the reliability of the men. It is essential to know whether the men are dependable or not, and whether under certain circumstances they will do certain things. There is more need for that sort of knowledge in mining than in any other industry that I know of. I am sorry that

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. HARRIS: The Bill which the House is now asked to pass a Second time is a customary Measure following on the passing of our own Finance Bill. This is a Bill with some peculiar features. We have a responsibility for this island, and while they have some discretion as to the taxes they prefer, we are entitled to ask why the beneficent Paper Duty is deliberately omitted for the Isle of Man? We have been told that this duty will have the effect of reducing the cost of paper, and the Isle of Man requires paper just as much as any other part of Great Britain. The hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) made a remarkable speech on the subject of the Paper Duty and told us that the duty would result in mass production and a great reduction in the price of this essential article. His name will always be associated with the Isle of Man, and I want to know why this delightful island should be robbed of the benefits of this duty. The
2066
Minister has no right to ask us to take this Bill as a matter of course. There are other peculiarities in it which require explanation. For instance, why is there a special Clause dealing with duties on matches? This does not appear in our own Finance Bill, but the Isle of Man each year has to decide whether or not matches are to be taxed.
We are asked in this Bill as in our own Budget, to tax silk and lace. In our case this is supposed to be a Measure for safeguarding important industries, but it is making a big draft on our imagination to suggest there are important silk or lace factories in the Isle of Man which justify the imposition of these duties with the inconvenience and trouble which they entail. I am informed there has grown up in the Isle of Man a large and prosperous manufactory of silk jumpers which is in serious competition with some of the factories of Switzerland and Italy. Now the Government ask that small infant industry to pay more for its raw material. It is on industries such as the manufacture of blouses and articles of that character, that the island relies in the winter time, when the tourist trade is bad. In the summer the people live largely by the tourist traffic, but in the long winters it is difficult for them to keep the wolf from the door except by means of small cottage industries. These have been enabled to survive in the past

2067
because of the benefit of free imports but now the Government are forcing on the Isle of Man all the ramifications of a protective tariff. We lost the American Colonies by imposing a duty on an unwilling people. This little island, it is true, is not large or wealthy and may not be able to fight this big country of ours, but this country has the responsibility of protecting the Isle of Man from being exploited by Tariff Reformers and we ought to champion the rights of the taxpayers of the Isle of Man.
Mr. SCURR: A short while back was published the Report of a Committee of the Privy Council on the question of Contributions to Imperial Funds from the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, and Man, and on page 30 of that Report, paragraph 59 states:
"The Isle of Man now makes a perpetual payment of £10,000 per annum to the Exchequer under the provisions of the Act of 1866. Where this payment was fixed with regard to the then existing yield of the Insular customs duties or in the light of the cost to the Exchequer of Imperial Services, there can be no doubt that it is now disproportionately small. We recommend, therefore, that Parliament should be asked to amend the Act by increasing the permanent contribution of the Island to £50,000, which appears to us to be the smallest permanent contribution to the Exchequer which, in existing circumstances, the Isle of Man could properly make.
We recommend that the additional payment of £50,000 necessary to make up a total contribution of £100,000 should be made for a period of 50 years, and that it should include the annual payment of £20,000 which the Island now makes."
There was a great disappointment at the Tynwald Conference regarding the figures which the Treasury put forward, and certain allegations were made against Mr. Hawtrey, and I really think the Government ought to let us know whether this Bill affects that matter and whether it means that there is to be an increased contribution from the Isle of Man or whether any arrangement has been made in regard to it.
Mr. HALL CAINE: If the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) had not raised this point in regard to wrapping paper, I intended to have mentioned it myself. The hon. Member seems to know as little about the Isle of Man as he does about the Wrapping Paper Duty. He seems to be under the impression that the Government are
2068
forcing Protective duties upon this poor little island, to which he referred as the Isle of Man, but which, as far as I could gather from his explanation in regard to jumpers, seemed to me to be the Isle of Woman. The real position is this: In the Isle of Man, Financial Resolutions are initiated by the Governor, but they have to receive the assent of both the Legislative Council and the House of Keys before they can become law. In the case of the Wrapping Paper Duty, I understand it was passed, with others, by the Legislative Council, but turned down by the House of Keys. I raise the point because I foresee considerable difficulties. If we have foreign paper being allowed in the Isle of Man free of duty and being sneaked over into this country by the back door, we may find that the whole of the proposals in the Bill are vitiated and will become as naught. I would like some assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that adequate safeguards are being taken by the Customs authorities that this shall not take place. I believe this is practically the only duty which has been passed in a Finance Bill which has not been ratified by the Isle of Man, and I can see no reason why it should not be ratified. I believe the interests of the Isle of Man are the same as ours. I have no wish to thrust anything on to that oldest of the self-governing Dominions—because I am proud of the fact that it is as self-governing a Dominion as it can be—but for smooth working it would be very much better if we could have an assurance, not that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has interfered with the self-governing rights of the Isle of Man, but that he has taken adequate measures to protect us in this country against anything of the kind I have indicated.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The unprecedented Parliamentary success of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) reduced the House to such a condition of hilarity that I was unable to catch the points upon which he specially asked for an explanation. I have a very vague idea of the more serious parts of the speech which entertained the House so much. I think the case he made was, in

2069
the main, answered very conclusively by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) who on this subject speaks, not only with great personal authority but, if I may say so, with distinguished hereditary authority. I am not prepared to give the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green explanations of particular duties contained in this Bill, because this raises a constitutional question. As the hon. Member for East Dorset has reminded the House, the Isle of Man is an autonomous part of His Majesty's Dominions. It has its own Parliament and its own constitution, and whenever it passes resolutions imposing taxation those resolutions are, for a certain period, valid in the Isle of Man. In order to give them complete legislative validity, they only require to be passed in this House in the form of a Bill which it would be unprecedented for this House to alter. I really do not know what would be the result if this House were to exercise what I think I must presume would be powers within its actual constitutional functions, and were to refuse to sanction the legislation of the island. I presume that in doing that the House would not be going beyond its constitutional and legal powers, but it would be unprecedented action, and I am confident this House will not take that action on an occasion of this sort. The duties contained in this Bill are the duties which have been imposed by the wisdom of those who govern the island, and in asking the House to give validity to those resolutions I am not prepared, as I have said, because I do not think it would be a proper course for us to take, to enter into criticism of them either those in the Bill or those which have been omitted. I can give the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset asked. There is no interference, either in fact or intention, with the rights, privileges and constitution of the Isle of Man. I understand from our technical and expert advisers that the fact that the Wrapping Paper Duty has been omitted in the Isle of Man, while it is contained in our list of duties, will make no difference in the administration of the duties, and that they will be carried out perfectly well without endangering our own revenue or encroaching in any way on the rights of the island.
Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It is rather to be regretted that the Financial Secretary has not seen fit to make a reply to the specific question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) as to what it is proposed to do with respect to the recommendation of the Committee of the Privy Council.
Mr. McNEILL: That was an oversight. I ought to have replied to that question, which I should have done by saying that, though I did not like to interrupt by rising to a point of Order, if the hon. Member had pursued his remarks I should have had to appeal to Mr. Speaker to know whether it was in order on this Bill. The point he raised has nothing to do with this Bill, and I am not in a position at the moment to say what action the Government may take with regard to that matter.
Mr. ALEXANDER: The question is, can this Report of the Privy Council be connected with the Bill presented to approve the raising of revenue in the Isle of Man? If the Financial Secretary refers to the earlier part of the Report which has been quoted he will find, on page 241, that it refers to the taxable capacity of the Isle of Man. We have just been told that we really have no business to interfere in this matter, and that we have no right to interfere with the legislation, financial or otherwise, passed by the two Houses in the Isle of Man. Yet it is clear from the Report of the Privy Council, which was submitted as a Command Paper, that, in fact, the Treasury does insist upon a certain amount being contributed by the Isle of Man to the Imperial expenditure. It must be obvious that the amount to be raised by the Customs Duties in the Isle of Man must have some effect upon the taxable capacity of the whole island and upon the amount fixed by the Treasury as a contribution from the island to the Imperial Exchequer. It seems to me to be a plain question, when we are considering these Customs Duties, to ask whether the Government are able to say what their action will be with regard to the recommendation of the Privy Council.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think I must now rule that that question is not relevant on the present occasion. The question of

2071
the amount of the contribution demanded by the Treasury should be raised on the Estimates.
Mr. ALEXANDER: When we are considering our finances as a whole, which includes the contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, I think we are entitled to ask that we should have all the necessary information, and the only way in which the Members of the House of Commons are able to get information as to the incidence of the Customs Duties and similar duties is from the Isle of Man amounts which are presented annually to the House. I find that on 24th June there was a White Paper submitted in dummy for 1925–26, and although we have a print in the Library of the amounts for 1924–25, we have not a copy of the amounts for 1925–26. Therefore, I cannot check what has been the change in the Revenue income from Customs Duties in the Isle of Man as a whole. Before we give a Second Reading to a Bill which ratifies an Act of the Isle of Man Parliament we ought to be able to get information as to what the yield was for 1925–26 from the accounts which are said to have been laid, but which, as a matter of fact, are not available to the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: Either the Isle of Man is self-governing or it is not in these matters. If I were to allow this argument, it would mean that we were interfering with the ancient rights of the people of the Isle of Man. That would be a retrograde step to take.
Captain BENN: We have had a very clear statement as to the position, the clearest that has been made for some years, though the matter has been referred to every year. The position is this. Not the direct but the indirect taxes of the Isle of Man are proposed—the financial legislation is proposed by the Government. It is then submitted to the two Houses and the two Houses must pass Resolutions approving it. So that the Manxmen have the additional safeguard of this House in addition to the sanction of their own two Houses. You will find nothing like it in any Dominion. I contend that the powers conferred probably by the Act of 1765 are real powers and that we are quite
2072
within our rights in examining the propriety of the imposition of this sort of taxation in the Isle of Man. This is not the spontaneous action of the Manx population at all. Is it to be supposed that the inhabitants of the Isle of Man thought spontaneously of exactly the same ridiculous catalogue of import duties as occurred to the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country—this amazing simultaneity by which we thought of gloves and they thought of gloves, we thought of incandescent mantles and they thought of incandescent mantles? What happened was that the Governor, acting no doubt in harmony with the Treasury—
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows enough of our Constitution to know that the Governor of the Isle of Man represents the Crown just as recommendation of taxes goes from the Crown here through the Minister. He must not attack the Governor in that indirect way.
Captain BENN: I need not tell you, Sir, that any fault I have committed was committed inadvertently, and I express my regret for it. But just as the Government uses the power of the Crown here to propose taxes which we may object to, so the name of the Crown is in effect used in the Isle of Man to propose simultaneously the same taxes there. I contend that our responsibility in connection with these taxes is very different from our responsibility in connection with the taxation of any other of the semi-independent States that form the British Empire. It is a very curious thing that in one case the House of Keys actually rejected the duty. It has some concern for the hon. Member for Dorset, because he is anxious that the effect intended by the duty shall be secured, and he asks the Financial Secretary what steps he will take to protect this country from the position which has been created by the refusal of the Isle of Man to grant this tax. I have listened with some care to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I did not gather any detailed particulars of the measures he intends to take to meet the wishes of the hon. Member below him. In general one can say if it is hard to impose on this country, which is a manufacturing

2073
country, a series of duties on manufactured articles which may, and no doubt will, benefit here and there an industry, it is a very much harder thing to take a country which is a non-manufacturing country and, in order to bring its tariff into harmony with ours, and for our convenience, to inflict upon consumers there a series of duties which must result in the raising of the cost of living. Time has not been wasted in discussing this aspect on the Second Reading.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—[Mr. McNeill.]

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Dunstable Gas and Water Company, which was
2074
presented on the 22nd June and published be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Haslemere and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th June and published, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the country borough of Birkenhead, which was presented on the 29th June and published, be approved. [Sir Burton Chadwick].
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Eight Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

