Sitting of 2 June 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North Eastern Electric Supply Bill,
Scarborough Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Humber Bridge Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Friday, 10th June.
Hove Pier Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour what answer he has given to the protests which have been sent to him by churches of all denominations in the West of Scotland against the distress which is being caused by the operation of the means test in all sections of the community; and what action he contemplates taking?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The only protests of this description which I have received are one from a meeting of church workers held at a Glasgow church and one from the Kirk Session of another Glasgow church forwarded to me within the past few days by the hon. Member. I have noted these protests.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Minister simply says that he has noted these protests, but I want to know what action he is going to take?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have constantly stated in this House the justification for the means test, and I have constantly taken such action as I was able to take to ensure that it worked fairly.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the 3,700 men thrown idle as a result of the stopping of work on the new Cunarder have in most cases since been in receipt of unemployment benefit, but as the 26 weeks' period will expire by the middle of next month 2,500 of them will have to stand the means test to receive further benefit, and as a result many of them will be cut off from further payments, while many others will have their allowance reduced; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, the Government will do away with the means test?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member on 5th May.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen a speech that was delivered at the Assembly in Edinburgh on Wednesday, in which the Reverend John Munro distinctly stated that the means test in operation in Scotland was breaking the hearts of tens of thousands of decent men and women, and what action is the right hon. Gentleman going to take there?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have not seen the report of that speech.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If I put before the right hon. Gentleman the speech, and the approval that it met with at the General Assembly, with Sir Iain Colquhoun in the chair, will he tell me what action he will take?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Again, I cannot add to what I have already said. With regard to the question on the Paper, of course these men will not have their benefit stopped or reduced unless they have exhausted their insurance rights and their means justify such action.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question of the means test on the very first available opportunity.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, arising from an interview between a representative of his Department and the chairman of the Birmingham public assistance committee, amended regulations have been issued by that committee to the sectional relief sub-committees on the subject of special cases; and will he now consider the advisability of making it clear to all applicants that they have the right to ask to appear before the sub-committee if they are not satisfied with the determination arrived at?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The arrangements for interviewing applicants for transitional payments are within the discretion of the authority concerned. I understand that it is the practice of all sub-committees dealing with transitional payments in Birmingham to grant an interview whenever they are requested to do so by an applicant.

    DURHAM.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the representations made to him by the Durham County Council as to the additional burden placed upon the ratepayers in consequence of large numbers of men being disallowed unemployment insurance benefit; and what action he proposes to take in view of the fact that Durham is already a necessitous area?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The question of the arrangements to be made outside the Unemployment Insurance Scheme for the unemployed who are capable of and available for work is one of the matters which has been referred to the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, and I am unable to take any action until the Commission's report has been received.
    Mr. McKEAG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of relief of able-bodied unemployed in the county of Durham has increased by an amount approaching £1,000 per week since November of last year; and, since Durham is a very necessitous area, and this can only serve to aggravate the depression, will he not consider some earlier relaxation of the regulations?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir. Obviously, no alteration can be made without legislation; and, clearly, I can-
    1300
    not introduce legislation until I have the advantage of the guidance of the Royal Commission.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the report to be available to Members before the Recess?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, I expect it.

    DISALLOWED BENEFIT, GLASGOW.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of men who were employed for a few days before, and re-employed after, the New Year holidays on ship repair work at Partick and Govan, have not yet received their unemployment benefit from the Govan Employment Exchange for the days between the two periods of employment; that the cases of two of the men were selected by the Exchange officials and put before the court of referees as test eases, the decision upon which was to govern the remainder; that the court of referees decided in favour of the two cases; that the insurance officer appealed to the umpire and refused to observe the arrangement of the test case but sent the remainder of the men individually before the court of referees, which decided against each of the men, only giving leave to appeal to the umpire to three; that the chairman of the court of referees informed the men's representative that the umpire's decision would apply to all the men whom he had disallowed and that the umpire has given his decision in favour of the men whose cases had been referred to him, but the insurance officer refuses to apply that decision to the remainder and is now sending them before another court of referees; whether he can state the reason for the breach of the original arrangement of the two test cases, the cost of, and the time taken by, the courts of referees and the umpire in hearing these cases; and whether, to avoid further waste of time and expense in this matter, he will have the benefit which should have been paid on 15th January, and which the umpire decided they are entitled to, paid without further delay?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. MACLEAN: As this case has been going on since the beginning of January,

    1301
    will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the inquiry he is making is expedited with due regard to that fact?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir; I have given directions to that effect.

    LICENSING LAW.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any legislation is to be introduced this Session in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing Laws (England and Wales)?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): As the hon. Member will no doubt have anticipated, the answer is in the negative.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this Commission was set up because the Labour Government was frightened of the drink question; and is there any more chance of the present Government being bolder than the Labour Government?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: In view of the state of legislation this Session, it is obviously impossible.

    PERSISTENT OFFENDERS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether the committee appointed to inquire into the existing methods of dealing with persistent offenders has submitted its report; and whether the report is to be published?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The committee has submitted its report, which has been presented to Parliament. Copies will be available for Members to-morrow afternoon.

    FACTORY LAW.
    Major NATHANasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce during the present Session a Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the laws relating to factories?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I regret there is no possibility of such legislation this Session.

    JUVENILE OFFENDERS, LIVERPOOL (SENTENCE).
    Mr. LOGANasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of six Liverpool youths who were sentenced at Conway Police Court, on 23rd May, to one month's imprisonment each for escaping from the Conway Poor Law institution instead of staying in the institution until permitted to leave; and, as they have never been in gaol before, will he inquire into the case with a view to remission of the sentences?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I have made inquiry into this case, which had not previously been brought to my notice, and I find no reason for recommending the remission of the sentences passed on any of the six youths, all of whom had committed several previous offences..
    Mr. LOGAN: Am I to take it that, in cases in which there has been no previous commitment, youths are sent to prison for the simple offence of breaking out of a workhouse?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Some of these youths have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act several times. One has been dealt with six times and fined six times, and others have been repeatedly dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act; and the Court thought that in this case it was necessary to pass this sentence.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is it not a fact that these boys have only been guilty of playing football in the streets, and have never been in prison before?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: No, Sir; some of the offences were quite serious ones.

    MOTOR OMNIBUSES (PETROL AND EXHAUST FUMES).
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Home Secretary what steps are taken by his Department at present for testing public omnibuses in respect of petrol emanations (fumes and exhaust); is he satisfied as to their effectiveness; and is he aware that a number of conductors and drivers of such vehicles are reporting sick, with headache and gastritis, owing to this cause?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Every omnibus is given a running test before being licensed, special care being taken to see that no excessive or obnoxious fumes are emitted; and if any vehicle, after being licensed, is seen to be offending in this respect, the licence is suspended and it is removed from service until the defect has been remedied. I have no reason to doubt the general effectiveness of these arrangements; and so far as I am aware only two cases have occurred during the present year in which it is claimed that sickness has resulted from the cause suggested.

    LOTTERIES, BETTING, AND GAMBLING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. ROSS TAYLORasked the Home Secretary if he will recommend that the terms of reference should be enlarged of the Royal Commission inquiring into the laws regarding lotteries and cognate matters so as to give them power to advise the Government as to the desirability, or otherwise, of issuing national premium or other bonds of a like nature?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: It is for the Royal Commission themselves to interpret their terms of reference, but I am advised that they are sufficiently wide to permit the Commission to consider the point to which the hon. Member refers, should they consider it desirable to do so.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the issue of such bonds would greatly facilitate loan conversion operations?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member asks for my personal opinion, it is in the negative.

    REMAND HOME ACCOMMODATION, ESSEX.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the remand home at West Ham has recently been closed, and that there is now no remand home in the county of Essex; and what steps are being taken to provide suitable remand home accommodation at convenient centres within the Essex County Council area?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The statement in the first part of the question is not correct so far as it relates to the needs of the eastern
    1304
    part of the county, since there are two remand homes (one for boys and one for girls) at Colchester. I am informed that, even though the county authorities and two other boroughs in Essex used the remand home in West Ham, the cost proved to be excessive owing to the small number of children to be accommodated. I understand that the authorities concerned are now using the remand home provided by the London County Council.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that children are now being sent there from far distant districts in East London, and have even been sent from Southend to Battersea; and, further, that quite young girls, because of lack of accommodation, are being sent to Wormwood Scrubs prison?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I was not aware of that last fact. With regard to the distance from which they have to be sent, I agree that it is inconvenient, but, on the other hand, the number of children received into this remand home was so small that the cost amounted to £4 per week per child.
    Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the statement I have made with regard to girls?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

    DOG RACING (TOTALISATORS).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary how many totalisators are in use on greyhound racing tracks, licensed and unlicensed; whether any steps have been taken to establish their legality or otherwise; and whether he is aware that in many cases free admission is allowed on purchase of a programme and that the proprietors are compensated by all bets being made through the totalisator?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I have no information which would enable me to answer the first and third parts of the question. As regards the second part, I am aware of only one case which has been decided by the High Court, but I understand that a recent decision in another case may become the subject of an appeal to that court.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If information is forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman on the last part of the question, will he examine it in the light of the Entertainments Duty?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I shall be very happy to receive any information.

  EDUCATION.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
    Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Education what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take on the recent report of the Departmental Committee on Private Schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave on 12th May last to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Captain North) when I said that the report was receiving my careful consideration, but there could be no question of proceeding during the current Session with the legislation which would be requred to give effect to its main recommendations.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Is it not the case that extensive legislation will not be necessary in view of the fact that the report is generally favourable to the private school system?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Some legislation will be necessary, and I am sorry to say the current Session affords no opportunity for that.

    INFANT CLASS TEACHERS.
    Captain NORTHasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the number of certificated and non-certificated teachers, respectively engaged partly or wholly in educating children under six in the public elementary schools?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The numbers of certificated and non-certificated teachers engaged wholly with children under six years old, on 3lst March, 1931, were 3,943 and 2,633 respectively. I regret that I cannot, without a disproportionate amount of labour, ascertain the figures for those engaged only partly with such children.
    Captain NORTHasked the President of the Board of Education what would be the approximate annual saving if only non-certificated teachers were em-
    1306
    ployed in the education of children up to the age of six years in public elementary schools?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: If all the certificated teachers employed wholly in the education of children under the age of six were replaced by non-certificated teachers, the annual saving in salaries would be approximately £370,000; but unless the certificated teachers were dismissed, the net saving would, of course, be very much less, or might be entirely eliminated, if by rearrangement of staffs the displaced certificated teachers were employed to replace non-certificated teachers now engaged in teaching older children.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in many eases it is just as important to have trained and certificated teachers for young children as for the elder, and some educational experts—not people who just want to economise on children first—think it is even more important?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that uncertificated teachers are now claiming the same scale of salary as certificated teachers?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: They are not obtaining it. It is perfectly true that the teaching of young children requires a very considerable amount of skill.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask some of the Members who are asking these questions if they would get untrained people to look after their children?
    Mr. MACOUISTEN: Would it not be much better if these young children were under the care of motherly widows?

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SPANISH).
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of secondary schools in England and Wales, respectively, in which Spanish is taught, and the number of pupils in each country receiving instruction in that language; and whether, having regard to the importance of Spanish as a commercial language, he will take steps to urge as many schools as possible to include it in their curriculum?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: In the school year 1930–31 there were 118 grant-aided secondary schools in England, and nine in Wales, in which provision was made for the teaching of Spanish. I regret that I have no information as to the number of pupils who received instruction in that language. On the importance of Spanish as a commercial language, I do not think that I could usefully add anything to what is said in the second interim and final reports of the Committee on Education for Salesmanship.

    MILK CONSUMPTION.
    Captain HEILGERSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the increased use of milk in elementary schools in the last year, he will take steps to encourage the further consumption of milk in all schools, while at the same time insisting that wherever possible only certified or Grade A milk shall be used?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am anxious to see a further extension of the arrangements for the supply of milk to children in public elementary schools, and I am co-operating with the National Milk Publicity Council to that end. In approving arrangements for the provision of milk by local education authorities, the Board call the attention of the authorities to the importance of their satisfying themselves as to the purity and quality of the milk, and they recommend the use of pasteurised or tuberculin tested milk.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a better national policy to spend money on milk for children rather than pay a sugar-beet subsidy?

    SECONDARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (FATHER'S OCCUPATION).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the President of the Board of Education if he will furnish a statement showing for 1930–31 the occupations of fathers of pupils in grant-aided secondary schools, comparable with Table 63 contained in the Statistics of Public Education for 1925–26?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I regret that the information given in the table to which the hon. Member refers is not available for the year 1930–31, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would not be suffi-
    1308
    ciently valuable to justify the time, labour and expense which would be involved in its preparation.

    CATERHAM URBAN DISTRICT (BOUNDARY EXTENSION).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether, before coming to a decision with regard to making an order under Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1929, for the compulsory absorption of the parish of Woldingham into the Caterham Urban District, he will take into consideration the fact that the distance from Woldingham village to the council hall, Caterham, is about four miles, and that the bad transport service in this area will prevent the representatives from Woldingham attending to their public duties in a satisfactory way?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have already made and communicated a decision in this matter after full consideration of all the facts of the case. I am advised that communication between the parish and the urban district is better than it is with the headquarters of the rural district council.

    RATES.
    Mr. ALED ROBERTSasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the number of local authorities which have responded to the appeal contained in Circular 1222 by reducing the charges imposed on ratepayers by way of local rates?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Copies of the rate demand notes for the current half-year have been received from 1,282 rating authorities in England and Wales out of a total of 1,755. I am glad to say that in 1,005 rating areas there has been a decrease in the rate poundage as compared with the corresponding half-year in 1931; in 162 areas the rate is unchanged and in only 115 areas is there an increase.

    GARAGES AND PETROL STATIONS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Health what steps the Government are proposing to take to prevent the amenities of residential districts being inter-

    1309
    fered with, contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, by the erection of garages, petrol stations, etc.?
    Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend will be aware of the control which a town planning authority can exercise under the Town Planning Act, 1925, over the buildings mentioned, in an area to which that Act applies. The Town and Country Planning Bill, in so far as it extends the power of local authorities to plan developed areas, will extend their powers of control over building operations, including the kind of buildings to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable interest is taken in this problem in the country in general and in Wolverhampton in particular?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am well aware that there is very great feeling on the subject in many parts of the country.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in these residential districts the inhabitants have motor cars, and these garages, if properly designed, are a convenience to them?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I entirely agree that, when properly designed, there is no abuse and no disadvantage, but I understand the question refers to those that are improperly designed.

  HOUSING.

    CONDITIONS OF TENANCY (LIGHTING).
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number and names of urban district councils in Essex which impose on their tenants a condition that they must either discontinue the use of gas in favour of electricity or ran the risk of being ejected from their homes; and whether his Department discourage this practice, in view of the fact that these houses are constructed in part with public money?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I regret that the information sought in the first part of the question is not available as local authorities are not required to inform me of their methods of management of their estates. I have no reason to suppose that such a practice is common, and, if con-
    1310
    sulted on the matter, should certainly deprecate arbitrary action of the kind described.

    COUNCIL HOUSE TENANTS.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Health if he will institute an inquiry into the financial position of council house tenants under local authorities and give the number of such tenants who are paying economic rents; the number who are not paying economic rents; the average income of the tenants in each category mentioned; and the number of applicants for such houses who have not obtained accommodation hitherto because of their inability to pay the rents demanded?
    Lord SCONEasked the Minister of Health whether he will obtain from all appropriate housing authorities a return showing the number of persons occupying premises built under the Exchequer and local rates housing grants who own mechanically-propelled vehicles, in order to test the extent to which the housing subsidy is being enjoyed by persons able to pay economic rentals?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The management of houses erected by local authorities is vested in the local authorities themselves, and I should not be justified in incurring, and putting the local authorities to, the expense of such a general inquiry in a matter that is primarily of their own concern. It is, of course, the fact that no tenants of houses provided with State assistance are paying economic rents.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are many of these houses occupied by members of local authorities themselves and head officials?
    Lord SCONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many houses intended to be occupied by low-paid wage earners are occupied by persons earning £9 or £10 a week and even more?
    Sir H. YOUNG: It is, of course, a matter of good policy that these houses should be reserved for the class for which they were intended, but, as I have said, this is a matter the administration of which is within the discretion of local authorities.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Was the subsidy from public funds

    1311
    intended by this House to be enjoyed by people well able to buy or hire houses or get them through building societies?
    Sir H. YOUNG: That is just what I meant by saying that it was a matter of good policy that houses should be made available for the class for whom they were intended.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these houses are occupied by people in possession of motor cars?

    RURAL WORKERS ACT.
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Health the number of applications, either for grant or loan, under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which were approved in the year 1931, and the number of houses completed under the same Act in 1931?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The numbers in England and Wales were 1,324 and 1,471 respectively.
    Captain HEILGERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with this rate of progress in rural housing?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am by no means satisfied with the use which has been made of the powers under the Act, and I think that it is very desirable that more attention should be called to the powers under the Act, with a view to better use being made of it.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that a great deal more use has been made of the Act in Scotland than in England?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am not quite sure, but I think that that is very likely so.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the Minister take into account whether the local authority are using the Act when they apply for a loan or for assistance for new houses?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Most undoubtedly. It is a matter which will be taken into account.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that as far as Scotland is concerned there never were so many house builders unemployed as there are to-day?

    FLOODS, YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. SOPERasked the Minister of Health if he has now received the inspector's report of the flooded area in Barnsley; and what remedial measures are contemplated to prevent further distress in this area?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I have received a report from the inspectors of the Ministry of Health who have been upon the spot for the assistance of the local authorities. It appears that 163 council houses and a few other houses were affected by the floods. As regards preventative measures for the future, the town council have instructed their engineer to prepare a local scheme of flood prevention. The question of more comprehensive measures is being considered by the catchment board. As regards remedial measures for the present, the occupants concerned both here and elsewhere have suffered it is to be feared inconvenience and damage. The houses were inundated for 11 hours; but the houses have by now been largely cleansed and reoccupied again. The local authority are taking all other necessary measures for the relief of distress.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health what steps the sanitary and health authorities are taking in the Don-caster area to avoid the danger of swamp fever spreading when the floods subside; and whether his Department will undertake to bear any portion of the financial responsibility involved in these measures?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I understand from the reports of my Inspectors who, since the floods began, have been and still are upon the spot for the assistance (inter alia) of the local authorities, that the local medical officers of health have been actively engaged in inquiries into the possibility of danger to health, with special reference to the question of pollution of the water supplies and such dangers as those referred to in. the question. The resources of my Department are immediately available for their assistance, advice and support as may be required; but there are no funds at my disposal for the purpose suggested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that those sorely distressed districts,

    1313
    which have suffered twice from this epidemic within seven months, cannot be assisted in any way by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Sir H. YOUNG: For the purposes of relief, they have, of course, behind them the whole of the rates of the county area concerned, but my Department has no funds available for the purpose.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that any sums involved in caring for the health of the local population can be spread over the whole county; and will they in any way get a grant from the Government towards it?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As regards the spreading, the hon. Gentleman knows that he has asked a very technical question. Subject to confirmation, they have behind them the whole of the rates of the area, but there is no central fund which is available for the purpose.

    CANCER RESEARCH.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Minister of Health if he will state how much of the grant provided by Parliament annually towards the expenditure of the Medical Research Council is allocated for cancer research; how many cancer research workers there are receiving financial assistance; on what basis are the individual research workers selected; and what is the amount of grant received by each, respectively?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No special allocation of any part of the inclusive grant in aid received by the Medical Research. Council from the Exchequer is made to cancer research as such. I am advised that in our present state of knowledge it is in fact neither possible nor desirable to decide the present or future relevance of particular new lines of inquiry to the special problems of cancer. To work expressly directed to cancer, the council assign at present about £6,000 a year, exclusive of expenditure upon radiology and radio-therapy. The work supported by the council is described in the annual reports which are presented to Parliament, but it is not the practice of the council to give details of the amount of the grants paid to individual research workers.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that some research workers of great distinction in this country receive no encouragement whatever from this council; and, further, would the right hon. Gentleman promise if I were to give him the name of a research worker who has spent almost his entire fortune on this particular subject, to look into the reason why he is not called upon to give his scientific knowledge to this country?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The manner in which the grant is allocated by the Medical Research Council is in no way under my control, but, on the other hand, it might serve a useful purpose if the hon. Gentleman placed his information on this subject at my disposal.

    RETIRED LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (RETAINING FEES).
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent local authorities from paying substantial retaining fees to retired officials in addition to pensions and allowances?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Where the accounts of a local authority are subject to audit by the district auditor it is open to him to disallow any payments which are illegal or unreasonable. I do not think it necessary, or desirable, to fetter the general discretion of local authorities as is suggested in the question.
    Mr. McKEAG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Socialist majority of the Durham County Council has decided to pay to the county accountant, who recently retired, a retaining fee of £600 per annum, which, together with pension and allowances, makes a total annual payment to this retired official of £2,192, or nearly £19 per week more than—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. STOURTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the increased burden of the service of the

    1315
    National Debt upon industry and the increased purchasing power of the pound sterling, he will consider taking immediate steps to place the whole internal Debt interest on a 3 per cent. basis and devote the saving made thereby to the relief of the direct and indirect taxpayer?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): No, Sir. This step is not in contemplation. I would point out that in the case of Treasury Bills for instance we are at present borrowing at a very much cheaper rate.
    Mr. STOURTON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to assure the House that an early opportunity will be taken to bring about a comprehensive conversion of the internal debt without further procrastination?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the statements which have been made on the subject from time to time in the House.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask whether a question of this kind, even if put with the best will in the world, does not do a great deal of injury by implying repudiation and thus hurting the national credit?
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that we have lost in the past two years more than one chance of carrying through a conversion; and need we take it from my right hon. and gallant Friend's answer that the Government have abandoned all hope of carrying through a conversion scheme fairly soon?
    Major ELLIOT: Not at all, Sir. If my hon. Friend will look at the question, he will see that it does not refer to conversion operations.
    Mr. STOURTON: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that this Debt is a millstone round the neck of industry?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: All debts are.
    Mr. STOURTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give figures demonstrating in terms of pre-War prices the relative increase of the burden of the National Debt interest in the year 1920–21 and at the latest convenient date?
    Major ELLIOT: I should hesitate to attempt to demonstrate any conclusion of this nature in terms of the price level, particularly at a time like the present when different index numbers of prices give widely divergent results. It must also be borne in mind that prices were at their peak in 1920–21 and that the Debt was raised considerably earlier.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Why does the right hon. Gentleman accept the 1920 date in view of the fact that very little of the National Debt was incurred after 1918, and that the purchasing value of the pound to-day is not very much more than the average value of the pound over the whole period during which the National Debt was borrowed prior to 1918?
    Major ELLIOT: I have answered the question as it is on the Order Paper.

    FIVE PEE CENT. WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state whether it is intended to effect the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan in instalments or in one single operation; and, if the former, whether he will consider the desirability of commencing operations forthwith?
    Major ELLIOT: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on the 23rd May, namely, that I am unable to make a statement on the matter.

    STERLING (DOLLAR EXCHANGE).
    Mr. MABANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his intention to maintain the dollar exchange of sterling stable at about its present rate for the time being?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

    OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any estimate can be formed of the cost of old age and widows' pensions in 10, 20, 30, and 40 years' time, respectively, on the basis of present arrangements?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the information given in paragraphs 417 to 445 of the report of the Committee on National Expenditure, where it is stated that the cost to the Exchequer for old age pensions of all kinds and for widows' and orphans' pensions will be £68,000,000 in 1940–41, and that it will rise to over £80,000,000 a year in 30 years' time. For reasons which are explained by the committee in their report, circumstances are at present such that it is undesirable to attempt to make precise estimates covering a long period of time, and I am not therefore in a position to give figures at 10-year intervals as desired by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    SHORT-TERM BORROWING.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how the cost of Government short-term borrowing for the past two months compares with a similar period in 1931 and 1930, respectively?
    Major ELLIOT: The average annual rates of discount at which three months Treasury Bills were sold by weekly tender during April and May in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 were £2 6s. 0.85d., £2 8s. 2.03d., and £l 14s. 7.77d., respectively.

    UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury approximately what our American War Debt would amount to if the commodities forming it had been supplied by America to Great Britain at the prices now ruling in 1932 as compared with those ruling at the time when the United States supplied the commodities which formed the substance of the American war loan to Great Britain?
    Major ELLIOT: The outstanding British War Debt to the United States is $4,398,000,000 or £904,000,000 at par of exchange. It would be too complicated to base a calculation on the change in price of the actual commodities bought, but the United States Bureau of Labour Index number of wholesale prices has fallen by about one-half—from an average of 189 during the period between April, 1917, and November, 1918, to 94.6 in March, 1932.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

    CURRENCY.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to suggest that the arrangement of a new Imperial currency should be an objective of the Ottawa Conference, and should be accordingly placed on the agenda of the Conference?
    Major ELLIOT: The question of currency policy will no doubt arise for discussion, but I cannot say whether particular suggestions such as that indicated in the question will be advocated at the Conference.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend give the House an undertaking that this question will be considered at the Ottawa Conference—will be on the Agenda?
    Major ELLIOT: Imperial currency is something which is very different from an Imperial monetary policy and may raise very difficult questions.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there any truth in the rumour that is going round the House that our Government has a representative who is going to suggest the idea of repudiating the National Debt?
    Major ELLIOT: I did not know that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had been invited to go to Ottawa.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think you will agree Mr. Speaker, that that reply had nothing whatever to do with the question.

    TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs with which of the Dominions trade negotiations preliminary to the Ottawa Conference have been and are taking place; and in which cases, if any, there have been no such negotiations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Preliminary discussions have been taking place with Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia;

    1319
    and also with India. No discussions have taken place with the Irish Free State.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I ask why the Irish Free State is being excluded from these negotiations?
    Mr. THOMAS: Because as I have explained to the House, at the present moment the Irish Free State Government have repudiated an agreement entered into between representatives of Ireland and ourselves. We feel that no good purpose will be served by entering into further negotiations with people until they show that they are ready to observe agreements. [Interruption.]
    Mr. MAXTON: After the applause has subsided may I ask whether that means that the Irish Free State is to be excluded from the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. THOMAS: That has nothing to do with us whatever. The Irish Free State will, as is well known, attend the Ottawa Conference at the invitation of the Canadian Government. We are not concerned with any legal or constitutional aspect of this question. We are concerned with the simple moral obligation of both parties to an agreement to abide by that agreement. That is our position.
    Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Free State may be present at the Conference at Ottawa and take part in the proceedings of the Conference without having taken any part in the previous negotiations?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have not the remotest idea what will happen at Ottawa—[Interruption]—as far as the Irish Free State is concerned. I am concerned only with intimating clearly and courteously what has been made plain to the world, that the British Government cannot assume for one moment that a Treaty would receive more sanctity at Ottawa than if made at London.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I think we should clear up this point as to who is issuing the invitations and who will determine whether the Irish Free State, if it accepts, will be allowed to sit at Ottawa. Is it not the fact that the Canadian Government are issuing the invitations and also the fact that the Conference will be
    1320
    the master of its own proceedings, including the British Government?
    Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, that is exactly the situation.

    BRITISH FILMS.
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether British films, together with their propaganda value, will be considered at the Imperial Conference at Ottawa; and, if so, from what different aspects?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not yet in a position to say what subjects will appear on the agenda of the conference. I hope, however, that an opportunity will arise in the course of the conference for discussing, at least informally, the subject of British films.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I ask whether the question of the constitutional position of New South Wales will be discussed at the Ottawa Conference?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the paper is about films.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    STAFF.
    Mr. RAIKESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of civil servants at the latest available date?
    Major ELLIOT: The latest figures relate to 1st April, 1932. On that date the total number of non-industrial civil staffs was 316,229.

    ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.
    Major NATHANasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has reached any conclusion upon the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Services?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No decisions have yet been reached upon the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. Certain recommendations have already been the subject of discussion with the various staff interests concerned. Machinery has also been set up for similar discussions on other recommendations, and I hope that it will shortly prove possible to make further progress in the matter.

    LEAVE.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the regulations governing sick leave in the Excise Department; and whether they differ from those governing sick leave in the Civil Service generally?
    Major ELLIOT: Sick leave in the Customs and Excise Department is governed by the regulations dated the 6th June, 1929, made by the Treasury under Article 6 of the Order-in-Council dated the 22nd July, 1920. These regulations apply to the Civil Service generally.
    Mr. McENTEE: Is there any truth in the statement that civil servants in the Excise Department are expected to take a week's sick leave each year whether they are sick or not?
    Major ELLIOT: I should not think so, but I certainly would not like to dogmatise about regulations without going further into any particular point which the hon. Member might wish to put.
    Mr. McENTEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether there is or there is not any truth in that statement, which was made in the House the other day, which he accepted at that time but said that he would like to see it as a question on the Order Paper?
    Major ELLIOT: I still say that I should like to see it on the Order Paper. It is not on the Order Paper to-day.
    Mr. McENTEE: I attempted to put it on the Order Paper, but was unable to do so because of the regulations. Therefore, I have had to put it in this form. I want the right hon. Gentleman to give a denial to a statement like that, which is very serious for the Civil Service.
    Major ELLIOT: I can only answer the question on the Order Paper. If the hon. Member wishes to consult me further on the point, I shall be very glad for him to do so.
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. This question is rather important for the Civil Service. A statement was publicly made in the House that civil servants were obliged to take a week's sick leave each year whether they were sick or not. I thought it was ludicrous at the time, and my hon. Friend tried to get a question past the Table in order to put it
    1322
    specifically, but it was ruled out. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must see the importance of letting the public know that that statement is either true or untrue. Many people believe that it is true, because it was stated in the House of Commons.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not within the knowledge of anyone who has served in the Treasury that that statement is untrue?
    Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, but when a question is put to me by an hon. Member there may be certain points in connection with it that I should like to go into. As the official representative of the Treasury for the time being I am most anxious not to say anything which could be in any possible way misconstrued. It was only for that reason that I desired some further notice of the question. It does not immediately arise out of the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask if the Financial Secretary will take an opportunity, as there is some regulation which prevents the question being put direct— [Interruption.] It is rather important. We tried to get a question past the Chair; but we were told that it could not be put in a form that would get us a clear answer. I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take an opportunity of making public what are the facts. I am sure that the statement is not true.
    Mr. SPEAKER: May I have an opportunity of seeing another question?
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any action has yet been taken in consequence of the paragraphs in the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure with regard to the amount of leave given to certain classes of civil servants?
    Major ELLIOT: The paragraphs in question will come up for consideration in connection with the findings on the same subject in paragraphs 604 to 611 (pages 174 to 176) of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service 1929–31 (Command Paper 3909) to which I would also refer my hon. Friend. The various recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission are at present under consideration.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Sir C. CAYZERR asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can issue a statement showing the present normal daily working hours of administrative, executive and clerical classes of the Civil Service, respectively, and the extent to which these vary in the different departments?
    Major ELLIOT: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the published regulations containing information as to the hours required of the specific classes of civil servants to whom he refers. In general the relevant Order in Council requires an attendance of not less than seven hours a day. This is a minimum provision; the hours of attendance actually prescribed for most civil servants are in excess of seven, and many of those who are formally conditioned to seven hours habitually work a longer day without extra payment. It is estimated that not more than 10 per cent. of the whole Civil Service consists of persons who are conditioned to a seven-hour day.
    Sir C. CAYZER: Is it not a fact that in some Government Departments the hours of work are from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock? Will the right hon. Gentleman review those hours of work and bring them more into accord with the hours worked in commercial establishments in order to reduce the staff wherever possible?
    Major ELLIOT: In the first place, if the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it, but I would remind him that the matter was very carefully gone into by the Royal Commission, and no recommendation on this point was brought forward by them. If one thing is to be reviewed, it may be necessary to review the scale of salaries also.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: How many hours do they work on Saturday? The scale does not include seven hours on Saturday.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that they are always trying to compare brain work with manual work? Civil servants do brain work.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not a fact that attention was drawn in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil
    1324
    Service to the fact that there were certain grades of the Civil Service who were not working as long hours as prevailed in a good many private concerns?
    Major ELLIOT: As the Noble Lady knows, many of the grades of Civil Service are under consideration by the Government and are about to be reviewed with the representatives of the staff side.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STATUTORY DUTIES).
    Lord EUSTACE PERCYasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the Motion on the Paper for the appointment of a Select Committee to review the statutory duties of local authorities; and whether the Government is prepared to take any action in the matter—
    "That it is expedient that a Select Committee be appointed to examine the statutory duties of local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland in connection with education, health, housing, public assistance, and agriculture, and the statutory restrictions imposed upon their freedom of action in administering these services, and to report to this House how these duties and restrictions may be modified in the interests of public economy."
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should be obliged if my right hon. Friend would postpone his question until I have had an opportunity of consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the distress among West Country fishermen owing to the scarcity of fish between Portland and the Isle of Scilly; and whether he will be prepared to hold an inquiry with a view to closing certain bays during the breeding season?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any abnormal shortage of fish in the region referred to where fluctuations in the supply would appear to be dependent more upon general than upon local conditions. He is not, therefore, prepared to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the question.
    Mr. DREWE: Is it not a fact that certain of these bays have already been closed to trawling and that these Regulations are frequently broken?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The hon. Member should put that question down.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Would not the best way be to keep away foreign trawlers a little more strictly?
    Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the cod-end of the trawl in the majority of foreign trawlers is so small that it is impossible for minute marine life to come through the net alive; and whether he will be prepared to make representations to the countries concerned with a view to the protection of our fishing grounds?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: My right hon. Friend is aware that many of the trawl nets in. use both at home and abroad take undersized fish. The matter is under investigation by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, on which body all the countries concerned are represented; and pending the result of the council's deliberations representations such as my hon. Friend suggests would be premature.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Member see that British trawlers are not handicapped, as they are almost invariably, by foreign trawlers?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will convey the hon. Member's observations to my right hon. Friend.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. and gallant Member think that by the time this international conference reports there will be no fish left in the sea?