COAL TRADE DISPUTE.
  PROFITS AND ROYALTIES.
  PROFITS AND ROYALTIES.
  MINERS' DEPENDANTS, CARNWATH (PARISH RELIEF).
  MINERS' DEPENDANTS, CARNWATH (PARISH RELIEF).
  MINERS (EMIGRATION).
  MINERS (EMIGRATION).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (INSURANCE).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (INSURANCE).
SCOTLAND.
  LOCHABER WATER SCHEME.
  LOCHABER WATER SCHEME.
  BOAT SLIP, FIONAPHORT, MULL.
  BOAT SLIP, FIONAPHORT, MULL.
  AGRICULTURAL SURVEY.
  AGRICULTURAL SURVEY.
  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  KILMARNOCK POLICE (EX-CONSTABLES MOORE AND HILL).
  KILMARNOCK POLICE (EX-CONSTABLES MOORE AND HILL).
  ACCIDENT, FERSIL CAMP.
  ACCIDENT, FERSIL CAMP.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
  NON-POLITICAL MEETING, STORRINGTON.
  NON-POLITICAL MEETING, STORRINGTON.
POST OFFICE.
  BROADCASTING.
  BROADCASTING.
  REGISTERED FOREIGN PACKAGES (COMPENSATION).
  REGISTERED FOREIGN PACKAGES (COMPENSATION).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TOTTENHAM (NEW OFFICE).
  TOTTENHAM (NEW OFFICE).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  WOOD PULP (IMPORTS).
  WOOD PULP (IMPORTS).
  IMPORTED TOBACCO.
  IMPORTED TOBACCO.
  IMPORTED MEAL.
  IMPORTED MEAL.
  BOARD OF TRADE (MR. R. W. PINDER).
  BOARD OF TRADE (MR. R. W. PINDER).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (WORSTED GOODS).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (WORSTED GOODS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  STAFF OFFICERS (TEMPORARY COMMISSONS).
  STAFF OFFICERS (TEMPORARY COMMISSONS).
  SERVICE RIFLE.
  SERVICE RIFLE.
  GAS WARFARE (DEFENSIVE RESPIRATORS).
  GAS WARFARE (DEFENSIVE RESPIRATORS).
HOUSING.
  SYSTEMS OF CONSTRUCTION.
  SYSTEMS OF CONSTRUCTION.
  NON-STATE-AIDED HOUSES.
  NON-STATE-AIDED HOUSES.
  COLLIERY DISTRICTS.
  COLLIERY DISTRICTS.
POOR LAW.
  KINGSBRIDGE INFIRMARY.
  KINGSBRIDGE INFIRMARY.
  WEST HAM UNION.
  WEST HAM UNION.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª;—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; and to be printed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, after Clause 49, to insert the following new clause:—
For protection of consumers.
".The Corporation shall be liable for all damage or loss that may be sustained by a consumer with whom an agreement to supply current is in force, arising from the Corporation having failed or neglected, without reasonable excuse, or having unlawfully refused to supply current to the consumer. The Corporation shall further be liable in any such case to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds per day for each day daring which the default continues, and such penalty shall be surcharged on the members of the Corporation jointly and severally."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this new clause in consequence of what happened during the General Strike.
218
The Swindon Corporation—as I believe other Corporations did—cut off the supply of electricity from the local newspaper. An electrical engineer and some assistants arrived with authority from the Electricity Committee of the Corporation, removed the fuses and prevented the local newspaper from publishing. The local newspaper, after two or three days, did succeed in publishing by buying an engine and running their machinery with that engine. The Corporation also cut off the supply from the local laundry and from, I think, the tobacco factory in Swindon, and one or two other factories. This was done by order of the strikers. The Corporation wrote to me and also saw me after I had put down this clause. They stated that the Electricity Committee did this without the knowledge of the Corporation as a whole and that as soon as they were able to find men to replace the strikers they reinstated the power.
The representative of the newspaper, however, in a letter written to me since then gives a rather different version. He says that the Corporation were incorrect in informing me that "as soon as men could be found to take the place of strikers the supplies which had been cut off were restored." According to this letter, the supplies were reinstated because Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was then acting for the Government, informed the Corporation that unless they reinstated the supplies the Government would send naval ratings and do it for them. The writer further tells me—I am reading from the letter—that only one worker in the electricity works went on strike. He further says this—
"Many members of the Electricity and Tramways Committee were already themselves on strike as affecting their occupations; as such they were interested in closing down other industries that all work might be brought to a standstill; at least one member of the Committee was also a prominent member of the central strike committee."
I should say that in this particular Bill there are fifteen clauses dealing with electricity and the Corporation inform me that they propose to spend £300,000 of the ratepayers' money upon extending the electricity plant and works.
Your Lordships will agree with me that if corporations, whose members are elected by all classes of society and who are bound in these democratic days to have trade union members upon them,

219
are to be allowed without any penalty, because it is to the interest of some members of the corporation, to stop newspapers publishing and to prevent other people working when there is a general strike, the whole machinery of domestic life can be brought to a standstill. Therefore I propose to put in a clause which will enable the consumer to be recompensed for the injury done him. That, I am informed by my noble friend the Lord Chairman, is more or less the law as it stands at present, but I want to go a bit further and provide that the people who bring about this state of things should themselves be penalised. Therefore I put at the end of the clause a provision that members of the Corporation doing this shall be jointly and severally liable for a penalty of £50 a day as long as the default continues. As long as the Corporation can say to them selves that it is the unfortunate ratepayer who pays they will very likely do this sort of thing whenever they are threatened by strong trade unions. But if they have to put their hands into their own pockets it may be that they will think twice before they do it.
I understand that my noble friend the Lord Chairman is going to say that this is a clause with which he does not disagree in principle, but that it is a clause which ought to be put into a General Bill and not in a particular Bill promoted by a single corporation. Of course, my idea is to make this a general clause. I do not wish to confine it to Swindon. I have only put it down now because the fact that the Swindon Corporation has a Bill at the moment dealing with electricity gives me the opportunity to bring forward the clause. I understand that my noble friend the Lord Chairman is going to suggest that a clause of this sort should be put into the Electricity (Supply) Bill which is now before the House of Commons. That is all very well. As an argument I do not quite see how you can controvert it.
But, as a matter of fact, how do we know, if this clause is withdrawn now, that the Government will do that? If I could get an undertaking—I see some prominent members of the Government here—that on the Electricity (Supply) Bill they will deal with this question and deal with it, I do not say exactly in these words but in the same spirit, and impose
220
a penalty upon people who do not do their duty, I should then accede with pleasure to the request of the Lord Chairman and withdraw the Amendment, but only on that understanding. If it is put now into this Bill it is perfectly certain—at any rate, it is very nearly certain—that it will become a model clause and be put in all other Bills. But unless I get a distinct understanding from the Government that they will bring in a similar clause when the Electricity (Supply) Bill is considered, then other Bills will be dealt with and nothing done. Before I withdraw the Amendment I hope that either my noble friend the Lord Chairman or myself will be able to get an assurance from the Government that something will be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 30, after Clause 49, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I desire wholeheartedly to thank my noble friend for meeting me as he has done as regards the procedure in connection with this proposal, which from an early date he informed your Lordships he desired to have discussed. I think his mind worked favourably in the direction of moving an instruction to the Committee, but I appealed to him to let that stage go through—without prejudice, of course, to his right to discuss the matter on Third Reading—and in that way the matter comes before your Lordships to-day. I am very grateful to him for allowing that course to be pursued.
This is a difficult case to understand. I heard, of course, what my noble friend said on the previous occasion; I have listened carefully to what he has said this afternoon; I have interviewed the representatives of the Corporation; and I have seen a certain amount of correspondence that has been placed before me—correspondence that took place at the time. Your Lordships will remember that these proceedings took place during the General Strike when everything was not recorded everywhere quite as accurately as our usual habit is. It is very difficult quite to classify in one's mind the order of events, or even what the events were. My noble friend has

221
referred to discussions that took place between certain representatives of the. Corporation—because the Corporation were not a happy family over this matter and they did not all agree as to what was desirable to be done. My noble friend has referred to Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was one of the officials on the Government side in this part of England at the time, and perhaps it may be convenient if I read an extract from a letter which has been supplied to me by the promoters from Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen to the representative of the Corporation.
It throws, I think, a little further light upon the facts as they occurred and for that reason is valuable to us in coming to a conclusion upon the matter. This is what he said in a letter to the Town Clerk:—
"What actually happened was as follows, to the best of my memory:—"
this is as regards his part in the pro ceedings—
"On May 5 Lord Winterton, the Civil Commissioner for the S. Midland District, asked me if I would go to Swindon as his representative, as the condition of affairs there was serious. He particularly mentioned that the Electricity Committee of the Corporation had cut off the power from the local newspaper and other firms and asked me to take any steps I could to get it restored.
"On arriving at Swindon on the 6th, I immediately interviewed the Mayor and yourself. We discussed the special difficulties at Swindon which arose from the fact that the G.W.B. employed the great majority of the men in the town anti that they were all on strike. Among the strikers were members of the Corporation and Electricity Committee"—
I lay stress on that fact—
"including the Chairman of the latter."
The Chairman therefore was himself on strike.
"The Mayor said that if the power were restored he feared that all the workers at the power station, or the majority of them, would come out and the town would be plunged into darkness, and that volunteers capable of manning the station could not be obtained in Swindon, to which I replied that I might be able to get them outside.
"The next day I received a letter from you to the effect that if I could get competent volunteers from outside the Mayor and Corporation would at once restore the power and I accordingly set to work to procure the same.
"By the following Monday—10th—I was able to bring down fourteen men, chiefly naval pensioners from Portsmouth, who were
222
lodged by the Corporation in the town. The order was given to restore the power, whereupon a few, but not, so many as had been expected, of the power station men went on strike, and so far as I remember five (riot one only, as stated in the Report by Lord Banbury) of the volunteers were drafted into the station and worked with the men who had not struck. This is really all I know of the proceedings, but I regarded the solution as a very satisfactory one at the time."
The particular reason why I wanted to read this extract was this. Having interviewed the parties and done my best to understand what occurred it was evident, as it will be evident to your Lordships from this letter, that the Corporation were not a very happy family at the time but that certain members of the Corporation did their best to deal with the situation as it faced them and to perform their public duty as soon as they could. That being so, I suggest that it is a case in which we might be lenient with them rather than severe in reviewing what happened in the past. My noble friend, I know, is never obstinate as regards the form of a clause when he proposes one. I would point out, however, that this clause is one of general application. It is not confined to what might happen in future strikes only and that seems to me to be, perhaps, rather severe in its attitude towards the Corporation with the clause as proposed in these words. But I do not want to stress that point too much. What I do want to point out is that at the moment there is an alternative. There are penalties on those who are charged with the duty of providing electricity. The law has already taken cognisance of the possibility of difficulty and has made provision, and I think I ought very briefly to remind your Lordships of that provision.
Section 30 of the Schedule of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, enacts that—
"Whenever the undertakers make default in supplying energy to any owner or occupier of premises to whom they may be and are required to supply energy under the Special Order they shall be liable in respect of each default to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each day on which the default occurrs."
That is not an empty threat. I have before me an extract from the Evening Standard of one day last week, reporting a case which occurred in

223
Walthamstow and this is the wording of the newspaper report:—
"For cutting off electric current and depriving a works of power during the General Strike, Walthamstow Urban District Council were at Stratford to-day fined 20 s. for each day from May 6 to May 12 inclusive, and ordered to pay 25 guineas costs. They were summoned by five firms, but only one case was taken, and the other summonses were withdrawn."
I only mention this to show that our lawgivers have not been oblivious to the dangers on this point and I suggest to my noble friend that although the penalty here is far less than he considers adequate—because 40 s. a day would take a long time before it equalled the £50 which is in his mind—still I think we may be satisfied that the public are safeguarded under this section.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, there is a £50 penalty.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, there is a £50 penalty later on. But more than this, my noble friend has referred to the fact that I was going to appeal to him to let this matter be dealt with by general legislation. Here again, we have a legal precedent to which my attention has only been called this afternoon. Although it goes further than the Act of 1899, it does not refer to electricity. It refers to gas and water. I think it is an argument in his favour—in favour of doing something—but I think it is also an argument in my favour, in favour of doing that something by general legislation. It is the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, which enacts that
"Where a person employed by a municipal authority …. who have …. assumed the duty of supplying …. gas or water, wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service …. he shall …. be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour."
My noble friend, I think, would have rejoiced had he known of these exact words before. But I suggest to him that, if circumstances have now so much altered that what was thought necessary in 1875 as regards gas and water should now be extended to electricity, the matter is one that might very rightly be considered by the proper authorities. For that reason I would remind my
224
noble friend that there is an Electricity (Supply) Bill before Parliament. I do not know whether that would be the proper place in which to enact such a clause as this, if it was thought desirable to extend it to electricity, but I suggest to him that that would be a better method than doing it in one Private Bill, applied to one authority. For that reason, I would appeal to him not to press this Amendment now, but I would join with him in appealing to the Government to consider whether they could rightly include the treatment of this matter in the Bill which is now before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I might mention that the Section of the Act of 1875, to which the Lord Chairman referred, has been extended by a later Statute to electricity.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the important thing which has been brought out in the Lord Chairman's speech and in what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is that this subject matter is one that Parliament has always dealt with generally and not as regards particular corporations. It is obviously very undesirable when a Private Bill comes up to put in a penalty for an offence which ought to be an offence applying to every corporation and not to a particular corporation, and make it the law of the land that there should be one law in Swindon and quite another for the rest of the country. But what the Lord Chairman and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have said make it plain that the Act of 1875 is, in principle at all events, regarded as applying to electricity as well as to gas and water. If that is so, it is obvious that our proper course is to consider the question in relation to that state of the law.
If the penalties under the Act of 1875 are too weak, which I see no reason to suppose, and if the statement of the law made from the Woolsack is correct then, on the Electricity (Supply) Bill or some other suitable measure, we can consider it, and that is the proper course to take. It is obviously a departure from every rule which we have laid down for ourselves to create a special offence in regard to one corporation, the Corporation

225
of Swindon, while not extending it to the rest of the country, and I, for one, should regard it as very deplorable if we inserted in a Private Bill an alteration of the criminal law which ought to be an alteration for the whole country if it is to be introduced at all. Therefore, I think the advice which the Lord Chairman has given to the House is wise advice, and, speaking for myself, I shall support it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I had hoped that the Government would have said something about this matter. I agree that legislation of this sort ought to be general. I do not think there can be any question about it. But unless one makes a beginning it is very difficult to get anything done. It was because there happened to be in this particular Bill clauses dealing with electricity that I proposed to move this Amendment and not because I wanted to make any attack upon Swindon or to differentiate its position from that of any of her corporation. If the Government would give me some little hope that on the Electricity (Supply) Bill a clause of this kind would be introduced I would certainly agree to the course proposed by the Lord Chairman. I could bring in a clause of my own in regard to the Electricity (Supply) Bill; but if I take that course, am I to be met with the whole force of the Government denouncing it? If that is so, it would be better for me to do something now. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Peel would be kind enough to say a word on the subject.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I cannot speak with very great authority on this subject because I have not heard anything more about it than has been said by noble Lords who have spoken. I am, of course, familiar with the contents of the Electricity (Supply) Bill. That Bill deals, of course, with electricity in bulk supply, the setting up of gridirons for the distribution of electricity all over the country and so on, and I should have thought, speaking offhand, that such an Amendment would probably be out of order. But if it pleases my noble friend I will certainly say, though I can make no definite promise, that the point will be considered.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am in a rather awkward position
226
because I did not know whether it would or would not be out of order; but might I venture to hope for the support of the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, if I withdrew my Amendment? If he would agree to support me I would withdraw the clause. Am I to take it that silence gives consent? In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given, that Standing Order No. 143 be considered and dispensed with in respect of this Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3ª I do so in the genera] interest of expediting public business as we are nearing the end of our present sittings. Perhaps I may explain to your Lordships the procedure I would ask you to agree to follow if you permit the Standing Order to be suspended and take the Third Reading to-day. I would move the Third Reading and I would suggest that we might then take the discussion on the Amendment of which my noble friend Lord Strachie has given Notice When that has been disposed of—either agreed to, disagreed to, or withdrawn—this position arises. Since the Bill was in Committee I have received a communication from the Ministry of Transport with reference to another clause in the Bill altogether, and I have suggested to the promoters a small Amendment which they are quite ready to make in the Bill. But I would not like to take that Amendment now without notice. Therefore, after your Lordships have disposed of my noble friend's Amendment I would ask your Lordships, in accordance with precedent, to adjourn the proceedings until to-morrow so as to enable the Amendment on the other point to be properly drafted, put in proper form and printed. The Bill would then be sent back to the Commons. Now, however, I make my first Motion with reference to the suspension of Standing Order No. 143. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered and dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3ª.—(The Earl of Donough-more.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill read 3ª accordingly.
Clause 103:
By-laws as to inspection of meat.
"(4) With a view to facilitating the carrying into effect of any by-laws made in pursuance of this section the Corporation may enter any slaughter-house which is situate outside the city but within a circle having a radius of ten miles from the Council House for the purpose of inspecting any carcase or any part thereof intended for sale or consumption in the city: Provided that before entering any slaughterhouse outside the city the Corporation shall make reasonable endeavours to arrange for such inspection to be made jointly with the local authority of the area in which the slaughter-house proposed to be inspected is situate and in the event of such inspection not being made in the presence of an officer of such local authority the Corporation shall make a report in writing to such local authority stating the reasons for making the inspection and the result thereof."
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to omit the proviso in subsection (4) and insert: "with the consent of the local authority concerned subject to the right of the corporation to appeal to the Ministry of Health for such power of inspection." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this Bill has been slightly altered since I placed my Amendment on the Paper I desire to alter the form of my Amendment and have given due notice to the Lord Chancellor. The Amendment as I wish to move it reads as follows:
"Clause 103, page 70, line 13, omit from 'city' to the end of the subsection and insert 'with the consent of the local authority concerned subject to the right of the corporation to appeal to the Ministry of Health for such power of inspection."
The local authorities of Somerset and other local authorities for whom I am speaking object to the City of Bristol taking power to go into their areas and inspect their slaughter-houses without any consent whatsoever on their part. I may say that I am not moving this Amendment out of any sense of hostility to the Corporation of Bristol, and I should be the last person to do that because
228
my relations with Bristol have always been most friendly, that being my market-town. I do it on principles which I think will appeal to your Lordships who live in agricultural districts and know what strong objections are taken by local authorities to the invasion of their territory by other local authorities in the exercise of various powers.
What does this clause mean? It means that on its own initiative the Bristol Corporation is endeavouring to take power to inspect within ten miles of the centre of the City of Bristol any slaughterhouse without the leave of the local authority concerned. All I am asking your Lordships to do in this particular case is to say, as I have put it in my Amendment, that they must ask for the consent of the local authority and if that consent is not given there shall be a right of appeal to the Ministry of Health. I am the last person to wish that there should be any obstacle put in the way of seeing that slaughter-houses are conducted in the best possible manner, whether in town or in country. If the Bristol Corporation can show that the local authority are not doing their duty then they will have this appeal to the Ministry of Health. It is rather a serious matter, as this Bill proposes, to say that the local authorities have so neglected their duties and do not have proper inspection that it is necessary for a City like Bristol to have their own inspectors of slaughter-houses in order to see that the slaughter-houses are carried on under proper conditions. It seems to me that is not a wholly desirable thing to have. If the local authorities are not carrying out their duties then they ought to be forced to do so by the Ministry of Health.
It was said by the Lord Chairman, in regard to the Swindon Amendment—and the remark applies equally in this case—that you ought not to have merely Private Bill legislation. If it is desirable and right that great Cities like Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool should have the right to go over the adjoining counties and exercise their powers there, then it ought to be done as a result of a General Act applying to all and not by a Private Act. Up till now there have only been two other cases in which such powers have been given, and

229
in those cases the power was not given for quite such a large area as in this case. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that when the matter came before the Local Legislation Committee of the House of Commons the Ministry of Health made a very strong statement to that Committee. In regard to the particular powers of inspection they said:
"Before the Committee grant powers extending outside the city they will no doubt require clear evidence that they are essential for the proper enforcement of the by-laws."
That is a very strong statement indeed. I read this Report carefully. It was furnished to me by a gentleman sitting upon that Committee who was strongly opposed to these powers and there was not one word said afterwards by Bristol showing that they had any just cause of suspicion that the Somerset local authorities and other local authorities concerned in this particular instance were not carrying out their duties. They did not make any objections: they did not bring form and any cases.
It seems to me that it is quite clear they were not able to substantiate any grievances at all. Therefore I am surprised that the Committee gave these powers which now appear in the Bill. I am glad to think that Mr. Percy Hurd, Conservative member for one of the Divisions of Wiltshire—which is not concerned with this particular case—did very strongly oppose these powers being given to the City of Bristol. As I have already stated, no neglect has been shown on the part of the local authorities in carrying out their powers over slaughter-houses. I also would like to suggest that on genera] principles it is very undesirable to have this raid upon the powers of local authorities. In this particular case the power extends a long way into Gloucestershire and Somerset-shire, because the area is ten miles. But if ten miles, why should it not be twenty miles or thirty miles? I therefore oppose it on general grounds, because, if it is agreed to, we shall have other big towns coming and saying that they ought to have this power of inspection extended throughout the length and breadth of other counties adjoining those in which they are situated. They would say: "The sanitary authorities in Somerset and Gloucestershire are not inspecting
230
dairies in a proper way and we ought to have a power of inspecting them." That would be an interference with local authorities, and I cannot see in anything that has been said during the discussion on this Bill that Bristol has any grievance at all.
This principle of a raid upon the powers of county local authorities is one that we have had to fight more than once. In the House of Commons we have had to fight the great towns coming into our counties and wanting to take away the powers from the local authorities in the counties, saying: "We want general powers of inspection to interfere with you because you are not carrying out your duties." If that kind of thing is to be extended it means an end to all local self-government so far as the counties are concerned. Not for one moment would I oppose anything that is in the interests of public health. We ought to see that local authorities carry out their ditties. The Ministry of Health ought to see that they carry out their duties and I ask that power should be given to the Ministry of Health, on appeal, to force local authorities who are not doing their duty to do what they ought to do. I hope your Lordships will not, by a Private Bill, allow this raid to be made on local authorities by a great City like Bristol. It would create a precedent that would be followed in other areas and I submit it is very undesirable.
Amendment moved—
Clause 103, page 70, line 13, leave out from ("city") to end of the subsection and insert "with the consent of the local Authority concerned subject to the right of the corporation to appeal to the Ministry of Health for such power of inspection."—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of the Ministry of Health I ant sorry to have to inform my noble friend Lord Strachie that the Notice given was not really sufficient to enable them to come to a considered opinion on this point which, as the noble Lord said, raises several important questions of principle. On behalf of the Ministry, therefore, the Government do not propose to divide against the noble Lord's Amendment, but they do reserve the right to offer opposition to the noble Lord's suggestions when his Amendment reaches another place.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, may I say a few words in regard to what my noble friend has just said relative to the attitude of the Government and also in regard to the attitude of my noble friend opposite? I desire to thank him, as I thanked Lord Banbury just now, for abstaining from moving an instruction, and allowing the more usual procedure to be followed by moving an Amendment on Third Reading. I am much obliged, also, to my noble friend behind me (Viscount Gage) for intimating that the Government will offer no objection to this Amendment now, reserving, of course, their full rights when the Amendment made by your Lordships is considered in another place. I am getting a little anxious on the general point that we are discussing this afternoon, and I should be glad to see a settlement that might be satisfactory to all parties, if such could be reached.
My noble friend opposite has quoted the Report of the Ministry of Health on the original clause. This is a clause that has been asked for in a number of cases and it has been granted, I see, in three. These extraterritorial powers, if I may use the phrase, have been granted to Torquay, Hastings and Wakefield, but in those cases within the radius of six miles from the town halls. This Bill asks for ten miles from the town hall. It has been urged upon me that ten miles from the town hall of Bristol is not really more outside Bristol than six miles from the town halls in those other cases. I am not going to bring thunder bolts on my head by suggesting whether I agree with the estimate or not, but, if six miles why not ten miles, and if ten miles why not twenty miles? If the principle is right that the Corporation can say: "Meat slaughtered in a certain place and sold in our city should be inspected by us," we cannot say nay to its widest extension. It would be quite reasonable then, I think, for Bristol to say: "Some of our meat is slaughtered in London; we should have power to inspect slaughter-houses in London." What would the London County Council and the great municipalities say to that?
Take a case nearer home. Supposing Bradford said they ate meat slaughtered in Leeds, would Leeds allow them to send their inspectors to inspect Leeds slaughter-houses? I do not think so. At
232
any rate, we should have some lively Parliamentary proceedings. There is a grievance. Some of these great municipalities say that slaughter-houses are established just outside their borders to avoid the very stringent regulations which are in force within their borders. It is obvious that that is something which ought to be checked. Your Lordships will see that this matter cannot be left to drift on, passing in one Private Bill after another and discussions taking place whether the area should be so many miles or so many more miles. We want a general principle established. I hesitate to use the phrase, but I am Home Ruler enough to agree in principle with my noble friend opposite. I do not want to see the authority of local authorities undermined by inspectors coming in from elsewhere, although probably in many places it can be shown that it is in the public interest they should do so. A system must be devised by which the matter will work smoothly in the interest of all the parties concerned and, therefore, I am grateful to the Government for allowing this matter to go forward. We are towards the end of this part of the Session and we are saving time by letting this matter go to the House of Commons where it can be discussed. Anything further that is necessary can be added to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, which, I am glad to believe, will now be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I beg to move that the further proceedings on this Bill be adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

STATE OF EMERGENCY.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOITR): My Lords, I desire to read the following Message from the King:—
  "The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 26th day of July, 1926, having constituted in the opinion of His Majesty a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation

  233
  made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 26th day of July, 1926, to declare that a state of emergency exists."
  I beg to move that the gracious Message be now considered.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I move, my Lords, in reference to the gracious Message which I have read, this Resolution:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His most gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920."
  Moved, That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His most gracious Message communicating to this House His Majesty's declaration that a state of emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

DUNSTABLE GAS ORDER, 1926.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 23rd of June last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HASLEMERE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1926.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION GAS ORDER, 1926.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 29th of June last be a pproved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of muirburn at certain times.
1. It shall not be lawful to make muirburn or set fire to any heath or muir except before the sixteenth day of April or after the thirtieth day of September in any year: Provided that it shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, and for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April or, in the case of land in deer forests more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, to the fifteenth day of May in any year; and provided further that, where the proprietor of any such lands or his factor or commissioner lute refused or has failed within seven days after written application has been made to him by the tenant of any such lands to give such written authority, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Board) may, on the application of such tenant, if they are satisfied that owing to the situation or altitude of such lands or for any other reason which they may consider sufficient it is expedient to do so by order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands or any portion of them during the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the order relates.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND)THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND) moved to leave out all words after "Provided that" and to insert:—

"(a) It shall be lawful for the proprietor of any lands, or for the tenant with the written authority of the proprietor or of his factor or commissioner, to make muirburn or burn the heath thereon at any time during the period from the sixteenth day to the thirtieth day of April, both days inclusive; and

(b) Where the proprietor of any lands or his factor or commissioner has refused or has failed within seven days after written application for such authority has beer made to him by the tenant of such lands, being a tenant who is entitled under the provisions of his lease or by virtue of an order

235
made in pursuance of the immediately succeeding section of this Act to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands, the tenant may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner written notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the Board) and the Board may on such application, if they are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, by order authorise the tenant to make muirburn or burn the heath on such lands during, the whole or part of the period last mentioned in the year to which the order relates, in accordance with the conditions contained in the lease or in the order under the immediately succeeding section as the case may be.

(2) In the case of a deer forest more than fifteen hundred feet above sea level, the foregoing subsection shall have effect as if the fifteenth day of May were substituted for the thirtieth day of April."
The noble Duke said: This Amendment is mainly drafting, designed to make the clause more easily understood. It makes it clear, first, that an Order by the Board authorising a tenant to burn during the period subsequent to the expiry of the ordinary time for burning on April 16 cannot be granted where the tenant has no right to burn at all, either under his lease or under an Order made under Clause 2 of the Bill, and secondly, that the burning during the extended period must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of the lease or the Clause 2 Order, as the case may be. The Amendment also provides that the tenant, before applying for an Order, must give his landlord notice of his intention to do so. I should like to call attention to the fact that all the other Amendments to be moved on Clause 1 will fall if this Amendment is passed. These other Amendments can, however, be moved as Amend meats to my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("that") to the end of the clause and insert the said paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and the said subsection (2).—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I should like to say one word, and that is to thank the noble Duke and the Government for re-drafting this clause. I drew attention on the Second Reading to certain defects, but I think the clause is now perfectly clear to everyone, where formerly it was ambiguous and likely to lead to disputes.
On Question, Amendment to omit all words in the clause after "Provided that" agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question now is that the words on the Paper proposed by the noble Duke be there inserted.
THE EARL OF STAIR THE EARL OF STAIR moved to substitute "twenty-fifth day of April," for "thirtieth day of April," in paragraph (a) of the proposed Amendment. The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is to leave out the word "thirty" in order to insert "twenty-five." I do not know to what extent this alteration affects people in the North and East of Scotland, but so far as South-west Scotland is concerned I think it is extremely material. The whole of the moors in the South-west of Scotland are only now making some slight attempt to recover from the complete destruction caused by D.O.R.A. during the War. I think that practically the whole of the moors in the South-west were burnt absolutely bare, and moors which used to produce substantial bags now produce absolutely nothing. On my own property, where we used to kill anything from 2,000 to 3,000 brace of grouse, we have not killed more than 500 brace since the War, and properties which I have let in the past for sums up to £1,000 a year are to-day absolutely unlettable. Only those lands which have been let on long leases have remained let at all.
I was examining property yesterday which is just beginning to recover. Some heather is coming and there are some grouse. I do not wish to stress this so much on the point of the reduction in the number of grouse alone, but none of these moors carry a single sheep more than they did before the War. In many cases I think the death rate, if anything, is greater than before the War. The land is no good either for grouse or sheep in winter where the heather has been destroyed, and thousands of acres which used to produce quite passable feeding in the winter are now going steadily back to bracken. If these extensions go on to the extent contemplated by the Bill, of unlimited and uncontrolled burning by people who have only got a half interest in the land they farm, it is going to become exceedingly injurious to the rateable value of the whole district. Land