  AGRICULTURE.

    FAT STOCK AND DEAD MEAT (MARKETING).
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the scheme submitted by the council of the National Farmers' Union for the better organisation of the marketing of fat stock and dead meat in England and Wales; and whether he proposes to take any action thereon?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: As stated in the reply he gave on 10th May to a
    1326
    question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver), my right hon. Friend has the report referred to under consideration. He is not yet, however, in a position to make a statement on the subject.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: Can the hon. and gallant Member say when the Government will be in a position to make an announcement of their policy with regard to the livestock industry. Are the Members of the Cabinet aware of the seriousness of the position at the moment?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will convey the hon. and gallant Member's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

    WHEAT COMMISSION.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the desirability of having a representative of the National Association of Master Bakers on the Wheat Commission which is being appointed by the Government and of which Lord Peel is chairman?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The Wheat Commission has now been constituted and my right hon. Friend regrets that it was not found possible to increase the representation of bakers of bread by appointing a representative of the association referred to.
    Brigadier-General NATION: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Member considers that the master bakers are sufficiently represented on the Commission that has been appointed?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will put that point to the Minister of Agriculture.

    EGG AND POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to offer any financial assistance towards the initiation of egg and poultry packing stations in areas where there are no such facilities at present?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: My right hon. Friend regrets that he has no funds available from which grants could be made for the purpose indicated.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not the case that, if the Government did not give so much to the wheat subsidy, there would be some money left?

    MUSK RAT DAMAGE, SHROPSHIRE.
    Major LEIGHTONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the damage being done to river and canal banks by musk rats in Shropshire; and whether he will take steps to employ permanent trained trappers to deal with this pest?
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: My right hon. Friend is aware that there are a considerable number of musk rats at large in Shropshire, and is taking the necessary steps, in collaboration with the county agricultural committee of the county council, to bring about their destruction, in which connection the employment of trappers is receiving consideration.

  SCOTLAND.

    POOR RELIEF (TEST WORK).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the position with regard to able-bodied men who have applied for relief from the Montrose public assistance committee; if he is aware that two men have been refused relief because they refused to perform test work; and, in view of the illegality of this action, what steps he proposes to take to enforce the law in such cases?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As stated in reply to a previous question, the Department of Health were assured by the County Clerk of Angus, as instructed by the county public assistance committee, that destitute able-bodied poor who applied for relief at Montrose Public Assistance Office were not required to perform work, but if they were willing to work every endeavour was made to find work for them. The Department have made subsequent inquiry as to the position and have ascertained that some misunderstanding appears to have arisen on the part of the county public assistance committee as to the practice of the local committee. The position is to be reconsidered by the Montrose Committee at the beginning of next week and also by the public assistance committee of the county at their next meeting. In these circumstances I propose to await the decision of the public assistance committee.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he in the meantime see that the two men who are involved here get at least some form of relief until a decision is reached?
    Mr. SKELTON: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

    MUNICIPAL FINANCE.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the request made to him for an inquiry into the finances of Scottish municipalities because of the excessive rating which prevails in industrial areas; what action does he propose to take regarding this matter; and will he state the total loss to local authorities in Scotland by the reduction of State grants for social services, including education?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): In reply to the first two parts of the question, earnest consideration is being given by the Government to the problems of local as well as of national expenditure with a view to the reduction of the burdens of rating and taxation. As regards the last part of the question the reduction in grants in respect of education will result in a total loss to local authorities in Scotland in the current local financial year of approximately £864,000, but this reduction has been accompanied by a reduction in the expenditure of local authorities. No reduction in grants for other social services has been made.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that, owing to the great number who are being cut off as a result of the need test having to go to the public assistance committees, a number of the municipalities, particularly in the West of Scotland, will be faced with bankruptcy?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: All those matters will be borne in mind in the general consideration of the problem.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of agricultural workers in employment in Scotland in each of the years 1922 to 1928?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: As the answer involves a table of figures I propose, with
    Following is the answer:

    The following table gives the number of persons returned as employed on the 4th June of each year on agricultural holdings in Scotland exceeding one acre in extent (exclusive in the case of each holding of the occupier, his wife and domestic servants).

    Year.

    Regular Workers.

    Casual Workers.

    Total.

    Males.

    Women and Girls.

    Males.

    Women and Girls.

    1922

    …

    …

    81,524

    20,812

    11,181

    11,099

    124,616

    1923

    …

    …

    80,440

    20,293

    9,525

    9,766

    120,024

    1924

    …

    …

    80,087

    20,098

    8,759

    8,398

    117,342

    1925

    …

    …

    82,646

    19,619

    10,464

    9,333

    122,062

    1926

    …

    …

    83,286

    19,692

    12,968

    10,149

    126,095

    1927

    …

    …

    82,099

    19,486

    9,238

    8,452

    119,275

    1928

    …

    …

    81,606

    18,957

    9,321

    7,416

    117,300

    NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AND TRAVEL ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps, if any, are being taken to co-ordinate the activities of the Scottish National Development Council and the Scottish Travel Association?
    Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I have been asked to reply. As the two bodies mentioned in the question are autonomous associations, any question of co-ordination of their activities is primarily a matter for them. I understand that they have already established some machinery for discussion of questions of mutual concern, and I shall watch their efforts at co-ordination with interest. If opportunity occurs I shall be happy to give what assistance I can.
    Mr. GUY: Are the local authorities giving financial support to this scheme?
    Mr. COLVILLE: The question of contributions from the local authorities in Scotland was raised by the deputation which met the Secretary of State in Edinburgh last Friday, and the position was fully explained to the deputation by my right hon. Friend.

    LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER TO THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Lord High Commissioner to the Church
    my Noble Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    of Scotland still retains the position of representative of the Scottish Office on the Betting Control Board?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland is still a representative on the Betting Control Board, and, if that is so, does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as consistent with the dignity of the Scottish Church?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a repetition of the original question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask what salary, if any, is paid?

    MALTA (AIR SERVICE ACCIDENTS).
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will confer with the First Lord of the Admiralty to see that the closest possible co-operation exists between the Air Service units and all naval surface craft at Malta in rescuing the crew of any aero-plane or seaplane that is obliged to make a forced landing in the sea in the vicinity of the island?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Standing instructions on the Mediterranean station provide for close co-operation between the Naval and Air Services at Malta in

    1331
    rendering prompt assistance to aircraft in the event of a forced landing in the sea. The standing instructions are periodically-reviewed in the light of fresh experience to see whether they can be strengthened in any particular.

    NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS.
    Mr. LEWIS JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the latest information in his possession as to how many new concerns established in this country since December, 1931, by or with the assistance of foreign firms, are now in production; whether he will classify the new undertakings by country of origin of the foreign interests; what are the products of these factories; what is their geographical distribution; and what are the numbers employed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): An investigation made by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour shows that 123 new undertakings have been established in this country by, or with the assistance of, foreign concerns during the period from last November to the end of the first week in May, and are now in production. The foreign countries included in this movement are Germany, 65 cases; France, 11; Austria, 11; Belgium 9; U.S.A., 9; Holland, 6; other countries, 12. At the date of the investigation these new undertakings were employing 3,882 persons, excluding 370 foreigners in respect of whom the Ministry of Labour have issued permits. These permits are in respect of foreign workmen employed for short periods on erecting or starting special machinery or on training British workpeople. It is estimated by the promoters of these new undertakings that the figure of 3,882 will rise to over 8,000 when the factories are fully occupied. As the list of the products of these new undertakings is long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with particulars of geographical distribution.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these firms are producing in this country any articles that could not be produced by our own people?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will he state to what type of article he alludes?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Following are the particulars:
    PRODUCTS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION of New Undertakings Established by or with the Assistance of Foreign Firms during the period November, 1931, to May, 1932 (end of first week) and now in Production.
    London—North, including Watford, Welwyn and Letch-worth.
    Thirty undertakings employing 819 people and making the following products:

    Biscuits.

    Clock parts.

    Colour cards.

    Embroidery.

    Erinoid buckles.

    Fancy leather goods.

    Furniture polish.

    Games.

    Knitwear.

    Locks.

    Matches.

    Mops.

    Padding.

    Porcelain articles.

    Radio apparatus.

    Radio apparatus parts.

    Raincoats.

    Rexine bags.

    Scissors.

    Screws.

    Secateurs.

    Silk underwear.

    Spectacle lenses.

    Table glassware.

    Toilet articles.

    Typewriter ribbon spools.

    Vacuum cleaners.

    Wooden articles.

    Woven underwear.

    London—South.
    Five undertakings employing 118 people and making the following products:

    Brushes.

    Knitted goods.

    Printing machinery.

    Radio resistances.

    Vacuum cleaners.

    London—East.
    Twenty-nine undertakings employing 861 people and making the following products:

    Bakelite fancy goods.

    Bathing costumes.

    Corsets.

    Cream chocolate.

    Crepe paper.

    Ear trumpets.

    Fancy leather goods.

    Fibre suit cases.

    Fur dyeing.

    Paint.

    Paper handkerchiefs.

    Radio batteries.

    Razor blades.

    Slider fasteners.

    Spectacle frames.

    Underwear.

    Vacuum flasks.

    Walking sticks and umbrellas.

    Woollen sportswear.

    London—West including Slough.
    Thirty-seven undertakings, employing 1,135 people and making the following products:

    Cosmetics.

    Dresses.

    Electric batteries.

    Electric lamps.

    Electrical switches.

    Embroidery.

    Foot powders.

    Fur coats.

    Gramophone records.

    Handbags.

    Knitwear.

    Lace.

    Nails.

    Perfume.

    Radio condensers.

    Radio parts.

    Razor blades.

    Ribbons.

    Rubber gloves.

    Slider fasteners.

    Toilet articles.

    Toilet cream.

    Tools.

    Toys.

    The Midlands.
    Five undertakings employing 411 people and making the following products:

    Electric carbons.

    Glassware.

    Knitwear.

    Sandals.

    Stockings.

    Lancashire and Cheshire.
    Eleven undertakings employing 449 people and making the following products:

    Baking powder.

    Elastic braid.

    Furnishing fabrics.

    Glass tableware.

    Hat galloons.

    Monumental granite.

    Paper.

    Silk velvets.

    Wireless parts.

    Yorkshire.
    Four undertakings employing 69 people and making the following products:

    Chiffon velvets.

    Furnishing fabrics.

    Safety razor blades.

    Woollen fabrics.

    Woollen yarns.

    Other Areas,
    Two undertakings employing 20 people and making the following products:

    Beet-sugar machinery.

    Phosphates.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what business it is proposed to take next week, and will he make a statement about the business for the remainder of the Session?
Mr. BALDWIN: Next week the business is as follows:
Monday and Tuesday: Conclusion of Report stage, and Third Reading, Town and Country Planning Bill.
Wednesday and Thursday: Report stage, Finance Bill.
Friday: Third Reading, Finance Bill.
On any day, if there is time, progress will be made with other Orders on the Paper, including the Patents and Designs Bill from another place.
With regard to the Business of the House until the date of the Summer Recess, the Measures with which the Government propose to proceed and to pass into law before the Summer Recess are as follow:

1335
Bills now before Parliament: remaining stages of the

Coal Mines Bill;

Finance Bill;

Hire Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Bill;

National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill;

Sunday Entertainments Bill;

Town and Country Planning Bill.

Bills to be introduced:

Extradition Bill;

Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill;

Public Works Loans Bill.

The Business of Supply must be completed. Ten further Allotted Days remain to be disposed of; the usual Supplementary Estimate for repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund will be required, as well as Resolutions relating to Surpluses and Deficits on Navy, Army and Air Estimates, and, on the conclusion of Supply, the Appropriation Bill must be passed through all its stages.
There is a number of Bills, mainly of a non-contentious nature, which the Government hope it will be possible to pass into law, namely: Patents and Designs Bill (Lords); Marriages (Naval, Military and Air Force Chapels) Bill (Lords); to come from another place, Agricultural Credits (Mortgages) Bill; British Museum Bill; Carriage by Air Bill; Solicitors (Consolidation) Bill.
It will be necessary to consider Lords Amendments, if any are made in another place, to the Children and Young Persons Bill, which has already passed this House, and to other Bills.
The House is aware that the meeting at Ottawa in July of the Imperial Economic Conference will require the presence of several of His Majesty's principal Ministers. The Government accordingly desire to conclude the necessary Business as early as practicable in July, in order that Ministers required at Ottawa may be released from their duties in Parliament.
As has already been announced, it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to amend the Rent Retrictions Acts, designed generally to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the subject, but, in view of the amount of essential business
1336
already before Parliament which must be completed, the time now remaining renders it impossible for the Government to pass the Bill before July. For similar reasons it will be impossible to deal with the London Passenger Transport Bill until after the Recess. Any other Business will be brought forward which it is found necessary to dispose of before July.
Mr. LANSBURY: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned any date in July. I suppose he is not in a position to do so this afternoon. The list of business read out by the right hon. Gentleman sounds rather formidable, and I think it will take a very considerable amount of time. As to the Rent Restrictions Acts (Amendment) Bill and the London Passenger Transport Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is very great public interest and urgency and that both those matters ought to be settled very soon. Seeing that the Ministers concerned with those Bills will not be going to Ottawa, I ask him whether it would not be possible for the House to sit two or three weeks longer in order to dispose of these two extremely urgent Measures? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will not reconsider this decision in regard to these two Bills.
Mr. BALDWIN: I agree with part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but not with all. I quite agree that these two Bills are very important. With regard to the question of time, I am afraid that it would be impossible to do as he desires. Ottawa is not the only conference. We cannot tell now how long the Lausanne Conference will take, nor can we tell how the Disarmament Conference at Geneva will proceed, or whether that is likely to come to an end at an early date or not. It is quite possible that we may have the three conferences almost coinciding, or parts of them, and in connection with one or another of them nearly every member of the Cabinet may be out of this country.
Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to say that we are extremely anxious, whatever our disagreements may be, that these conferences, especially those dealing with the matters that will be raised at Lausanne, should go forward, and we would not do anything consciously to

1337
hinder them. But we wish to press the Government to reconsider the two Bills to which I have referred. If they cannot reconsider both of them, we would press them to reconsider the Rent Restriction Acts (Amendment) Bill, because that question is of urgent importance to masses of the people throughout the country.
Mr. LAMBERT: Is it proposed to go on with the London Passenger Transport Bill as it is now before the House, or are Amendments to be made in it?
Mr. BALDWIN: There have been, and I am not quite certain that there are not now proceeding, negotiations on many points connected with that Bill. That is the reason why I say that it could not possibly be considered this summer.
Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to ask any questions about the business for the Session, because I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be amending it on several occasions before we reach the Recess. I want to ask him about the business for next week. Does he think it an adequate arrangement to take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill on Friday? It is only a half-day, and this Finance Bill is an important one. I also wish to ask him if he anticipates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to be in his place on Friday when the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is taken.
Mr. BALDWIN: With regard to the first part of the question, I think the hon. Member will find on reference that it has been no unusual thing in past years to have the, Third Reading of the Finance Bill on a Friday. I hope and expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in his place before the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Mr. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that before Ministers go to Ottawa there will be an opportunity for discussing the situation arising out of the repudiation of the Treaty by the Irish Free State?
Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot at the moment give that assurance.
Mr. O'CONNOR: May I press my right hon. Friend with the assurance that many of us in the House would be most un-
1338
desirous to allow the Session to wind up with the situation in Ireland as it is and without full discussion in the House of Commons?
Mr. BALDWIN: There is no reason for my hon. and learned Friend to press me at all. The situation is quite clear. I said some time ago in the House that there was almost certain to be a discussion when the appropriate moment arrived. By that I meant when the matters that are in dispute between us are no longer in either of the Houses of the Irish Free State Parliament. That situation will, I imagine, arise before we go to Ottawa. We do not burke discussion, but I cannot pledge myself at this moment when I do not know what the dates will be, by which the procedure will be governed.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government when the moment of Recess comes to adjourn the House or to prorogue it?
Mr. BALDWIN: That matter is at the moment under consideration. I hope it may be settled when the Prime Minister returns.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I assume that the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend will make an announcement to the House on the subject as soon as any decision has been reached.
Mr. BALDWIN: As soon as a decision has been arrived at.
Lord E. PERCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of arranging, through the usual channels, with the Opposition that a general Debate on national expenditure should be taken on one of the Supply days.
Mr. LANSBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I say that we shall certainly endeavour to do as the Noble Lord suggests. We are a little uncertain as to the Vote for which we should ask, but we will take steps to make the necessary arrangements through the usual channels.
Mr. MAXTON: Fix it up between yourselves.
Mr. DENMAN: If the London Passenger Transport Bill cannot be taken this Session, will arrangements be made to carry it over to the next Session?
Mr. BALDWIN: If the House is adjourned and not prorogued, there will be no necessity to do so.
Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the Government contemplate a situation in which the principal Members of the Government may all be absent at conferences outside this country; and, if so, will they reconsider the grave constitutional position which would arise from such an arrangement.
Mr. BALDWIN: I trust that, in any circumstances, a nucleus satisfactory to my right hon. and gallant Friend will be here.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Coal Mines Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (DURATION OF SPEECHES).
Mr. JOHN WALLACE(by Private Notice) asked Mr. Speaker whether some means can be devised to limit the duration of speeches delivered in this House; whether he is aware that the suggestion which he made upon his election as Speaker upon the need for shorter speeches has had a ready response from Members of the Government but has been virtually ignored by many private Members; and whether he will consider the desirability of stating from the Chair that, within his discretion, with the exception of Members who wish to speak from either of the Front Benches, he will give preference to Members who definitely undertake to limit their speeches to 15 minutes' duration.
Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Member's question, I will deal with the last part of it first. I can give no undertaking to give preference to one Member over another. My only consideration in seeing any Member is that every Member should have as good an opportunity of catching my eye as any other Member, at the same time ensuring, as far as I can, that during any Debate all points of view should be expressed. No Member, whatever his position, except in some cases by usage, has more right than another to be called by the Chair, and I think that it will be found best to leave the
1340
discretion entirely in the hands of the Chair. As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, the limitation of the duration of speeches has always, as long as I can recollect, engaged the attention of Parliament but, so far as I am aware, no satisfactory remedy for the grievance has been discovered. The solution lies with Members themselves. The exercise of self-denial by individual Members, consideration for others and, in some cases, the showing of mercy on the House, are the best ways to overcome the trouble.
Mr. WALLACE: May I be permitted to thank you for your very courteous reply, and may I further very respectfully assure you that there is a growing feeling of resentment and impatience in the House at the great breach of the privilege of being called by you to take part in Debate? May I further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I suppose that Mr. Speaker will point out if I am out of order. I only hope that this protest which has been made will be effective and prevent the abuse taking place.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have given my reply, and I have suggested the remedy. I can do nothing more.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that some speeches which are very short in time seem very long to the House?

MARRIAGE (NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE CHAPELS) BILL [Lords],
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BRIDLINGTON AND WELLS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (OXFORD) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (PAIGNTON) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RIVER DEE) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERGAVENNY AND NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEYTON) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS, LIMITED (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  WOKINGHAM DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Lord Fermoy, Mr. Gibson, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Magnay and Mr. Rosbotham; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Crossley,
  1342
  Captain Erskine-Bolst, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Potter and Mr. Clyde Wilson.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Sunday Entertainments Bill): Mr. Ralph Beaumont and Sir Wilfrid Sugden; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Duckworth and Sir Charles Oman.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Church of Scotland Trust Order Confirmation Bill.
  St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Bill,
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Lindsey and Lincoln Joint Smallpox Hospital District and Wandle Valley Joint Sewerage District) Bill,
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Northampton) Bill,
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Derby and Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board) Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to except certain publications from the provisions of Subsection (I) of Section fifteen of the Copyright Act, 1911." [British Museum Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with respect to mortgages for securing loans made by the company formed for the purposes of Part I of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928." [Agricultural Credits (Mortgages) Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES BILL.
  Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 1st June.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  COAL MINES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Part I of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 34 and s. 1 of 21 & 22 Geo. 5. c. 27.)
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out Subsection (1).
    After what we have heard from Mr. Speaker, I feel a little diffident in speaking again on this subject, but I assure the Committee that I am not going to address it at any great length. I do, however, wish to raise the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper. Its purpose is to omit from the operation of this Bill Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. I do so because I am satisfied that there is a great and genuine difference of opinion in the country upon this matter, and also because two years ago many of us who are Conservatives spent many days and nights in this House fighting the Coal Mines Bill line by line, and they do not understand why all of a sudden we should be asked to continue Part I of the Act for five years. I thought, therefore, that this was a matter which should be raised in Committee.
    Apart from those reasons, my objection to this Sub-section in the Bill is that it will lead to further Government interference with the industry. I have little sympathy with those who talk of the regulation of industry by the State. These new phrases which thinly disguise Socialism mean more interference with the practical conduct of industry. I cannot believe that it can be a good thing either for industry or the country that we should have a further five years of interference with the conduct of the coal mining industry. I do not see how industry is to be carried on if it is limited in this way, because I believe that by Part I of the Act inefficiency is enthroned and progress checked. Representation on committees depends on coal output of one selected year. When times are bad, the good mines are the most busy and the less good mines are the least busy. Therefore in a very good
    1356
    year the latter mines have a greater proportion of output than in a bad year, and their influence on the operation of the Act is greater than it ought to be because the selected year was a good one. In the second place, I think progress is checked because those people who are most efficient and who are anxious to develop their mines have to go to their competitors to ask to be allowed to sell or produce more coal. Therefore, I say it is very unsatisfactory that an industry should be checked in this vital factor.
    Then, in extending Part I of the Act for five years, we leave out of consideration entirely the interests of the consumer. I see no reason why when a Bill like this is before the House the coal miners and coalowners should not consider the interests of the consumer. I cannot see why the voice of the consumer is not raised, and why the case for him has not been put more clearly by the Board of Trade. The effect of this Bill, we understand, is to raise the price of coal to everybody by 2s. 6d. a ton. Thanks to the existence of the Act, that 2s. 6d. does not all go to the coal mines. I understand from the papers that Is. goes to the cost of the quotas. The consumer pays Is. 6d., and the balance of Is. appears to be wasted and dispersed entirely in thin air. The railways have to pay 2s. 6d. a ton more than they need, and every industry that uses fire and every householder throughout the country has to pay 2s. 6d. a ton more than would be the case if the Act were not in force.
    I should now like to say a word or two about the Government. We are given to understand that various consultations took place and various opinions were taken, that at the end the Government did not know what to do, and they accordingly accepted what was a majority vote. I think we expected something a little better than that from them. We might have had a little clearer lead in this matter, instead of leaving it almost entirely to the majority vote of those particularly interested in producing coal. The last argument I want to put to the Committee is this: We are told that if we repeal Part I of the Act, chaos will ensue. I really do not know why it should, but we had several statements, one I think by the Minister of Mines, and others by Members of the House, that the pits would close down, that cut-throat competition would start again and

    1357
    general chaos take place. I have always wondered why they call it cut-throat competition. It must be because their case is very weak. Competition, it seems to me, is the life and breath of industry, and because they know this is true, they have to call it cut-throat competition. After all, competition is the one thing by which industry retains its vitality, and cutthroat competition really means the survival of the fittest.
    In any case no real harm would be done if the Committee agree to this Amendment. There are always prophets who tell you that chaos will come if you take any drastic action. I have been trying to think of an argument that may convince the Minister of Mines by quoting someone like Oliver Cromwell. Perhaps the case of Faintheart in "Pilgrim's Progress" may meet the case. Faintheart was eventually landed in the Slough of Despond. There are many counsellors who say that if you take drastic action and repeal Part I, chaos will arise. Those are the counsels of Mr. Faintheart. What we want is a little more courage and a little greater lead by the Minister of Mines, and I am certain that if they face this question with a little more boldness, the mining industry will get through it troubles much more quickly.
    Mr. CONANT: The speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hex-ham (Colonel Brown) shows very clearly the tremendous difficulty which faces Parliament when it is called upon to legislate for an industry with such varied interests as has the coal industry. The hon. and gallant Member has put forward the case for the North Eastern districts, the exporting districts, and he has done so in an extremely able manner. The district in which I am interested is concerned mainly with the inland trade, and I feel certain that were Part I of the Act of 1930 to be withdrawn, confusion would result. We must remember the real objects of Part I of that Act. It was decided that the coal industry must be protected, if it was to set its house in order. The need for rationalisation, even if it was not expressed at that time, was generally recognised, and it is recognised even more forcibly on all sides to-day. Even a Free Trade Government were forced to give this form of Protection to the industry to give them a time
    1358
    of stability in order that they might set their house in order.
    Protection has taken many different forms since the War. We have had quotas, tariffs, licences, and prohibition in some instances, but in this case we had the artificial fixing of prices at an uneconomic level, and I think we ought to make it quite clear to the coal industry that these uneconomic proposals contained in Part I of the Act are not permanent and are not a real part of a coal policy for this country, but are only given conditionally and temporarily, to enable reorganisation to take place, and that their continuance is conditional on the industry taking some steps in that direction.
    I believe that the only solution lies in the direction of rationalisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nationalisation!"] No, not nationalisation. The need for nationalisation arises very largely owing to Government control during the War, but I should not be in order in referring at any length to that question. It is such a tremendous problem, because the uneconomic pits which ought to be closed are not evenly distributed among the coal producing districts. I do not think any solution can be found by artificial price regulation or by restriction of production. The only permanent solution, I believe, can come from internal reorganisation, and I would ask the Secretary for Mines to consider whether it is altogether wise to continue Part I for so long a period as five years without obtaining any definite undertaking from the industry that they intend to put their house in order.
    Mr. TINKER: I hope the Secretary for Mines will resist the Amendment and tell the Committee quite clearly that the Government are going to retain Part I of the Act, because if the Bill is to go forward at all, Part I of the Act is essential from our point of view. When the Mines Act was passed in 1930, a lot of exception was taken to it by collieries in Lancashire, but at the annual meeting of Manchester Collieries, Limited, on the 23Td June, 1931, the chairman said:
    "You will naturally expect me to refer to the Mines Act, under which we are now working. The position which we took up before the Act was passed was to some extent one of hostility. There were clauses

    1359
    we did not like and which we opposed to the best of our ability, but when the Act became law we endeavoured, like all law-abiding citizens should, to carry it out and conform to the law, although we thought and still think it has serious defects."
    He went on to say, in regard to what has happened since:
    "The great advantage which we are obtaining from the fixing of minimum prices is the stopping of sales of spot lots at prices shillings a ton below the market price. The difference in the price in most cases, except where the sale was made for stocking purposes, went into the pockets of the middleman, sometimes through three or four hands, and the consumer received no benefit. The sale of spot lots displaces the ordinary trade of somebody else, and is a most pernicious way of selling any commodity, and if the fixing of minimum prices does nothing else but do away with spot lot sales, it will have justified itself."
    That is one of the strong features of Part I of the Act. To an extent, it will tend to stop the selling of spot lots, which do a great amount of harm to the Lancashire coal trade. Constantly in the summer months we were met by that difficulty of spot lots being dumped down in Lancashire, and as a result closing all the collieries during the summer season, but the fixing of minimum prices has done something to stop that kind of thing, not effectively, but it is a step in the right direction. It goes a long way towards helping to solidify the coal industry. If Part I were removed, the pledge of the coalowners to pay the existing wages for the next 12 months would be very difficult indeed to carry out, and at the end of 12 months I can visualise that in the coal trade there would be no question of any minimum at all. The coalowners would be under-selling each other, until ultimately there would be a starvation wage for the miner. For these reasons, though I do not altogether agree with Part I in its entirety—I think it ought to be strengthened—I hope the Minister will not give way and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I suppose there are very few people in this House who took a greater part in opposing the Coal Mines Bill of last year than I did, and my natural inclination would be to support the Amendment, for one or two reasons. In the first place, when once a thoroughly bad Bill is on the Statute Book, I should be inclined to take the first opportunity of getting rid of any
    1360
    part of it, and unless I had considered this matter with some care, I should vote for the Amendment, but under the circumstances I say quite frankly that I hope it will not be carried. As far as I can understand Part I, you have in it a system whereby you regulate your prices and your output, but I want to know what progress is being made in the elimination of the really inefficient mine that is never likely to be competent in the future. It seems to me that you are using Part I in the coal industry merely to keep going a number of incompetent mines, and when I say "incompetent," I mean incompetent to pay; I am not dealing with the question of organisation. In this way you are doing the industry and the country as a whole a great deal of damage.
    I come from by far the oldest mining area in this country, where we have seen, because of incapacity to pay under modern conditions, practically the whole of the tin mines of the West country closed. If you look into the history of mining for many generations and in every country, you will see that you have development in one area and another area going out of production. If you try to keep those areas and pits which are no longer of a payable nature working, you are putting a burden on the competent mines that should be payable, which will make it harder for them to face competition, or, in the other case, if they do not carry the burden, the State has to carry it or the consumers do. If I were Voting purely in the interests of the consumers of coal in this country, I should vote for the Amendment, because I do not think the Act has in any way produced cheap coal, but I should like to give reasons for helping the Government to stick by the original Act. It is really a relief to find certain types of mind in the Government which do not swallow the idea of an inquiry on every possible occasion, and when you get that form of relief, you ought, as a loyal supporter of the Government, to do your best to encourage them.
    I congratulate them, but I would like to remind the Committee, as one who has listened to a vast number of coal Debates in the last eight or 10 years, of what has been the position. In this industry we have had continual disagree-

    1361
    ments. If there is one thing on which we are all agreed, it is that it is essential that you should have peace between the owners and the men in this industry. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) to gibe, but some of us have a very close desire to see our own people in this country, wherever they are, enabled to carry on their business and not fighting one with another; and for that reason, and for none other—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Stand up for decent wages then.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not believe that you will get good wages, much as we should all like to see them, while you have disputes in an industry. I believe that if you can get peace in an industry, you will get better feelings between the men and the owners, better profits in the industry, and better conditions, and better conditions give good wages.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. Member give us one instance where the miners ever get anything without fighting for it?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I can give the hon. Member innumerable instances where, whenever they have fought, they have lost trade, and industry and wages have been bad. I do not want to get into this discussion on wages, which is not my point, but as the question has been put to me, I wish to say that in this matter of disputes in the industry, I do not cast the blame either on the miners or on the owners. As someone quite outside the industry, I have never blamed either more than the other. I simply say that, because I do not want the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to think I am blaming one section of the industry at all.
    4.30 p.m.
    To return to my point, I state that, though I dislike Part I of the Act, having got it there, the Government having worked out with the parties concerned some form of agreement to carry on for 12 months, and looking at the position of the industry and the country to-day, I shall do my best to get this part 'and the rest of the Bill through, not because I like the Bill, but because I am not in a position to give any alternative which might help us. Unless I were in a position to
    1362
    give an alternative, I should not be justified in trying to cut out this Sub-section. For that reason I regret that I shall have to vote against my hon. and gallant Friend.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): It may be necessary later for me to reply to what may be said further upon this Amendment, but it may help the Committee if I state now the attitude of the Government towards it. If the Amendment is carried, the Bill is gone. I must resist the temptation offered me by the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown), and I do not propose to discuss our consistencies or inconsistencies in this House. I hope that we are all wiser than we were two years ago. It is open for one to oppose a Measure, but, when that Measure has been carried, it is in accordance with the traditions of Parliament to do what can be done to further its interests and not for a succeeding Government to set itself immediately to undo what was done by its predecessor. We have had two years' experience that we had not in December, 1929, and we have taken all the best opinions that we could secure. I do not understand my hon. and gallant Friend when he says that we ought in these matters to consult those who have practical knowledge of the industry. If I misunderstood him on that point, I will withdraw, but I understood him to say that, if we referred to those who had practical experience of the industry, we should get some support for the opinion that he put before the Committee. That is the course which we have taken.
    Colonel BROWN: I am afraid that I did not make myself plain. I was complaining that the Government had no mind on the subject, and that all they could do was to go round and take a majority vote of those interested instead of forming an opinion of their own.
    Mr. FOOT: Are we to be blamed for taking that course? I wonder, if my hon. and gallant Friend had been in my place, what course he would have taken. We had to get the result of the 18 months' experience and we had to go to those who are right up against it from day to day. If the continuation of the Act were wrong, they would be the people to feel

    1363
    it first of all, and, if we had not given first consideration to their representations, we should have been open to condemnation from all parts of the House. I am not personally engaged in the industry; most hon. Members are not engaged in it personally. A few, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater), can speak from first-hand experience, but where the House of Commons is concerned on a matter of this kind, obviously it ought to go to those who are in the industry, as the Government did. We were presented with a memorandum from those who have their lives and interests invested in the industry. We went to those who are in the midst of adversity and asked them what they had to tell us about the Act, and the opinions of the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association were the main factor in arriving at a decision. I do not say that they were the determining factor, but they were the main factor.
    There is another view which we have to take into consideration, and that is the view of the consumer. The hon. and gallant Member raised that question, and I have already stated that we had the strong opposition of the public utility organisations and of others who are consumers. If, however, it is desired to ascertain whether the consumer has been unfairly dealt with, the first thing to do is to consult the experience of the last 18 months. Under the Act of 1930, committees of investigation were set up, and power was given to the smallest consumer of coal, if he thought he was unjustly dealt with, to put his case before these tribunals, which are able to go into the matter fairly and to pronounce a judgment. That power has been invoked by consumers in only nine cases, so that practically there has been no complaint. I was astonished that my hon. and gallant Friend should have drawn the picture of an increased price of coal. It is true that coal would fall in price if we took away Part I of the Act, but that is different from the contention that the Act has raised the price of coal. All that it has done is practically to maintain the price. Perhaps the Committee would like to have before further discussion the figures which I have at my disposal. The average proceeds per ton of coal commercially disposable for the year 1929
    1364
    amounted, for Great Britain as a whole, to 13s. 11d. per ton. I am taking the pithead prices for comparison. No one is more acquainted than I am with the extraordinary gap between the pit-head price and the price paid by the consumer, but that raises another question. Where is the increase to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred? In 1930 the price was 14s. 1d
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: Was it not the intention of the Act to increase the price of coal, and is it not the fact that the Act failed to carry out what it was intended to do?
    Mr. FOOT: I think that I had better give the figures first. For 1931 the price was 14s. Those are very remarkable figures having regard to all that was said in the course of the Debate on the Coal Mines Act of 1930. It is another case where we are wiser now than we were 18 months ago. I will take the average figure for the same three years for the exporting districts. Most of those who have taken part in these Debates have come from the disturbed North-Eastern area where, in common with South Wales, a special burden has to be borne. I have the figures for the main exporting districts of Northumberland with which my hon. and gallant Friend is associated, Durham, South Wales and Scotland. Taking these four together, the prices for the three years were 13s. 5d., 13s. 9d. and 13s. 4d. These districts have had to bear the main brunt of the depression.
    Mr. SLATER: Can we have the figures for the individual districts?
    Mr. FOOT: I have not them by me, but I will be glad to let my hon. Friend have them. I have taken the four exporting areas to show that there has been little variation. In the inland districts the average proceeds have risen from 14s. 5d. in 1929 to 14s. 8d. in 1931, the figure for 1930 being the same as in the preceding year. These are remarkable figures. They show a great steadiness of price. I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) whether it was not ostensibly the purpose of the Act of 1930 to raise prices. I think that the ostensible purpose of that Act was to secure a price for coal that would enable two things to be done

    1365
    —to pay a fair wage to the miner, and to secure a fair return for the capital of those who are engaged in the industry.
    Mr. SLATER: Will the hon. Gentleman say where the reduction of half-a-crown would come in if the Act were done away with, in view of the comparison of prices which he has just quoted?
    Mr. FOOT: Upon that my hon. Friend can speak with an authority I cannot approach. The Department with which I am associated made inquiries from all parts of the country, and we are advised that, if Part I of the Act were withdrawn and nothing took its place, there must be a fall of not less than 2s. a ton and probably more. Of course, we may be wrong, but that is a possibility, and that was the advice that was given to us. What we want is an answer to the suggestion that I made on the Second Reading: If the potential production of this country is something over 300,000,000 tons and we actually produced something like 220,000,000 tons last year, and had there a margin of nearly 100,000,000 tons, what is to prevent, if you take away the system that we have now, a desperate struggle and a hard fight and a consequent fall in price? The only result would be chaos in the industry, and no Government could shut their eyes to the fact that that was a real and palpable danger against which we have to guard.
    Reference was made by my hon. and gallant Friend to the condition of things before the Act, and I suggest to him that before the Act there was a condition of things in relation to the industry which we do not want to have repeated. The trouble was so great that the industry tried to overcome its difficulties by a voluntary scheme, and it failed because of the disloyalty of some who were associated with the proposals; it was due to the fact that some were always willing to stand out.
    Would it help the Committee if I dealt now with the question of the exporting districts? It is relevant, I think, to the Amendment. Most of those who have taken part in the discussion are concerned with the North-East Coast. That district has a special difficulty, because its coal cannot be readily sold in other parts of the country. Naturally, if an exporting district cannot get rid of its
    1366
    coal abroad, it must look for some market at home, and, if the coal that is produced is not readily saleable at home because of its quality, it means that the area has to endure special burdens. The suggestion made by some is that we should cut coal for export out of Part I. An Amendment was suggested upon that point, and I understand that it was out of order, but it is relevant generally to the question of the quota. I was asked yesterday in a very vigorous speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie), if I would consider the desperate plight of the exporting areas. He went on to suggest that the fall in the export of coal was largely attributable to the operation of Part I. That is a contention which we find ourselves quite unable to accept, for many reasons into which I cannot now enter.
    Will the Committee direct their minds to a point which I mentioned in passing just now, one which we believe is the fundamental consideration in regard to our export trade? Last year, apart from bunker coal, we sold abroad about 47,000,000 tons, and the suggestion of my hon. Friend and of others is that we could have sold a great deal more if there had not been Part I. Where were we to sell it? Where was the market? I have no doubt that an exporter here and there can say that because he could not sell a certain quality of coal, or could not sell it at a certain price, he has lost an order for 100 tons here, or an order for 1,000 tons there; but, putting all those cases together, we believe that all the loss which may be fairly attributable to the operation of Part I is measurable by thousands of tons, and probably not more than a few hundred thousands at the outside. Where were the millions to be sold? In Germany? In Germany, as a result of the very strong opposition of the native coal industry, there are restrictions and quotas, and if we increased our exports to Germany those restrictions and quotas might be extended. Is the market in France? With the accumulating quota and the tightening of restrictions, which have developed in the course of the past few weeks, could it be sold there? Is the market in Italy, where, with the best will in the world to buy our coal, they have not been able to absorb all that they arranged to take

    1367
    under the Reparations Agreement. There is by no means any objection on the part of Italy to take our coal, because they have desired to do so, but they have their accumulated stocks. Is the market in Spain, where there is restiveness on the part of the coal producers and very restricted conditions? The market is not in Portugal, because Portugal takes practically all its imported coal from us. Is it in Holland? As a result of the War Holland developed her own resources. Before the War she was producing only about 2,000,000 metric tons of coal a year, and now her production is something like 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 metric tons, and she is needing no supplies from us. Is the market in Belgium, with her quotas and restrictions, which have been tightened to our disadvantage in recent months? Is my hon. and gallant Friend going to sell our coal to Poland? Is Poland likely to receive it with alacrity and enthusiasm?
    Then what have we left? We are left only with the Baltic countries, a most important market, a market of outstanding importance to our industry. What is the trouble there? It is the intense competition from Poland. When speaking in this House only a few weeks ago I went at length into the measures which were taken by Poland, desperate measures, to maintain her position in the Baltic markets. Since that time they have intensified those measures. They have now imposed upon their inland trade an additional burden of 2½ zloty per ton, representing about 1s. 6d. per ton, for the purpose of subsidising their export trade. See how that works today. Not long ago one of our coal industrialists wanted to secure a contract with the Danish railways. It was when we had gone off the Gold Standard, which gave us an advantage at that time of 6s. 6d. a ton. The price for our coal payable by the Danish authorities was 6s. 6d. per ton less than it had been only a short time before when the Gold Standard obtained. That contract was secured, but only, I am informed, because the man who sold the coal gambled to the extent of 1s. a ton on freights. Before we could sell those additional quantities of coal in the Baltic countries two things would have to happen—either we should have to adopt the levy and sub-
    1368
    sidy, or else take orders at a decreased price.
    As I have said we sold last year about 47,000,000 tons of coal abroad. If we wish to enlarge that export trade to the extent of millions of tons, as is suggested, there are only two ways in which it can be done. One would be by a levy and subsidy here. If we are going to try that on the same scale as in Poland, where are we going to get the money?. We might put the burden upon other coal producers. Does the House think they will carry the burden on their own shoulders? They would, of course, at once put it upon the shoulders of the consumer, and we are informed by the public utility associations that already there is such a desperate struggle going on between coal and its competitors that that additional burden might mean a great injury to the coal trade itself. Apart from the levy and subsidy, which I do not want to discuss here, the only other way to secure the big markets of which we have been told would be to take a lower price for coal. If last year we had sold those 47,000,000 tons of coal at a lower price, it would have meant that many of the pits which are now carrying on under great difficulties and with immense struggles would have closed down.
    Lord DUNGLASS: I am sorry to interrupt, but there is one point which I think is pertinent to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I do not think any of us quarrel with the fact that at the present moment we shall not be able to extend our export market; but the fear which many hon. Members have is that if the quota is fixed too close to the present demand, and there should be social trouble in Poland, or an increased purchasing power on the part of Germany, or some arrangement with the Argentine, of which our export trades could take advantage, the quota, being fixed so close to the present demand, would not provide the necessary elasticity.
    Mr. FOOT: I am happy to relieve the apprehensions of the Noble Lord forthwith. When we went off the Gold Standard it was thought we might be able to secure a larger trade abroad, and immediately the allocations for the exporting districts were increased. It was

    1369
    not a case of waiting till the end of the quarter, it was done immediately. Unfortunately, the expectations we had were not realised, but the suggestion that the quota system is not elastic is not borne out by actual experience, and if any situation favourable to us arose I see no reason why another allocation should not be made within 48 hours.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The State could work as fast as that!
    Mr. FOOT: My hon. Friend is quite mistaken. The State is not working these schemes. I have a great deal to do, but I have not to decide the allocations. The whole philosophy of the Act is that these schemes are to be worked by the industry itself, and I think that the State should intervene in the working of them only in the last resort and as little as possible. Therefore, while the exporter who has lost his contract for 100 tons or 1,000 tons may widely advertise his grievance, if we had had full regard to his grievance there would have been a general decrease in the whole body of the trade which has been quietly done from day to day and from week to week. In touching upon the export trade I have gone further than I had intended, and have taken longer than I had proposed. As to the limit of time put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), it is difficult, if you are going to continue the Act, to decide the period for which it should be continued. [Interruption.] I will leave that question as to the period as there is to be a further Amendment upon that point, but the Federation asked that it should be indefinitely extended, and the owners asked that it should be extended for five years, and the owners are expected to put their house in order.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: That is an old story.
    Mr. FOOT: Surely expectation is not forbidden even to Ministers in a National Government. The coalowners are expected to stop these evasions which have grown up, and if they say five years is the period they need for the purpose we should run a serious risk in giving them a. less time. As to the general reorganisation to which my hon. Friend referred, that is something which relates to Part II of the Act of 1930 and not to Part I. I
    1370
    cannot rely upon Part I for the necessary reorganisation of the industry, but I earnestly hope that now, under Part II steps will be taken in the direction he has suggested.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: That is with regard to the closing of inefficient mines.
    Mr. FOOT: They will deal generally with the reorganisation of the industry, and certainly with the closing down of mines that ought to give place to others. Many other points have been raised in the course of the discussion, but I hope that I have sufficiently covered the general ground.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN: I am very pleased that the Secretary for Mines has opposed this Amendment. He has used forceful arguments in support of his case. With the economic arguments that he has put forward in regard to the industry itself, we on this side are, I think, in general agreement; but if he will consider again the general situation of the mining industry from its economic aspect, and relate that to the present working of Part I, he will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that a great deal is required in order to amend and to strengthen Part I to make it adequate to the economic conditions through which the industry is passing. The real object of Part I was to organise the industry, to stabilise prices to a certain extent, and, if possible, to improve them. Those who are against Part I justify their attitude on the ground that it restricts the output and the export of coal in the exporting areas. It was stated yesterday that there had been a reduction in output of about 12,000,000 tons, and, inferentially, the contention was that the whole of that reduction was attributable to the operation of Part I of the Coal Mines Act. It was also argued that in order to restore the status quo of the industry it was essential to remove Part I of the Act.
    Mr. DICKIE: This point arose during the Debate yesterday, and I was challenged upon it. I immediately got up in my place and said that I willingly acknowledged that a portion of this decline was definitely attributable to world conditions, and to the crisis throughout the

    1371
    world. I do not think it is quite fair to repeat this charge, which is demonstrably untrue.
    Mr. JOHN: It is not my intention to follow this point any further, but I think my veracity is quite equal to that of anybody else. What are the real facts with regard to the reduction in the production of coal? It is not peculiar to Great Britain itself, because there has been a general reduction in the world's output even since the passing of Part I of the Act. If we take the world's figures, we find that in the seven principal countries, Germany, France, Poland, Belgium, the Saar, the United States and Great Britain, the total production in 1931 was 850,000,000 compared with 989,000,000 tons in 1930; and 1,101,000,000 tons in 1929. Part I of the Act has operated as far as South Wales is concerned, and South Wales is a larger exporting area than any other.
    In to-day's Press there is an article by Mr. Gibson, the secretary of the South Wales coalowners, who says, with regard to the general question of output, that taking the United Kingdom, Germany, Saar, France, Poland and Belgium, the position is that South Wales has increased its output and its export. In the quarter ending March this year as compared with the corresponding period of last year the increase has practically been from 48.44 per cent. to 51.87 per cent., or an increase of 3.43 per cent. The German output for the same period has declined from 27.44 to 23.28 per cent., or a decrease of 4.16. Germany has not had the equivalent of Part I in operation, while South Wales has operated Part I, and notwithstanding that fact South Wales has increased her export trade by 3.43 per cent. The contention yesterday and to-day is that the coalowners of this country want to abandon Part I. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That argument has been used in the House, and I think the Secretary for Mines contradicted it. On this point I should like to read from a cutting a statement made by one of the largest coalowners in South Wales, Mr. Edmund Hann, who is the head of one of the largest combines. He said, at the annual meeting of the Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company:
    1372
    "We have had experience of about 15 months of working of the marketing schemes brought into existence by Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. Had it not been for the Statutory powers given to the coalowners to exercise even such control as they have been able and disposed to do, the situation to-day would be infinitely worse than it is, when supply is so enormously in excess of demand the whole world over. The Act and the schemes made under it are far from perfect, but it would be unwise and even calamitous to scrap them on that account. In our opinion the right course is to amend them in the light of the experience that we have gained, and to continue them in force, strengthened where necessary to meet the needs of the home market, and to increase our competitive power abroad."
    I agree that it would be much easier to amend the Act. The Secretary for Mines stated, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, that there is a great deal of room and necessity for amendment, and it is much easier to amend it while we have it before us than to remove it from the Statute Book. Before removing Part I, I think we ought to consider what has been the experience of its working during the last 10 years. Are we to return to the old business methods of carrying on the mining industry, and are we to give free sway to competition? Are we to return to the old cut-throat policy and keen competition, not only between district and district, but between pit and pit, forgetful of the fact that it means a redaction of the price of coal, and that the wages of the miners depend upon the price?
    The extent to which we abolish Part I will reduce the price of coal, and that will reduce the wages of the miners, which are not sufficient to-day. We have had experience of this policy in years gone by, and in 1925 we attempted to meet the German competition. I remember some interesting figures which were given by the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn, who, if he had been alive to-day, would have been a great power on this particular question. Mr. Hartshorn pointed out the foolhardiness of the continuance of that policy, in the absence of any regulation and control of prices, and he showed that in the first quarter of 1925 we exported 13,102,000 tons of coal; and in 1926, 13,190,000 tons, or 88,000 tons more and the revenue was £1,800,000 less. The result was that the miners had to suffer a reduction of wages. The price was not sufficient to provide wages and the insufficiency of revenue was a consequence of the cut-throat competi-

    1373
    tion with the Germans. The German coal-owners had to go to the German Government for a subsidy, and they received £700,000, and that cut-throat competition resulted in the British Government having to subsidise the coalowners in order to meet the wages of the miners.
    Those annual subsidies to make up the wages of the miners were the result of the past policy of the coalowners. When what is called the subsistence wage is closely examined, it is tantamount to parish relief. The independent chairman is acting almost in the capacity of a relieving officer, and he has to see that the miners do not receive more than they are entitled to. Because of the economic conditions of the industry, and the cut-throat policy which has been adopted in the past, there is not sufficient revenue to provide a decent wage for the miner. What happens? They have to call in an independent chairman to decide what amount of money is required to enable the miner to live decently, and the independent chairman proceeds much on the same lines as the official of the Government in deciding the means test. A single man is entitled to 7s. per week, a married man to 7s. 3d. and a married man with children 7s. 6d. The system is practically the same as that adopted in the case of parish relief. Those who are contending for the omission of Part I of the Act argue that a reversion to that particular state of affairs will be advantageous to the mining industry as a whole. Each of these problems as they arise is more complex than its predecessor, and consequently it is more difficult to solve.
    The problem of the mining industry to-day is not the problem of 20 years ago. The problem of the mining industry to-day as has already been pointed out by the Secretary for Mines, is the contraction of markets. Twenty years ago, a sufficient expansion of markets was possible, and there were plenty of opportunities for developing the mining industry; but the price of coal was not even then determined by the operation of the law of supply and demand, but largely by the internecine competition which took place in Great Britain itself—competition between group and group of collieries, and between pit and pit. Part I will abolish, or at any rate minimise to a great extent, the competition between pit and pit, and what is now required is, not
    1374
    to abolish, but to amend Part I in order to bring about co-ordination, prevent competition between district and district, and regulate and control prices.
    I think it was the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who said that if there were an immediate danger of an increase of price to the consumer he would be suspicious of Part I. The determining factor, however, is not the price of coal to the consumer, but the amount of wages which the miner requires to maintain himself and his family in a measure of decency and comfort. That should be the deciding factor as regards the price of coal. If coal is sold in London to-day at 2s. 3d. per cwt., the labour cost included in that 2s. 3d. is less than 6d., and surely no consumer is going to complain that the miner gets 6d. out of the 2s. 3d. that he pays for a hundredweight of coal. The abolition of Part I would give to the coalowners an opportunity of again reducing the price of coal to what they call a competitive level, and the result would be that it would be impossible for the coalowners even to pay the amount of wages that they pay at the present time. The gap between wages and the subsistence level decided by the independent chairman would be so great that either the independent chairman would have to reduce that subsistence level or large numbers of collieries would have to go out of production, and their going out of production would create more unemployment. For these reasons I oppose the Amendment.
    As regards the price of coal, the Secretary for Mines gave figures covering a year, and I want to give figures for certain months of the period during which Part I has been in operation. The average pit-head price for December, 1930, prior to the operation of Part I, was 13s. 7d. per ton. In March, 1931, it was 13s. 6d.; in June, 1931, 13s. 11d.; in September, 1931, 14s.; and in December, 1931, 13s. 6d. At least, therefore, there has been a measure of stability as regards pit-head prices, largely as the result of economies due to organisation and amalgamation; and, as the Secretary for Mines pointed out, there has been a certain measure of stability as regards commercial disposal also. But we are not satisfied with conditions that are going to stabilise the price of coal as it is at present, and thereby also

    1375
    stabilise the wages of the miners. We want an efficient Part I that will bring more revenue into the industry, and, as a natural result, more wages for the miners. The hon. Member for Torquay contended that what is required at the present time is peace in the mining industry, and I echo that sentiment on behalf of my mining friends and colleagues on this side. But to believe that peace in the industry can be based upon the inanition of the miners—and that will be the consequence of low wages—is a great mistake.
    The Secretary for Mines mentioned just now that the extension of Part I for five years was at the request of the coalowners. The extension of hours is at the request of the coalowners. What is there in this Bill as a whole that is not at the request of the coalowners? If Part I be removed from the Bill, what will be left? The extension of hours. It is suggested that by removing Part I the mining industry will be removed from the range of politics. It will not. At the end of 12 months this House of Commons will have to deal again with the mining situation. You cannot get peace in the industry by simply removing Part I and leaving the present 7½-hour day established for five years. We want Part I as a measure of defence and of justification for an application for an increase in wages at the end of 12 months, or even before. What is required is the amendment of Part I, control over selling prices, not only in certain areas and districts, but over the whole British coalfield, co-ordination between district and district, and, above all, the forcing on of the provisions of the Act relating to amalgamations, as a preliminary step to the complete unification of the mining industry.
    Mr. CURRY: I only want to make my position clear with regard to the Amendment. I am glad that the Minister is resisting it, and am sorry if I shall cause disappointment in any quarter by refusing my support to it. I agree with a great deal that has been said from the opposite side of the Committee with regard to Part I. As I said on the Second Heading, the danger, as I see it, is that, if we deleted Part I from the Bill and tried to carry on without it,
    1376
    we should expose the industry to what might be a very sudden and disastrous fall in prices. The Secretary for Mines said that it was the opinion of certain people that that fall would be about 2s.—
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Not less than 2s.
    Mr. CURRY: Not less than 2s. I think it is impossible to put any limitation, in present world conditions, on the extent to which prices may fall, and we must have regard to the fact that any contraction in prices will reduce the total proceeds of the industry, and in that way will reduce the standard of life of the miner. While one is quite alive to the importance of a cheap supply of fuel and power for the heavy industries of this country, I am always prepared to deny the suggestion that we are entitled to maintain the prosperity of the heavy industries upon the back of an underpaid miner. There is not merely a danger of prices falling and of a reduction in the standard of life of the miner, but also a danger of loss to that part of the general internal trade of the country which comes from the wage fund of the coal industry. We have a population of, roughly, 4,000,000 people dependent upon the necessities of life being purchased from the wage fund of the miners, and the circulation of that money keeps in operation a tremendous amount of the internal trade in this country. Therefore, I think we should be unwise to accept this Amendment. I should, however, have liked to see the Debate concentrated upon another Amendment which deals, not with the abolition of Part I, but with the limitation of its period of operation; and I should have liked, also, some assurance to be given that immediate steps will be taken to inquire into and amend the operation of Part I itself.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I need not dwell upon it now, but I gave a definite and categorical assurance on that point. I said that we were awaiting from the Mining Association the Amendments that they had under consideration, and that, as soon as those Amendments had been notified to us, they would be correlated with the Amendments that we had in our own minds, and the Government would decide what Amendments would then be brought forward. [Interruption.] I explained yesterday that the Miners'

    1377
    Federation had already submitted their Amendments in a memorandum, and I said that those Amendments would, naturally, receive consideration.
    Mr. CURRY: I am glad to have that categorical assurance from the Minister. It will go a long way to remove the misgivings which some people certainly have. With that assurance, given in such definite terms, and for the reasons which I have, I hope, lucidly stated, I intend to support the Government in resisting this Amendment.
    Mr. J. JONES: I wish to say, in the first place, that I am not going to speak on this matter as an authority. I represent the person who consumes coal and does not produce it. I am very interested to learn that coal, on the average, is produced in Great Britain at about 14s. a ton, whether for the home market or for the export market. What we in the East End of London cannot understand is why we have to pay, on the average, 40s. a ton all the year round for that coal which is produced in our own country. In the newspapers I read sometimes about foreign exchanges. I do not know what they mean, but I try to understand what they imply. I have not any disrespect for a man because he comes from another country, but I want to be treated in the same way as he is, and I should like to be able to discover why he can buy his coal at half the price that we have to pay in the working-class homes of the East End of London.
    Why is that done? It is done, we are informed, in order to restore the prosperity of the industry. The prosperity of whom connected with the industry? After all, 75 per cent. of the population of Great Britain get their living by the production and distribution of commodities within the country itself. Have they no rights? Have they always to be sacrificed upon the altar of what may be called foreign trade? Can any Minister or Secretary of State in any Department of the Government tell us the reason for the difference between the price that we have to pay for the coal we consume in our home fires and the price which the foreigner has to pay for the same coal for his own purposes?
    Mr. HANNON: It is not the same coal.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. JONES: It is all British coal. Have we two kinds of coal? [Interruption.] If so, it seems to me that we may get the worst part at home, and pay the biggest price for it. We want to know exactly where we are. If this Clause means that we are trying to organise the coal trade for the purpose of giving the miner a decent wage, there is plenty of room for improvement. The miner is not getting anything like the wage that he ought to get when you come to compare the price that has to be paid for the commodity that he produces. The workers in the East End of London would not be afraid to pay a little more for their coal if they knew that the worker was going to get the benefit of the increased price, but they know from the economics of the situation that they would not have to pay any more if the trade was properly organised.
    All the arguments that I have heard today lead me to the conclusion that the only way to get us out of this difficulty is to make this great industry a national industry. It is not a question of the miners or the coalowners. It is a matter of the people as a whole. It ought to be a national industry, nationally organised. Then we could guarantee to everyone in it a real standard of living and of comfort not previously enjoyed. This Bill is only a temporary expedient. It cannot last for very long, and eventually the question will come before Parliament in a more virile form. The question of who is going to control this great industry will become a burning question before very many moons have passed. You may temporise as much as you like, but are you prepared to face the issue? The machinery that you are introducing will fail, and finally you will be brought to the conclusion that there is only one thing for it. Things that are nationally necessary must be nationally controlled in the interests of the people. We hope the Government will stand to their guns and support the Clause.
    Mr. SLATER: I rise to correct a certain impression that I have seen in the Press that I am against the continuation of Part I. On the contrary, I am in thorough agreement with it, but it must be considerably amended in the direction of making it more effective in the realisa-

    1379
    tion of better wage conditions and a better return for capital. I wish to bring before the Committee some rather important issues which may seem to affect capital interests most, but which will, in the end, affect the workers most. Let us consider the mining industry as a wasting asset. We are taking out of the bowels of the earth every day something that we cannot replace, and at some time in the history of every mine, and at some time in the history of the country, we shall have to make new developments and sink new collieries. If new collieries are to be contemplated on a level of efficiency which will enable them to face the competition not only of their fellow coal-owners but of all alternative providers of power, light and heat, they must have the opportunity of an outlook for the investment of capital.
    What is the position to-day? We sink a colliery with a possible projected production of 1,000,000 tons per annum and, when we have got to that point, we are told by the quota committee that we cannot produce according to our capacity. I know many instances where men have embarked on a capital expenditure of as much as £1,000,000. We go on and we sink pits and we are told, when we are striving our utmost to produce coal cheaply, to put in the most modern machinery and to create the greatest possible wage-earning capacity for the worker, that we must work at an uneconomic output. This point will have to be borne in mind, because investors are being driven away from the coal trade. The banks are overloaded with all kinds of collieries which cannot carry on without their assistance. If you get nationalisation, I can well fancy the amusement of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has a servant of the Minister of Mines coming to him and asking, "Will you kindly authorise the expenditure of £1,000,000 in order that I may sink a pit, and will you kindly wait 10 years before you get any interest on the money?"
    That is what you have to do in the coal industry. It is a serious thing that the type of men who had the courage and foresight to do that, and who built up the industry, are going out of existence. In the end the State may have to do it. Perhaps Members on the Opposi-
    1380
    tion benches will be pleased, but I have known a few State-owned mines on the Continent, and I would certainly prefer the conditions of employment under private enterprise to those existing under State enterprise. Quotas are wrong in principle. Fixed prices are wrong in principle. One of the greatest American industrialists said, "If you do not control production from beginning to end, you cannot possibly succeed in establishing a proper price level for anything." Members of the Opposition will see in that the possibility of my conversion to nationalisation, but I am not going as far as that. The industry depends for its existence on co-ordination and control from one central point, which will stop the competition between districts, will centralise production in the most efficient pits and will give the best wages. May I give an illustration of a new and an old pit under my own control? In the old pit the men can earn 9s. or 10s. a day. In the new pit they can get 14s. or 15s. The paradox is that, in the pit where we pay the biggest wages, the costs of production are 2s. to 3s. a ton less.
    We are not competing against ourselves to-day. It is not competition between coal owners. Our real fight is with the alternative providers of power, light and heat. We have been losing the battle for the last two years, and we have been losing it at an accelerating pace. The coalowners must be forced to get on with reorganisation and with the centralisation of the production of the most efficient pits, and we must have a policy of control of exports speaking with one voice and able to negotiate with Ministers of Mines in other countries. We want to get it done. We can get it to-morrow. One day's delay is too much. The North-east coast, Scotland and South Wales are bleeding for it. There must be no waiting for the coalowners. They have had plenty of opportunities. We must go on. Part I is something gained. It is something that we have been able to satisfy the coalowners in the various districts that we are willing to share the national aggregate output at certain fixed percentages. That point gained, let us not recede and allow the Amendment to pass. Let us go on and build from that point. Let us not have redundancy and over-production and a policy of the survival of the fittest, which will go on for