237
cannot be let for game purposes, and ceases to have any rateable value. Yet our rates are going up, and it is absolutely essential that we should not lose one of our most valuable assets. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 6 of the proposed paragraph (a), leave out ("thirtieth") and insert ("twenty-fifth").—(The Earl of Stair.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I think your Lordships will agree that the Board of Agriculture would never give permission for such laud as Lord Stair mentions to be burnt at all if it should not be burned. It will, no doubt, be argued quite fairly that the Departmental Committee recommended April 25 as the end of the extended period in the case of high and wet moorland. The date in the Bill, however—namely, April 30—is, I believe, a better compromise among all the different opinions expressed on this matter. Under the clause as amended by my Amendment it will not be possible to burn after April 15 against the will of the proprietor unless the tenant is permitted to burn in the terms of his lease or by an Order under Clause 2, which is granted by the Board of Agriculture only after very careful examination of the ground in question. A strong desire was expressed by a large section of members in another place that the time should be extended even to May 15 or May 30, but this was resisted by the Scottish Office and April 30 was agreed to as a general compromise. It seemed to meet the views of all parties as being the most convenient date.
I should like to assure both the mover of this Amendment and the Duke of Buccleuch that it is not the intention of the Board of Agriculture in any way to encourage late burning. Where an application is made for permission to burn late the Board will require to be satisfied that the applicant has not neglected reasonable opportunities of burning within the normal period and that an extension is really necessary. They will also carefully consider what period of extension should be allowed. In many cases the Board of Agriculture would not give permission to burn as late as April 30. It is only on very exceptional occasions that they would feel obliged to give that permission, in cases where it has not been possible to
238
burn owing to bad weather or some other cause. I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am very disappointed with the answer of the Government. The noble Duke admitted that his proposal is entirely contrary to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. That. Committee had the whole of the evidence before them and heard a lot of experienced people, and they were strongly of opinion, as anybody will see who will look at their Report, that buntings should not in any circumstances continue on the sheep farms after April 25. My noble friend talks of a compromise between various people, some of whom wanted to burn up to the end of May. Anybody who wanted to burn up to the end of May would surely want to destroy the whole value of a large number of sheep farms in the South of Scotland, and probably in the North as well.
This is not merely a question of game. My noble friend behind me mentioned that aspect of the matter, but he also referred to the feeding of sheep. With this very late burning, when the ground is very dry, it often takes years before anything grows, and, as my noble friend stated, the ground is often rendered perfectly useless. I think it is recognised by every knowledgable sheep farmer that the heather plant is one of the most valuable plants on sheep farms and that it requires a great deal of care and cultivation to ensure a proper supply of food. I agree that people vary in their views as to how often it should be burnt and so on, but, generally speaking, I think that every experienced man who really knows anything about it would be opposed to this very late turning.
There is another very serious objection—and this recalls the great harm that was done under D.O.R.A. The ordinary lambing in the South of Scotland begins about April 15. During the lambing the hill shepherds have a terribly hard time; they get hardly any sleep at all and are tremendously busy; but they are the only people who can do this burning. They might be able to light a fire then, but they could not look after it and see where it went. I maintain that the Government are making a great mistake in this

239
matter. I admit that in certain cases there may be some advantages in the extension of time, but I am strongly convinced that they will be greatly overbalanced by the disadvantages of late burning. I am bound to admit, however, that, if the Board of Agriculture act as the noble Duke says that they will and are very careful this removes a good deal of the objection. I should, however, like your Lordships to realise that you are giving the Department power to inflict considerable damage, and whether that damage will be caused or not depends upon whether that power is wisely exercised.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Duke who has just spoken has spoken of confidence in the Board of Agriculture, but the Board of Agriculture are not a permanent body. They are permanent in organisation but not in personnel, and we have no safeguard for the future that they will not be extremely anxious to carry out the Bill in its most severe form. I think the argument adduced by the noble Earl who has put down this Amendment is a very strong one. The noble Duke did not point out that the interests of the landlord are permanent, while those of the tenant are merely transitory, and that enormous damage could be done to a hill farm by extensive burning. It is most important in winter, if there is a snowstorm, that there should be plenty of old heather for the sheep to feed upon. A man with a temporary interest does not pay much attention to that. You probably do not get a severe snowstorm once in twenty years, and his interest is to make as much profit as he can immediately
by the burning of heather. I hope that this Amendment may be accepted by the Government.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I have already said that I am afraid that the Amendment cannot be accepted. The question has been gone into and, with regard to low ground, I feel quite sure that great discrimination will be exercised by the Board of Agriculture in considering the position of the ground and deciding whether heather should be burnt or not. I am quite certain that they would not give the same permission in regard to low ground as in regard to high ground. This is a matter which must be left to the Board.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I think I must press my Amendment, for the date is already a compromise of the most serious nature, particularly in the South and West. If we do get a dry time then the ground becomes so dry that in a very short time considerable damage is caused, not only to the heather but to the peat below it; and once a fire has taken hold of the peat is goes on for weeks, no rain will put it out and the destruction is permanent. I may add that in Wigtonshire I have frequently known nests containing six and eight eggs on April 10. As a rule we wait until April 10, but if we can allow another week it is quite enough.
On Question, Whether the word "thirtieth" shall stand part of the Amendment?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

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

Onslow, E.

Sutherland, D.

Russell, E.

Ernle, L.

Stanhope, E.

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

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Latymer, L.

Allendale, V.

Merthyr, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Olivier, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Haldane, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Shandon, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Peel, V.

Stanmore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Templemore, L.

Denbigh, E.

Arnold, L.

Thomson, L.

Eldon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Treowen, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Bute, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Morton, E.

Ancaster, E.

Halsbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lamington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Darling, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rowallan, L.

de Mauley, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Sempill, L.

Erskine, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strachie, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the proposed Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in the proposed paragraph (b), to leave out "seven" ["seven days after written application"] and insert "fourteen". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is that the factor or the owner should have a little longer period of notice from the tenant that he going to make application for an extension of time to burn. It seems to me seven days is a very short period to allow. Suppose the tenant wrote to the factor of an estate, stating that he wished to have an extension of time to burn. The factor very probably would like to communicate with the owner and consult with him as to whether the application was reasonable, whether it should be allowed or not. I think seven days is a very short period to allow the factor and the landlord to consult together and to decide whether they should allow this extra time for burning or whether they should write to the Board—which I understand they are entitled to do—to oppose the Board giving an extension. If the period is extended to fourteen days, which I understand was the period in the Bill as originally drafted, it would be more equitable for the owner. It may, of course, be argued that this period would be so long that the time would have gone during which heather might be bullied, but generally it happens that the time when the ground has dried up is during the month of March. If March is a wet month it would probably be known that it would be difficult to burn heather during the first fortnight of April. Therefore if the tenant found that March was very wet he would have plenty of time in that month to write to the factor or the owner, giving notice of his intention to apply for an extended time to burn. I think, therefore, my Amendment is quite reasonable, and I hope the noble Duke will see his way to restore the Bill as originally drafted.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 3 of the proposed paragraph (b), leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen")—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I am afraid the Government cannot see their way to agree to this Amendment, because after all an extension of the period for burning will in general be sanctioned only where the weather has prevented adequate burning during the normal period. That cannot be known until near the expiry of the normal period, and if the proprietor got fourteen days in which to consider whether he would consent or not the provision empowering the Board to make an Order would be practically useless. I think, on the whole, that seven days is ample for the purpose. After all, the proprietor gets seven days notice in writing. The tenant then writes to the Board on the seventh day, and the Board have to consider the matter carefully before giving the power. This would give the proprietor extra time, in addition to the seven days, before the Board actually granted the power. Another thing that your Lordships must remember is that if the procedure is made too lengthy the tenants will be apt to put in applications at a very early date, and that, I think, would be highly undesirable, because it would be very difficult for the Board to deal with applications at an early date, before they knew what sort of season it was going to be and what the weather was going to be like. I am afraid the Government cannot agree to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in paragraph (b) of the Amendment, after "satisfied," to insert "after considering any representations made by the proprietor." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. The intention is only to make quite certain that

243
the owner has fair treatment, and that any representation he wishes to make has been properly considered by the Board. I understand it is a provision that is put in most Bills of this character.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 15 of the proposed paragraph (b), after ("satisfied") insert the said words.—(Lord Lamington.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The Government cannot agree to this Amendment. Under the clause, as amended by the first Amendment on the Paper, the tenant before applying for an Order must give the proprietor notice of his intention to do so. The proprietor can then make representations to the Board, which in the ordinary course would be considered by the Board. In any case a time limit would have to be fixed within which such representations would require to be lodged, if this Amendment were agreed to. It would, I think, be unfortunate to complicate the clause by the addition of such a provision when it is totally unnecessary.
LORD LAMINGTON: I should like to know why it is totally unnecessary and what objection there can possibly be to the insertion of these words. If they are unnecessary, they are very harmless.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The reason why they are unnecessary is that the proprietor, when receiving notice of their intention, will make representations to the Board, which in the ordinary course will be considered by the Board. The words would complicate the clause very considerably, and cause a good deal of re-drafting.
LORD LAMINGTON: Could some legal luminary give us a little light on this point, and tell us why the words are objectionable? They seem very ordinary precautionary words to insert. I am told that they are usual in Bills of this character.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF KINTOREhad on the Paper an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause:
"Any such Order may specify the lands on which and shall prescribe the conditions subject to which muirburn may be made or
244
the heath may be burnt and a copy of the Order shall be sent to the proprietor or his factor or agent."
The noble Earl said: It is a little difficult to draft Amendments before you have seen the clause as amended by the noble Duke. His Amendment certainly has improved the clause enormously, but perhaps there are one or two points which might yet be added to it. I should like to vary the Notice on the Amendment Paper, and to move at the end of paragraph (b) of the noble Duke's Amendment, to add:
"A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner."
I can only express a pious hope, from what I know of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, that their action in so doing may be somewhat speedier than it sometimes is.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Paragraph (b) of the proposed Amendment, at end insert ("A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner").—(The Earl of Kintore.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: We are very glad indeed to accept the Amendment.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Regulation of muirburn by Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
2.—(1) Where the tenant of any lands is precluded by the terms of his lease or otherwise from making muirburn or burning the heath thereon in such manner or to such extent as to him seems necessary or expedient, he may, after giving to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner two weeks notice of his intention to do so, make application to the Board for an order regulating muirburn on such lands.
(2) On any application under the foregoing subsection if the Board, after such inquiry as they think fit and after considering any representations by the parties interested which may be lodged with the Board within a period fixed by them (including any representations as to the manner in which and the extent to which muirburn or the burning of the heath has been or is being carried out by the proprietor) are satisfied that it is expedient to do so, the

245
Board may make an order regulating muirburn or the burning of the heath on such lands. Any such order may specify the lands on which, and shall prescribe the conditions subject to which, muirburn may be made or the heath may be burnt in any year during the currency of the lease: Provided always that such order shall not authorise any muirburn or burning of the heath at any time when such burning by the tenant would be in contravention of section one of this Act. In making any such order the Board shall have regard to the interests of the proprietor, of the tenant, and of any other person whom they may deem to have an interest. When any such order shall hove been made the tenant shall be entitled to make muirburn or burn the heath in accordance therewith, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the terms of the lease or tenancy.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (1), after "lands," to insert "who has been in occupation thereof not less than the preceding four years." The noble Lord said: A tenant who may have just signed his lease for fourteen years then goes, or threatens to go, to the Board of Agriculture and ask for permission to burn heather as specified in the Bill. That is, he is able to get a third party to come in and improve the terms and conditions of his lease. That seems manifestly unfair, and it is the object of my Amendment to secure that at least for a period of four years he should not be able to obtain these more favourable terms. It is only a very minor instance of the iniquity of breaking contracts which have been freely entered into. I trust that English as well as Scottish landlords will recognise that there is a very big principle here. It is breaking into freedom of contract. I would ask noble Lords opposite of the Liberal Party also to consoler this. They should support the general principle that two men are perfectly able to enter into a fair bargain.
The Amendment would inflict no hardship on the tenant. He ought to know the exact condition of the ground of which he is going to acquire the tenancy, and he signs the lease accordingly. The only reason for opposition to this Amendment that I can imagine is this. It was mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill that its object was to improve the food production of the country. That is one of the most specious cries of the day If this Bill were passed I do not think it would
246
secure £500 of additional value in the feeding stock to the country. If the Government want to conserve food why do they not stop all the waste of food that goes on in London day after day? I believe more food is wasted in London hotels and restaurants every night than will be saved by passing a Bill of this character. Therefore I do not believe in this Bill as a Bill for safeguarding the food production of the country. That is mere nonsense.
The Bill is really a political measure and not an economic measure at all, and I earnestly hope that those of your Lordships who hold the views I have expressed regarding this expected increase in the food supply will support my Amendment. I move it not so much because of my objection to this particular Bill as on the broad principles that I have mentioned. The operation of the Bill will not affect me very much personally. I have not a very large extent or ground and I take care to farm most of it myself. It may be that some of your Lordships think that the sheep farms will be hard hit, but I should say that no branch of agriculture has been more prosperous in Scotland during the last twelve years than sheep farming. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("lands") insert ("who has been in occupation thereof not less than the preceding four years").—(Lord Lamington)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred to the question of increasing the food supply in Scotland. I do not pretend to be an expert on this question, but in this Bill we are following to a certain extent the Report of the Duke of Buccleuch's Departmental Committee. Although in some respects we am proposing not to follow it exactly, there is no doubt that the Committee in general reported definitely that by a reform of the system of heather burning, the broad lines of which we are following in this Bill, an increase of food and wool in Scotland would certainly be facilitated. I do not know whether I am exaggerating it, but that is how I read the Report of that very valuable Committee, which consisted of the greatest experts that could be got together and which heard the very best evidence that could be

247
brought before it. It is really that, and that alone, that we are following to a certain extent in this Bill.
I am afraid His Majesty's Government cannot agree to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, although it is understood to be designed to meet the case where a tenant signs a lease which precludes him from doing the burning and soon afterwards goes to the Board with a view to getting rid of the stipulation to which he has just agreed. If a lease containing such a stipulation had been recently completed, that is a matter which the Board would be bound to take into consideration in determining the case. But if they were satisfied that burning was not being adequately carried out, they ought not to be precluded from exercising their powers merely because the tenant has recently made such an agreement. The main question the Board have to consider on any such application is whether, having regard to the interests of all concerned, adequate burning is, in point of fact, being done.
The clause as it stands contains adequate safeguards for the interests of the landlord and I believe that this Amendment would not be an improvement upon it. After all, if the landlord did adequate burning, and did it himself under the lease, the tenant would never get power from the Board of Agriculture to do any burning at all. Therefore, taking everything into consideration and having regard also to the fact that the Amendment would take away very materially from the operation of the Bill and cut away a great deal of the ground the Bill is meant to cover, I think your Lordships will see that it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept it as it stands.
LORD LAMINGTON: I regret the answer of the noble Duke. He said that the Amendment if accepted would take away the operation of the Bill to a great extent. I am willing to try to meet him part of the way by reducing the term from four years to three I might even go to two; but I think there ought to be a limit to the time. Even if a tenant did not get the acquiescence of the Board he might put his landlord in a difficult position, and the landlord ought not to be exposed to the possibility of such treatment. As I say, I should be content to reduce the term of years from
248
four to three, or even two, if the noble Duke would accept my Amendment. If he will not accept it I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to go to a Division upon the question.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: His Majesty's Government really cannot accept an Amendment of that kind because, as I explained, if a lease containing such a stipulation has been recently completed the Board of Agriculture are bound to take that fact into consideration, and the Board must be left with a discretion in order properly to exercise the powers conferred by the Bill in regard to these points.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I hope the noble Duke will reconsider the answer he has given. I wish to support the Amendment on totally different grounds from those on which it was moved. Apart altogether from the question of freedom of contract, no farmer in Scotland can know what a particular piece of hill land in Scotland is like until he has lived on it for two or three years, and he will not know very much about it, until he has lived upon it for a dozen years. No two pieces of land will grow heather or grass or anything else at the same rate or recover as quickly after fire. You may have a piece of land and get a crop of a certain amount from it in the same year if you burn it properly, whereas on another piece of land within a few hundred acres you might burn and get nothing that year. A tenant coming from land of a totally different type might easily be led to think that his farm was either over-burnt or under burnt and be unable to judge until he had been there a few years. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke will change his mind about this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not like to intervene in a Scottish debate, but the principle enunciated by the noble Duke has filled me with dismay. I have been brought up to believe that the sanctity of contract was a vital principle of the Conservative Party. The noble Duke says now that this Bill is going to break contracts, but that they will not be broken if a Minister or a Department says they shall not be broken. What has a Minister or a Department to do with that? Why should they be set up to

249
judge as to whether or not a contract should be maintained or broken? The right principle is that a contract made between two grown men, neither of whom is in a lunatic asylum, is a contract which ought to be binding and that has been the principle of the Conservative Party from time immemorial.
You must not do evil that good may come, even if the breaking of a contract will aid the food supply of the country, though on that I do not venture to do more than express an opinion. I do not believe it. I do not believe that these nostrums that are going to add to the food supply of the country are worth anything at all. But leaving that entirely out of question, you must not break a contract simply because you think that somebody will get some benefit out of it, and that is a vital principle. This may be only a small alteration, but once a precedent of this sort is set up it may be followed. It is proposed in the Mining Industry Bill to break contracts, and if once we begin to do that we shall never know where we are going to stop. I hope my noble friend will go to a Division and that we shall beat the Government upon the point.
LORD SEMPILL:. It seems to me that this Bill is a departure from the law of Scotland in regard to leasing. Our leases in Scotland are made as a rule with a break in them. That is not the case in England, where many leases are made annually. The break in Scottish leases is purposely made so that the landlord or tenant may have an opportunity of reviewing any of the provisions. The whole object of this Bill is to cast this principle upon one side and to enable the tenant to secure different to ms from those in the lease he originally signed. If your Lordships go to a Division I shall support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I have an Amendment on the Paper to omit Clause 2. The object of the Amendment is, of course, to maintain existing leases and existing agreements between tenant and landlord. Lord Lamington's Amendment lays down the law and says that the contract may not be broken immediately; for four years the contract must stand, but after that, if the tenant has contract ed for more than four years.
250
then, after four years, he may go to the Board and try to get out of the contract. That is the effect of Lord Lamington's Amendment. He says that for four years the contract shall not be broken, but after four years then the contract may be broken. I have an Amendment down which says that two people who have entered into a contract should keep to their contract. I do not think I can support Lord Lamington's Amendment saying that a contract, can be broken after four years. The matter raises a far bigger point than the more breaking of a contract to burn heather. It is a very common thing throughout Scotland, when a farmer takes a farm, to have a clause put in the agreement referring to heather burning and, in addition, there is also a clause in regard to the number of the sheep stock. When the noble Duke gets up and says this Bill will add greatly to the amount of mutton—
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I stated that the Committee said that.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: But the noble Duke takes the same view, I understand, as His Majesty's Government take, that this Bill will add largely to the amount of mutton which will be produced in Scotland. The noble Duke probably knows a great deal better than I do that in the case of a large number of sheep farms in Scotland there is a term in the lease stating that the number of sheep to be kept on the farms is strictly limited. I know plenty of cases of that kind. It is done, no doubt, for a good reason. The landlord is protecting his own interests and protecting his land. As a general rule it is not a good thing to overstock farms, because it generally ends in great mortality among the sheep. If a farm is covered with innumerable sheep for a year or two, not only does that kill all the heather, but it probably does not do the farm as a whole much good from any point of view. Therefore, in a large number of leases in Scotland, the number of sheep that can be placed on a farm is strictly limited. In addition there is the question of the valuation of sheep stock. I am sorry to have to introduce these matters, but the whole question of breaking contracts has been brought in and I only bring forward these matters because it seems to me

251
that this Bill goes a good deal further ban the mere question of heather burning.
One of the reasons for putting in this restrictive clause as to the number of sheep that can be maintained on a farm is this. In a large number of eases, when the tenant leaves his farm the landlord is bound to take over the sheep at what is railed the acclimatization value. Acclimatization value invariably means that the landlord has probably to take over the sheep at one-third more than they are worth. The market value of the sheep on a farm may be, for instance, £4,000 and the valuers come in and almost always the landlord has to give £6,000 for sheep stock whose market value is not more than £4,000. I think this largely arises because it is said that if you brought in a new flock of sheep they would not be so healthy and also owing to the fact that, before the days of wire fences, if you brought new stock into the hills, they would be all over the place. You are proposing to break that clause in agreements. How, in a large number of farms, can the number of sheep be increased without breaking this special clause in the lease that limits the number of sheep that can be kept on a farm?
The noble Duke says that if this Bill is not passed in its present form, and if the existing leases are exempted, the scope of the Bill will thereby be greatly reduced. Undoubtedly that will be so. Those tenants who have a yearly agreement or who have already had permission to burn the heather on their moors, can apply for the extra extension and can do what they like. Where there is an existing lease and the landlord and tenant have come to agreements that the land shall be managed and the farm farmed in a certain way, I do think there is absolutely no excuse for interfering with them by means of this Bill and saying that existing contracts shall be
overridden. My opinion is that this Bill will produce very little more food and that it will cause a very considerable amount of friction between landlord and tenant. When an agreement has been reached, not between one rich man and a poor man or in face of great competition, but in a number of cases between men of substance and considerable wealth, who knew quite well what they were doing when they entered into the agreement, there is no justification or excuse for interfering with that agreement by this Bill. When two parties enter into an agreement with their eyes open there is not a shadow of excuse for interfering with that agreement in this way.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I should like to be allowed to say one word in regard to this before we go to a Division. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, seems to think that the Board of Agriculture are going to do all they can to damage the farms. Some people may think that, but I can assure them they are quite wrong. The earnest wish and endeavour of the Board is to improve the value of the farms and they are not going to damage the farms by reducing the number of sheep stock upon them. On the contrary, their desire is to issue Orders which will have the effect of producing the largest amount of mutton. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, said that he would divide against the Bill on principle, but I would remind him that if he is against the Bill on principle he had an opportunity of dividing against it when the Second Reading was taken.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am so afraid of voting against the Government.
On Question, Whether the said words be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents,23; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Bute, M.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lawrence, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Merthyr, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

de Mauley, L.

Montagu of Beaulien, L.

Erskine, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Sempill, L.[Teller.]

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Askwith, L.

Latymer, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Eldon, E.

Cawley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desborough, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Onslow, E.

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

Stanhope, E.

Sutherland, D.

Ernle, L.

Allendale, V.

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

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Haldane, V.

Olivier, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more)

Parmoor, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Sandhurst, L.

Peel, V.

Shandon, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Stanmore, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Arnold, L.

Templemore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Thomson, L.

Treowen, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, on behalf of Viscount Novar, in subsection (1), after "notice" to insert "in writing." The noble Duke said: I think it is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("notice") insert ("in writing").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINEhad on the Paper an Amendment to move, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "Act," to insert: "A copy of the Order shall be sent to the proprietor or his factor or agent." The noble Earl said: I understand that my Amendment will be agreeable to the Government in a rather different form than that in which it appears an the Paver—namely, "A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, after ("Act") insert ("A copy of any such Order shall be sent by the Board to the proprietor or his factor or commissioner").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "interest," to insert "and (b) the protection of woodlands and plantations." The noble Duke said: I understand that this Amendment is agreed to. It is designed to meet Lord Lovat's representation regarding possible danger to areas under afforestation.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, after ("interest") insert ("and (b) the protection of woodlands and plantations").—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE EARL OF KINTORE THE EARL OF KINTORE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:—
"In the event of the tenant contravening the Order or failing to comply with any of the conditions thereof the Board shall have power to rescind the Order."
The noble Earl said: I hope that this Amendment is likely to be accepted by the Government. It is obvious that the proprietor ought to have some remedy in case of the tenant contravening the Order, and the proposal that I have to make is that it shall be in the power of the Board, on representations being made to them, to withdraw the Order. Of course, they have power to make the Order under the Bill, but I can find no power to withdraw it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, after ("tenancy") insert ("In the event of the tenant contravening the Order or failing to comply with any of the conditions thereof the Board shall have power to rescind the Order").—(The Earl of Kintore.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I agree.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Question is that Clause 2, as amended, stand part.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: I have already said what I have to say on the question of doing away with existing contracts and I shall now formally move the omission of Clause 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out Clause 2.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I think that this Amendment must be resisted. The clause is the main provision of the

255
Bill, and without it the Bill would not be worth while. The Amendment, therefore, is not very consistent with the decision to give the Bill a Second Reading. The power conferred on the Board is amply safeguarded, and will not be exercised where the proprietor is himself carrying out adequate burning. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee for schemes by agricultural committees to be put in force failing agreement by the Board, could not of course receive effect after the disappearance of agricultural committees. This clause takes its place, and the Government cannot agree to the proposed Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: If I may be permitted one word in answer, the noble Duke has said that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland will not put this into operation if there is adequate burning by the landlord. My only answer is that I think most landlords in Scotland are just as good judges whether moors are adequately burnt as any official of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I also wish to add that on the Second Reading, when I raised doubts as to the people likely to go and inspect these hill farms, and see whether more heather was to be burned, the noble Duke assured us that not only would officials of the Board be employed for the purpose but other people would be employed who, I understood, would be excellent men. I only wish to ask the noble Duke if he includes among these men prominent members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who, I believe, are chiefly responsible for this Bill. If he would assure me that most of these people who will be sent round to investigate will be owners of moorland in Scotland who know something about
the matter and are not, perhaps, entirely prejudiced, I think that I should have some faith in the proposal, but, when he tells us that Orders will not be made without adequate reason, I confess that I am alarmed. I am still of opinion that the owner himself would be just as good a judge of how the moor ought to be burnt as any official of the Board of Agriculture, and I confess that I am very much frightened that some of these outside people will be leading members of the Farmers' Union in Scotland, who, as I say, are said to be chiefly responsible for this Bill.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: Let me take this opportunity of assuring the noble Earl that whoever is sent round to investigate will, of course, be completely unbiased. The Board would never select these men from one Party or another, or as representing one side or another. They will be obtained from a completely unprejudiced source and will be men who have no interest in farming or in any particular trade.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I should like very much to know what sort of men the noble Duke indicates. Either a man knows what he is talking about or he does not, and, if he knows, he is certainly prejudiced.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: He would not be interested in that particular case. He would not be in any way biased.
On Question, Whether the Clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Faringdon, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Allendale, V.

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

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Latymer, L.

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Lawrence, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

Merthyr, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

O'Hagan, L.

Peel, V.

Olivier, L.

Parmoor, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Arnold, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Cawley, L.

Shandon, L.

De La Warr, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stanmore, L.

Eldon, E.

Darling, L.

Templemore, L.

Halsbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Thomson, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

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

Treowen, L.

Onslow, E.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bute, M.

de Mauley, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Erskine, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.]

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Morton, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lamington, L.

Sempill, L.