    1381
    years. Let us grip essentials and give the inefficient mine a fair deal, and let us think of the miner employed at the colliery that has to go out of existence. It can all be done for a very small sum. The difference between working 70 per cent. and 100 per cent. of capacity means anything from 1s. to 2s. a ton. We can well afford to pay 3d. in order to put the business in a healthy condition. I ask the Minister of Mines to do his utmost to induce the coalowners to get on with the business of reorganisation. In regard to the question of wages, I should like the agreement in my district of North Staffordshire to obtain in Durham. We have given our miners a three years' agreement, and I should have liked the coalowners to have given them a five years' agreement.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the question of any agreement made between the coalowners and the miners, if it arises at all, should arise on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I cannot see any provision in Part I for dealing with the situation.
    Mr. SLATER: I accept your Ruling, Captain Bourne. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked, either yesterday or the day before, "What have the Government been doing for the last six months?" It may surprise the Committee to learn that before the Labour Government passed this Act both the late Mr. William Graham and the late Mr. Hartshorn had evolved a compensation scheme. I do not want to feel that I am taking advantage of this kind of reference in making a point, but the question is that we must get on. I feel confident that if we can bring about the co-ordination of the production of coal in this country in efficient pits, have a unified export policy, and a compensation scheme—which according to the Press is gaining adherents every day—to deal with redundancy, this business can become as gilt-edged and provide as high a wage and as high a return to capital as any gas light or electric light undertakings in this country.
    Viscount EDNAM: The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater), particularly with regard to co-ordination in the industry, are arguments which are ex-
    1382
    tremely sound, and with which no one here has any quarrel. But I think the Committee will agree that they are not arguments which arise on the Amendment, or under Part I of the Act at all. It is on Part II of the Act that the question of co-ordinating schemes will arise. As the Committee know, and, indeed, as the Minister himself has told us, Sir Ernest Gowers and the Commission are still in session, or have recently been in session—though they have not yet reported—in all parts of the country with the object of reporting upon Part II of the Act, which deals with co-ordination and amalgamation. So that I think that nobody can complain that that Part of the Act with which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has been dealing has been delayed in any way. It is going forward as rapidly and as smoothly as the late Secretary for Mines, who produced the Bill in 1930, intended that it should.
    I did not mean to intervene in the Debate, for although I have been engaged in the industry for a considerable number of years, and I think I am the only Member of the House who is a member of the Central Council set up under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, I feel that it is impossible for anybody representing only one district to speak for the industry as a whole. The Committee will realise that conditions and interests in each district are so diverse and so different that it is impossible for one person to lay down the law with regard to other districts. That is why I am very reluctant to speak on behalf of the industry, and I do not wish to speak in any way, except for the district which I represent. I am one of those who were actively opposed to the Coal Mines Bill when it was introduced. I saw so many defects in detail that I felt it should be opposed in toto, but I am one of many who have been converted to the Measure. I should like to add my tribute of praise to the great foresight of the late Mr. William Graham, whose loss we all deplore so much on all sides of the House. The industry will always owe a deep debt of gratitude to him for his foresight and for having introduced the Coal Mines Act. I am sure that that is the opinion of all the members of the Central Council.
    I hope that the Committee will resolutely oppose the Amendment, because it

    1383
    would be a disaster if Part I of the Act were to be done away with after it has worked so successfully for the last two years. No one says that Part I is in any way perfect, but, as the Minister himself pointed out, it has at least saved the industry from complete disaster during the past two years. It has been most interesting to find how harmoniously the representatives of all districts—considering how divergent are their interests and the conditions of coal-getting and of sale—have worked together on the Central Council, and how easily and readily, and without any ill-feeling, they have arranged the national quota, and the quota for each individual district. The Committee realise that any district which is not satisfied with the quota allocated to it for any particular quarter has the right to go to immediate arbitration. There is a special arbitration board set up for the purpose, and I do not think that any appeal to arbitration has been refused. Altogether there has been only about 12 applications for arbitration in respect of increased quota in individual districts. It is a very remarkable figure, and nobody can say that the quotas have been restricted hardly either to individual districts or to the consumers as a whole; in fact, the total district outputs have not reached the total allocations in the last four quarters, so that there can be no complaint of restriction of output in any way.
    I am sorry that I was not present to hear the hon. and gallant Member move the Amendment, but I gather that he was talking entirely from the point of view of the exporters. The exporting districts have been most generously treated by the Central Council, because everybody is anxious that the exporting districts should have the largest quota possible, and that they should sell as much coal abroad as possible. The hon. and gallant Member will realise that when an exporting district is not selling its coal that acts very hardly upon an inland district such as I represent. They must have an outlet for their coal, and if they cannot turn their eyes outwards, they have to turn them inwards, and we suffer accordingly. Therefore, we are anxious that they should have the highest possible output, and we have helped them in the past by subsidising schemes. The Central
    1384
    Council have asked the exporting districts individually whether they have any complaint under Part I of the Act, and they have all said that they have no complaint whatever. I hope that the Committee will give the fullest possible opportunity for the continuance of this part of the Act. The Central Council will be able to improve the administration now that they know that they are to have this part of the Act for a further period, and defeat the evasions which have naturally cropped up. It is really remarkable that a greater number of evasions have not arisen. On the whole, the atmosphere of the Central Council is extremely cordial, honest, frank and open, and everybody wishes to defeat evasions in every possible way.
    I want to correct a statement which was made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) in the speech which he made at the opening of the Second Reading Debate when he referred to the profits of the industry during the past two years. He said that the profits of the industry as a whole exceeded £2,000,000 during last year and the previous year. I do not think he will deny that he said that. Those were entirely fictitious figures. They are the figures upon which the guaranteed minimum wages are based, and they are arrived at after all the credit balances have been lumped in and before any charges in respect of bank overdrafts and a hundred and one standing charges have been made. They are not even the gross profits. The Secretary for Mines will not deny that I am correct when I say that the correct figure is well over £1,000,000 less in each of those years.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: What I said was that they were the credit balances as shown in the returns of the Mines Department.
    Viscount EDNAM: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear. It was not clear to me, and I think that it was not clear to the Committee, and I hope that he will forgive me if I make it clear. It is not even the gross profit figure. Indeed, the net figure is a loss of over £1,000,000. It is well known that for the last year only two of the smaller districts have earned sufficient profits to pay the guaranteed minimum wage prices. The outlook for the year ahead is very much blacker, and if it had not been for

    1385
    Part I of the Act it would have been quite impossible for the industry to have maintained those guaranteed wages. No one will deny that. The owners have been able only to guarantee those minimum wages for a further period on the assumption that Part I of the Act would be further guaranteed. As an instance of the disaster which would occur if Part I of the Act was done away with, I think that it has already been brought out in the Debate—contracts have already been made by certain merchants at a rate of 2s. a ton lower than the present prevailing prices on the assumption that Part I would come to an end this year. That is only the beginning. The whole structure of price levels would fall to the ground at once, and it would be a disaster both to the owners and to the miners. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the Committee will not deny that fact.
    6.0 p.m.
    The Secretary for Mines pointed out that it has in no way increased the price of coal. The working of the Act has in no way increased the price of coal; it has only maintained it more or less at the level it was when the Bill was introduced. The Committee will remember that the price of coal was falling to a far greater degree than the general index figure of other commodities. By the introduction of the Measure, we have been able to maintain that price. Although we have not increased the price, we have prevented it from falling to the extent to which the general index figure of commodity prices has fallen. I hope that I have said enough to make the Committee realise that the owners all over the country are in favour of continuing Part I of the Act. Under Part II of the Act, as soon as the Committee set up by the Secretary for Mines have made their report, they intend to do everything possible to co-ordinate the industry and to maintain a good living wage for those whom they employ, and nobody is more anxious to do that than the owners themselves. I think hon. Members know that if they go down to the districts they will find far less ill-feeling and far greater cordiality between owners and miners in those districts than sometimes hon. Members above the Gangway try to make out. The miners know perfectly well that when it comes to district negotiations the
    1386
    owners are not going to do them down. The owners are anxious to earn sufficient profits to maintain good wages, but without the continuation of Part I that will be impossible. Therefore, I hope the Committee will defeat the Amendment thoroughly in the Lobby.
    Mr. HAROLD MITCHELL: In supporting the Amendment I should like to speak particularly from the point of view of the industry in Scotland, a district with which I am personally connected. In opposing the continuation of Part I, or suggesting that it should be continued for a shorter period, I am expressing the point of view of practically half the coal industry in Scotland, and I should like to assure the Noble Lord the Member for Wednesbury (Viscount Ednam) that the coal industry is not unanimous in supporting its continuation. Much has been said about the quota and the operations of the quota, but no one has suggested that the quota has really worked in an efficient manner. The best that can be said of it is that, unsatisfactory as it has been, they hope that it may work a little better in the future. There are many people experienced in the coal industry who are supporting us in condemning and criticising the quota. I might mention Sir Richard Redmayne, who, writing of the quota recently in the papers, said:
    "It is the sterilisation of the fit in order that the unfit may live."
    Never was trade as a whole more uncertain than to-day, let alone a speculative trade like coal mining. To tie the industry to the quota for a further period of five years when no one can foresee what is going to happen is running a very serious risk, particularly for the export coal industry. I listened with very great interest to the remarks of the Secretary for Mines regarding markets for export coal and I was profoundly depressed by his survey. I had hoped that as a result of our going off the Gold Standard we might have a chance of regaining a large part of our markets, including Scandinavia, but he told us that in consequence of the quotas in countries like Belgium, Germany and France, we were unlikely to regain our trade. I was very disappointed that he gave no indication that the Government are going to use their great influence, now that we have changed our

    1387
    fiscal system, to put pressure on those countries to give us better treatment. I would respectfully urge the Government to do all they can to assist the coal trade in that direction. If they cannot do it now, perhaps after the Ottawa Conference they will try to persuade Denmark and other Scandinavian countries to buy more of our coal in exchange for the very favourable balance of trade which they enjoy with us at the present time.
    Experience in the operation of the quota has shown that many difficulties arise. It is extraordinarily difficult, for instance, in accepting contracts, perhaps a year in advance, when you do not know whether you will be able to purchase a quota or not, and even if you can purchase it, what the price will be. Many of us yesterday when we were listening to the Debate in the House were perhaps speculating on what was happening somewhere else. Gambling may have its proper place, but such speculation is not the sort of thing you want to add to in the coal trade, as you do by the quota proposals. If there is one thing that has impressed me in the Debate it has been the clash of interests between different areas, between inland and export areas. We cannot avoid realising that that clash is there, and there is a serious risk to the export trade which is in the minority and has already suffered under the operation of Part I of the Act. There is a risk that if an export demand developed the inland areas might try to prevent expansion of export. We are told that if a demand developed the quota would automatically and quickly be abandoned, possibly in 48 hours, but what guarantee have we of that? The inland areas are in the very big majority, and the interests of the export collieries are not adequately safeguarded by the continuance of this part of the Act.
    There is an extraordinary difficulty, almost an impossibility, in fixing minimum prices. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) referred to qualities of coal, and seemed to be surprised that there were many different kinds of coal. I have here the price list of a colliery with no fewer than 26 different varieties on the market. That emphasises the great difficulty of fixing minimum prices. The point of view of an inland area like Yorkshire or the Mid-
    1388
    lands is different from our point of view in the export areas in Scotland, the North-East Coast and elsewhere. I think the criticism that was made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Ellis) of the speech in support of the export point of view by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) would have been more convincing had they not both been closely associated with an inland area. We realise that inland areas may have found the quota satisfactory, but we in the export areas are entitled to some consideration. My right hon. Friend opposite will appreciate the point of view that minorities should receive representation and fair treatment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
    Mr. MITCHELL: We in Scotland in particular have been criticised in this Debate for sending coal to Liverpool, "to destroy the trade of the Lancashire collieries." It is true that we have sold coal in Liverpool, but I would remind hon. Members that coal has been sent from England to Scotland and that such coal is being sold regularly in Scotland, even in Aberdeen, at the present time. Therefore that criticism comes ill from hon. Members representing the point of view of the English coal trade. We are told that we are reactionary in Scotland and do not know our business. We are told that we are "the most backward of the coal-owners," but I would point out that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), who knows the Scottish coal trade very well, put a completely different and a more correct point of view. In presenting our point of view in Scotland, and in asking the Government either to abolish or to reduce the period of the operation of the quota, we do so because we are up against an extraordinarily difficult problem. The Scottish coalfields represent as difficult a proposition as will be found anywhere else in the coal trade of the world. In spite of that fact our results show that we are efficient and that our point of view is entitled to representation. Our industry in Scotland compares favourably with any other district, even with Yorkshire, which we are told is so up to date. Let me give a few comparisons.
    In Scotland our output per annum per person employed is 328 tons against 260

    1389
    tons in Yorkshire. If you take the application of machinery in the collieries you find that the horse power of electric motors per person employed below ground is 3.13 in Scotland against 68 in Yorkshire. In Scotland we are cutting 66 per cent. of our coal by machinery, against 20.4 in Yorkshire. Our record in regard to the tonnage of coal conveyed by machinery is 32.5 per cent. against 12.1 per cent. in Yorkshire. So in other aspects of our trade we stand favourable comparison. I give these figures in order to take away, if I can, the conception that it is only new and modern pits which can be efficient. We in Scotland as a whole are working a coalfield which is not a new coalfield like South Yorkshire but an old coalfield. By the application of machinery we have made it efficient, and we can only get the benefit of that efficiency if we are allowed to have a large output and are not hampered by restrictions.
    We are told that the removal of Part 1 of the Act would mean a reduction of over 2s. or 2s. 6d. a ton. I can only say, speaking from my own knowledge of Scotland, that I doubt very much whether our figure would be anything like that. With all due respect to the Secretary of Mines, I very much doubt that figure as applying to Scotland. Some people think that the quota has failed because it was not imposed for a long enough period and was therefore unworkable. That point of view was put by the hon. Member for Eccleshall (Sir S. Roberts), and the hon. Member for Winchester. I take a different point of view. The quota has failed because it is inherently unsound and something which is unsuitable to the efficient conduct of the coal mining industry and the production of coal. I would ask the Government to consider whether, if they cannot entirely abolish Part I—one cannot expect them perhaps now to scrap half of a first-class Government Bill—they cannot agree to limit it to a shorter period. In putting this point of view I am expressing what is felt by large numbers of people in the industry in Scotland, the North-East Coast and Kent, and a point of view which is held by many consuming interests, who are also entitled to a certain amount of consideration.
    1390
    I represent a constituency which has many new and highly efficient industries, and any undue forcing up of the inland price of coal would undoubtedly have a most unfavourable effect upon those industries. I would seriously ask the Government to consider whether they cannot limit the operation of the Act to a shorter period, in order that further consideration may be given to the matter in the lifetime of the National Government. I say this not from a party point of view but because the National Government, representing wider and more varied interests than any mere party Government, have a better opportunity of settling such an important question regarding the coal trade. For that reason, even now, I ask the Government to consider reducing the period of the quota to a shorter period, perhaps two years.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for a statement by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell), who told us that he represents half of the Scottish coal interests and that they are opposed to the continuance of Part I of this Bill. It would be quite wrong if the impression got abroad that the coalowners in Scotland are in favour of dropping Part I of the Bill.
    Mr. H. MITCHELL: I said that I was speaking for 46 per cent. of the Scottish coalowners, not for all the Scottish coal-owners.
    Mr. WALLACE: I accept that statement. My point is that there are very strong interests in Scotland in the export and inland trades who take entirely the opposite view and regard Part I as vital to the interests of the coal trade. In this matter I am in agreement with hon. Members opposite, and my only quarrel with them is that they claim to have a monopoly of sympathy with the miners. I can assure them that their point of view is shared by many hon. Members on this side who know the lives of the miners as closely and as intimately as they do themselves. It is impossible to judge the importance of Part I unless two conditions are fulfilled. It is only possible to judge its value if it has been in force for a sufficiently long period to test its efficiency. Part I has only been in

    1391
    force for a comparatively short time, and it is idle to say that it should be condemned on the trial it has had. The second point is that during its operation it should have been fairly administered and full advantage taken of the machinery set out in Part I. So far as Scotland is concerned I am certain that due advantage has not been taken of this machinery and that a great many of the criticisms levelled against the way in which the Act has been administered in Scotland are more than justified.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater), who spoke so strongly on the subject, and has not hesitated to criticise in the strongest manner the action of certain coalowners. I hold no brief for either side. My own view is against restrictions on trade and Government interference, but it is impossible for the Government, having put their hand to the plough, to turn back. We all regret the necessity of the quota system, but surely the hon. Member for Chiswick, who attributes such evils to the quota system, must remember the extraordinary world depression of trade through which we are now passing, which has affected the operation of this Act as it has affected all kinds of commercial activity. I see nothing for it but to support in the most cordial manner the action of the Government in insisting upon the retention of Part I in the Bill.
    Colonel BROWN: In order to suit the convenience of the Committee, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I must protest against this proceeding, which is becoming a very common one. It is not treating the Committee fairly for hon. Members to put down Amendments when they have no serious intention of presing them to a Division. It is a waste of time.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members put down Amendments for the purpose either of expressing their own views or of eliciting information from the Government, and that is a perfectly proper and legitimate practice on the part of any hon. Member of this House.
    Mr. BATEY: I agree that it is a very common practice, but we have only a
    1392
    limited time for the Committee stage, and much of it has been taken up in an academic discussion, with no intention of pressing the Amendment to a Division. There will be no time for a discussion of the hours' question. It is monstrously unfair, and the Government should have moved the Closure long before this.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page I, line 17, after the word "until," to insert the words:
    "the seventh day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, or until."
    The object of this Amendment is to limit the operation of the Clause in respect of hours for 12 months, unless the Mines Convention is ratified before the 12 months is up. The Government understand the position. Last year the five-year operation of the Eight Hours Act finished, and the miners were legally entitled to a seven-hour day. That is not questioned. The miners agreed, as a result of getting a minimum wage put into the Bill last year, to forego half an hour to which they were legally entitled. Yesterday we asked the Government if they would agree to include wages in this Bill, and they refused on the ground that they did not believe that wages should be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. We pointed out that to separate wages from hours placed the miners in a very bad position; it weighed the scales down in favour of the coalowners. Now we are asking that if the guarantee for wages is to last for 12 months that the question of hours—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like to make my own position as Chairman quite clear. The hon. Member is moving an Amendment referring to hours and is bringing in the question of waged; I do not suggest that he is out of order, but if wages are to be discussed on this Amendment, it should be understood that we do not have a further discussion on the question of wages on the Clause standing part. If that would suit the hon. Member and also the general convenience of the Committee that is the course I suggest. I do not rule the hon. Member out of order, but I think we should have an understanding that we do not debate the question of wages again.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am much obliged for your Ruling, and shall be pleased to accept your view. The questions of wages and hours are so interwoven that it is impossible to separate them. All I wish to say on the question of wages is that the Government have refused to put them in the Bill and have, therefore, placed the miners at a disadvantage. They have given a guarantee for 12 months on the word of the coalowners on the question of wages but continued the question of hours indefinitely. We are asking that the miners should be in an equal position with the coalowners. The miners have already given away one half-hour on the understanding that wages were put in the Bill of last year, and we ask that the miners and the coalowners should be put in an equal position by limiting this Clause to 12 months, so that the question of hours will come up for consideration at the same time as the question of wages. The Government have no right to place the coalowners in an advantageous position. It is a bad thing for the trade. Everything that has been said during these Debates has gone to show that the industry will have to meet conditions and circumstances during the next 12 months outside the control of the industry itself, and if the trade is to have a chance there must be no suspicion in the minds of the miners on the matter of wages. It would be good for the country generally if the men felt that at the end of the year hours and wages would be dealt with at the same time. I do not see how the Government can refuse this proposal. It evades the Government's difficulty of putting wages into the Bill; and I cannot see what argument there is against it.
    Will the Committee forgive me if I draw attention once more to the fact that the hours are not seven and a-half but at least eight? That is a moderate statement. Customs and traditions have grown up in every part of Europe in the same way as they have in this country, and nobody knows better than those who have had to take part in international negotiations how much time it took to get to know the hours which were really worked. The present Home Secretary in the Debate last year pointed out that the actual time of the miner from the time he left the surface until the first cage began to ascend the pit was eight hours. But that is a moderate estimate. That eight hours is a period of work
    1394
    under conditions that most hon. Members can only imagine. During the War there was a phrase coined that "the miners were always in the trenches." That is truer than most people know. If Members of this House could see some of the men at work they would realise that the average stage contortionist is a back number. As a matter of fact the professional contortionist would not live very long under some of the conditions.
    6.30 p.m.
    The conditions of heat, particularly in deep mines, are exhausting. It is perilous for a miner to drink the water that he has with him. To work naked is common. Most of us have done that. The men have to work in small seams, two feet or three feet thick, lying in water, water pouring on them and working under the most amazing conditions. Is anyone going to say that eight hours is a reasonable time to work under such conditions? I have seen most classes of work in this country. I do not think there is any workman or any intelligent person who would say that in having a seven-hours day the miner was getting more than elementary justice. Yet here we are with eight hours. And conditions are getting worse. The pressure of the machine is felt in every part of the country, in every workshop and factory, but the machine bears no more hardly anywhere than upon the man who works in a mine. In my day we worked in our section of the coal face. We had our sense of independence, but now, of course, men are on a long face, working in rhythm, driven by a machine, and the pressure is becoming very great. I am prepared to say that it is becoming very great upon all classes, whether workmen or officials.
    But it is doing more than that. These shifts are of a most amazing kind. The men have to fit themselves in to start work at all times of the day and night. I am sometimes very agreeably surprised and brought back to ordinary earth when I hear the argument that people should not begin work before seven o'clock in the morning. I am delighted when I hear that there is a sentiment abroad in some parts of the country for that system. But that would be heaven upon earth to the workers in the mining industry. They begin at eleven and twelve on a Sunday night, they go in at every hour of the day and night. A light is thrown on the

    1395
    humorous outlook of the miner by an incident that occurred the other day. Humour comes out sometimes in rather unexpeected form. I was travelling in. an omnibus on a Sunday night, when the Sunday Entertainments and Sunday Games Bill was being discussed. Two men in the omnibus were going to the pit. One was grumbling about it, the other smiled about it and suggested that that kind of thing was coming to an end. I asked him whether they were going to stop the shift. He replied: "Yes, they were going to include it among the Sunday games and get it prohibited."
    In the light of present-day conditions and the kind of work that has to be done the eight hours is really too long. But if the miner has agreed, as he did in 1931, to an increase of half an hour on the time that he could legally be asked to work in return for getting wages put into the Act, and if the Government refuse to put wages into this Bill, then the least we can ask is that the Government should accept the Amendment, which limits the hours arrangement to one year and brings the arrangement to an end at exactly the same time as the wages guarantee. If the Government refuse to accept the Amendment I ask hon. Members to assert themselves in the name of equity and justice. Hon. Members must understand that the attendance during these Debates is no indication at all of the importance of this subject and the feeling of people outside about it. At the Miners' Federation meeting yesterday a certain decision was reached. This is the real point at issue. Bad as wages are, difficult as conditions are, there is nobody in a mood for anything but temperate and balanced judgment. But you have amongst the miners a sense of wrong that has struck deep. It is running right through the coalfields. I cannot see any ground whatever on which the Government can refuse this Amendment. The Amendment is in the best interests of the industry, in the best interests of the coal-owners as well as of the men, and I trust that at least we shall get good judgment upon the matter.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Of course, we recognise that what the hon. Member has said brings again before the Committee what we discussed upon the Second
    1396
    Reading. It is not a new point. It is fair to say that the effect of the Amendment is to limit the extension of the seven and a-half hours day to a period of one year, that is that it should be coterminous with the guarantee that has been the subject of our discussions. The hon. Member has taken what is common ground as to the hours that are now being worked in the mines. I suppose that if someone came from another planet and saw the conditions under which men were working he would have to say, "Here we are producing a great deal more coal than we can consume, and yet admittedly men are working too long in getting the coal out." It is an irony on our capacity to govern. But we cannot deal with that in this Bill. Anyone who has the slightest experience with present conditions would say that if there should be a short day anywhere it ought to be for the men who have to work under these conditions. No one can say that the conditions are natural. Some people talk about the healthy condition of the miner. They speak of his freedom from certain sicknesses. But the miner's life is admittedly a most unnatural life, and if there is any worker who is entitled to a larger measure of leisure it is the man who in the production of coal is deprived of his share of sunlight and fresh air.
    I hope it will not be thought that I am acting too weakly in this matter in saying that I go fully with the hon. Member in deploring the hours of the miner. I wish they could be made shorter. I say that quite sincerely. When I have been down the mines, as I have been on some occasions, and have gone to the coal face and come back, I have done enough. I think the leader of the Opposition would have difficulty in getting back as far as I did. The prospect of a day's work of that kind is one which certainly would not exhilarate me. But is it not true to say that this subject was all argued last year? Is it not true to say that these arguments were relevant to the last Bill that came before the House? That is my submission—that at that time the last Government—there are some here who were Members of it—would not have failed to carry out a pledge that was honestly given unless they had been overborne by circumstances. Otherwise it would be a very serious confession to make. A pledge was given and it was

    1397
    intended to be kept. A big effort was made under the 1930 Act to carry out the pledge, and the whole system of marketing was set up, not because there was a desire for marketing but because somehow the pledge had to be redeemed. In the circumstances that arose the Government could not redeem the pledge fully. I remember Mr. Hartshorn saying that they were obliged to wait for the redemption until the following year. In the following year the pledge could not be redeemed. Those were considerations upon which my predecessor laid much emphasis. He spoke at that time of the competition that was then arising. He said that the menace of foreign competition was greater than ever.
    A comparison is there between the conditions that my predecessor had to face and the conditions with which we are faced to-day. He spoke of the menace of foreign competition at that time, but he was a man immune in comparison with the experience of his successor. What did he know of the pressure of quotas abroad or of the severity of restrictions? What did he know, in speaking of Poland, of that competition being increased so much as it has been? If the argument was right then, to justify the failure to carry out the pledges of his party, surely I am entitled to say that what he found impossible to do at that time, we cannot do to-day. If there was any justification in the circumstances of that time, then we have to face difficulties ten-fold greater in what has arisen during the last year.
    I am not here to defend the seven and a-half hour day, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade declines to defend it, but the argument which was relevant before is relevant now, that you cannot discuss this question separated from all the other issues involved. It must be dealt with against the background of facts which are as hard for us as they were hard for our predecessors, and in the circumstances the seven and a-half hour day, most unhappily, has to be continued. I would count my time at the Mines Department well spent if I could reduce it. I would rather stand at this Box to propose a Measure reducing the seven and a-half hour day than propose a Measure maintaining it. My hon. Friends opposite know that nothing would give me greater
    1398
    personal pleasure than to be able to do so. But they also know what the circumstances are. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is in close touch with the industry and he knows how increasingly heavy is the competition which we have to meet. Therefore we are brought back to the point which I indicated in the Second Reading Debate. The only alternative to this Bill is another 12 months of the seven and a-half hour day, another 12 months of the guarantee, and then back to Parliament again. What would happen? As soon as this Bill got through the House of Commons and was passed, as I assume it will be passed in another place, and as soon as His Majesty's assent to it had been received—which would be perhaps before 8th July, supposing that we were detained until then—what would happen? Everyone would at once begin to mark 8th July, 1933, on his calendar.
    Mr. LAWSON: They will have to mark it now in connection with the wages.
    Mr. FOOT: I have dealt with that argument, as the hon. Member knows. Everyone engaged in the industry—the Secretary and President of the Miners' Federation, and all those concerned on the side of the workers, and all the owners would mark 8th July, 1933, on their calendars and before July, 1933, whatever the need for legislation, we should have to be at it again. The Miners' Federation would have to come together, their Executive would have to meet, the Mining Association would have to meet and, over in the Mines Department, instead of dealing with the subjects which have been submitted to us for consideration we should have to spend the last three or four of the ensuing 12 months in meeting what might be a purely political crisis just as we are doing now. Why are we talking upon this Measure now? My hon. Friends did not want this Bill and nobody else wanted it. We had no request from the Miners' Federation or anyone else for legislation. We are not legislating because of any request from the industry but because of the calendar which was marked at 8th July, 1932. We submit that what the industry needs is freedom from apprehension and a chance to look forward without having other legislation looming ahead. [Interruption.] If I have made any mistake I will give way

    1399
    at once, but I say that we must all have regard to the circumstances which I have indicated. That is the only answer that I make. The Amendment means that we should be creating that crisis in 12 months' time and devoting to merely political issues the time and attention which ought to be given to solving economic problems. For that reason we are obliged to resist an Amendment which would strike at the whole philosophy and at the very foundations of the Bill.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: This question is being discussed from the economic standpoint alone, and unfortunately from the Tory economic standpoint. Notwithstanding what may be said by supporters of the Government on that aspect of the matter, there is not any doubt in the minds of the miners that the question of hours is more important than the question of wages. Health is far better than wealth and this is a question largely of health as far as the miners are concerned. The Secretary for Mines is anxious to get the Committee to relate this question to the happenings of a year ago. I have no doubt that he and most Members of the Committee are aware that the shorter working day has been a subject of discussion by the miners, among themselves and with the owners for over 60 years and that we have not got beyond it yet. Some Tory Members last year proposed to introduce a Bill to give pit ponies an 8-hour working day and some of the very same people are supporting a proposal here which means that a big proportion of the miners will work 9 hours a day—because being in the pit is working.
    Any hon. Member who cares to consult the report of the Samuel Commission will find there tables showing the output from mines at certain depths and in coal seams of certain thicknesses. They will find evidence of the fact that millions of tons of coal were being produced, particularly in Yorkshire in 1924 and 1925 from pits half a mile deep. We are told by the scientists that for every 10 or 20 yards you go downwards the temperature rises one degree, so that men working in mines from a quarter to half-a-mile deep, may often find themselves at the very bottom of a pit in a temperature close
    1400
    upon 100 degrees. Then, a miner may have to travel anything from half a mile to three males from the bottom of the shaft to his working place and when he gets there, without having done any work at all, he is in a lather of sweat. To ask those men to work an eight-hour day and to consider their situation merely from the narrow economic standpoint is not worthy of gentlemen who have been sent to represent the British public in this House.
    As a matter of fact the conditions border upon slavery. There is no section in this Committee more anxious for peace in the mining industry than the section sitting here. Nor is there any section in this Committee which has to face trouble in the mining areas but the section sitting on these benches. You may create a situation which wall make it impossible for the men to avoid a stoppage. When they do stop they will remain idle until they are completely starved into subjection, and, when that time comes, it is the Members on this side of the Committee who are expected to go to them and get them to return to work. They will follow our advice and not yours—
    Captain RAMSAY: The hon. Gentleman refers to us as if we were callous and indifferent to these conditions, the existence of which I admit as freely as he does, but that is not so. What we are discussing here however is the choice between those conditions and no employment at all and not being able to raise any coal at all.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I submit, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member, that with proper organisation and with the capacity of our mining engineers, we could, from the British mines, produce 300,000,000 tons of coal with less than a seven hour day. As a matter of fact one of the great difficulties with which our men have to contend is that after they go down to their working places on many occasions they have to lie on the coal face doing nothing for hours on end because of lack of transport and the bad methods of organisation in the industry. We on this side are not putting any obstacles in the way of real organisation which would mean supplying the public with coal at a lower price. We are consumers as well as producers and we ask this Committee