Churchill, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Strachie, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Banbury of Southam, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 2, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL had given Notice to move, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:—
Regulation of muirburn on common grazings.
".The making of muirburn or the setting fire to any heath or muir on any grazings held in common under the Landholders Acts shall continue to be regulated by the Land Court and the provisions of sections one and two of this Act in so far as they relate to applications to the Board of Agriculture shall not apply."
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I was asked to move this Amendment on behalf of ray noble friend the Duke of Atholl, but if the Government prefer the Amendment to Clause 5 that stands in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, my noble friend does not wish to press it.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: The Land Court, no doubt, make regulations affecting muirburn on common grazings, but they have no power to extend the ordinary period, and there is no reason why such extension should not apply to common grazings. Nor ought the provisions of Clause 2 to be excluded from common grazings. The Land Court, however, are of opinion that the matters dealt with in these two clauses should be in the hands of the same authority in the case of all land, and an Amendment accordingly stands in my name on Clause 5 to make clear what otherwise would be doubtful—namely, that Clauses 1 and 2 apply to common grazing. The Land Court prefer that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland should deal with it. The Land Court themselves, as your Lordships know, have no local officers moving about for inspection purposes. Therefore they are very anxious that this Amendment should not be pressed.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the Amendment is not moved?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not move the Amendment.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Construction, short title and extent.
5.—(1) In this Act the expression "tenant" means a tenant for agricultural or pastoral purposes.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926, and shall extend to Scotland only.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert
"and in the case of a common grazing includes the committee appointed under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, and the expression 'lease' in relation to such common grazing includes regulations made or approved by the Land Court under the said Acts."
The noble Duke said: This Amendment, as I have already indicated, is to make it clear that Clauses 1 and 2 apply to common grazing.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE IN THE CHAIR.]
Clause 1:
Power of court to substitute penal servitude for consecutive terms of imprisonment.
1.—(1) Where a person is convicted on indictment of two or more offences to which

259
this Act applies in respect of which he is liable to be sentenced to terms of imprisonment amounting in the aggregate to a period of not less than three years, the court may, Instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, sentence him to penal servitude for any term not exceeding the aggregate period for which he might have been sentenced to imprisonment, so, however, that no sentence of penal servitude imposed under this section shall be for a term exceeding seven years.
(2) This Act applies to all indictable offences not otherwise punishable by penal servitude except blasphemous or seditious libel and other offences of blasphemy or sedition, unlawful or riotous assembly, offences under any enactment relating to corrupt and illegal practices at elections, and offences of inciting or attempting or conspiring to commit any such offence as aforesaid.
(3) In the application of subsection (1) of this section to Scotland the expression "the Court" shall mean the High Court of Justiciary, and the power to award penal servitude conferred by that subsection shall be exerciseable in the case of a person remitted to the said High Court for sentence under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1887 and 1921, as well as in the case of a person convicted before the said High Court.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert the following proviso at the end of subsection (1):—
"Provided that if, on an appeal by a person sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences with which he was charged on separate indictments, it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the appellant, though not properly convicted on some indictment, has been properly convicted on some other indictment, the Court shall have the like powers as if the appellant had been convicted of the offences on different counts or parts of the same indictment; but where an appellant convicted of two or more offences, whether on one or more indictments, has been sentenced under this Act to penal servitude in respect of two or more offences and his conviction of any such offence is quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Court shall not affirm any sentence passed at the trial or pass any sentence in substitution there for which is more severe than would have been warranted by law if the appellant had been acquitted at the trial of any charge in respect of which his conviction is quashed."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is practically a consequential Amendment if the Bill is passed. It is of a technical character, and its object is to make certain changes in the powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not know that I need go into it in detail as I understand my noble friend opposite agrees.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD PARMOOR: I understand that this applies to the Criminal Appeal Court?
LORD DESBOROUGH: To the Criminal Appeal Court entirely.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: As I understand the Amendment it is merely to insert a safeguard that the present provisions regarding the Criminal Appeal Court will apply with equal force to sentences passed under this Bill as they do at present to sentences passed under the ordinary procedure. In these circumstances I accept and welcome this Amendment, although I am not quite sure that under the wording of the Criminal Court of Appeal Act it is absolutely necessary. But whether it is necessary or not, it is manifestly better that it should be made clear that persons who are sentenced under the provisions of the present Bill will be under no disability with regard to appeal but will be in the same position as persons sentenced under the present law.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or riotous" and, after "assembly," to insert "rout or riot" The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really a verbal Amendment. I think it is quite clear when one looks at the Bill that the framers of subsection (2) had in mind certain definite matters, but unfortunately I think they fell into inaccurate wording. The subsection as drafted contains the words "unlawful or riotous assembly." There is no such offence, as far as I know, in this country as riotous assembly. There is unlawful assembly, that is to say, an assembly of persons assembled for an unlawful purpose. There is rout, that is, when, having gathered in an unlawful assembly, people have got to the point that they have begun to carry out their common purpose, which purpose is unlawful. Finally you get riot, where that purpose is being carried out by force or violence. It is quite obvious that subsection (2) was meant to take in these particular forms of offence and the Amendment I am moving is merely

261
to put that intention into accurate legal language. It will then read, "unlawful assembly, rout or riot."
I have carefully considered the words of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack on the question of leaving out subsection (2) altogether, and if I may say so respectfully I entirely agree with what he said. Speaking personally I can see no sort of foundation, either in logic or in sense, for retaining the subsection, but others do not think as I do and there are many people who attach great importance to this subsection. What I feel is that if we attempted to leave out subsection (2) altogether undoubtedly there would be considerable diversity of opinion and it would become a controversial matter in another place. Considering the late period of the Session and the fact that this is still a Private Member's Bill, although backed by the neutrality of the Government—which is said to be benevolent—there is a possibility that if we begin to get into any controversy there may be a grave danger of the Bill not passing at all. For that reason I am perfectly prepared to sacrifice my sense of logic to my sense of what should be done, and consequently I move this Amendment, Hi order to get more accurate language instead of moving the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount on the Wool sack—namely, that the subsection should be omitted altogether.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("or riotous") and after ("assembly") insert ("rout or riot")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: In reply to what my noble friend has said about the attitude of the Government, I would say that the Government is more than neutral; it is benevolently neutral. This Bill passed through another place on the Motion of a private member and it comes to your Lordships' House also as a Private Member's Bill. It is quite unnecessary for the Government to take it up, especially as the Session is so very congested. With regard to this particular Amendment the Home Office not only considers it a necessary Amendment, but if the noble Earl had not moved it I should have thought it my duty to weary your Lordships by talking about it myself. I entirely agree with my noble friend in his definition of unlawful assembly, rout and riot and as the
262
Government are in sympathy with the Amendment I need not say more.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert at the end of the clause the following new paragraph:—
(b) A reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal shall be construed as a reference to the High Court of Justiciary in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act. 1926.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which I moved previously. It simply makes the Bill apply to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 11 at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Desborough.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Short title and extent.
2.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Act, 1926.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Criminal Justice (increase of Penalties)" and to insert "Penal Servitude." The noble Earl said: In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that the title was extremely unfortunate, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack agreed with me. This Amendment speaks for itself. It has this advantage over the original title, that instead of being a mis-description it is a description of what the Bill actually deals with.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("Criminal Justice (increase of Penalties)") and insert ("Penal Servitude")—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: In the view of the Home Office this is a very great improvement, and the words much more accurately describe the Bill. The Bill confers on Courts the power of passing a sentence of penal servitude in cases where they have now the power to impose consecutive sentences of imprisonment but not penal servitude. It does not increase the length of sentence.

TITLE.
An Act to increase and extend the powers of the court to inflict punishment in the case of certain crimes.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to leave out "punishment" and to insert "penal servitude in lieu of imprisonment." The noble Earl said: This Amendment follows from the last Amendment made.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, leave out ("punishment") and insert ("penal servitude in lieu of imprisonment").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Report of Amendments read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, in moving that the Report be now received may I recall that at an earlier stage of the Bill a question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. His suggestion was that when a man has been convicted of giving short weight under this Bill a notice of the conviction should be put up in front of his shop for fourteen days. That was supported, I think, by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor) and the noble Lord behind him, and I promised that I would bring the matter to the notice of the Home Office. I used some arguments against the proposal, but I find that the views of the Home Office against it are much stronger than were my own. They say it would be contrary to the general principles on which the Criminal Law is administered in this country, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will be satisfied with that statement.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 4 [Provisions applicable to the sale of certain articles of common consumption]:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add the following new subsection:
"(5) This section shall not apply in the case of any article which is proved to have been sold for export or to be intended to be so sold."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that a good deal of export business is done by metric weight or measure, and it would not be advisable, or perhaps even possible, to apply the provisions of this clause to that export trade. I therefore move this Amendment to exempt these articles from the operation of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 6:
Provisions applicable to the sale of bread.
6.—(1) A person shall not sell or offer for sale any bread otherwise than by net weight.
(2) A person shall not sell or have in his possession for sale or delivery under a contract of sale any loaf of bread unless its net weight is one pound or an integral number of pounds:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to loaves supplied under contract where the contract provides for the supply for consumption on the premises of the purchaser of not less than half a hundredweight of bread at a time, and for the weighing of the bread on delivery.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to fancy bread or to loaves not exceeding twelve ounces in weight.
(4) Every person selling bread by retail, or having in his possession any bread for the purpose of sale by retail, shall provide and keep in some conspicuous part of his shop or premises, a correct weighing instrument of a pattern suitable for weighing bread, and shall, if so required by the purchaser, or by an inspector of weights and measures, weigh the bread in the presence of the person so requiring, or, if the person so requiring is such an inspector as aforesaid, shall permit the inspector to weigh the bread.
(5) Every person carrying bread for sale or delivery to a purchaser shall, if so required by an inspector of weights and measures permit the inspector to weigh the bread.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"Provided that in Scotland the foregoing provisions shall apply to pan loaves, French loaves, and loaves of a similar character, with this modification, that any such loaf of the net weight of one-and-three-quarter

265
pounds may be sold or delivered for sale if the weight is clearly marked either by an impression made in baking or on any printed band or wrapper surrounding or containing the loaf."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was brought up in order to meet the requirements of the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, about pan bread. This Amendment, in conjunction with an Amendment to be made in Clause 14, effects the object of the noble Earl by allowing the sale of pan bread in loaves of 1 lb. 12 ozs., provided that there is an appropriate indication of its weight, either on the pan itself or on the wrapper round the bread. I think this will enable the bakers to continue with their present system, and at the same time it will enable housewives to be quite sure they get the proper weight of 1 lb. 12 oz.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 3, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has met this point. As he says, the Amendment does meet the situation by bringing pan bread within the principle of the Bill, although not making it liable to the full 2 lbs. weight. It will thus secure for the population of Scotland the assurance that they get full value for their money by weight and it will also secure the point which the bakers made that they should not be compelled to renew their plant in order to make the bread of a greater weight.
Clause 11:
Powers of inspection and entry.
(2) Where any person has in his possession for sale or delivery on sale any pre-packed article of food of any kind which is required by or under this Act to be sold by weight or measure, or in respect of which any representation of weight or measure is made, he shall, if so requested by an inspector of weights and measures, weigh or measure such article in the inspector's presence or permit the inspector to neigh or measure it, and, if necessary for this purpose, shall break open, or allow the inspector to break open, any wrapper or container in which such article is packed, and shall also if so requested by the inspector sell the article to him.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (2), after "or" ["or in respect of
266
which"] to insert "any article of food." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment gives over any articles of food, for instance, butcher's meat, the same powers to the inspectors as they already possess in the Bill as regards pre-packed articles.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, after the second ("or") insert ("ally article of food").—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 14:
Interpretation.
(4) In the application of this Act to Scotland, references to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for references to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the expression "fancy bread" shall not include a pan loaf, French loaf, or any loaf of a similar character, and the expression "information" shall mean petition or complaint.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (4), to omit the words "the expression 'fancy bread' shall not include a pan loaf, French loaf, or any loaf of a similar character." The noble Viscount said: This is merely consequential on the Amendment already accepted in Clause 6.
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 9, line 15, leave out from ("Fisheries") to ("and") in line 17—(Viscount Peel.)

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE (SALES ON COMMISSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as you are aware, this Bill is designed to put a stop to various undesirable practices which occur at public auctions as the result of persons conspiring together to offer less than the value of goods entered for sale. The Order referring the Bill to a Committee of the Whole

267
House having been discharged, I am moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The reason for that step is that I have received representations which I could not possibly disregard that that is the proper course to take with a Bill of this character, and I have had a great many letters from people who would be anxious to give evidence were such a Committee appointed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee—(Lord Darling.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the suggestion that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. It is an important Bill; it alters the law in an important respect and creates a new criminal offence. I think it is most desirable that the points that have been raised and others that may be raised should be referred to a Select Committee before the Bill is dealt with by the House. I will venture to send my noble and learned friend a note on the Bill, in order to put him in possession of the points which have occurred to me, but I need not trouble the House with those points.
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL.
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.
HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
FINANCE BILL.
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order): Privilege Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL AFFAIRS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on matters of foreign policy and any matters affecting the Empire; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I regret that the Motion I desire to make has been unfortunately delayed—I make no complaint of it—until rather a late hour. The best I can do is to make as short as possible the points on which I am seeking information from the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who I understand is to reply on behalf of the Government. I have sent him a list of the topics which I desire to raise so that there shall be no question of his not knowing what the particular points are, and I hope to receive from him such information as he is able to give me on these different heads.
The first point to which I wish to call attention is the question of Germany. I did not put these matters in this order upon the paper which I gave to the noble Earl, but I shall mention them in what I regard as the order of their importance and in that order I seek to raise them. I think there is no point upon which there is more general agreement in public opinion in this country than the desire that, without friction or conditions, Germany should become a Member of the League of Nations at the September Assembly and a permanent Member of the Council. The question I am asking to-day, however, is not a League Question but purely one of foreign policy. The difficulty, as I think I may put it, has arisen in this way. On Wednesday last the Foreign Secretary was asked a Question in another place which has given rise to what I might call serious dissatisfaction and comment in Germany itself. I will read the actual terms of the supplementary Question which was put to him in order that there may be no doubt as to the actual wards he used. I shall also call attention subsequently to what was said by Mr. Locker-Lampson.
The Question put to the Foreign Secretary was this:—
"May I take it that the condition of disarmament"—
disarmament, of course, is a prior factor to entry into the League—
"in Germany is entirely satisfactory?"