    1401
    and the Government to consider the matter from the humane as well as the economic standpoint. Nobody is more ready and willing to face the economic issues than we are, but we object to the economic consideration being the only consideration when it comes to dealing with the miners' conditions. Probably the reason why so many Members look at it only from the economic point of view is because they do not see the miner. He works underground miles away from them. He is not to be seen. If hon. Members saw him I think they would agree with us in the claim that we are making.
    7.0 p.m.
    We are only asking that the miner should be put in a position analogous to that enjoyed by other workmen, who are regarded as essential to the well-being of the State but who are employed above ground. He is the only workman in the country who suffers the indignity of having to pay for his own light. Not only so, but his wages depend upon prices—upon output. Further, he has to tax himself in order to put a man on the pit bank to see that he gets full weight and fair credit for his work. I am sure that nobody could stand up here in defence of people who showed themselves willing to rob the blind. At the present time in the county part of which I represent here men are being asked to pay for the dirt which it is impossible for them to see. The men have nobody to see even that they have better light, yet the employers say to them: "You have to pay for every ounce of dirt that comes out of the washer." I submit that we have made a case, and I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade, the Lord President of the Council and also the Prime Minister are absent from this Debate. This is an important matter to us. I read an article written by one of the principal journalists of Scotland a week or two ago. Writing to the "Glasgow Evening Times" on the Mines Bill, he was arguing that it was essential, if from no other point of view, that the miners' hours should not be extended for a period of more than 12 months, because, he said, it was practically the only bargaining power the miners had left. We have to go to our men to-morrow and tell them that every concession claimed by the owners has been granted, but nothing we
    1402
    have asked for has been conceded to us, and that the struggle next year will not be on hours but on wages. We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that 12 months hence the miners will be prepared to submit to reductions in wages that will inevitably be claimed.
    It is clear, in the arguments advanced by the Government, that they do not anticipate, assuming willingness on the part of the owners to reorganise the industry or even that the owners will have liberty to reorganise it, that the industry will be reorganised within five years. If it is essential that the mineowners should have that time, it is much more so that the period of the agreement should be coterminous with the hours of work. It will be a spur to the owners to get organisation really carried out. The Sankey Commission, the Samuel Commission, and all the commissions and committees, have on every occasion recommended the need for organisation. Yet it has not been done. It will not be done now unless you put something in the Bill that will be held in front of the owners as something with which they must comply. If you make the hours coterminous with the agreement regarding wages you will make possible the better feeling that is necessary.
    I do not for a moment say we disagree with the owners. There is no reason why we should. We meet them practically every day. I do not know any other trade in the country which has more constant negotiations with the employers than have the representatives of the miners on matters of this kind. There is absolute good feeling as far as we are concerned. We are not arguing in this Bill that the employers should not get a, profit. We are arguing that the industry shall be organised so that it shall receive a decent profit and the miners shall get a decent wage. We are not arguing for a purely class advantage. We are arguing that the industry must be organised, and we are asking the Government to make this Bill such that everybody in the industry will be equally interested in trying to get it organised in such a manner as will make unnecessary these continual discussions of miners' questions in the House.
    There is no doubt in our minds of the sympathy and good feeling of the Secretary for Mines. I say that with absolute

    1403
    sincerity. I am not so sure of the Cabinet. That is one of the reasons why we on this side have always been anxious that the Secretary for Mines should be in the Cabinet. I think we should get very much further progress, and that fewer difficulties of this kind would arise if that were so. Nothing said upon this side of the House should be taken by the Minister as a reflection on himself. We are quite satisfied that there is any amount of sympathy in the House. But you are unwilling to believe the statements we make, as some of you imagine we do not represent the miners. You are making a big mistake. If you want peace, then peace is to be secured by the men in the industry having the feeling that this House is willing to give them equitable treatment with the employers.
    I would appeal to the Minister even now to take this question back and ask the Cabinet to reconsider the position. Nothing will be lost. If 12 months hence the industry is not reorganised, then if we are treated in an equitable way which will satisfy the men, the question of continuing will be a much more easy matter to deal with than will be the case if, at the end of 12 months, there is no reorganisation, the economic conditions of the world are no better, and the miners are asked in the interest of the community as a whole to submit to further reductions in wages. You may take it as absolutely certain that the miners will not agree, and, speaking for myself, I would not advise them to. Between now and then my business will be to advise the miners to prepare for the day. I would prefer not to. I would prefer peace in our industry. There is much need for it, and there is an easy way to get it. No men are more willing to give confidence to their leaders, political and industrial, than are the miners, but they do not forget when they are being played with—as has been the case by Liberal, Labour and Tory Governments during the last 12 years.
    One of the reasons why some hon. Gentlemen are in this House representing mining districts is the feeling the miners had of the manner in which they were betrayed by the Prime Minister during the negotiations in 1930–31. I hope the National Government will take a wiser view. If they do so, I can
    1404
    promise that there will be peace in the industry, and it will be possible for it to be organised in such a way that it will be able to produce coal to be delivered in the house of every member of the community at a much lower price than now, and for the miners to have considerably higher wages and to produce as much coal in seven hours or even less as they are now producing in eight. It can be done. If the Minister would have as much courage as he has sympathy, and ask the Cabinet to reconsider the whole question, it would redound very much to the credit of the National Government, and 12 months hence you would have an industry very much better organised and very much better able to pay wages than will be the case if there is no legal agreement making sure that wages and hours will be treated on the same footing.
    Mr. CAPE: I want to draw the Minister's attention to his statement in his reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in regard to this Amendment. He has conducted this Bill in a most admirable way so far, but I think he has missed the whole point of the Amendment. He talked about the impossibility of having a seven and a-half hour day at the present time. This Amendment is not asking for that. The Amendment is asking that the provision with regard to hours should have a limitation of 12 months, and that at the end of that time we should start equal with the owners and the Government in regard to wages. It must be admitted that is only a fair and reasonable request. If it is not conceded, the position 12 months hence will be that wages and hours will tome into the arena again for further discussion. If his Bill remains as it is, wages are bound to be reconsidered at the end of 12 months. Probably by that time we shall have the coalowners asking for a reduction of wages, and we shall be then without our chief bargaining power, namely, seven and a-half hours.
    In the conference with the Miners' Federation, I opposed the bargain that had been made, but I was told, after my resolution was defeated, that as a member of the federation, the federation having made a bargain with the Government and the coalowners, it was my duty to stand honourably by that bargain. But this time we have had no chance

    1405
    of making any bargain. Somebody else has made the bargain for us. They have said, "We want a bargain, but you chaps must stand outside the bargaining job, and we will tell you what we have done." Both the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines have admitted that, owing to outside influences, we have got this Bill. They had to come to the owners' point of view and be satisfied with the guarantee given on wages, and on those terms the owners were prepared to say to the Government, "We will let the hours continue for an indefinite period." We were never asked, as a federation, what would be our part of the bargain in endeavouring to get an amicable settlement. Therefore, we are in a different position from last year. Last year's Bill was the result of a bargain between the three parties concerned, but this Bill is the result of a bargain by two parties only, namely, the Government and the owners.
    Everybody here will claim to be British, and the slogan to-day is "Buy British." Everybody also points out that the British stand for fair play, and I say that, from that point of view, we are entitled to be given the same opportunity 12 months hence as was given us last year to bargain with the owners over our conditions of wages and hours. We could go on giving our experiences of the arduous toil in the mines and all that sort of thing, but I want to make this bold venture. I am not certain if the output of the coal has not increased under the seven and a-half hour day as compared with what it was under the eight hours day. The men have exerted themselves to meet the demands of the industry by giving as good an output, if not better, in the seven and a-half hour day.
    I submit, finally, that I think the Government should give us this Amendment. It would put both sides in the same position, and although the Secretary for Mines will doubtless do his best to avoid this matter having to come before Parliament again, I am afraid that he will not succeed, because, as sure as the sun rises, if an attempt is made 12 months hence to reduce the wages of the miner, unless he can get some protection from this House, he will take the matter in his own hands and fight the issue to a conclusion; and that will not be good either for the country or for the industry. If
    1406
    we could get this Amendment accepted, i believe that when the whole matter comes to be discussed next year, we may find the industry in a better position than it is in to-day. A bargain might then be come to by the Government and the two contending parties and a non-controversial Bill brought in and passed through rapidly. Even if things have not improved, I feel in my own heart that there might be a willingness on the part of all concerned to come to some accommodation and to get a Bill to meet the requirements of the times.
    When I say that the men have exerted themselves and have produced as good an output under the seven and a-half hour day as before, if not better, I ought to add that the managers of the mines have improved the transport facilities and that the men have the tubs at their disposal to fill more rapidly than was the case before. In conclusion, I want to compliment the Secretary for Mines on the admirable way in which he has succeeded in seeing that no Amendments have been accepted on the Bill so far, but I still hope that he will accept this one.
    Mr. WALLACE: I should like to pay a tribute to the eloquent speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), who has such an intimate knowledge of the coal trade, but I want to explain why I cannot support the Amendment. I cannot support it because I think it is a bad policy on the part of the miners' leaders towards their own men. They ask us to stabilise for five years the present rate of wages.
    Mr. CAPE: No. If the hon. Member will read the Amendment, he will see that that is not the case.
    Mr. WALLACE: I understood the hon. Member for Hamilton to say that he wished the same agreement in regard to wages as with regard to hours, and if that is the case, I think I must be permitted to make my own interpretation of what he said. If I am right, my idea is that the rate of wages at present paid to the miners cannot possibly be lowered. I do not think it is possible, but I think it very likely that at the end of a year the wages may be materially higher. We are asking for this Part I to go through in the hope that it will bring increasing prosperity to the industry, and if that is the case, surely this increasing prosperity will be reflected in the wages of the

    1407
    miners. We have heard also from hon. Members opposite that they expect that the cost of living will be affected by the fiscal policy of the Government, and if that is the ease, I think it is very dangerous on the part of the miners' leaders to ask for the stabilisation of wages.
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: May I endeavour to clear up the misconception in my hon. Friend's mind? I have not suggested that the agreement should last for five years. I said that the hours and wages agreement should end co-terminously, and that would be a year hence.
    Mr. WALLACE: Or five years.
    Mr. GRAHAM: When speaking of five years, I mentioned that if the agreements on both wages and hours ended co-terminously a year hence, it might be possible for an agreement to be reached to enable the pits to be carried on for the period suggested in the Bill, the five years, during which the reorganisation of the industry could take place.
    Mr. WALLACE: I accept my hon. Friend's explanation, although he so frequently used the word "co-terminous" so far as wages and hours were concerned, that I was bound to assume that he meant the five years period. If I am mistaken, I am sorry, but I still think it is an extremely dangerous policy on his part and on the part of his colleagues to advocate the adoption of this Amendment.
    Mr. COCKS: Nobody will doubt the fact that the Secretary for Mines has every sympathy with the miners' conditions, and we all know that if he had the power, and if the economic condition of the industry would allow it, he would like to reduce their hours of work. I hope that he will not have any doubt in his mind that that is what we feel, but our point is that he did not answer the argument put forward by the mover of the Amendment. We do not claim that the hours should be reduced now. We simply say that the period of the seven and a-half hours working day should come to an end simultaneously with the wages agreement.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Then the hon. Member's only alternative is another Bill in 12 months' time.
    Mr. COCKS: I agree. I am very glad the President of the Board of Trade has come back, because I think the justice of our Amendment can be proved by extracts from his own speech when moving the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday last. We claim that the Amendment is merely one of ordinary justice. The justice of it has been admitted during the Debate by several supporters of the Government belonging both to the Conservative party and the Liberal party. It was admitted last year by the present Home Secretary, who has been quoted already. He said, for example, that the agreement should be a guarantee of wages for a year in return for longer hours for a year, and he said that the position of the owners in demanding an unlimited period for hours with a limited period for wages was an unreasonable one. It is that unreasonable condition which has been embodied in this Bill, and that is, I suppose, one of the reasons why the presence of the Home Secretary in these Debate's has not been so conspicuous as his absence.
    Mr. FOOT: I have already referred to the Home Secretary's statement. I think it is fair to say that he said that at the end of the 12 months it would be open for the miners, through their properly constituted federation, to say, "We are prepared to work your seven and a-half hours if you will continue our wages." That was the Home Secretary's argument, and nothing prevents that negotiation. Further, in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the Home Secretary entered his protest against a statutory statement of wages.
    Mr. COCKS: I am not talking about a statutory statement of wages. I am talking about the agreement which exists now and which is not in the Bill. When the Minister said that it is open to the miners to say at the end of the year that they will refuse to work, ho is inciting them to strike. To say that unless the wages are continued they will not work, means a strike, an industrial dispute, I want to deal, first, with the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He said that it was impossible to disconnect hours and wages. That is precisely what he is doing in this proposal. He is connecting hours and wages for a period of 12 months, and at the end of that time

    1409
    he is disconnecting them; and then the coalowners will ride off on the horse of the longer hours, and the miners, as usual, will be left in the cart.
    I want the Committee to consider the position in which the miners will find themselves at the end of 12 months when the agreement comes to an end. The President of the Board of Trade has admitted that it was only with great difficulty that he was able to get the coal-owners to come to that agreement at all, and he had a very strong hand to play. In the first place, he was representing the National Government, whose power is enormous, even if its prestige is not what it was. It has absolute power, with an absolute majority, and it can impose its will in any way it pleases. Secondly, he was able to give to the owners Part I of the Act, which, he says, meant an additional 2s. 6d. per ton on the coal which they produced. He stated that:
    "Part I was another essential element in the maintenance of price and, therefore, in the maintenance of wages."
    Thirdly he was able to give them the seven and a-half hours day. To use his own words, he said:
    "We are giving to the coalowners stability and as great a degree of permanence in an ever-changing world … as is possible by any Act of Parliament."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1932; cote. 860–1; Vol. 266.]
    7.30 p.m.
    Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has given the owners everything he could possibly give them. He was able to use that triple weapon, and yet he only got them to give an agreement on wages with the greatest possible reluctance. What will be the position of the miners in 12 months' time? They will have nothing. They will have no weapon except the weapon of the strike. The owners will be in the position of having had everything given to them and not needing to concede anything. Previously the miners had the bargaining weapon that if the seven and a-half hour day were not continued industry would automatically go back to the seven hours. The Government are taking that power from them, and in 12 months' time they will go into the discussions unarmed except for the weapon of the strike. It is said that the strike is a bad method. Hon. Members opposite do not believe in it and say that it is a weapon that should not be used except in the last resort, and that it is
    1410
    an act of war. Now the Government are taking away the miners' bargaining power and thrusting into their hands the very weapon of the strike the use of which they deplore. As the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) said, in 12 months' time there will be every probability that an attempt will be made to lower wages in the worst-paid districts.
    The Secretary for Mines to-night made a statement similar to a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade the other day. The President of the Board of Trade said that they were removing industry for a period of five years from the arena of politics and avoiding an unseemly crisis. It is very unseemly to bring the wretched conditions of the miners on to the Floor of this House where they can be discussed in the light of day so that the whole nation can know the conditions under which the miners have to work. It is very unseemly to have that on the Floor of the House, so the crisis is to be removed into the districts where the miners can be bludgeoned and starved into surrender and where their conditions are not reported in the papers. The trouble is simply to be removed from the House of Commons to the districts so that an unseemly crisis will be avoided. The President of the Board of the Board of Trade will then be able to wash his hands like Pontius Pilate and say, "Thank God the Government have nothing to do with it." The Secretary of the Miners' Federation has been commended on all sides for his broad, statesmanlike and reasonable attitude. What has he had in return for that? Simply a Bill of betrayal. The miners have been betrayed by a Government which contains in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affaire two specialists in treachery. I hope that the Government will make this concession. If they do not, I warn them that they and society will one day pay a heavy penalty for the fact that they have denied justice to the most loyal and finest band of workers in the world.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I intervene in this Debate for the first time, because I think that this Amendment may claim to be extremely reasonable. The miners' representatives are simply asking that the Bill shall continue in effect for 12 months.

    1411
    The major Act lays down that the miners are entitled to work seven hours a day. Some time ago Parliament decided to suspend temporarily the seven-hour Measure and passed an eight-hour Measure. When the Labour Government were in office, they decided to continue the seven and a-half hour level. They did not restore it to the seven hours and the miners at that time, rightly or wrongly—I think wrongly—accepted the seven and a-half hour compromise. I think that it would have been much better for the miners if they had insisted that the seven hour day should be maintained. They would have been in the position that there would have been a larger number of miners employed, though not many more, and they themselves would have been in a stronger bargaining position to meet the situation of the present moment. Now Parliament is asked to face the position of a continuance of the seven and a-half hours. The major Act guaranteed a seven hours day; it has been suspended for a seven and a-half hours day, and in return for that this Amendment asks that it shall be only for 12 months.
    The reason for that is that the question of wages is guaranteed only for that period. It is guaranteed only on paper. There is absolutely no legal right to it. All the miners have is a sort of guarantee on the Floor of the House. They have absolutely no legal right. There is this difference which has never been driven home in these Debates: Individual owners may break a wage agreement, but, if they break an Act of Parliament, they can be prosecuted. In the next 12 months any individual owner can break the agreement, and we shall be told in the House that the owners in the main are keeping their bargain and that the Government cannot be expected to intervene when only one owner here and there is breaking it. The Mining Association cannot speak for every owner any more than the Miners' Federation can speak for every individual miner. They can speak for them collectively, but not individually. All of us know hosts of cases in Scotland where individual owners have often sought by individual action to get outside even the law with regard to hours. All the miners have in regard to wages is a written word, and, curious to say, the
    1412
    Government have not even put it in the Statute.
    Why is this being demanded now? The truth of the matter is that the miners, as a trade union, are not the powerful body that they were formerly. Strikes and lock-outs—call them what you may—over a long period of years, attack after attack have left them to-day in nothing like the strong position that they enjoyed a number of years ago. The owners know that, and in 12 months time the miners will be attacked in the districts. It is not right for the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) to say that wages cannot go any lower. If, however, they are as low as they can be, why cannot the guarantee be put into the Bill? It is because the employers know that they can be made lower that they refuse to have a guarantee inserted for any particular period. There are districts now in which the owners frankly and openly think that the miners are earning in excess of what they should be paid, and at the end of 12 months the owners will attack the districts as it suits their convenience and their particular purpose.
    I have heard the hon. Gentleman who is piloting this Measure complimented for his Parliamentary skill. If it is a compliment to say that he has got his Bill through without conceding anything, he may well have earned the compliment, for it is a fact that he has given the miners nothing. If the concession that has been granted in the Bill had not been given, there would have been war to-morrow—internecine war. All that is happening now is that for a period of 12 months war will be suspended in order to allow the owners the better to prepare to attack the men. There is nothing to be said in favour of the hon. Member for introducing this Bill. There is nothing humanitarian in it. One can imagine him on great questions like Sunday opening or if the Presbyterian faith were at stake. He would stand in his place and say: "This cannot be done; I will go out of the Government." Indeed, on Free Trade he almost got to that point.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I was nearly put out.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The question whether employers are to have free imports or regulated imports aroused

    1413
    great passions and the hon. Gentleman differed from his colleagues on that question, but, when it comes to humanitarian principles and to the awfully meagre right for which the miners are asking, the hon. Gentleman refuses to be moved. If there is one criticism that I would direct against the miners, it is that they have been too meagre in their demands. All that they ask is that this Measure should go on for 12 months, so that at the end the position may be again subject to mutual negotiations between the parties.
    Mr. FOOT: Can the hon. Gentleman name any other industry where that may be done?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I say that circumstances are not the same, and the hon. Gentleman ought to know it. Parliament, for good or ill, has not said that there is to be a seven-hour day for any other industry. As Parliament has altered what a previous Parliament has done in this respect, Parliament ought to hold the balance with some show of equality. The hon. Gentleman asked me if there is any other industry. He is like the rest of the Free Traders, antediluvian and anxious to go back to the days of Cobden. Who in this House says that the miners are in the same position as, say, the engineers? The existence of the Department of Mines gives the lie to that. Time after time the miners have been picked out for legislation. The fight over the minimum brought them out from the rest of industry. To say that there is no other industry which can be taken as a parallel indicates a mind that has gone back to ideas which I had hoped were long forgotten.
    It is said that we should not introduce sentiment into this matter. I heard one miner's Member sneered at for introducing human sentiment. Last night I listened to human sentiment about a bridge. The cry was, "Keep the old bridge up; keep it going, this beautiful bridge." [Interruption.] The Secretary for Mines may not have said that, but I heard him pouring out sentiment over old books, trotting out old classics, and I always envied him, because I know nothing about them. Why should it be wrong to introduce sentiment in a House of Commons where we have only 50 Members, where we have no voting strength, no men to appeal to, where the miners
    1414
    as an organisation are almost smashed, where they have no economic, industrial or political power? Where are their leaders? It is not only the Prime Minister who has wronged them, but other men as well—other leaders who have left them; men to whom they had given place and power have now thrown them over. Hon. Members often think we are terribly hard on the Prime Minister. I wonder how hard they would have been on a man who had been served by them as well as the Prime Minister was served by the miners and then had treated them as he has treated the miners?
    In view of our numbers why should we not appeal for human sentiment? It is the only appeal we can make. We have made a business appeal. We have appealed for reorganisation. We have appealed for the linking-up of the selling and other agencies in the industry, and we have met with no response. If sentiment has saved a bridge, why cannot sentiment save the miners? All we are asking for is the acceptance of a meagre Amendment to say that for 12 months the wages guarantee should remain and the hours guarantee should remain. I was tempted to differ from my hon. Friends and to say that the seven hour day should operate, but they in their mildness have not asked for that. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) has said this may mean war at the end of 12 months. I do not think it will mean war, because war pre-sup-poses equality between two forces. It is not war when one nation is small and incapable of fighting the other nation, that is massacre; and when next the miners go to war it is likely that they will be massacred, through the power of a Government. But the miners will go to war, and possibly they will lose, and in the struggle they will not only pull themselves down but, possibly, pull down others with them.
    I say the Secretary for Mines ought to accept this Amendment, ought to show some clemency towards the miners. They have asked for little. Let him give them this meagre demand of theirs. The Secretary of State for the Dominions has said that this is a Government of all parties; that it is not anti-Socialist; that it is sympathetic, in some ways, towards socialism. They say, "We will give you a Town and Country Planning Bill" and

    1415
    "We will give you a Transport Bill." I looked to see what else they were going to give us. Nothing! I ask them to prove that they are a Socialist Government, a Labour Government—not wholly of course, because a Socialist Government would establish the seven hour day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not the late Government do so?"] Because it was not a Socialist Government, and the hon. Member who made that interjection, if he had been here in the last Parliament, would not have twitted me about it. The Government should let the Measure continue for 12 months, and in the interval let the Minister of Mines apply his capacity and power to seeing that a settlement is reached, so that when he demits that office to take up any other he may leave behind him a permanent mark of what he did to make mining better for human beings.
    Mr. LUNN: I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade has left the House, and I think we have a right to complain of his absence during this Debate on hours, because this is a most important Amendment to my own county of Yorkshire. There they set a good deal of store on the idea of returning to the seven-hour day, and are prepared to go a long way to get the Miners' Federation to take definite steps to secure it. They were largely responsible for the Vote yesterday in the conference, on account of the position as to hours. I do not think we have been treated fairly by the Cabinet in this Debate. After all, the Secretary for Mines is a junior Minister, and as everyone who has been a junior Minister knows, it is impossible for him to make any alteration in a Bill of his own volition; but Cabinet Ministers have made alterations in Bills during Debate, and have accepted Amendments some of which have cost this country millions of money. Had the President of the Board of Trade been present he could have said another word as to the attitude of the Government. I know that if the Secretary for Mines gets up again he can in the absence of higher authority only say what he has said before. Therefore, I beg that before we close this Debate some Cabinet Minister, and particularly the President of the Board of Trade, may give expression to the Government's views on this Amendment.
    1416
    After all, there is nothing definite for the miners in this Sub-section. It says that it is to continue the seven and a-half hour day until the Geneva Convention is ratified, which may be in one year—I wish it could be said that it was to be ratified in a year—or in five years, or never. I am not going to threaten, because I am not in a position to threaten, what will happen at the end of 12 months in the mining industry, but I can say that there is now a better feeling in the industry than there has been for a long time, and a possibility of continued good feeling, but nothing is more likely to dispel it than the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment. To insert this Amendment in the Bill would at least give a hope to the mining industry of a return to a legal seven-hour day at some time, but in the absence of it there is no guarantee that at the end of 12 months they will get back to the position they desire. I have listened to all the Debates in this House on miners' hours since 1908. I sat in the Gallery for eight hours when the late Stephen Walsh moved the Second Reading of the Eight Hours Bill in 1908. It is no use talking about getting this question out of politics. We cannot take it out of politics. What argument can there be against the question coming up again in 12 months' time?
    This is supposed to be a, National Government. Many of the Members of the Government have cast aside life-long principles to join it. The President of the Board of Trade has held and defended certain principles for a generation, but they have all gone to the winds in order that he may serve the purpose of what is called a National Government. If they are to be regarded as a National Government, let them look at this question in the interests of the nation, and I am convinced that it is in the interests of the nation that this Amendment should be inserted. We shall, naturally, go to a Division upon this Amendment, because we feel so strongly upon it, but we would withdraw it if we could have an assurance that what we want will be included in the Bill. We are told that the Government were negotiating for many months with the mineowners to get a guarantee on the minimum percentage, but they did not negotiate with tine Miners' Federation at all. They never took the miners into their confidence in

    1417
    connection with this Bill until the very last minute before it was introduced.
    We on this side of the House have a right to say, without any threats at all, that in this matter, which is the important matter, and the one which is creating dissension and feeling, this Amendment should be accepted. I hope that the Secretary for Mines, after his colleagues have given him some instructions, will say a word before we go to a Division, and if he can concede us this Amendment we shall feel that the four days spent on this Debate, which has been a remarkably good Debate on mining affairs, have been very well spent. I can tell hon. Members that there will be many many Debates on mining in the future, and that it will not go out of politics. To suggest that it will keep out of politics for five years is beside the mark, because before very long it will come up here again, and if this Amendment is not inserted, much sooner than otherwise. I ask the hon. Gentleman to concede this one point to the miners, because it will give some substance to the expressions of sympathy which have been expended upon them.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: On the last occasion when I spoke I referred to the question of miners' wages, and I supported the wages section on the assumption that either the Mining Association would introduce an Amendment to Part I, or, if that was not possible, that the Government would introduce an Amendment themselves. If I thought that that would nor, be the case I should support this Amendment. Am I right in assuming that the Government undertake to carry on the wages guarantee for 12 months on the assumption that before 12 months are up Part I will be amended?
    Mr. PRICE: The Minister for Mines has made a very important statement in regard to the bargaining powers of this Bill. I should like to ask the hon. Member what he meant when he said that, at the end of the 12 months, the miners would be in a position to make suggestions to the owners. Although the statutory hours are fixed, I think the miners would be entitled to claim that, in any negotiations, wages should be included. Is it the intention to throw back into the industrial field next year
    1418
    warfare not only on wages but on hours as well?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I have already spoken on this Amendment, and really there is nothing that I can add. I will try to deal with the question put to me. As to the position at the end of 12 months, I have made two statements. I have made them in the Debate and I stand by what I have said. I think we have now had a thorough discussion on Part IV, and I should like to see a strengthening of Part IV of the Act of 1930, or the substitution for the machinery of Part IV of the Act of a new board. I think that the question of wages should be discussed before any change takes place, and I am going to deal with that matter later on the Third Reading. Within the last day or two suggestions have been made in regard to Part IV of the Act of 1930, and I hope those suggestions will be carefully considered. I would like to point out the admission which was made last year on the passing of the Act of 1931. We were told that the Miners' Federation at that time not merely agreed to the suspension of the reduction of the hours of the working day, but that there was an admission on the part of the Federation and of the last Parliament that seven hours was impracticable. The Act of 1931 says that the seven and a-half hours
    "shall continue in force until the coming into operation of an Act to enable effect to be given to the draft International Convention limiting the hours of work underground in coal mines adopted by the general conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations on the eighteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."
    That was an admission that seven hours was impracticable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members must accept responsibility for that Measure, and its terms were that there should be seven and a-half hours, and it was limited to 12 months, although here reference was made to seven and a-quarter hours. Suppose that Convention had been signed within the 12 months, what would have been the hours of miners to-day?
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: I do not wish to interrupt the Secretary for Mines, but I wish to point out that he is trying to convey to the House that what appeared in the Bill of last year was in agreement

    1419
    with the Miners' Federation, and that is not so. There was an international convention held dealing with hours long before that, and the representative of the Government, the late Secretary for Mines, discussed the question of a seven and a-quarter hour day.
    Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member could not have been in the House when the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) said that he did not object to the Bill of last year, strong as his claim was for a seven-hour day, because he understood that the Bill was the result of an arrangement between the Miners' Federation and the Government. I am not trying to make a debating point in regard to this matter. The Bill was passed last year. It was not my Bill, and it provided that the seven and a-half hours should continue until the coming into operation of the International Convention. During the Debate the suggestion was made that something might be done even before 12 months—
    Mr. LAWSON: I made that point clear in my remarks. I pointed out that the seven and a-quarter hour day proposed by the Convention was equal to our seven-hour day.
    Mr. FOOT: The seven and a-quarter hour day was equal to seven and three-quarter hours bank-to-bank. I do not put that forward as a debating point, but as a fair statement, because hon. Members opposite must accept responsibility for that Measure. We were convinced by the argument used that there were insuperable difficulties to going back to seven hours, and therefore, if the Convention recommendation were carried through, the hours would be seven and a-quarter, which corresponds to seven and three-quarter hours bank-to-bank. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will produce the terms of the Convention if necessary. After a very long discussion, it was agreed that seven and three-quarter hours bank-to-bank was to be equal in this country to seven and a-quarter hours plus one winding time. It seems to me that that was an admission on the part of all concerned that a seven-hour day was impracticable. I think I have now answered the questions which have been put to me.
    1420
    We have been told again and again that wages must come up for consideration within the 12 months period, and I have also been told that there must be a crisis in 12 months. I do not believe in the reality of that crisis. I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the fears expressed by hon. Members opposite, but I do not think that that crisis will come. How can it come? The question of wages will only come up for consideration if and when the owners propose a decrease of wages, or the miners demand an increase. It does not follow that either of those things will happen. It has not been suggested in the course of the Debate that at the end of 12 months there will be a demand for an increase of wages, and I am not going to assume that at the end of 12 months the owners are going to demand that wages must be decreased.
    I want to secure some safeguard in this matter, and the best safeguard is something that can be done under Part IV of the Act of 1930. It would be unfair for me to hold out any assurance that that can be done, but a promise has been made in regard to that matter. I do not want to see a crisis in 12 months. What more can I say than that Part I of the Act of 1930 has, for primary purposes, secured economic conditions, and those who have this monopoly must remember that the people of this country have great regard for the welfare of the miners, and neither the Government nor the country would be satisfied if an attack were made upon wages after those guarantees have been given. If such an attack were made, we should want to know the reason for such action. I said at the beginning of the Debate that that represents the opinion of this House. The carrying of this Amendment means another 12 months Bill, and all this political bubble and excitement maintained for another 12 months. I think that that in the end will do the mining industry no good. I believe that everyone is involved in the success of this industry, and that the best thing that can be done to save it is to take it for the time out of the political arena and give it a chance to recover.
    Mr. McGOVERN: I should have had great hesitation in offering any suggestion or criticism if I had not found that continually in this Debate, as in all such

    1421
    Debates, Amendments have been put down by Members on the Government side which they did not intend to carry to a Division, simply because they wanted to get their voices across the country. I was told in the Lobby that the last Amendment, after it had been moved, was not going to be carried to a Division. If Members of the Government carry on in that way, I have no apology to offer for rising to my feet in connection with this Amendment.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Members of the Government?
    Mr. McGOVERN: Supporters of the Government. I support this Amendment which has been moved by the Opposition, and intend to go into the Lobby with them, in order to show at least in a practical sense my sympathy with the miners in their struggle for a shorter working day.
    Major MILLS: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that we are discussing an Amendment moved by a Member of the official Opposition, and not by a Member on the Government side of the House?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. McGOVERN: When the hon. and gallant Member is sufficiently alive and awake, be will be aware that this Amendment is going to a Division. In the case of the Amendments that I was criticising, there was no intention of carrying them to a Division. I realise that a great amount of sympathy for the miners has been thrown across the benches of this Chamber by people who will walk into the Lobby and vote against the Amendment. There is always every opportunity in the House of Commons, as in all public bodies, of getting something for the workers in an industry so long as it does not cost anything. You can always get that practical sympathy which means nothing at all. It is a sort of salve for the consciences of the people who rise up.
    I must confess that, taking a practical view of the matter, I am rather surprised at all the appeals that are being made to the Secretary for Mines to grant concessions. Every Member who rises to his feet knows that the Secretary for Mines has no power to grant any concessions at
    1422
    all. He has received his orders from the Cabinet, and the Cabinet have received their orders from the coalowners. The Government come down here with the intention of rushing this Bill through and granting no concessions in any shape or form. I agree that Parliamentary government is being brought into contempt in the country because, when the Government bring in Bills, although there is ample discussion and plenty of helpful suggestions from the Opposition, they do not intend to accept any of those suggestions or any of that criticism in a proper manner, or to grant concessions to the people involved. Therefore, it becomes a waste of time to talk on the Floor of the House at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do it?"] Because I am not going to appeal for anything. I shall get exactly what I expect, and that is nothing.
    I simply rose to point out that it is a waste of time for Members continually to appeal here to a hard-faced Government who have no intention of granting anything in return. This proposal to limit the hours for a period of 12 months does not disturb me in the slightest. I do not worry as to whether it is 12 months or five years. The Government may bring in their Bill, and it may be passed, but that does not mean that the miners are going to accept it, and, after all, they are the people who have to determine whether the Bill is going to operate for six months, 12 months or five years. They could upset the whole of your apple-cart next week if they so decide. I believe that the miners, like all other sections of the working class, can only get from capitalist society that which they have the power to enforce—
    Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: Then the hon. Members suggests that the agreement which the mineowners have come to is a unilateral one?
    Mr. McGOVERN: I am not a miner, and have never had any intention of being a miner. You would require to go down the mine and dig your own coal so far as I am concerned, and, if the miners adopted the same attitude, this Government could not enforce the Bill which they are rushing through the House at the present moment. We are always told, and we might agree, that the industry cannot concede a six-hour day or a six

    1423
    and a-half hour day to those engaged in it. It may be that a collapsing capitalist system of society is compelled to ask the workers in the industry to work longer hours for lower wages. But we contend that, if a scheme of reorganisation were brought into operation in the mining industry, it would be possible to grant a seven-hour day, and perhaps even a six-hour day, to the miners of this country. Everyone will readily acknowledge that an efficient industry means a greater output per man, a lessening of the amount of waste in the industry, and, consequently, the power to give to those engaged in the industry a shorter working day, or a shorter working week, or higher wages, as the case may be. But every system of reorganisation means the forcing of more men out of the mines. I am not disturbed at that, because, the fewer the men engaged in the mines, the better for them and their families, since they are much better above ground than below ground.
    My only experience of mines was gained on six occasions when I happened to be in mining areas doing propaganda, and went down the mines to see exactly how the miners worked. Having seen, sometimes for a period of five or six hours, how they worked in the mines, I could understand why it was BO easy to get the miner out of the mine and so difficult to get him back into it. I realised that it was a sign of the miner's intelligence when he refused to go back into those conditions, and that only starvation and poverty of the most extreme kind could compel him to do so. The Secretary for Mines says that he is prepared to guarantee that reorganisation will be brought about, but that is just the claim that has been put forward by all Governments in order to carry out their proposals for the time being.
    The point has been made that the Secretary for Mines in the last Government postponed the seven hour day, and that is true. It may also be true that capitalism is in a greater state of decay at the moment that it was 12 months ago. But the present Secretary for Mines must remember that he was part of the previous Government which postponed the operation of the seven hour day, because we can never divorce the Liberal party from the Labour party when we
    1424
    talk of the last Government, since the Liberal party were the people who cracked the whip, and the Labour party carried out the orders which were imposed upon them. During the period of the last Government I was in the House on one or two occasions when the mining industry was being discussed, and when our old friend Sindbad the Sailor was in charge of the Mines Department, and the self-same speeches that have been made by the Secretary for Mines to-day were made by him at that period as arguments for the postponement of the seven hour day. The people who get on to the Government Bench, no matter what their political complexion may be, become the apologists and defenders of mineowners and of the capitalist class, and carry out the instructions that they receive. Therefore, I am not a bit disturbed by the fact that the Secretary for Mines gets up in his place and tries to make the best of a very bad job.
    When the Secretary for Mines in the last Government was defending the postponement of the seven hour day, the Members of the Labour party were behind him and were supporting him. Anyone who offered criticism of the late Secretary was looked upon as an opponent of the working class in every shape and form; therefore, we get repetition on that bench. I am going into the Lobby to record my vote for the limitation to 12 months, as being the best that is proposed and the best that we can get, to indicate our defence of a section of the working class who are at war continually with the ruling class of the country. I accept the dictation of the ruling class through their representatives on that Front Bench. Mineowners, bankers, every section of the landlord class get behind the Government and lay down the terms upon which the working class shall work.
    There is talk about the threat of war. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, rightly, that you cannot have war between two sections, one unarmed and the other armed to the teeth, one with not a crust in the locker and the other with its cupboard full of the goods which the working class produce and which they themselves never labour to produce at all. It is not war. It is simply massacre. I remember an old woman discussing the late War. She said, "The Boer war was a nice war; it was plain shooting and killing; but

    1425
    this war is bloody murder." I am inclined to think the same treatment would be accorded to the miners if they were on strike. They are defenceless, they have no funds, they have nothing but homes which are completely stripped of everything that they could be stripped of. Every semblance of decency has gone out of those homes as far as furnishing is concerned. They are down in the gutter, and you are pounding them down further by every action you take. I accept the position, I accept the war that you are continually carrying out on the working class. A friend whom I met last night said: "I believe the complete collapse of this system is coming this year, and I am making no arrangements for
    next year, because I believe it will not be necessary." I am the same. I believe your system is marching to complete collapse. You may try to close your eyes to it, but you are going right down into the abyss of destruction. I am looking for the creation of a system where we shall not be appealing for a seven and a-half hour day limited to 12 months, but shall be engaged in the building up of a different system of society and the wiping out of those who are governing and ruling the working class in such an autocratic manner.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 224.

    Division No. 207.]

    AYES.

    [8.30 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major James

    Buchanan, George

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, George Henry

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Janner, Barnett

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cove, William G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    John, William

    Thorne, William James

    Curry, A. C.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dickie, John P.

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McGovern, John

    Graham.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McKeag, William

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Baillie, sir Adrian W. M.

    Clarke, Frank

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Balniel, Lord

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hartland, George A.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

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

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Donner, P. W.

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Doran, Edward

    Hornby, Frank

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Burghley, Lord

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Jennings, Roland

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Burnett, John George

    Ersklne-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Smithers, Waldron

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Pearson, William G.

    Soper, Richard

    Levy, Thomas

    Penny, Sir George

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Petherick, M.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Stones, James

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Storey, Samuel

    Mabane, William

    Potter, John

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Ramsden, E.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll, N.)

    Rankin, Robert

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Templeton, William P.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Thompson, Luke

    Maitland, Adam

    Remer, John R.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Train, John

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Milne, Charles

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Munro, Patrick

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Nunn, William

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Womersley.

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word "until," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "Parliament otherwise determines."—[Sir A. Baillie.]
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) desire to move his Amendment?
    Sir A. BAILLIE: In view of the late hour and of the fact that the Committee are obviously restless to get on to another stage of the Bill, I must very reluctantly refrain from putting forward my Amendment.

    Clause 2 (Short title and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Isaac Foot.]
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 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."
    The Bill is a very curious one. The first part of the Bill constitutes an open confession that unregulated competition is a hopeless failure. Therefore, Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, is to be extended—I think quite rightly—in order to replace the internal and infernal competition between coalowners which has brought utter disaster during the last 10 or 12 years. With that part of the Bill we are in entire agreement. We think that not to have extended Part I of the Act would have been disastrous to the industry. Rather than oppose the continuance of it we should have preferred that Part I had been extended. We should have liked to have seen district selling agencies established so that the devious practices in some parts of the coal mining areas could have been obviated in future. We should have preferred to leave every door open to such recalcitrant owners as the Scottish owners so that organisation could proceed

    1429
    apace and all sorts of unnecessary and useless competition could be avoided and the maximum advantage obtained by the owners and the men. We recognise that exporters, merchants, middlemen, public utility societies and the rest, all of them interested in cheap coal, have been hostile to the operation of Part I of the Act of 1930, but those of us who are connected in some way with the industry are convinced that had production gone on indiscriminately without regard to demand there would have been another catastrophic fall in prices, wages would have fallen and the demand for coal would not have expanded. It would have been mid-summer madness for the Government not to have extended Part I of the Act. I do not propose to go into an explanation as to why we are satisfied that we can afford to support Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 while opposing Sub-section (2). One of the most prominent owners in Yorkshire, a short time ago, said in reference to the Act of 1930:
    "The Act has brought the districts into closer touch with one another and established an understanding and adaptability which, although falling short of what is required, was previously non-existent. It is not to be forgotten that this organisation is only in its infancy and that it is as yet impossible for it to obtain the great benefits of Part I of the Act. That these are great benefits is, I submit, unquestionable."
    The same gentleman, who is the Vice-Chairman of the West Yorkshire Coal-owners, proceeded in the course of the same speech to say:
    "Examining the whole position as showing how it has operated for the benefit of the collieries, namely, regulated hours, when Great Britain went off the Gold Standard and Northumberland received an increased number of inquiries from foreign countries for coal"—
    I am Sorry that the Northern group of Members are not in their places—
    "the Central Council immediately granted an addition of 450,000 tons to its allocation for the December quarter so that any increased demand might be met."
    The machinery in the first few weeks may not have been perfect but as time has gone on the arbitration proceedings have been better understood by the districts, the combines and the collieries, improvements have been persistent, any flexibility in demand in different parts of the country has been catered for, and a good deal of organisation has been imported into the industry. I could quote
    1430
    from merchants whom one would expect to be hostile to what has been described as restriction, restraint and strangulation, and they not only approve the operation of Part I but declare that Part I will have to be supplemented by district selling agencies very shortly if the maximum advantage is to be obtained from that part of the Act.
    For the edification of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie), who made such play with the 12,000,000 tons of lost exports, may I quote a few figures which probably to some extent will satisfy him that it was not so much the quota in operation that brought about the reduction in our export trade but certain other incidents over which neither this Government nor this country had any control? In Germany in March, 1930, there were 3,091,000 people unemployed, compared with 5,843,000 in March, 1932, an increase of over 2,750,000. In Italy in March, 1930, there were 385,000 people unemployed, and in March, 1932, 1,053,000. In France in March, 1930, there were 10,839 unemployed and in 1932, 337,386. In those three countries between March, 1930, and March, 1932, the number of unemployed had increased by over 3,750,000. Obviously, that implies that industrial paralysis was well nigh complete in those countries, and instead of purchasing the normal quantities of British coal for industrial purposes their sales automatically decreased, on the top of which we have witnessed during this year certain reactions to the Customs Duty imposed in this country. So far as 1931 was concerned it was world industrial collapse that very largely brought about that serious reduction in our export trade.
    So far as Part I is concerned we agree to its continuation. We want to see Part I improved upon, and I hope that the Secretary for Mines will apply his mind to all the suggestions that have been made by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and the many suggestions that I know have been made to him or to his Department by the coalowners. They want to close certain doors that still remain open. The Scottish coalowners, who are still in the dark ages and in the jungle so far as business capacity, outlook and vision are concerned, ought to be compelled to subordinate their personal interests to the interests of the whole nation. I hope that such things as sell-

    1431
    ing agencies will be considered, also a levy. May I remind the hon. Member for Consett, who made such play of the lack of a levy in the Mines Act of 1930, that it was the Liberal party who in 1930 eliminated the levy. They were responsible, by co-operating with the Tory party, for eliminating the proposal made by the Labour Government. Therefore, if the lack of a. levy is detrimental to the exporting districts, the hon. Member must thank his own party for any results that have accrued from the loss of that levy.
    The second part of the Measure deals with the question of hours. That question has been debated almost ad nauseam. I heard the Secretary for Mines make certain statements relating to hours which were not strictly in accord with each other. I will remind him of some of the statements that were mutually contradictory. It would seem that seven and a-half hours are being fixed for all time. I am by no means a pessimist, but I am by no means hopeful of anything that may come from Geneva while this National Government is in office. I am not hopeful of anything in regard to the Washington Convention. It may be argued that there will be a Convention to-day, to-morrow, some day, or never, but I am not hopeful that during the life of this Parliament anything in the nature of a Convention will be produced at Geneva. We regard this extension of the period during which the seven and a-half hours shall operate as a concession to the stupidity of the Scottish coalowners. We are convinced because of our contact with coalowners in many other districts that they would not only have been willing to meet the mine workers on this point but that they would have been willing to stand solidly behind the Secretary for Mines in his effort to obtain anything which Geneva can do in the way of a Convention. The mineowners have been given seven and a-half hours in perpetuity. Is it therefore to be expected that the Scottish coalowners or the coalowners in any part of the country are going to become really enthusiastic for a Convention?
    Has it not been the experience of every Government representative at the Mines Department, the Ministry of Labour and other departments" that almost without
    1432
    exception at Geneva the employers have been hostile to any reduction in hours, and is it not a fair assumption that now that hours are stabilised at seven and a-half, thus robbing the miner of half an hour that he ought to be enjoying at home, the hon. Member has stiffened the backs of the coalowners in this country? You cannot expect them to come out into the open and declare for a shorter working day, even if it might be brought about by a Geneva Convention. He has placed every bit of bargaining power in the hands of the mine-owners, and with mineowners, as with any other body of employers, it is not always the best that one has to guard against. It is the sinner that compels the saint almost every time. If the Scottish coalowners at the end of 12 months do what we fully expect they will try to do, namely, reduce the wages of their workpeople, because they have the power so to do, and try to undersell their competitors, unless Part I is amplified and tightened up, the coalowners in other districts, who otherwise would object to increasing hours or reducing wages, will feel obliged to follow the example set by the other coalowners.
    I am convinced that instead of the coalowners from now on helping to produce a Convention at Geneva which will bring about a working day of seven and three-quarter hours bank to bank, they will throw every bit of grit that they can collect into the wheels of the Act. There are the coal exporters, who are interested in cheap coal, no matter how many hours the miner has to work. They do not mind what the output is so long as it is the highest possible. Can we expect that they will be helpful towards producing a Geneva Convention to reduce the hours of the mine workers? Part II of the Bill represents seven and a-half hours, plus one winding time, meaning a working day in excess of eight hours.
    Every sort and kind of person interested in cheap coal in association with employers abroad will bring their influence to bear to prevent any Geneva Conference fructifying. To that extent we see no hope from this Measure. The Government having put the power in the hands of the employers we shall have applications here and there in 12 months time for reductions in wages. They may

    1433
    start north or they may start south, and it is no comfort to mine workers or their representatives for the hon. Member to say that difficulties can only arise if the owners make applications for reduction in wages or the miners make application for increases in wages. From our past experience we know that this will take place. In his statement this afternoon the hon. Member said that the most fatal thing we could do would be to put 8th July on the calendar of every coalowner and the Miners' Federation. He was full of emotion when he made that statement, and full of common sense, and we were inclined to agree with him, but if 8th July, 1933, must not go on the calendar in regard to hours why should it go on the calendar in regard to wages? If the fixing of a date on the question of hours is dangerous obviously the fixing of a date on the question of wages is equally dangerous.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: In the one ease you have an Act of Parliament and in the other case you have a possibility, which I admit may arise. I hope it is a remote possibility. If you legislate for the 8th July, 1933, you have a certainty.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: From the very commencement of these Debates we have been content with the status quo. We were entitled to a seven hour day, but we appreciate the industrial position. If a temporary arrangement is to be made for wages then surely it should be a temporary arrangement for hours as well. The hon. Member uses one argument when it is a question of hours and a totally different argument when he talks about wages. Is he aware that this alleged guarantee of wages for 12 months does not mean anything to the Yorkshire miner? If the coal-owners were to take the earliest possible opportunity of terminating their agreement to pay the present minimum wage it could not cease until July, 1933, so that the alleged guarantee of wages does not mean anything at all in the case of the Yorkshire coalowners, to whom the miners owe at present £4,220,000 under their agreement. They are taking no steps to give notice that the present agreement shall expire, and if they remain stolid and do not insist on breaking that agreement and reducing wages then other counties can do likewise, if they have the will. We feel that the best type of coalowner, who
    1434
    would really be decent in all circumstances, is going to be driven by the worst type of coalowner into doing things which otherwise they would not dream of doing. I suggest that this is handing over the maximum bargaining power to the coal-owners and is not in the best interest of the industry or the nation. To talk about the convention being helpful when it comes we have only to read the hon. Member's statement on the Second Reading of the Bill to see how remote it is from being an actuality. He said that it might be months and months before the Convention could meet; that we have to get six Governments to agree before we can ratify simultaneously, and that we shall want six months after ratification to apply the convention. That is going to take years on the basis of the hon. Member's own statement. What does it mean if we have to wait until we can secure simultaneous ratification? It means that we have to have a National Government here before we can secure a convention. We have got to get six Tory Governments, or six National Governments or employer-managed Governments, with a possible dictatorship on one or two occasions; six Governments which would be dominated by the employers' interests to agree on ratification before we can hope for ratification. In these circumstances we do not see much chance of it. We see a perpetual loss of that half an hour on the working day; we see all the bargaining power in the hands of the employers and, therefore, while we are willing to support Part I we are obliged to oppose Part II, which we regard as merely providing the worst kind of employer with a bargaining power to which he is not entitled.
    The Bill appreciates co-operation as a means of self defence for a section of the community; and we are glad to observe that some part of the nation and some hon. Members are coming to that point of view. We have heard about the March winds and April fools; Part II of this Bill is May madness. With 300,000 mine workers unemployed we are persisting in extending the working day of British mine workers. Europe should be regarded as one unit for purposes of coal output and organisation, but if we are to stand fast on seven and a-half hours, which means eight, we shall not bring the Convention nearer but drive it

    1435
    further away. We had the Washington Convention in 1918, and millions of people were led to believe that we were going to have a universal eight hours day. It is now 1932. I asked the Minister of Labour what the Government's policy was with regard to the Washington Convention. They had no policy. They were unwilling to support an eight hour day for persons who were employed on the surface, and with so many people unemployed what hope is there that they would be really enthusiastic for securing a seven and three-quarter hour day for people who work underground? We see very little hope for the mine worker in Part II. We fear that in 1933 it may develop into industrial guerilla warfare. Because of that fact, and the desire we have that the industry should remain stable with the maximum confidence that any Act of Parliament can provide, we want to see the organisation improving year by year; but we feel that this Bill, instead of doing what the Secretary for Mines believes it will do, that is give security over a long period, will bring insecurity and uncertainty to the industry, and will ultimately not redound to the credit of the Government.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: We are at the end of four days discussion of this perennial question of coal. At any rate the Debate has produced the fact that the coal miners view with misgiving the next year or two in the industry. It has been admitted by various speakers that the miners at bottom have some reason for their misgiving. The Debate has ranged over many questions. I have listened more or less to most of the speeches during the four days, and I have heard various questions raised. It has been argued by some that one reason why the coal trade is bad is that in the past the miners have been badly led, that they have had too many cooks spoiling the broth. It has been admitted also that the owners have not been without blame. In the main, however, the argument has been that the miners have been very badly led, very badly instructed. Then we have been told that the Government have interfered too much, that the Government should have left the industry alone, that the less political
    1436
    interference there is the better it is for everyone concerned. We have had speeches to-day which would lead us to believe that with no political interference the state of the coal industry would have been very much better than it is at the moment, and that had the state of the industry been better the state of the miners would have been better.
    I have listened to expressions of opinion, many of them very genuinely put, that everyone desires to see an improvement in the conditions of the miner, and that if only the trade could make more profit the conditions of the miner would automatically improve. To all these questions there is one answer. There is a background to this industry of a very black character. The Government know as well as anyone what that background is, for they have at their disposal the reports of the various Commissions that have sat during the present century to consider the question of the coal industry. The Reports of the Sankey Commission, the Macmillan Commission, the Samuel Commission, with their evidence in print, are at the disposal of the Government. The facts about the industry are thoroughly well known to the Mines Department, and Members of the Government. As a matter of fact Lord Sankey and the present Home Secretary were heads of two of these most important Commissions. What they do not know about the history of the coal trade in this century is not knowledge. The Government, therefore, cannot argue that they have not the requisite information on which to act. With regard to the question whether, if the condition of the trade improves the condition of the miner would automatically improve, I would ask what ground there is for that assumption? It is said that the miners have been badly led, that it is the Miners' Federation which has brought them to disaster.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the Bill deals only with the quota and the hours of work.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The Debate has ranged over the whole question of profits and the ability of the industry to pay wages.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That was the case on the Second Reading, but on the Third

    1437
    Reading hon. Members must confine their remarks entirely to what is in the Bill.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: With all due deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I recall that the opening speaker went very wide and ranged over almost all the questions that have been touched on since the Debate began. I suppose I must confine my remarks to the question of the quota, as to whether the hours of labour ought to be regulated and as to whether wages can be paid.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question of wages does not come in either.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: On the question of hours of labour all I say is that the Miners' Federation are viewing with justifiable apprehension the limitations in the Bill. The Bill undoubtedly takes away bargaining power from them and has placed them in a most invidious position. My information is from those engaged in the industry and in negotiations with the coalowners. I do not believe that there will be no attack on the miners' conditions. At the present time the hardest bargains that can be conceived are being driven, and it is fair to assume that before the Bill has been on the Statute Book long there will be trouble in the industry because of the conditions which the coalowners are seeking to impose on the workers. I hoped that there might have been some guarantee given in return for what has been taken from the men, that they would have had at least some guarantee of steadiness and permanence so far as their hours of labour and payment in return for the labour were concerned. But it appears that the Government gives nothing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) rightly said that the Government were ordered by the coalowners, and one might add that the coalowners are ordered by those who, we have been told, largely control the industry, namely, the financiers. It is not the first time that they have interfered with the industry to its detriment. Questions have arisen time and again with regard to the power of the industry to stand the regulations that are being made. My opinion is that the industry could stand the demand that has been made upon it if it were organised in an
    1438
    efficient way. I believe the hours could be reduced from seven and a-half to seven per day. I believe that that is the only way in which the industry can be made an effective one. In all the mining areas there is a growing percentage of unemployed men for whom apparently no provision can be made in other industries. The only way of dealing with them is to absorb them by means of a limitation of hours.
    When one considers the figures which have been given by the Secretary for Mines with regard to the pit-head price of coal and the retail price, one wonders what on earth any Government—and you can put the blame on the Labour Government if you like—were doing which did not begin to tackle this industry from the point of view of internal organisation. I do not believe the statement that this industry cannot pay. It is one of the richest industries in the world. The Minister in his speech on the Second Reading told us what science could do to solve the problems of the industry. What on earth can science do more than it has done? It has demonstrated that coal is the most valuable raw material in the world, the source of the biggest part of our industrial power and wealth, the source from which we derive the most valuable things required in modern commerce and industry. As a matter of fact, science is going too far. It is teaching us how to produce wealth, but it will have to teach us how to destroy wealth otherwise the very wealth which it teaches us to produce will cause the destruction of the welfare of the great mass of the people. It becomes a menace as long as it is privately controlled—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Really this is entirely outside the Bill. I have been through the Bill again, and I cannot come across anything in it except provisions relating to the quota and hours of labour.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Then I close with this statement. As far as hours of labour are concerned, this question will not be solved effectively until the industry is taken out of the hands of those who now control it and who, in the years during which they have controlled it, have ruined it, and placed in the hands of the State and made to service the whole community as a State service. Until that is done the problems existing between the miner, the owner and the consumer

    1439
    of coal will not be solved in any effective or satisfactory manner.
    Mr. GEOFFREY ELLIS: I regard this extension of five years in the Bill as an opportunity and a warning to the coal industry in general—an opportunity for setting our house in order, and a warning to us that, if our house is not set in order, we shall have to pay the inevitable penalty of changed conditions and hand over the conduct of our industry to some other kind of management. I should like to add my tribute to what has been said to-night in reference to the increasing good will undoubtedly existing in the industry to-day compared with the difficulties which we had in other days. Possibly a good deal of that good will has arisen from a better understanding between employers and employed, but I think it is due as much to the realisation of the immense difficulties which the industry has to face to-day as to anything else. Those are difficulties, which, one hopes, this Measure will assist us in overcoming.
    I know what both sides in the industry have to contend with. We on our side of the industry have to contend with the type of mind described in America as the "bonehead." Our friends on the other side of the industry have always to watch out for the sniping of their Communist colleagues. Both those sections are numerically inferior to the great bulk of those people who wish to see things mended in the industry. What struck me more than anything else in this Debate was the suggestion of the Secretary for Mines that, if we want his help in putting our house in order, within the very wide limits of this Bill and what depends on the Bill, we have his good will. We have his promise that he will give his assistance to any schemes which may be found to come within the framework of the Bill, and that, in some cases, if we require it, we shall receive his aid in getting legislative sanction for schemes which may not come within the Bill but may arise from it in circumstances not at present foreseen. If that be so, a big responsibility devolves on both sides of the industry, and we must do our best to carry out the principles which have been expressed.
    I do not want to go too much into detail, but, if I am in order in doing so, I should like to refer to what may happen
    1440
    under the first part of the Bill in dealing with the quotas and the schemes now in existence. A good deal has been said on the question of the keeping or not keeping in existence of the uneconomic pit, and a good deal has been said as to what is and what is not an uneconomic pit. We in the industry have little difficulty in deciding that question, from the points of view of both employers and employed. In connection with the necessity for improving efficiency in any given district, one must have regard to the inevitable unfairness that is caused to individuals when any great change is made in the form of what is called rationalisation. It is not only a question of rooting up capital interests; it is also a question of depriving men of work. When these things are done in other industries, we very frequently find that inequalities are created and hardships are suffered which need not be created and need not be suffered if the thing is done over a period of time and under careful arrangements.
    A good many of us believe that it would be far better if it could be arranged to give complete power to the districts by means of some sort of compensation levy, to deal with the pits which the district itself might decide would be better put out of the industry for the sake both of the pits and the industry. There is one thing which the five-year period is going to do in regard to pits of this class. There can be little doubt that it is going to make everybody interested in what we may describe for want of a better term as "borderline" pits realise that now is the time of all times when they must make up their minds what they are going to do with such little property as they have left. In coming to a decision upon that matter, a responsibility will also rest on the bankers as well as other creditors, and when a decision has been made it will be possible to deal with the question of amalgamations and with the question of the taking over of quotas. These are things which we have all wished to carry out, though we have never yet cared to do so and possibly we have never even cared to face them because of the uncertainty hitherto existing. If that uncertainty disappears under this Bill, during the five years to come, I believe that the industry will take its courage in both hands and with the power that it has now will so rearrange itself that a great deal more efficiency will result.