269
To that the answer of the Foreign Secretary was:
"No, Sir; I am sorry to say, no."
Surely no answer could be less calculated at the present juncture to ensure the smooth entry of Germany into the League this autumn. The natural effect of such an answer made by the Foreign Secretary at the present time was to create what has been designated by a well-informed correspondent as a thoroughly bad impression in Berlin. I have not seen the actual Despatch, but according to the report of the Despatch from the German Foreign Office, the German Foreign Office has said that the British Foreign Secretary ought to be aware that the disarming of Germany was actually carried out long ago, only a few details remaining to be settled.
Let me summarise the actual facts regarding the question of the disarmament of Germany. In January of this year the Foreign Secretary stated that the disarming of Germany had progressed satisfactorily. In March of this year the Commission of the League of Nations, of which the Foreign Secretary I think was the Chairman, reported, on the basis of a communication received from the Ambassadors' Conference—the body which deals with this question of disarraament—that the disarmament of Germany had been carried out in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles in a manner which was entirely satisfactory. The importance of that is that the whole movement for the successful admission of Germany into the League depended on the Report of the Commission in regard to the question of disarmament in Germany and that Commission, under the Chairmanship of the Foreign Secretary, reported that this was entirely satisfactory. Of course, if the question is raised, or sought to be raised at this time, that the obligations of Germany in regard to disarmament in any respect have not been entirely and satisfactorily carried out, that is inviting difficulty and objection when the question comes forward early next September as to the entry of Germany into the League with a permanent place on the Council.
Last night, in another place, Mr. Locker-Lampson gave an explanation which is reported under the head of "German disarmament." I think I ought to read it, because it is so
270
important. I will point out that after I have read it in what respect it appears to be unsatisfactory, is the hope that I may get a full and satisfactory answer in your Lord ships' House this afternoon. It is a matter which ought to be cleared up once for all, and cleared up now before any dissatisfaction grows or increases in. Germany and Berlin. This was the answer:
"it was the hope of His Majesty's Government last November that the exchange of Notes which took place between the Ambassadors' Conference and the German Government at that time (and which were published in Command Pager No. 2527) would lead to the rapid conclusion of all the disarmament questions that were still outstanding."
Your Lordships will notice that that answer refers to an earlier date—that is, November of last year—than either of the dates that I have referred to in January of this year or when the Commission reported at Geneva. It was said at those dates that, the disarmament of Germany was entirely satisfactory. This is an important matter to clear up.
The statement that I am making is not a complaint of what was said last November; it is a complaint of what was stated on subsequent occasions, partly in January and partly at Geneva, which are obviously the important times in a matter of this sort. Last night Mr. Locker-Lampson also said:
"It is consequently a matter of disappointment that there are still a certain number of points—mostly, I am happy to say, of a minor nature—which are not yet settled."
Expressions of this kind on behalf of the Foreign Office create disquiet, not so much in this country as abroad, and it is their effect abroad that is important. There may be some small points outstanding—I do not know as to that—but I understand, and have understood, that all relevant matters which were necessary to be settled before Germany was in a position to claim admission to the League had been satisfactorily settled. It was so stated on the occasion of the last meeting of the Council of the League at Geneva. Of course, this is a Foreign Office point, but I am sure the noble Viscount will corroborate what I said that on that occasion the Commission (which is always appointed for a new country

271
that is admitted into the League of Nations) reported that on this question of disarmament all had been satisfactorily settled in Germany.
Mr. Locker-Lampson further said:
"While for this reason my right hon. friend [the Foreign Secretary] expressed the view … on July 21 that the position was not entirely satisfactory, he does not desire it to be concluded that His Majesty's Government regard the situation with any disquiet."
I suggest that that explanation is extremely unsatisfactory, having regard to the difficulties which may be raised—I am sure I hope they will not be raised—in connection with the entry of Germany into the League and into the Council at the September meeting. I hope it will be stated in clear language, so that it may be understood in this country and in all foreign countries which are interested in this matter, that there is no departure so far as the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary are concerned from the attitude taken up by him at Geneva, that this disarmament had been completely and satisfactorily carried out, so that in every respect Germany was entitled to claim to be a Member of the League. As I stated just now, it is not a question of creating disquiet in this country but—what is always so much more important in foreign matters: I hope I speak with due consideration of that importance—of the effect, for instance, in this case, in Germany,, of a statement of that kind.
There is one point that I should like to mention in reference to this which the noble Viscount (Lord Cecil of Chel-wood), I dare say, would know even more fully than the noble Earl (Lord Balfour), although one is cognisant that no one in this country has had greater experience, particularly in initiating affairs at Geneva, than the noble Earl. When I was last at Geneva, in 1924, the question arose of superseding the International Commissions in Bulgaria, Hungary and Austria, and making provision for supervision by the League itself, which is, of course, the supervision contained in the Covenant of the League. On that occasion, after certain discussion, it was arranged that the scheme for supervision by the League should be so drawn as to apply to Germany as well as to Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary. It was considered that
272
a body so constituted—and the suggestions came from the Naval, Military and Air Commissions—should be competent also to deal adequately with the question of disarmament in Germany, and, on any more general basis of disarmament under Article 8 of the Covenant, would be a body which would supervise matters on behalf of the League of Nations.
I want to be as short as I can, having regard to the time, in asking the representative of His Majesty's Government in this House whether there is the slightest ground for suggesting that in any respect Germany is in default as regards its obligations of disarmament so as in any way to affect its claim for entry into the League of Nations. I am certain there is no matter on which public opinion is more unanimous in this country—quite irrespective of political Party matters, which ought not to intervene in foreign questions—than the desire that the Locarno conditions should be carried out and that, without conditions and without extraneous considerations, Germany should become a Member of the League and a permanent Member of the Council.
The next point I want to ask about is China, and I will be as brief as possible. First of all, let me state shortly what the information is that has come to me, and I should like to know what the opinion of His Majesty's Government is upon it. No doubt a large portion of the information which I have obtained has come from missionaries, but the importance of that fact is that no other body of men can appreciate more fully than they can the principal trend of opinion in China. It is a very difficult matter. Their view, as I have seen it expressed by men of competence, who have spent their lives in China as missionaries, is that there is a national self-consciousness arising in China which was not present before, and that that must be taken into consideration in regard to policy between this country and China. In order to follow that out, and to concentrate matters as shortly as I can, I would ask the Government whether in their view there is a difference in the conditions and problems which have arisen between this country and Peking and between this country and Canton, and I will explain exactly what I mean.
First of all, with regard to Peking, there is a very large headline in The Times correspondence from Peking, dated July 23. It, is headed "The Chaos in China: Need for Action by the Powers." That correspondent wrote from Peking, and so far as Peking is concerned he stated the view—I do not know what is the view of His Majesty's Government—that
"The procedure which has been followed by the diplomatic body in China since the Washington Conference of conducting the affairs of the various foreign countries by means of joint action has so conspicuously failed to help the people of China or even the individual Governments adhering to the Washington Treaty, that the time has come for it to be changed for a more effective and less cumbersome co-operative method if the cataclysm now menacing China and threatening to involve the foreigners living here in ruin is to be stayed."
That comes from Peking, and what I went to ask is whether that is an accurate statement, in the view of His Majesty's Government.
There is another question which I must ask. The same correspondent suggests, as I understand, that there should be military co-operative action by America, Great Britain, Japan and, possibly, France. That is a very serious suggestion indeed. I do not know whether it has been brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is suggested that there should be this military interference on this ground—the words are somewhat familiar—"the liberation of the suffering Chinese people from the oppressions of their ruthless self-appointed saviours" is necessary for their own future and for the prestige of the countries which I have mentioned. There are two definite matters of very great importance. It is very difficult in this country, I agree, to obtain the precise facts of matters of this kind, but if the facts are any way in the direction which I have indicated I should certainly be glad to hear that there has not been this failure which has been suggested, and still more that there is no probability of aggressive military action upon the plea which I have read out, that the Chinese are not to be left under their own self-appointed rulers, who are criticised in such words as I have indicated.
When we come to Canton, which in my view is to be regarded as a separate centre, the conditions appear to be far
274
more favourable. The first question which I wish to ask is this: What is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the suggestion of a large Shanghai Provincial State, with its centre at Canton?—because that is the movement which is being made from Canton at the present moment and it may be—it is a matter on which I cannot, of course, speak with any certainty—that a solution of some of our Chinese troubles is to be found in this direction.
There are two points which have been lately discussed between Canton and British Representatives. One is as regards, an international neutral inquiry into the conditions which brought about what has been called—I do not like to use the word massacre—the killing of certain Chinese at Shameen in 1925. The answer which I understand has been made is that the matter took place so long ago that no real inquiry can be made at the present time, and that it would be unwise to re-open old sores of that character. That may be perfectly true, and I give no opinion, but I ask His Majesty's Government whether that is their view. I further understand, on this matter whether there should be this further inquiry or not—I am reading from the words of correspondence which has been published—that "the Canton delegates pressed for a reference of this proposal to the British Government, and the British delegation agreed." Has there been agreement that this question of an inquiry into the difficulties at Shameen in 1925 should be referred to the British Government? If so, can His Majesty's Government give us any information as to the policy which they intend to adopt?
At the same time, there is a friendly indication that a certain sum, I think £1,250,000, is to be found and expended under a British engineer and British accountant, on further railway accommodation in the Canton district., and it is intimated that if that can be done it would be another way in which a friendly result could be obtained. Therefore the second question I wish to ask is whether this further proposal has been brought to the notice of the British Government, and, if so, what is the view that they take of it? I think I have made it clear that I wish for information as regards what we know to be these difficult conditions in China. It is of the utmost importance for trade, and for other

275
reasons, that there should be friendly relationship between this country and China, and there seems to be a prospect at any rate of such relations between Canton and Hong Kong, although the prospects are less favourable in the Peking district. I do not want to suggest difficulties, but I want to know what is the view of His Majesty's Government, and what they think is the right solution.
The next question that I am afraid I must touch upon—and I shall do so as shortly as. I can—is that of Iraq, which again is a question of foreign policy and does not arise at Geneva. I want to put my meaning at the outset in order that my remarks may be concentrated. The policy that was originally adopted towards Iraq and which was continued by the Labour Government was to regard Iraq as a mandated territory and to say that it was the duty of the Mandatory—in this case Great Britain—to educate the country for self-government and independence as early as conditions would allow. The last time that this matter was discussed in this House I remember that speeches were made by Viscount Grey of Fallodon and by the late Marquess Curzon of Kedleston.
This was in 1924, when Lord Corey or Fallodon used these words—
"We went to Iraq during the War for purely strategic reasons. I was a member of the Government which went there, and I know it was done for purely strategic reasons."
Lord Curzon, in the same debate, went much further. He said—and I am reading his words—
"I was the only man who opposed going to Baghdad at all …."
and he added that he had never desired to map out that part of the world as an arena for British rule or empire in the future. He further stated that the Treaty of 1924 was a measure for diminishing our responsibility and handing it over, and for creating an Arab State. I think that this was an absolutely right statement of what the policy should be.
That policy was carried a good deal further at Geneva when I was there as representative of the Labour Government in September, 1924. I may add that Lord Curzon stated further that he was mainly responsible for the Treaty
276
which he had made superseding a long period of occupation in Iraq and reducing it to the position of a mandated territory, in which the Mandate was to be in operation for not more than four years and might be in operation for a much less period. It is a very important question indeed whether in our treatment of Iraq we start on the principle of allowing Iraq to be self-sufficing and independent—or whether we have in mind its becoming a more or less permanent part of our Imperial Possessions. I say without hesitation that there is reason to suppose that the idea of extending the principle of an Imperial Possession, as against a Mandate, to Iraq is not an idea which the Government or the Colonial Secretary regard unfavourably at the present moment. The Mandate has been extended, as we know, for a period of 20 or 25 years with the possibility of breaking it at different times. I do not put so much weight on the terms, which were settled when I was at Geneva in order to make sure that no one could say that we had undertaken responsibility beyond that time, but what I think is of the utmost importance is this question: Do we intend to stop there altogether or do we intend the relationship between a mandated country and a mandatory Powers? I will not stop, at this time of the evening, to quote the terms of the Covenant, which, of course, are well known both to the noble Earl and to the noble Viscount opposite.
Upon this point, however, I should like to call attention to one figure. The total expenditure provided in the Estimate, which came to me in the form of a White Panes a day or two ago, for Palestine and Iraq—they were not separated—was £4,444,000, of which the cost of the Imperial garrisons in Iraq and Palestine amounted to no less a sum than £3,455,500. I am not saying that this may not be necessary, although in the present movement for economy all these matters have to be very seriously considered, but. I do want an assurance on that point, for what has been done there may lead to a risk of its being said hereafter that we undertook the responsibility on the footing that Iraq was to be regarded as Part of our Imperial Possessions and that the relationship was not merely temporary, with the intention that, as a mandatory Power, we might educate her in the conditions