    1441
    That is not the only thing. It is comparatively easy for an industry to recover efficiency of production, but, nowadays, in the changed circumstances of the world, in other industries as well as coal, you can no longer leave your product on your doorstep and rely upon somebody else to market it. I know that a good many of my friends on the Socialist side will say, "We always told you that. You are all coming round to nationalisation." I am agreeing as to the necessity of marketing under this scheme, but I am not agreeing that it is necessary that it should be done under State control. On the contrary, I think it is essential that it should be done by the industry itself, because if industry does it you preserve all that independence and initiative which under State control are so often apt to disappear. I believe that under the scheme in existence, which forms the skeleton of this Bill, it will be possible to devise selling schemes which may have a very lasting effect on the position of the industry.
    A great deal of the trouble that we have had in the past over quotas has come from people who are inimical to quotas and to any idea of a regulation of industry by itself for the sake of the industry, and from a realisation on their part that the best way of dealing with industry in order to forward selfish purposes was through the selling agencies. But if industry took selling into its own hands then we should get a position which is far different from that which we have had to face in the past. The selling agency gives us complete control over the final distribution of the coal, and it also gives us an opportunity of correlation between the different districts. Once you have established that point of view, while not by any means getting rid of most of the people who now handle distribution, you have as an industry a free hand over distribution in such a way that in the end distribution itself controls production. That is where you have to find markets if you are going to be in a position to face the difficulties which every industry has to face when it has to undergo contraction and yet endeavour to preserve a position which will give its capital a fair return and its people a fair wage.
    I do not think that we, as an industry, need offer any excuses or are called upon
    1442
    to answer some of the criticisms which have been offered to us when it has been said that the quota is merely an opportunity for the industry to raise prices. Of course, it is an opportunity for the industry to keep prices at a certain level and to prevent them from going lower and possibly to raise them, but does that need any excuse in the present position of the country? Does any industry need an excuse for demanding that it shall have a level of wages which will give it a standard of living which is commensurate with that of other industries? Is any excuse needed if in the process it is necessary for us to say to certain other industries which are obviously sheltered, such as the railways and the great producers of gas and electricity in this country, that it is not a question any longer of all of them fighting one with the other and being helped by certain outside speculators and coming to us and saying that we must now take what they decide. We say instead that we are prepared to offer our coal at a reasonable price and that we fix the price because it is based upon what we believe to be a living return to industry.
    9.30 p.m.
    Let me say a word on the effectual relationship of the districts one to another, which does involve both production and wages, and to some extent hours. I do not believe that we shall get very far unless eventually we can have some sort of centralisation both in production and selling, and in marketing and in wages. What is the good of each district endeavouring to set up an arbitrary basis for wages and hours, and eventually fixing upon a factor which has no relation to the other districts? In the end you are simply driven to this, that faced with the quota which exists, if you have varying wages and conditions in the districts, you may in a certain district have such a variation that that particular district is driven down by circumstances to a very low wage and bad conditions, and cannot produce coal under the conditions of other districts. Therefore, you should keep the basis of a district arrangement, and marry that to some central arrangement over the whole industry, which is necessary if the industry is ever to be unified, and to be able to speak with one voice from the point of view of bargaining on wages and

    1443
    hours, not only in this country but with foreign countries, and, what is still more important in the new development that may take place in trade and industry in future, of being able to get your fair share of the production of the coal industry throughout the whole world.
    One word in conclusion about wages. I have heard a good deal to-night about the Geneva Convention and what would happen in certain events, whether it would be seven and a quarter hours or seven and a-half hours. I have not the least faith in any hours or wages established by international arrangements, and I will tell the Committee why. It is not only a question of hours which decides in the long run your ability to produce. There is the governing factor of hours married to conditions and wages. You may get an international Convention which will give you seven and a quarter hours, but what is the good of that Convention if the custom of the country concerned allows conditions of life and rates of wages very much lower than yours? Where, then, does the question of competition in international markets come in? I ask my hon. Friends on this side to rely much more on the justice of their own case in putting their argument before the owners and in dealing with the owners in future to press their claims from their own and the national point of view, and to leave these other questions to be settled in other ways, which bear some relation to the general world conditions.
    Mr. DICKIE: If I intervene for a few moments it is only because I desire to make my position a little clearer than I was able to do in the Debate yesterday. So far as hours of labour are concerned, and their relation to wages, I am one of those who regret very much indeed that the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines did not see fit to accept the Amendment proposed from the other side of the Committee to correlate these two things and make them coterminous. As far as the legal enactment of wages is concerned I have never seen fit during the whole of my studies of the difficulties of the mining industry, to alter my belief in the principle laid down by the late Lord Oxford, that it is a vicious principle to put a legal enactment of wages into any Bill passed by
    1444
    this House, because if you do so the minimum inserted in the Bill tends to become the maximum, and, in the end, it is definitely worse for those engaged in the industry. That had been my belief, and I see no reason to depart from it.
    I would like the House to understand that we on the North East coast are not out to abolish Part I of the Act, as seems to be the impression in some quarters. We are anxious, in the interests of the great exporting areas, for an assurance from the Minister that this extremely important part of the industry shall have the fullest consideration when the Amendments to the Act are to be brought forward, and that we shall hear from the Minister, I hope this evening, something of the nature of the plans which are in the mind of the Government for helping the industry to get back the markets which we have lost. I had an assurance from the Minister yesterday that my questions would be answered. I said:
    "I am appealing to the Secretary for Mines, the President of the Board of Trade and His Majesty's Government to find some means of meeting this competition, to regain the markets we have lost and to get our pits working efficiently again."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st Juno, 1932; col. 1213, Vol. 266.]
    Up to the present we have not had any definite plans or concrete idea of what is in the mind of the Government as to how we are to meet this competition. It has been said from the other side to-day that the figures that I gave yesterday with regard to the export trade were not correct. I thought I made the position clear, but the point that I made, which has not yet been met during this Debate, is that this little country of ours is the only exporting country which has suffered during the course of the last 12 to 18 months. Other countries have increased their exports of coal, some have fallen only slightly, but we have had this tremendous decline, which has hit the North East coast and, I agree, South Wales and the other exporting areas, in the most extraordinary fashion.
    What we complain of and desire to stress is that the worst part of this Act, and one which we hope to see swept away, is that dealing with the question of minimum prices in the export trade. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of coal lying on the ground. There is a market for that coal, and I am informed on first

    1445
    class authority that if these minimum prices are removed, hundreds of thousands of pounds can be realised for that coal. If these prices are swept away and the colliery owner is left with freedom to sell in any market in which he can dispose of that coal, there will be no difficulty in selling hundreds of thousands of tons, and I submit that that is something worthy of the consideration of the Department.
    I would ask the Secretary for Mines once again to look very closely into the position. He knows the North East coast as well as I do now; he knows the difficulties from which the industry there is suffering; he knows the hardship, the hunger, the distress, and the poverty in those exporting areas, due to the decline in the export trade; and I ask him to do everything in his power to meet this competition, which has destroyed our trade in the coal exporting areas in the North East corner of England, and to bring back something like a measure of prosperity to this hard-hit industry and a greater measure of happiness to the men, women, and children dependent upon it.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened but for the statement made by the Secretary for Mines that in 12 months' time the miners would have regained their bargaining power with the employers. But, having intervened, I want to compliment the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. G. Ellis) on his very practical speech. Except for the last few sentences of it, I heartily agree with all that he had said. I realise that on the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind one cannot possibly consider the economies of the mining industry in any exhaustive sense, but the problem, as I see it, is mainly a question of markets and to a lesser extent a question of organisation. Like the hon. Member for Winchester, I have been on the practical side of the industry for many years, and since 1918 I have been in all the negotiations between the Miners' Federation and the employers in this country, and can claim, I think, to have a fairly extensive knowledge, not only of the technical side of the industry, but of the practical side as well.
    I want to make a charge against the dominating party in the present Government. I hold them almost entirely respon-
    1446
    sible for the present position of the mining industry. I say "almost" because there are a few factors which were entirely beyond the control of their Government from 1925 to 1929 and of the miners and the mineowners. Those factors were the Versailles Treaty, the Spa agreement, and the closing of the export markets to the extent of 36,000,000 tons, directly attributable to the War and the immediate post-War years. I will not challenge the Conservative party as such with being responsible for that, but the main reason for the problem confronting the industry just now is really the hours that were placed upon the Statute Book by the Conservative Government; and I think the present Government are making an irreparable blunder in permitting this Act—I am expressing my personal opinion in this regard—to continue for 12 months.
    There is nothing that defeats organisation in the mining industry more than pandering to inefficient employers, whether it is in meeting the cuts they demand or in meeting their demands for increased hours; and I will endeavour to produce evidence to prove that statement. For the first six months of 1925 the net aggregate loss in the mining industry was 3d. a ton. In South Wales it was 1s. The Government then in office decided to advance a subsidy, and, during the time the subsidy was to be paid to the employers, a commission was to sift all the data available and prepare a report. I could go into the statistics in detail and show precisely what happened in the industry month by month for the nine months of that subvention. It will be sufficient if I intimated that, while the net aggregate loss in the industry for the first six months of 1925 was 3d., at the end of the subvention period, April, 1926, the net aggregate loss was 1s. 9d. In South Wales it was 4s. 7d. That was due to the fact that the subvention was paid on a net aggregate basis in each of the districts.
    The Samuel Commission proved in the evidence which was elicited from the employers that 3 per cent. of the employers were actually making from 5s. to 10s. per ton profit; and the converse happened too. The Samuel Commission told the Prime Minister quite bluntly: "Do not increase the working day, for if you do you will reduce the personnel

    1447
    of the industry by 130,000." In defiance of that warning, the working day was increased by one hour, and the consequence is that the unemployment in the industry has increased by 150,000. The average price in the first six months of 1925 was 19s. 5d. At the end of the subvention period it was 15s. 2d. Those were the South Wales figures. Throughout the country the average was 17s. 4d. The prices dropped to the precise decimal point by the amount of the subvention.
    Meanwhile, we were faced with the difficulty that the Samuel Commission created an irreparable blunder. While it proposed means by which the industry could be organised in regard to marketing, wagons, and things of that kind, it stated at the same time that the subsidy should be discontinued immediately. That was after the industry had been granted a subsidy of £23,250,000, giving the employers about 1s. 3d. on every ton for a period of nine months. It was discontinued at a moment's notice, and we were faced with a first-class crisis. Either the miners were to sustain a reduction of wages equivalent per ton to the subsidy, or there was to be an increase in the working day, which meant a subvention of time without pay. The nation was too poor to pay the subvention, but the miners were apparently rich enough. This Bill arises from that blunder, for we were then producing beyond the market capacity, both internally and externally. We were producing more than could be consumed in this country by scores of millions of tons, yet the working day was increased by one hour and the increased output per person employed was 4.3 cwt. per day.
    Mr. MAGNAY: Was not the return to gold parity in April, 1925, a very powerful factor in the situation which the hon. Member mentions?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I readily agree that in the middle of the period of which I speak the threatened crisis of July would not have arisen if we had not reverted to the Gold Standard.
    Mr. MAGNAY: Gold was given a fictitious value.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, particularly in the export market. Four-fifths of our
    1448
    problem, however, is an internal problem, and three-quarters of the problem is within the grasp of this House if it attempts to solve it. We can very readily solve the other fourth if with unanimity we tackle the three-fourths. We now have a prolongation of last year's Act. It really means an increase of half-an-hour for the miners because by Statute they should, from the 8th July, be working seven hours. The miners are to be deprived of their statutory rights. If it means increased accidents and that more have to be slain in the industry, that is a mere bagatelle. I charge the Conservative party, the dominant factor, the people responsible for the perpetuation of the present economic policy which is now being applied to the mining industry, with having brought this problem about, first, by not accepting the Sankey Commission's report with regard to organisation, and rejecting the portion of the Report that deals with hours; and, second, by failing to observe that, if the subsidy were to be discontinued immediately, the industry would be thrust into a six months' stoppage, as indeed it was. The miners were faced with a loss in wages of an amount representing the subsidy equal to 3s. l0d. per shift. The miners were not prepared to sustain that loss.
    I have been medically advised not to speak, and I would not have arisen tonight but for the cant that we have heard in the House in these Debates and the gibing of miners about strikes and things of that kind. I have no desire to place my credentials before the House, but for the last 13 years I have been handling the Lord President of the Council's collieries, and there has not been one single day's stoppage in that time. When we can meet men who are reasonable and prepared to negotiate and place their cards upon the table, we do likewise. But really we have never met the mining industry as a unit at all. That has been our trouble. We have merely met vested interests in the industry, possessing no national negotiating powers, who have denied the opportunity to the miners of creating some kind of machinery in order to deal with problems of a national character. For some owners the policy of the Conservative Government from 1925 onwards was really a splendid policy. I know of a colliery, over which I have had

    1449
    some charge, the capital value of which on the market is admittedly worth at least £300,000, although it was purchased for £15,000 by the people who have really driven it out of production by cutting prices.
    10.0 p.m.
    I have already crossed swords with the last speaker, because I cannot understand anyone who has had experience of the mining industry saying it is not necessary just now to continue Part I. As I have already shown, prices have been reduced since 1925 by practically 4s. a ton—and we are selling less coal now than we did in 1925; and the miners have sustained a reduction in wages of about 2s. 10d. per shift since 1925—and things are no better. I am certain that I should be out of order if I endeavoured to show that the mining problem is a world problem, is a matter of international economics, that we cannot reduce wages by £1,000,000,000 in 10 years and expect the same demand for goods and for the coal to produce those goods. While reorganisation is essentially necessary markets are the vital problem. I see no hope, though I feel the Secretary for Mines sincerely thinks that it accords with my aspiration, as it is the aspiration of every mining Member on this side, that we can have peace in the industry. Miners' leaders do not want to be in the thick of a crisis; their salaries are sacrificed, though they carry on; and so from the purely personal interest they do not want stoppages; but I am prepared to confess that I am very dubious about whether we can avoid a crisis at the end of 12 months. It is no use accepting the word of even Mr. Evan Williams or the people whom you meet at the time of a crisis—and the only time when the Miners' Federation can meet the owners as an association is in times of crisis, because, apart from then, we have to go back to district agreements. I do not blame the Secretary for Mines for making the statements he has made, and for having confidence in words that may have been uttered to him, perhaps, with confidence; but he will forgive me for saying, in the light of my experience, that I cannot conceive, within the terns of the South Wales agreement, and within the terms of any of the other agreements operating in coalfields that are coterminous with ours, that we can
    1450
    avoid a crisis on wages next year. I plead with the Secretary for Mines to take our opinion, for what it is worth, and in the light of the experience we have had. Let him take it from us that we are likely to have a crisis next year. When we talk about wages we are not talking about basic rates, about minimum percentages—or, rather, only talking about them in relation to this Bill, for the miners will sustain loss of wages regardless of those things. During the next few months I trust something will be done. I would like to believe that we could manage to achieve something internationally. I disagree most decidedly with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Ellis). In his absence I would tell him that I endorse practically every word of his speech, except just that latter phrase. If we are to have success with the export problem it must be along international lines; not only hours and wages but other things should be brought within the purview of the conference.
    Therefore, I hope the Secretary for Mines, who, I think, is quite sincere in this matter, will leave no stone unturned to see that the report of the Geneva Convention will be ratified by other European countries and ultimately endorsed by our own Government. I do not want to deal with sentiment in the industry. Part I of the Act is really good and should be continued, but we must have a tightening up of the central committee machinery. The Secretary for Mines knows that I have brought to his notice what is happening in the Bristol Channel ports regarding Scottish coal. Practically 8,000 tons of Scottish coal have gone into the Bristol Channel ports this year, and the central committee say they have no authority on that matter. I hope the machinery will be so adjusted as to prohibit that kind of thing taking place. I think the Government have made a great blunder in permitting this stretching of hours in the interests of the employers, and in allowing the miners to be almost entirely sacrificed in the matter of wages. I trust, however, that the Minister will rise to the level of the sentiment contained in his speeches and that 12 months hence we may be able to avoid a crisis, if organisation and matters of that kind are taken into consideration.
    Sir A. BAILLIE: I rise to give expression to one or two opinions on the points which have been raised during the Com-

    1451
    mittee stage. First I should like to give an expression of opinion in regard to the quota. During the Debate there is one thing which has stood out prominently in my mind, and it is that there has been no great enthusiasm for the quota system, although there has been a considerable defence in regard to Part I of the Coal Mines Act as a whole. On the other hand, it has been apparent on the part of all concerned that there has been a disposition to treat the quota system as a stop gap, something that is just rather better than nothing. I myself believe that the quota system should be looked upon as a means to an end and not an end in itself. If that opinion is accepted, I realise that the Government and the President of the Board of Trade have been influenced, and have had to be influenced by the mining association. I understand that a considerable majority of the mining association has urged the Government to continue in operation Part I and the quota system for a period of five years. Let that be as it may, at the same time there is also a considerable minority, at least in Scotland, amounting to 46 per cent., who, most insistently, have resisted the continuation of the quota system in operation for a period of five years.
    So far as I can understand from the speeches made to-day and yesterday by the Secretary for Mines, the statements of the minority coalowners are not accepted. The only expression of opinion I would like to make on that point is that the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary for Mines, and the Government of the day should at least find some room in their decision for minority interests. I feel that in an industry like the coal industry with all its varying interests and requirements, it is not only a question of fairness, but a question of statesmanship that minority interests should have some attention paid to them. In regard to the quota system as a whole, I realise that the Government and the interested Ministers of State, in view of the fact that they have sought the opinion of the Mining Association and that they have received that opinion in a majority, have their hands somewhat tied. The suggestion I would like to make and the opinion which I desire to express at the moment is that, in view of the real interests of the minority, it is vital, absolutely vital, to have a free discussion on
    1452
    this subject on the Floor of the House before the next General Election. That is all the Scottish Members of this House representing the point of view which I am now putting forward are asking, and I do not think that there will be any contradiction on either side of this House that this quota system is merely in its infancy; it has hardly been born. Many of the troubles and ill effects which have arisen from the quota system might be ascribed to the pangs of travail. We realise that as a possibility and we urge that we should have a discussion again of this subject on the Floor of the House and that we should be given reasonable time for considering modifications and amendment which should be fully tested before the next appeal to the country.
    We have heard a lot of references to the Geneva Conference. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Ellis), who spoke not long ago, referred to the Geneva Conference, and I was decidedly inclined to agree with my hon. Friend in the intention of his remarks. We have in this Bill linked up the hours of work in the coal mining industry with the Geneva Convention. I have given a certain amount of perusal to the provisions of that Convention. I merely wish to be advised, and I would ask for a clearer understanding of this Convention for myself and possibly for many other hon. Members who have not studied it. It sometimes appears to me that the linking up of the Geneva Convention so far as hours of work underground are concerned with this Bill is an endeavour to induce Members of this House to vote for a seven-hour day on account of it being included in the Geneva Convention when, taken on its merits and with a clear understanding of what the Geneva Convention let us into, I hope the Members of this House would withhold their consent. In this matter, I am asking for information, for confirmation, and for advice. I find in this Convention several provisions which have stirred me very profoundly. I find it stated that a seven and three-quarter hour day from bank to bank, with permission for 60 hours' overtime a year, is allowed, and then I find that in any mines overtime may be worked for half an hour a day in special circumstances, and no limit of days is set for this. Another provision says:

    1453
    "The above applies to underground mines, but in open mines the eight-hour day and 48-hour week are to apply, with permission to work 100 hours a year overtime."
    Finally, there is this provision, which really does disturb me, and will disturb me unless I can get some clear understanding from the Government and from the Secretary for Mines. A special Clause says this:
    "Nothing in the Convention shall have the effect of altering national laws or regulations with regard to hours of work so as to lessen the guarantees thereby afforded to workers."
    I want to know what that special Clause means when it says that nothing shall be held valid which may lessen the guarantees thereby afforded to workers.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What Clause is that?
    Sir A. BAILLIE: I have not here the Convention itself, but I think that, if the Secretary for Mines will look it up, he will find that Clause in it. I am reading an actual quotation—
    "Nothing in the Convention shall have the effect of altering national laws …. so as to lessen the guarantees thereby afforded to workers."
    I am only seeking, in this respect, information and guidance. What can that possibly mean? Surely it is possible that, in the countries which may be co-signatories of this Geneva Convention, guarantees have been given with regard to wages, and if in accordance with this Convention they have to lessen their hours of work to seven and three-quarter hours, or seven and a-quarter hours underground, they may very well say, "If we subscribe to this lessening of hours, we cannot pay the same wages." After all, that happened in our own country very recently. That will be lessening a guarantee which they have accorded to their workers, and thereupon they will be entirely absolved in point of fact from fulfilling the spirit and letter of the Geneva Convention. I mention that fact because I think it is entirely pertinent and extremely important. Here is a Convention which, even to the layman, is absolutely riddled with loopholes. We know that in this country, if we ratify the Convention, we shall stick to the spirit in which it is made; but do we know that those other possible co-signatories
    1454
    of the Convention will do anything more than adhere to the letter of the law? In that case, we who are interested in mines and miners in this country will be placed at a perpetual competitive disadvantage as compared with the coal-producing countries on the Continent and elsewhere. That, obviously, would affect the problem of the employment of miners in this country.
    I would put this question to hon. Members opposite, as I have put it to many of my opponents in a, mining constituency: However low the wages of miners to-day are—and we all admit that they should not be lower, and we do not say that in any spirit of sentimentality—even taking that state of wages in the industry to-day, I would ask hon. Members opposite, is a miner to-day, with the conditions in the industry and the wages of to-day, better off in employment or unemployed? [An HON. MEMBER: "They are starving anyway."] That is a kind of remark which I have heard before, and with which, I think, anyone who has reasoned on this subject will entirely disagree; it does not make any sense at all. It is perfectly obvious that, however bad and however low the wages of the employed miner may be, he is nevertheless worse off unemployed, and I suggest that no Member of this House would wittingly give his consent to anything which would put the employment of the miner, even as it is to-day, in jeopardy. If, however, without any consultation on the matter, we subscribe to this Convention, if we find in this Government Bill the Geneva Convention included, and are not given a satisfactory understanding as to what the Convention really ties us to, we are wittingly putting in jeopardy the employment of the miner.
    I suggest that in the last provision of the Geneva Convention which I quoted just now will be found very good reason why the mineowners cannot guarantee wages beyond a limited period of 12 months. I realise—in fact, I know—that the Government would not be in a position to-day to say that they could tie up hours and wages in the mines for a period of one year. You can guarantee the wages of the miner provided his hours of work are flexible, and you can guarantee a limit of the hours of work underground provided wages are flexible, but you cannot guarantee his wages and

    1455
    hours and guarantee employment. I have suffered from sentimental views and expressions of opinion for three or four years. We have heard much cant and much sentimentality, but sentimentality has not improved the position of the miner, and the interference of Parliament in the mining industry, as admitted by all concerned, has not improved the position of the miner in the last 20 years. It is obviously not my intention to do anything to upset the apple-cart. I realise that you have the quota system and you cannot suddenly take it away. I have only registered certain opinions in regard to that system—that it should be reviewed at least in the lifetime of this House—and my own opinions in regard to the Geneva Convention. I would ask for some statement on the part of the Government showing what the ratification of this Convention will really tie us down to.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: The hon. Baronet has made it very difficult for me to comment upon his speech, because he was very indistinct in regard to any possible alternative to the parts of the Bill that he disliked.
    Sir A. BAILLIE: I was only indistinct in that regard, because I understood that at this stage I should not have been in order in suggesting Amendments.
    Mr. GRENFELL: I shall await the hon. Baronet's proposals with great interest to see how he can guarantee at the same time hours, wages and plenty of employment.
    Sir A. BAILLIE: That is the one thing that I said could not be done.
    Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Baronet suggested that he had views in reserve. If he has not, his criticism of the proposals before the House is not quite so valid. He commenced by claiming special rights for the minority, to which I gather he belongs, or else he would not have made the claim. In this House, we are a small minority. We ask for no special privileges, but we ask for permission to put our case, and we feel that, when it is properly understood, we shall get the great bulk of public opinion on our side. I counsel the hon. Baronet to put his case. If it is sound and strong, it will
    1456
    prevail. I cannot say how much I regret the need for standing up to oppose a Bill which, as the Secretary for Mines said, is intended to bring peace to the mining industry. If I believed that this or any other Bill would bring peace, stability, and security to the industry, I should not be here supporting its rejection, but because I believe that science, which should be the handmaid of industry, has not been given its due place, because I believe the Government are turning their backs on science, refusing to pay attention to its advice and counsel, refusing to employ it when it offers itself, and because the Government are doing what has been doine so long in mining industry, relying upon its brutal, stupid methods of coercion, low wages, long hours, had conditions of employment to right the admitted evils of the industry, I wish to offer some constructive criticism.
    I am pleased to acknowledge that one Member of the House takes an advanced view. I have never heard the Socialist case applied to the mining industry put so well as it was put to-night by the hon. Member for Winchester. With the exception of one or two loose statements which he made towards the end of his speech, I agree entirely with everything he said.
    Mr. ELLIS: The hon. Member must accept my reservations.
    Mr. GRENFELL: I cannot accept the hon. Member's reservations, but I agree with his speech. It was a very good speech, indeed. The Secretary for Mines is to reply, and I wish to direct some criticism to him before he replies. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) questioned the prospects of the Geneva Convention. I was grievously disappointed with the expressions of the Secretary for Mines both on the Second Reading and the Committee stage. Indeed, if he is not being thoroughly misunderstood by me and my colleagues, I am afraid that while in office he is going to be the greatest hindrance to the success of the Geneva Convention. In the Debate to-night he said that a seven-hour day is practically an impossibility at the present time. If he believes that a seven-hour day is practically impossible, what is the use of his going to Geneva to try to agree with people in other countries to impose what

    1457
    is really in effect a seven-hour day in the Geneva Convention itself? The term "seven and a-quarter hours" has been used so often in Debate that the House and the country may be misled in regard to the nature of the Geneva Convention. The intention of the Geneva Convention is to make uniform both the hours of employment and the method of computing the hours of employment in all coal-producing countries. The standard laid down is known as the seven-hours forty-five minutes day, bank to bank, a system very well known on the Continent and, indeed, before other confusing elements were introduced into these discussions, to the miners in this country. I shall come back to that matter later, because it is very important.
    I wish to refer to something which was said by certain hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the Geneva Convention and described it as the seven and a quarter hour day. The right hon. Gentleman said that you cannot disconnect hours and wages, and something of the same kind came from the lips of the Noble Lord the Member for County Down (Viscount Castlereagh), who spoke a little later in the Debate, when he stated that the return to the seven hour day would, in reality, completely destroy the mining industry. What extravagant speech and extreme language! What irrelevancy to the actual facts of the situation! The hon. Member for County Down—I do not see him in his place at the moment—is a coalowner. It was very difficult to contain my peace of mind when I heard the hon. Gentleman dealing with his relations with the workpeople he employed. I shall make no comment in detail except to advise the hon. Gentleman—and I hope that he reads these words—in a very friendly spirit to desist from the kind of language to which he referred, because some day or other he will get the kind of answer he deserves. He asked workpeople whether they would like to be in employment or idle in conditions under which he would never speak to people on his own side. One hon. Gentleman, a Member of the mining industry, showed that the old spirit of which we complained so much has not entirely passed away in the coal mining world, and that there are still coalowners who fail to
    1458
    realise that the miner is a decent fellow and responds to decent treatment, and will do everything for employers and management and those responsible for the direction of the industry in a way conducive to good business, if he is properly approached.
    10.30 p.m.
    You cannot disconnect hours and wages. We are told by the Secretary for Mines and the coalowners that because of the increased cost we cannot have the seven-hours day. We are told that the cost is too excessive in present economic circumstances. We cannot afford half an hour coal-winding time; it is too expensive, yet we are only working four days a week. Although we have two days a week of spare time, we cannot afford to lose half an hour out of seven and a-half hours. Instead of seeking to maintain longer hours we ought to be examining the economic possibilities of the industry on a very much wider scope. We have at the present time under the restrictive quota system, of which the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) complained so much, a margin of 15 per cent. over production. Therefore, we have one day's work in hand before we have worked out our district allocation. Before we have reached our maximum productive capacity we have a 30 per cent. margin. That means that we have two days a week in hand before we have adjusted our productive capacity, yet we are told that we cannot afford to spare one half hour a day out of seven and a-half hours, 6 per cent., one hour in 15, although we have 15 per cent. in hand under the quota system and 30 per cent. in hand in connection with our productive capacity. That shows how far we have gone from a practical realisation of the problem or of any solution that we have to apply.
    I come to Part I of the Act. We are not satisfied even with Part I, which is to be continued. It is part of an Act for which we were responsible, passed through the House by the late Mr. William Graham, whose intimate knowledge and wonderful persuasiveness will stand to his credit for all time. We acknowledge that Part I, although it may be good, is not perfect. In addition to paying a tribute to Mr. Graham's wonderful capacity and insight into our industrial problems, I should like to pay testimony

    1459
    to another friend and colleague of ours, the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn. People seem to think that the quota system is a new thing that has been thrown at the industry without care or thought. As a member of the South Wales Executive I was present with Mr. Hartshorn in 1922, soon after the first general stoppage, when we were in the depth of depression, when he outlined Part I in minute detail. He urged the coalowners of South Wales to face the problem of over-production and to get their minds to work on it. He appealed to them not to persist in their conservative ways but to apply intelligent minds to the problem. But we had to wait until 1930 before Parliament took the legislation in hand and passed the Act of 1930 which contained Part I. We are now in 1932 and the majority of the people of this country are convinced that this part of the Act has worked very well. We do not want to abolish it.
    The hon. Member for Winchester is a syndicalist too. He said let the organisation be united; let them solve their difficulties on a large and united plan, and do not let any outside body come into it. That is syndicalism; and this is syndicalism applied. The regulation of output and of prices is in the hands of the coalowners. No one has a right to interfere in the determination of district allocations and quotas. I think there is need for the representation at an earlier stage of the consumers of coal and other persons in the industry. Why should not the Miners' Federation and the organised workers be represented on the Central Committee and on the district committees? There are one or two defects in the quota system. It is difficult to arrive at a standard tonnage for new mines. Mines are being closed. Over 1,000 mines have been closed since the depression first set in. It has been urged that more mines should be closed, but I would ask the Secretary for Mines not to be unduly impressed by that argument. You can close too many mines; you can make the process of closing them work too quickly and do great injury to the industry. Make haste slowly should be the policy in the matter of closing mines. If Part II of the Bill is to work you must not let Part I go too far because it would militate against the plan of reorganisation which Part II brings about.
    1460
    But when new mines are in process of being opened the district committees should see that they have a satisfactory quota for their proper development in order that they may take the place of old mines which are being closed down owing to the competitive struggle in the industry.
    Another thing is the traffic in quotas. When a mine is closed down it should have no quota whatever. It is a wrong thing to encourage the sale of quotas. The person who sells his quota for a mine which is closed is a parasite upon the community because he gives no service in return for what he gets. I am quite sure that the quota scheme can be made good. There is ample margin. I know that there are some people in the industry who wish to undermine the minimum price, but I am sure that hon. Members opposite do not want to give the coal factor the right to determine prices when they have no responsibility for meeting the costs of production. Let those people who have to meet the costs of production fix prices.
    I come now to Part II of the Bill, which is to continue the present hours of working for an indefinite period. If I were to judge by the expressions of the Secretary for Mines I would indeed say that there is no hope at all for the Geneva Convention, unless the hon. Gentleman is compelled to give way to some more enlightened person who can take his place in representing this country at Geneva and convince the people of the Continent that we believe in the possibility of a seven-hours day not only for ourselves but for all the mine workers of the world. The time is overripe for a reduction of hours. I stand here without a word of apology for the claim that working hours should be immediately reduced to no more than seven hours. I have had 23 years' experience of work underground. I am old enough to remember that when I started work, nearly 40 years ago, the older men talked of an fight-hours day as an ideal to be attained in the future. Always the idea was an eight-hours day bank to bank, with one winding included. I looked forward then to the day when we would have a reduction of hours to a maximum of eight hours, bank to bank. I saw it coming after years of agitation, political and industrial.