277
of independence and to prepare herself to join the League of Nations. Perhaps the noble Earl, when answering me, will bear in mind that one would wish to know, having regard to the history of this matter, whether the principle laid down by Lord Curzon as a principle of the Conservative Government when he was Foreign Secretary is the same principle as is still being preserved in the relationship between Iraq and this country.
The next point of which I gave notice to the noble Earl and on which I wish to ask his opinion—I am sorry that there are so many points, but I shall be as short as I can—concerns Egypt. I do not assume that there has been any change in our relationship with the Sudan. I recollect that, when I represented the Foreign Office in this House when the Labour Government was in power, great satisfaction was expressed with the view that I put forward for the Foreign Office that we did not intend in any way to leave our obligations in the Sudan, but that we intended to maintain our position there in order to carry out all the obligations that we had undertaken. I assume, for the purpose of the present discussion, that in this respect, at any rate, there has been no difference whatever.
My real point in regard to Egypt is this. When Lord Milner's Report was not adopted, which, in the view of Lord Grey of Fallodon, was equivalent to overthrowing the system of Lord Cromer, the alternative was that, subject to four specified points—namely, the Sudan, imperial communications, foreign policy and the treatment of foreigners—Egypt was to be, as regards her internal affairs, a self-governing country. Is that principle being carried out at the present time? One knows, of course, what passed some time ago as regards Zaghlul Pasha, and I need not go into that, but I want to know if the internal government of Egypt is really in the hands of the Egyptian people, as was solemly promised to them at the time when the arrangement was made, and these four excepted matters were taken out of their control. I raise no question on that at all. On the contrary I appreciate that as regards those four points it was necessary to make an exception. But, within that exception, is Egypt at the present day being treated as a self-governing country in the sense that she is allowed to elect her own
278
Government through her own Parliamentary system in order that her real wishes and desires may be represented?
My last point I can put, I think, very shortly. I included in my Question not only foreign policy but Empire policy. I did not include that in order to raise a general discussion on such a world-wide topic. I put it down for the reason that I wanted, in the first place, to ask His Majesty's Government whether the arrangement for the holding of the Imperial Conference at the beginning of October is likely to hold good. One knows that since that date was fixed certain obvious difficulties have arisen, particularly in Canada, which may necessitate an alteration or postponement. I want to know if His Majesty's Government can give us information whether, at any rate at the present time, that date still holds. It was to be October 5. Secondly, I want to ask one or two questions as regards the programme The programme was indicated—I have not-the reference, but the noble Earl will know—by the Prime Minister in another place, but indicated in the most general language. What I want to ask is whether it is intended to discuss under the head of foreign policy the serious questions which have been raised as to the position of the various Dominions in the event of this country unfortunately becoming a belligerent Power.
I have been told more than once that matters of this kind may be discussed. But the matter is one or urgency. Nothing is more important for the whole progress and peace of the world and the maintenance of the Empire than the conditions which I have often heard the noble Earl so eloquently describe, conditions of a common loyalty and a common freedom. I want to urge this: the greater the freedom, the greater the loyalty. If you want to get a certainty of the support of our Dominions in the freest and most generous spirit on all occasions when the Mother Country is seeking their support, I think you can only find it by granting a maximum of freedom—I will not call it independence, that is a rather different word, but a maximum of freedom in these questions which have been so much discussed lately both in the South African Union and in Canada.
There is only one other point and I have finished. It is this. A great deal has been heard of the continuity of foreign policy. Of course, the continuity of obligations, particularly Treaty obligations, is an essential element in civilised life, but if you want a more general continuity in political outlook you can only obtain it by opportunities for free discussion and consideration. One of the difficulties of Parliamentary methods, which we have overcome in this country more than elsewhere, is that whatever the desire for continuity may be the conditions are determined by the opinion of the country expressed on the occasion of any particular question. There are two ideals underlying most of the foreign policy of this country. There is the ideal of force and the ideal of conciliation. I need hardly say—I have expressed it so often—that ray view, and the view of those with whom I act, is entirely for conciliation or, if conciliation fails, arbitration applicable to all kinds of international dispute. That was the policy which during the period of office of the Labour Government we did our best to forward in every direction.
But there are other elements and other ideals. There is a notion that you can obtain by force, and ought to obtain by force, what perhaps you cannot obtain by negotiation and arbitration. I think the answer to that is that what you so obtain is of little or no value. You cannot regard what has been obtained by force as a settled matter. In every respect you ought to carry out the principle of arbitration as a means of settling in a peaceful manner all international disputes. I am using the words which we find in the Treaty of Locarno as between Germany and France. I cannot imagine any more critical conditions for settlement than the relationships of France and Germany. If those nations can settle the matter by "peaceful means"—those are the words used in the Treaty of Locarno—surely we ought to strive in every direction for the principle of arbitration and conciliation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD): My Lords, my noble friend has asked me to say a few words upon the first point raised by the noble Lord's
280
Question—namely, the disarmament of Germany. As I understand it, the question which has caused some anxiety to the noble Lord is whether there is any such failure by Germany to carry out her obligations to disarm as would make it possible to suggest that she is not fulfilling conditions necessary for entry into the League of Nations.
LORD PARMOOR: I ought perhaps to add—of course, with reference to what the Foreign Secretary said.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I recall to the noble Lord the procedure which has to be followed upon an application by a State to enter the League of Nations? A State has to fulfil certain conditions which are set out in Article I of the Covenant. Perhaps I had better read the actual words: The State must have shown
"its sincere intention to observe its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval and air forces and armaments."
No question regarding naval, military and air force armaments arises in regard to Germany, because her obligations were laid down in the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore the only thing that had to be inquired into, and inquired into in accordance with the ordinary routine, was whether there was a sincere intention to observe her international obligations.
In order to inquire into that, according to an ordinary practice, a small Sub-Commission was appointed, in this case presided over by my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary, which inquired into that and the other conditions necessary. When it came to this particular question the Commission, I understand, had before it a Report from the Ambassadors' Conference that they knew of no reason to suppose that there was anything which would induce them to doubt that Germany had a sincere intention (quoting, I believe, the actual words of the Article) to observe its international' obligations. There is nothing, as far as I know, that has occurred since then to throw any doubt upon that finding of the Ambassadors' Conference. Therefore the decision of the Sub-Commission, which was that Germany had fulfilled all the conditions necessary for membership of the League of Nations, stands and is

281
in no way impugned or altered by anything that has occurred, or anything that has been said since that time.
As to the statement made by my right hon. friend in another place, I really have nothing to add to the explanation given by the Under-Secretary—namely, that, though it be true that there are some matters which are still outstanding—and we regret that there should be any matters outstanding—they are not of a nature which causes the Government any anxiety in reference to the fulfilment of the obligations of Germany.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, I need not say I am grateful to my noble friend for having taken that part of the task of replying to the noble Lord on his shoulders, for he is far more competent to deal with it than I am. I will endeavour now, at this not very convenient hour, to touch on some of the subjects, or all the subjects, which the noble Lord brought to my notice. He will recognise that the courteous intimation that the sent me that he proposed to say something about China, about Iraq, and about Egypt by no means gave me notice of the kind of question in detail which he was going to raise. I make no complaint of that, but my reply may be less adequate than it would have been had a full notice, in the House of Commons sense of the word, been given of the questions, as I might then have given him more satisfaction than I shall be able to do as things now actually stand.
He began by quoting the opinion of missionaries in China to the effect that their observation showed them that there was a great awakening of national self-consciousness in the 400,000,000 population of that great Empire. All the information that I have received is of a similar tenour. I think that a world movement—perhaps a world movement in excess—in favour of nationalism has affected all nations, and it has not affected China much less than other nations. It is true, undoubtedly, that in addition to the age-long dislike of foreign practices and foreign manners, which has been a factor of rather powerful character in China's social life, there is this growth of what can be more accurately called a national self-consciousness. But when the noble Lord goes on to ask me
282
whether that national self-consciousness is going to be met on the part of Western nations by a kind of military alliance for the purpose of coercing China, I can assure him that I am not aware that, any nations have entertained so fantastic a notion. So far as His Majesty's Government, at all events, are concerned, we desire to interfere as little as possible in the internal affairs of China. China must work out her own salvation. She is now, as everybody knows, going through a period of extreme difficulty, and the difficulties that she is undergoing from her own internal point of view are necessarily reflected in difficulties which we, the other nations of the world in commercial and diplomatic intercourse with her, feel on our side.
What is going on in China? There is nothing there, as far as we can see, which deserves to be called a Central Government in the Western use of that term. Peking has no authority over large parts of the country, it has little authority over the remainder, and I have heard persons well qualified to speak on the subject say it has frequently happened in recent years and months that the power and authority of the Central Government does not extend beyond the walls of the capital. In the capital are nominally concentrated officials whose title would indicate that they have authority recognised over the whole of the rest of the country, and it is with them that we have to deal in the main. It is with them that our diplomatic relations take place, and it inevitably throws difficulty, embarrassment and confusion into the relations between China and external Powers that unfortunately the authority of the Central Government with which those external Powers have to deal is really in some respects wholly negligible in connection with Chinese affairs.
If you ask, since the Central Government of China is at present so lamentably weak who is it who exercises authority in that country, I can only answer to that what everybody knows to be the fact, that there are military authorities, responsible only to themselves and their armies, who, with varying fortunes, deal with the situation each in his own district. It is from our point of view not only a very abnormal and singular state of things, but it is one which produces great suffering in China itself, and great embarrassments

283
in the relations between China and outside Powers. But it is not for us to put an end to that state of things. We are not going to raise armies to traverse the length and breadth of China, and force the 400,000,000 of the Chinese population into any Western mould. They must work out their own salvation. In doing so they appear to me to be making many mistakes, and it is unfortunately true that their mistakes react upon us. But—I now speak merely for the Government, and not for other nations than our own—what we desire most earnestly, most sincerely is to co-operate with China, to help China where we legitimately can, to recognise that we and the Chinese, so far as commerce and economic affairs are concerned, have common interests and, as regards the organisation of their own country, our hope is that there will be no difficulty in their managing their own internal affairs.
Of course, I know only too well that there are difficulties in connection with the Maritime Customs and other points connected with Treaty rights which certainly require modification and reform, and perhaps even the oldest of us may live to see that they are removed. There is a great movement in that direction and with that movement wherever it can be legitimately taken we sympathise. But in connection with all these commercial and judicial affairs, it is quite impossible for us simply to say that all the international structure which has been built up in the last eighty years is to be summarily removed and conditions are to be brought into being as if that history had never existed. That, of course, the noble Lord would be the last to ask. All he can ask, and I am sure all he does ask, is that if there is any action which this country may assume we should certainly desire the good of China and the good will of China, and the good of China and the good will of China are both objects most earnestly desired by His Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord asked me about the relations between Canton and Peking. As the noble Lord is well aware, there is a strong movement in China which many good observers say is going to end in some kind of federal system between the Provinces. I do not know whether
284
that will be for the good of China or the evil of China, and it is not for me to pronounce an opinion. But that there are currents of opinion running in that direction I think is probably indubitable. China has had this strong provincial feeling developed in her long history. It has never ended in the breaking up of China and I have no reason to believe that China is more likely to be broken up in consequence of her present unhappy condition of chronic civil war than she has been in many other critical and difficult periods of her history.
In the meanwhile, it is impossible to deny that nothing can be more embarrassing in connection with the external relations of China than this unhappy combination of an entirely powerless Central Government and a series of generals each dealing with his own district in his own way, each engaged in intrigues and contests with the other, each having aims which may change from day to day and which at all events it is not my business to fathom or to estimate. Nothing can be more difficult than a situation in which that powerlessness of the Central Government and those powers of these provincial military generals constitute the complex and confused entity with which foreign diplomacy has to deal. We must all hope that these conditions will ameliorate, but I cannot honestly say, as far as I am concerned, that the conditions seems to me to be in a process of rapid improvement. The noble Lord asked me some questions regarding the Canton incident and the present Canton negotiations, but I am sure he will take it from me that it is not very desirable that I should enter on this occasion into that subject, which is in a state of transition and on which I certainly should not care to give any definite opinion.
In reference to Iraq, the noble Lord asked me what the intentions of the Government were with regard to the future relations between that country and ourselves. I do not think there has been any change in substance. We desire to see Iraq become an independent State. It is an independent State at this moment, but we desire it gradually to develop into a condition in which it requires assistance from no one and leans on no one. I do not know how soon that condition will be attained, but it is not yet attained in the opinion of the League

285
of Nations, as the noble Lord knows, and, somewhat reluctantly, it is clear that we must carry on the process of assisting, supporting and advising the Government of Iraq for some years to come. I am afraid Lord Curzon's estimate of four years, to which I think the noble Lord referred, is too short; but the noble Lord may rest assured that our desire is to see Iraq developed as soon as possible into a condition in which she is wholly independent of us, and entirely able to support herself against foreign aggression or internal disorder.
Then he asked me whether Egypt was a self-governing country. I should say certainly and beyond question Egypt is a self-governing country. There are four most important reservations, to which the noble Lord himself made reference, and so long as those reservations exist, so long as those problems are unsettled, of course inevitably problems may come up in which we should be obliged to exercise an authority and take a part which are not precisely those which we should adopt with a country which was in the full sense of the word independent. I mean independent apart from those four problems. But putting those four problems on one side we have to regard, and do regard, Egypt as an independent country. I do not know that anything more can be said upon that subject, and I hope that what I have said, which I think is the substantial truth, is also the formal truth as regards international law. I think substantially it is.
Another point on which the noble Lord questioned me was that of the Imperial Conference, and he asked me about the dates. I understand that the Prime Minister is to make a statement in the very near future and I need not anticipate that. I have little doubt myself that for the convenience of the Dominions the date will have to be deferred to after October 5, but I leave the Prime Minister to say exactly what the last arrangements are that we have arrived at in conjunction with the Dominions.
The noble Lord ended by raising the point of the relations in which the Dominions stood to us in case of difficulty and asked me whether that question will come up. It will certainly come up if any of the Dominions desire it, I and think there can be little doubt that the
286
subject will be touched upon. Perhaps I had better say no more on the subject. My own personal view is that the relations are those necessarily of equality. None of us conceive that of these conglomeration of free States one is above the other. One may have more responsibility than another, one may be in more dangers than another, one may be closer to the centre of international complications than another, but all are on an equality. That is the very essence, as I understand it, of the British Empire. As to exactly what that equality involves, as to exactly what degree of responsibility each has for the other, on that I personally think very little is gained by refining, discussing or defining. I should say that a: far as this country is concerned we are bound to go to war to defend any part of this Empire which is in danger. Personally I think: the duties of all the other members of the Empire to us are not less than our duties to them, but, as to the particular conditions under which that great duty is to be exercised, I do not believe anything is gained by inventing hard cases before hand.
Our plain duty is to defend the Empire of which we are so important a part. That duty, I hope and believe, we shall always carry out and it is also our duty—I am sure I speak for the Government in this respect—to bring them into our councils as far as that is possible. There are what I might almost call mechanical difficulties in certain kinds of consultation—difficulties of time and space which no scientific discoveries will wholly enable us to eliminate. Time and space inevitably come into these considerations, but we desire to give them the fullest information as to the motives which animate our policy. We desire to bring them with us on every possible occasion. We desire that the unbreakable bond which unites us together shall carry with it that mutual confidence, that constant interchange of ideas, that harmony of ideas and ends which, after all, are the great basis and strength of the Empire. As to how far and in what way these general maxims—perhaps you might call them platitudes—will be dealt with by the various elements of the Empire when they meet togther towards the end of October I am unable to say, but I confidently hope and

287
believe that the political instincts, identical in character, identical in aim, which spring from the fact that we have all been brought up under common traditions and with common political instincts, will carry us through all the difficulties of discussion and, when the occasion arises, through all the perils and perplexities of action.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, my only regret is that the House is not better filled to have heard the extremely interesting speech and information which the noble Earl has given to us. I am sure he will acquit me of responsibility for the difficulties which put off this discussion till an unfortunately late time. The only other observation I should like to make is
288
this. Those who act with me on this side of the House have the same desire of Imperial unity as the noble Earl has himself expressed. Exactly how that can best be obtained is, of course, a matter for discussion and consideration, but the ideal and the object are the same—Imperial unity of these self-governing Commonwealths, all on the basis of equality and all with a common loyalty one towards another. I am sure the Party with which I am connected will co-operate fully in any considered policy on those lines. I again thank the noble Earl. It is too late to add more now.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
READING UNIVERSITY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

BURGESS HILL AND ST. JOHN'S COMMON GAS ORDER, 1926.
GRAYS AND TILBURY GAS ORDER, 1926.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.