    1461
    In 1908 this House passed a Bill to give a working day of eight hours, bank to bank, which is exactly the length of day that the Secretary for Mines is to perpetuate in the industry. We are, therefore, no further than we were 24 years ago; the hon. Gentleman is not one inch further on than was his predecessor of 1908. It is not good enough, eight hours bank to bank. We had a Commission in 1919. We had had 10 years of the eight hours, then a Royal Commission and a reduction by one hour per day. We worked seven hours from 1918 to 1926, and to the internal discredit of the Conservative Government and the present Lord President of the Council and all those responsible for listening to the coalowners, they became the coalowners' agents. The hours were lengthened from seven to eight and we went on from 1926 to 1931 with an eight hours' day. This must be said in favour of the Lord President of the Council: He had a five years plan; he anticipated the Bolsheviks. It was to be an eight hours day for only five years, and then the world was to be put right and we were to go back to the normal seven hours day.
    We now claim to go back to the seven hours day which has been ours by right since 1919 and which our people have been accustomed to work. I feel sure that the Lord President of the Council is not proud at having suspended the seven hours day even for five years. In 1931 we came back to our rightful claim to the seven hours. I am sure that the Secretary for Mines is not as simple as he pretends to be on this matter. In 1931 we were entitled to a drop of one hour per day, but we were told that there might be injury to the industry if we dropped a whole hour at once. Therefore, we were to take it in two steps and go down by a half-hour in one year and by another half-hour in the next year. That was the understanding. Everybody knew it and this House endorsed it. In 1932 the time has come to take the second step, and the hon. Gentleman now says: "I am not lengthening the working hours, but I am simply continuing the working day which was put into operation by the Labour Government." He must have misunderstood entirely the intention of the Labour Government.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Surely the hour was reduced by half by the Act of 1930 and it was intended that the other half should be taken away by the Act of 1931, but that was not done owing to economic circumstances which are more powerful to-day than they were then.
    Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Gentleman knows that the reason why it was brought down to seven and a-half hours was because it was considered that to take off the whole hour at once would be too large a jump. He knows that it was the intention however to bring the day down to seven hours and that in the following July we were automatically to go back to a seven-hour day. The hon. Gentleman and all who are responsible for mines legislation ought not to close their eyes to the changed conditions in mining. In Kent, Nottingham, East Yorkshire and all our new coalfields men work at a depth of more than 3,000 feet and in years to come more than half our output of coal will be coming from that depth. Do hon. Members realise what that means? The temperature of the earth increases by one degree every 60 feet you go down and at 3,000 feet it is 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the mean temperature of the earth, which is 60 degrees, making a total of 110 degrees. It is bad enough that men should work at that depth, stripped naked, in the mines of this country but that is not the worst feature.
    I see medical gentlemen opposite me and I hope they will not criticise me too severely when I try to point out that what is very much worse than the conditions I have already described is the effect of atmospheric pressure. When you go down 3,000 feet you find that nearly three inches are added to the barometer and 1½ lbs. per square inch to the atmospheric pressure. Hon. Gentlemen know that in climbing to high altitudes physical phenomena of a very distressing kind are experienced. You cannot go to a great height before the body is taken out of its normal range of physical conditions and the nose and even the eyes begin to bleed. At 10,000 or 15,000 feet men become prostrate and are unable to continue the ascent. The reverse happens when people go down into the earth. I am told on good authority that I stand

    1463
    here to-night not so much by will-power as by atmospheric pressure. I can stand where I am but when I go down 2,000 or 3,000 feet I am subjected to an unnatural pressure which is very oppressive and has serious pathological and physical effects.
    The men who go down into mines under these conditions ought to be given great consideration. It is wrong that we should pass enactments condemning these men, for ever and a day, without any hope of relief, to a seven and a-half hour day, which is really an eight-hour day of coal mining, without regard to the conditions. We ought to have regard to the physical conditions and the effect of those conditions upon our fellow-men, upon those who are just as good as ourselves and who are members of the one fraternity with us. We ought not to impose upon them this daily punishment, this tax upon their strength and energy, in conditions to which no man should be subjected in this country. I am proud to think that in the old days when we worked long hours we still managed to maintain a fairly high standard of physical condition. The records of 1914 will show that the percentage of Class A men in the mining industry in the first six months of the War was higher than that of any other class. More fit soldiers were then found in the mining industry than in any other industry. You do not get that to-day, and you will not get it in five years. You will get it in a decreasing proportion as the years pass.
    It is no use waiting for the owners. As a body they have never brought forward a single suggestion for improving the health and safety of the men—never. They have always been against anything of that sort. They opposed Workmen's Compensation, they opposed safety legislation, they opposed minimum wages and everything else. This House must take it out of the hands of the owners. That is the business of the House. Do we represent the people or do we not? Are we to be regarded as a truly national institution which represents the interests of our people? Something was said from the bench opposite about the leadership of the Miners' Federation. I do not remember any time when that leadership was acceptable to the mineowners. The
    1464
    only leader that suited them was a leader who was a blackleg and a traitor. There has been a fine record of loyalty among the leaders.
    Mr. MAGNAY: What about Thomas Burt?
    Mr. GRENFELL: I know all about him, much more than the hon. Gentleman does. It has been said that we have a very wise man, a tactful and sagacious man and a man to whom you can talk, but have they given him any encouragement? Have they shown any appreciation? He has had to go back empty-handed. That is the way to destroy the moderate man. You will not help him or encourage the confidence which is absolutely necessary. We have a long way to go in the mining industry, and much work remains to be done. For years it will require all the talents and experience that we can give it. I have spent the best years of my life in this work and so have many others, and we are willing to go on. It will occupy us all our lives. The problems are long and deep-seated, difficult and technical in every way. You will not help us by creating the suspicion of mind in the rank and file that the man who approaches this problem with moderation and desire for settlement is not going to be successful. You will get the extreme man to take his place and drive him out because there has been no appreciation of his work. If hon. Members opposite value leadership in the Miners' Federation, there is the same need for leadership on their part. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are the leaders for the time, being self-appointed it is true, and having arrogated to themselves a claim to leadership which they should never enjoy, but let them show some capacity to leadership and statesmanship and get down to the problem of coal. While I cannot expect to get all that I want to-night, I hope that after to-night the Secretary for Mines will not rest one hour until he has made some progress to give stability and security and a feeling of fair play to the miners of this country.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am very glad that we are getting towards the end of this Debate, and indeed quite a sense of liveliness has been introduced into it by the very able speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), who has just sat down. So far as I know, it has been all through, although with very sharp differences of opinion, the friend-

    1465
    liest of Debates, and I can only hope, having been here to listen to every speech to-night, I think, that the result of our legislation now will be that we will not have to go through the same experience next year. It will be very hard on the Minister of Mines if the policy that has been put before us by the other side is to be debated and every year we are to have a prolonged Debate upon hours and wages. That is what we have tried to avoid. In speaking on the Third Beading, I want to express my thanks to those who are opposed to me in this House and who have treated me with such courtesy, and I will show my appreciation by confining within a very few minutes anything that I have to say. It is now five minutes to Eleven, and as my colleagues here are probably as tired as I am, I do not think it is desirable that I should speak at great length.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) put again his question relating to the export industry. The problem of the export industry is constantly before us, as it must be before anyone who is concerned with our national welfare, and he can be quite sure that it will not be forgotten. I want to correct what may have seemed a wrong impression this afternoon, when I spoke about the difficulty in getting markets abroad. I asked whether we had been able to sell coal in Germany, France, Belgium, and elsewhere. I did not intend to convey that those markets would not be recovered now; I did not intend to convey that they are irrecoverable. I was answering the point put by the hon. Member when he said that in 1929–30 we had lost in our export trade about 12,000,000 tons of coal, and my argument was directed to the difficulty which we had in the markets at that time. It is our business to do all that is humanly possible to recover those markets, upon which our export trade depends.
    11.0 p.m.
    Something was said just now about suspicion. The trouble in this Debate has been suspicion. The suspicion has again been raised that we are not doing what we ought to do as far as the International Convention is concerned. What ground is there for that suspicion? I am quite willing to answer a proper charge. Let the charge be levelled, and let it be answered. I had the charge levelled against me by the "Daily Herald" that
    1466
    I had postponed the last meeting because the Government were opposed to the policy of the Convention. I answered in specific terms the charge that was specifically made. The importance of that charge was that it was made just before the Miners' Conference was held. It was read by many men who only read that paper, and if they believed what they read, it would have destroyed their confidence in me, as Secretary for Mines, in relation to that Convention. Although I answered the specific charge in specific terms in this House, my answer was not reported. It makes no difference so far as I am concerned, but that is how suspicions grow. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that this Bill meant that the Government were establishing the seven and a-half hours in perpetuity. I made a contrary statement on the Second Reading. I do not want to be associated with a Bill which establishes that. I associate myself with all that has been said in condemnation of long hours in the mines. This Bill does not establish seven and a-half hours in perpetuity. It will be remembered that on the Second Reading I said that as soon as circumstances improved, as soon as the conditions, which were bad last year and are worse this year, improved, there was an obligation on the Government of the day to revise this law and to secure for the miner the least possible hours consistent with the carrying on of the industry.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the Second Reading he stated that the cause of the postponement of the April meeting at Geneva was that one Government said they wanted 12 months' leave and another Government said they wanted two years' leave, and he saw no reason for holding another meeting at all until after simultaneous ratification was possible. That, we suggest, means that if we wait until these other Governments, all more or leas dominated by employers, are willing to ratify, we will never get ratification.
    Mr. FOOT: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that it is open to this House, at any time when circumstances justify it, to change the hours established in this Bill independently of any convention. It would be easy for me to give the same impression that was given last

    1467
    year that this thing could be carried through within a period of 12 months. It is impossible to carry it through in 12 months under the operation of the Regulations of the International Labour Office, and the House would have had a right to complain against me if, in order to get my Bill through and make it simple and easy for the House, I had left that impression on it. We have pledged ourselves, and it is not a new declaration. When the Bill was before the House last year the Lord President of the Council commended the then Secretary for Mines for his work in relation to the Measure, and said:
    "We are as anxious, and I think we must be, if it should ever be our lot to sit on those benches, to get an international agreement as hon. Members opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1931; col. 1750, Vol. 254.]
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke in terms of commendation of that policy, and I quoted his words when I went to Geneva in January of this year and said that that represented the policy of this country. Why should it be thought that we are now adverse to that policy? I have no responsibility for the Washington Convention, but I am associated with this convention, and it serves no purpose to bring into arguments something that has no relevance to them. When I returned from Geneva I reported to the Cabinet through the President of the Board of Trade and in answer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), I gave what was the considered opinion of the Cabinet in relation to Geneva. It was that:
    "His Majesty's Government is favourably disposed towards the Convention. The detailed application of some of its provisions to the coal mines of this country present certain problems which are under consideration. As soon as these points have been disposed of, the Government will be prepared to ratify the Convention, provided that the other six countries will do so at the same time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932. col. 189, Vol. 262.]
    That still remains the policy of the Government; it is candidly stated, and it will be faithfully followed.
    I will now pass to what has happened in the last few days. It is true that what I have had to submit to the House has caused disappointment on the opposite side of the House. Something has been said as to the leadership of the Miners'
    1468
    Federation. I hope that I am behind no one sitting opposite in my appreciation of the leadership of the Miners' Federation. Mr. Edwards was a colleague of mine in the House, and I think I can reckon him as a personal friend, and surely it can be assumed that I am speaking genuinely when I make my tribute to his leadership and the way he has met us all through these discussions. I think his leadership was manifest in the meetings of the Federation held during this week. I have received from him this morning a letter making a further proposal bearing upon the proposal he made when, two nights ago, he met the President of the Board of Trade and myself. It should be known that it is his desire, and the desire of the Federation, that steps shall be taken to strengthen Part IV of the Act.
    When we met the Federation the other night an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend that we would be happy to get into consultation on the matter. It is as a result of that meeting, a perfectly friendly meeting, with the executive of the Federation, that we have received this further letter from Mr. Edwards asking that the interview shall take place. I have already personally acknowledged the letter, and have told him that I am at his disposal in the matter, and I am hopeful that upon those lines there may be set up a system of consultation, so that any threatened crisis, any crisis that looms on the horizon at the end of the twelve months, can be anticipated by friendly meetings between those who are mainly concerned.
    I do not think there is more that I can promise at the present time. I shall not delay the House in dealing with criticisms of Part I. All that I can say of Part I is that we have, by the passing of this Bill—which I assume will receive the assent of both Houses—given to the industry what they have asked in the sense of giving them five years for the working of Part I, on the implied conditions that they will use that time to set their house in order. We cannot check the evasions, but they can. If they fail to make efforts to check the evasions, they must be held accountable to this House. Some question was put to me as to whether we were to wait for the Mining Association to report to us upon the Amendments needed. Of course we

    1469
    must wait, if they are making inquiries from their constituent bodies. We cannot hurry them into a premature report upon this matter, but we hope to receive their report with but very little delay, probably within the next few weeks or month or two, and then there will be the consultations.
    My hon. Friend who represents Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) asked for an assurance that we should discuss this matter upon the Floor of the House and the working of Part I before the next General Election. I think that is a promise I can give him, with just as much assurance and reliability as most promises are made upon the Floor of this House. There is one further tribute I would like to pay, having said something about the Miners' Federation. Hard words have been said about the owners. I knew nothing about the owners until I came into conference with them a few months ago. I had heard about them in this House, but now I have had the opportunity of meeting them in the flesh, and, as far as I am concerned, I think that they are an honourable set of men; and having met them in different parts of the country, and having seen how in some parts of the country, in the midst of immense difficulties, they are standing up to their problems, I think that the country is under a debt of obligation to them. Personally, I want to see two bodies of men, both inspired, as I am sure they are, by good faith, brought into consultation.
    The trouble in this business is just misunderstanding. Take the illustration we had only a night or two ago, when the Debate started. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) spoke of a misunderstanding that had arisen between the Miners' Federation and the President of the Board of Trade, which caused a grievance. We were able to check that misunderstanding immediately. A day or two later, there arose the trouble in regard to Kent. We were able immediately to check that misunderstanding. If misunderstandings arise so easily over incidents like that, what about the misunderstandings that may arise between the two sides of this great industry? Why should there not be set up a clearing house to deal properly with misunderstandings?
    1470
    That is what we press for; that is what we believe can be done by the extension of Part IV of the Act of 1930. I think the owners are not free from blame for not giving to the Industrial Board that prestige and authority which it ought to have. I believe if they did so they would be quite in line with opinion on all sides of the House and with the best public opinion throughout this land. I hope that that will be the result of our consultation here. All that we can do upon that line will be done, and I hope, in spite of what has been said to-day and in spite of all the rather hard words used in the last speech, yet, as a result of this Bill, we shall be able to face up to the difficulties and perhaps, remembering the Debate of last night, we can, without any great public controversy, build a bridge between the two great bodies in the industry and with good will set ourselves to face the next year with more hope than we have had in the past.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: It would be helpful if we could be assured that the Amendments suggested at the Conference would be considered.
    Mr. FOOT: More specifically in regard to the Amendments suggested last Tuesday night, the suggestion was then made to my right hon. Friend, and I had the opportunity of being at that conference, and a definite promise was made by my right hon. Friend that their proposals would be taken into immediate consideration, and I was asked if I would be in association with them in this matter. I have had this letter to-day; I have seen Mr. Edwards; I have arranged to see Mr. Edwards again next week. Until the proposals are definitely put forward, until we know to what extent it is desired to consider Part IV, and until we know to what extent it is desirable to strengthen Part IV, I cannot do anything, because the proposals are not tangible, are not definite on either side. But in so far as we can secure general consultation, and consultation even upon wages, that will be the desire of His Majesty's Government. I leave the matter there in the hope now that we might get, without a Division, the Third Reading.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 52.

    Division No. 208.]

    AYES.

    [11.14 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll, N.)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

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

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. G.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Goff, Sir Park

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Bateman, A. L.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Munro, Patrick

    Borodale, Viscount.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Nunn, William

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hartland, George A.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Burghley, Lord

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pearson, William G.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Burnett, John George

    Hornby, Frank

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Petherick, M.

    Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Potter, John

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Chaimers, John Rutherford

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ramsden, E.

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Rankin, Robert

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Clarke, Frank

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Ray, Sir William

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Remer, John R.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Cooke, Douglas

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Robinson, John Roland

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Copeland, Ida

    Leckie, J. A.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

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

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Salt, Edward W.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Dunglass, Lord

    Mabane, William

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Eastwood, John Francis

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

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

    Scone, Lord

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wells, Sydney Richard

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    White, Henry Graham

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Thompson, Luke

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Soper, Richard

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L

    Touche, Gerdon Cosmo

    Wilson, Clyde T, (West Toxteth)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Train, John

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Stones, James

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Storey, Samuel

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McGovern, John

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McKeag, William

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Briant, Frank

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Milner, Major James

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Curry, A. C.

    Hirst, George Henry

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jennings, Roland

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dickie, John P.

    Kirkwood, David

    Williams, Dr. John H, (Llanelly)

    Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Lunn, William

    Mr. John and Mr. Gordon Macdonald.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned according at Twenty-five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  OHINA AND JAPAN (ARMS, SUPPLY).
  OHINA AND JAPAN (ARMS, SUPPLY).
  LAW OF PEOPERTY ACT, 1925.
  LAW OF PEOPERTY ACT, 1925.
  NORTH-WESTERN RHODESIA (LAND SALES).
  NORTH-WESTERN RHODESIA (LAND SALES).
  PALESTINE (SURPLUS FUNDS AND LOAN BALANCES).
  PALESTINE (SURPLUS FUNDS AND LOAN BALANCES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  TATTOOS.
  TATTOOS.
  SURGICAL DRESSINGS.
  SURGICAL DRESSINGS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  AMALGAMATION OF SERVICES.
  AMALGAMATION OF SERVICES.
  CIVILIAN MESSMEN.
  CIVILIAN MESSMEN.
  LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.
  LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.
  RURAL PARISHES, SURREY (ABSORPTION).
  RURAL PARISHES, SURREY (ABSORPTION).
EDUCATION.
  GRANT SYSTEM.
  GRANT SYSTEM.
  BURNHAM COMMITTEE.
  BURNHAM COMMITTEE.
  ALLOTMENTS (COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND).
  ALLOTMENTS (COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND).
  ARMAMENTS.
  ARMAMENTS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FRANCE AND GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTAS).
  FRANCE AND GERMANY (BRITISH COAL QUOTAS).
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND.
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND.
  HONEY (IMPORT AND EXPORT).
  HONEY (IMPORT AND EXPORT).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
  REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.
  REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.
  RATING RELIEF.
  RATING RELIEF.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
KENDAL CORN RENT BILL.
Read 2a.
GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL.
Read 2a.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under, Sections 8 and 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London Midland and Scottish Railway; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Sections 8 and 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London and North Eastern Railway; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (LINDSEY AND LINCOLN JOINT SMALLPOX HOS- PITAL DISTRICT AND WANDLE VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DIS- TRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (NORTHAMPTON) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDERS (DERBY AND STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
GOLDSMITHS' CONSOLIDATED CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMA TION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
FORD STREET CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
MAIDSTONE BREAD CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EPSOM COLLEGE SCHEME CON- FIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I rise to propose that a Second Reading be given to the Bill which stands in my name. The object of the Bill is to enable non-motoring users of the road, such as pedestrians and pedal cyclists, when they are injured on the roads by a motor vehicle, to obtain compensation, and in the same way for compensation to be obtained when a pedestrian is killed. My Bill proposes that this compensation should be obtainable without the necessity of proving negligence on the part of the person who caused the accident, provided—and this a most important proviso—that the death or injury was not caused by the negligence of the person so killed or injured. If it is shown that the accident was caused by the negligence of the person killed or injured then, under the Bill, no claim for compensation arises.
This is admittedly an alteration of the existing law, but I hope to show your Lordships that the alteration is both just and necessary. May I say a few words about the dangers of the roads to-day? The position is really an intolerable one. The injuries on the roads have reached a figure which imposes intolerable suffering on tens of thousands of pedestrians and their relatives, and the figures have stirred the conscience of the nation. I shall not trouble your Lordships with many figures, but may I give a few concerning pre-motoring days? In the days of horse-drawn vehicles, when there were few, if any, motors on the road, statistics were not kept, but I have been able, by the courtesy of the Home Office, to get some statistics as to those early days which show the number of deaths and injuries in the Metropolitan police area. They have not got them for the whole country, but in the Metropolitan police area in the year 1904 the deaths were 123 and the injuries somewhat under 6,000. In the year 1930 the deaths were 1,322 and the injuries considerably over 54,000. I now come to the days after the advent of motors, and in 1930 I find that in the whole country the deaths on the road were 7,305 and the injuries
544
178,000. In the following year the numbers of killed and injured were 18 persons killed every day of the year, and 550 injured every day of the year.
I did my best to find, out of those total numbers of deaths and injuries, how many were cases of pedestrians, and by the help of the Home Office I was able to get statistics of that kind. I find this very remarkable result, that considerably more than half of the total deaths which took place in this country in the course of the year were deaths of pedestrians, and somewhat less than half the total number of persons injured were pedestrians also. I will give your Lordships the exact figures. In 1930, out of a total of 7,300 deaths on the roads, no fewer than 3,700 were cases of pedestrians who were killed, and out of 178,000 persons injured on the roads 71,000 were pedestrians. Many of the pedestrians who are in that terrible figure are young children, sometimes under five, sometimes under fifteen. I have seen statistics as to that, and it appears that something like 4,000 children were, in the course of the last three years, actually killed on the roads by motor vehicles. These are appalling figures, and it is rather interesting to compare them with the figures of the killed and wounded during the whole course of the South African War. During that War the number killed was 5,200, and the number wounded 22,000, as against the figures I have just recited to your Lordships.
Such being the appalling toll of the roads on pedestrians, may I shortly call your Lordships' attention to the difficulties under the existing law in the way of pedestrians—and in the term "pedestrians" I include pedal cyclists—obtaining compensation? The first fundamental difficulty arises from this fact. The motorist is always insured; he is bound to be by Act of Parliament; the pedestrian is rarely if ever insured; and the result is that the pedestrian, at his own cost, has to fight powerful insurance companies, who, in cases of death or serious disability, will raise all possible defences. I do not blame them for that. In minor cases I believe it is true that the insurance companies often behave generously enough, and pay compensation, though perhaps it may be inadequate, without bringing the injured

545
person into Court, but in the more serious cases they feel bound in their own interest to fight them and to raise every possible legal defence that is open to them.
Let us see what those legal defences are. The pedestrian goes into Court to claim compensation. The first obstacle which he has to surmount is the duty which is thrown upon him of proving negligence on the part of the driver. That is no easy task. If the pedestrian is killed then, of course, the main witness in support of the claim is not available. If, on the other hand, the pedestrian is seriously injured, his recollection, no doubt, is confused and is not very perfect, and he has to try to get outside witnesses in support of the claim on the ground of negligence against the motorist. It is exceedingly difficult and expensive to get those outside witnesses, and it is not at all easy for a pedestrian who is fighting his own case to go to that expense. The result is that in many cases the pedestrian is compelled to take what compensation the insurance company chooses to give him rather than indulge in a terribly costly litigation which his resources are unable to meet. I believe it is not too much to say that the dice are loaded against the pedestrian when he seeks compensation.
But let me assume that the pedestrian has got over the first difficulty in the Law Courts and has successfully proved negligence on the part of the motorist. What happens then? It is open to the insurance company to say: "True it is that the driver was negligent, but you were also negligent." In other words they raise what, is called in law, as your Lordships know, the defence of contributory negligence. The claimant has to rebut that defence. If he succeeds in doing so, well and good. If he fails, his claim is very liable to be defeated in toto. I doubt if there are many branches of the law on which there has been more litigation, and more very costly litigation, than this question of contributory negligence. I am not going to attempt to go into legal cases except one. I will take the very last one reported. It is a ease reported in The Times on. May 14 last, the case M'Lean versus Bell. I think your Lordships will agree that it was an amazing ease. The
546
facts are these. In February of 1929 a girl in Scotland was knocked down by a motor car and received very grave injuries. She claimed damages. The driver was insured and of course the claim was defended by the insurance company. They set up amongst other defences the defence of contributory negligence. What happened? In more than three years of litigation there were no fewer than four trials—two before juries—and finally the case went to the House of Lords. In May, 1932—that is, more than three years after the accident occurred—the House of Lords decided in favour of this girl and gave her £750 damages. How much was left after she had paid her own costs I do not know, but your Lordships can imagine.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The lawyers had most of it.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not say that they did not deserve it, but I do say that this girl ought not to have been compelled to go to this gigantic cost in order to prove her claim. I ask your Lordships whether it is reasonable that an injured pedestrian, uninsured, should be faced with such intolerable litigation costs and delay in order to establish a just claim. The conclusion I draw is that if justice is to be done between the pedestrian on the one hand and on the other hand the man who injures him on the road you must do away with this defence of contributory negligence.
There is I think universal agreement both in this House and in the country that something must be done to remedy this state of things. It has been suggested more than once—I think it was suggested in this House—that public opinion should be roused. I answer that public opinion has been roused, and roused to a very considerable extent. But, my Lords, public opinion of itself has no executive force and if you want to give effect to it you must make it operative by appropriate legislation. There is legislation now before this House. There is the Bill introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, who seeks to diminish the number of these accidents by imposing heavier penalties in criminal cases, and there is this present Bill which seeks to give compensation on a fairer and more just principle to the victims.

547
The justification for this Bill does not rest solely on the sufferings and the helplessness of the victims. There is a broader basis of justification for the Bill. It is this. Parliament has altered the law of this country in order to enable the motorists to travel at speeds and under conditions which, without that legislation, would have been utterly impossible. The result of this change in the law has brought about appalling dangers to pedestrians. The highways, instead of being reasonably safe places for pedestrians, have become almost the most dangerous places in the country. As compared with railways, of course, they are infinitely more dangerous. I need hardly remind your Lordships that a pedestrian has a Common Law right to use the roads: a Common Law right in common with all His Majesty's subjects, to use the roads in a reasonable manner. Now, however, if he uses the roads in a reasonable manner he gets killed. Is not the truth of the matter that a revolution has been effected in road traffic by legislation in favour of motorists? I ask your Lordships whether it is not reasonable that the law should be altered in favour of the pedestrian to the extent—I think the moderate extent—which I propose.
The principle of the alteration which I propose—namely, that the injured person should get compensation without having to prove negligence on the part of the driver—is no revolutionary proposal. It involves a principle which has already important legal and legislative analogies. I will not go into the long list of legal analogies, but may I give one only? It is a case decided a good many years ago, I think in the year 1880. It is the case of Powell versus Fall reported in 5 Q.B.D. relating to an occasion when a spark from a steam traction engine caused damage. The engine complied with the requirements of the Locomotive Act and there was no proof of negligence in its mode of use, but the owner was held liable at Common Law for damage, and in the course of his judgment in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bramwell, a very well known Judge of great eminence, said:
"It is just and reasonable that if a person for his own advantage uses a dangerous machine, he should pay for the damage that it occasions. If the reward which he gains for the use of the machine will not pay for the damage, it is mischievous to the public,
548
and ought to be suppressed, for the loss ought not to be borne by the community or the injured person. If the use of the machine is profitable, the owner ought to pay compensation for the damage."
I do not put that case as on all fours, but I say it supports the principle on which this Bill is founded. As regards legislative analogies I need only refer to the Workman's Compensation Act where the employer is bound by law to pay compensation to his workman who is injured, although there is no negligence on the part of the employer, and the only exception is where the workman has been guilty of serious and wilful misconduct.
I do not like to delay the House longer than I can possibly help but before I sit down I should like to call your Lordships' attention to what, to my mind, is by no means an unimportant factor in the consideration of this subject, and that is what foreign countries have done. I find on careful examination of the law of European countries, that in Germany, Austria, Holland, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and, I think, some other countries, motorists by recent legislation have been made to pay compensation to the injured pedestrian whether the motorist has been guilty of negligence or not, subject to an exception where the motorist can prove that the accident was caused solely by the fault of the victim himself or by force majeure. It has been held in cases in these foreign countries that force majeure would include an accident caused by the intervention of a third party, and that would exempt the person sued from liability for the damage. I may say, incidentally, that if it were desired in Committee to introduce an Amendment of that sort I should be willing most favourably to consider it, subject to what your Lordships might say. The only other foreign country to which I wish to draw attention is France. In France a general law was passed making a person liable to damage caused by a chattel under his care capable of causing injury or damage whether he had been guilty of negligence or not, and a case came before the Courts as to whether a motor vehicle is such a chattel. It was held that a motor vehicle is such a chattel, and the consequence is that in France a motorist who injures a pedestrian has to pay compensation unless he can show that the accident was brought

549
about solely by the fault of the victim or by force majeure.
Those are the precedents of foreign countries and I do not quite know why we should be behindhand in humanity in providing compensation in reasonable cases where pedestrians are killed or injured by motor vehicles. There is indeed one further document to which I would like to call your Lordships' attention, and that is a very remarkable report, published in February of this year, which was drawn up by a body of very distinguished experts appointed by the Columbia University Council for Research and Social Services. This Committee met nearly three years ago. They took evidence as to the law all over the United States, as to cases which had been heard, as to hardships and so on, and they came to a conclusion which I ought to quote. They reported in favour of compulsory insurance, which exists in some of the States but not all. They went on to say that "no system based on liability for Fault is adequate to meet existing conditions"—fault, I think, is the word they use in much the same sense as we use the word negligence—and they favoured the plan of compensation with limited liability and without regard to fault.
I do not suggest, for a moment, that the laws of all these foreign countries are identical with the proposals of the Bill. They are not. But I do say that the principle at the bottom of this legislation and of my Bill is identical—namely, that the person injured or killed can get compensation without first having to prove the negligence of the driver of the car. In these circumstances I think a reasonable case for the Bill has been made out and I will now refer very shortly to the provisions of the Bill itself.
Clause 1 provides that:
"Where bodily injury is caused by or arises out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road, damages shall be recoverable in respect of such injury from the person using the motor vehicle or from any person causing or permitting him to use it unless the injury was caused by the negligence of the person so injured."
That is the exception which I think it is proper to make, and possibly a further exception might be made in Committee by introducing, as in foreign countries,
550
the accident which arises under force majeure. Then the clause proceeds:
"Provided that this section shall not apply to bodily injury suffered by a person who at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the bodily injury arose was using or being carried in or upon a motor vehicle."
The effect of that is that the Bill does not apply to an accident caused by one motorist to another. The reason for leaving out such a case is that it simplifies the Bill and, further, that where one motorist causes injury to another the case is essentially different from that in which a motorist causes injury to a pedestrian. Where one motorist causes injury to another both are insured, and an action for compensation is fought out by the insurance companies, and no difficulties exist of the extent or character which arise in the case of a pedestrian.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides:
"The liability imposed by this Act shall be a. liability within the meaning of Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
The effect of that clause is that the motorist will have to insure against the liability imposed upon him by this Bill. No doubt some increase of premium may have to be paid, but it ought not to be excessive. I have been told that it is not fair that the careful motorist should have to pay a premium because other motorists are reckless, but that is the existing law. There is no exemption from insurance in the case of the careful motorist. Every motorist, careful or not, has to insure, and properly so, and so it would be under this Bill.
Clause 3 is merely a definition clause, saying that
"motor vehicle' and 'road' in this Act have the same meaning as in the principal Act and the expression 'bodily injury' includes fatal injury."
Then there is a saving clause as to other remedies:
"Except as expressly provided by this Act nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to affect the rights of action or other remedies which any person would have had if this Act had not been passed."
That would preserve, for instance, rights under Lord Campbell's Act, where in certain cases the dependants of a person killed have a right of action against the person through whose misconduct the death arose. I thank the House for listening to me so patiently, but may I

551
respectfully urge the House that the principle of this Bill is sound, and indeed is necessary if we want to remedy some, at any rate, of those gigantic evils under which, pedestrians suffer to-day? If the Government, as I hope may be the case, will not oppose the Second Reading and the House is willing to give the Bill a Second Reading, then we may have valuable discussions in Committee, when Amendments may be moved, and we shall have an opportunity of probing the whole question more fully. Meanwhile I will ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Danesfort.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, with your permission, I desire to say a few words upon the legal issues which are involved in this Bill. It is difficult to offer any strong opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. On the contrary, some of its proposals are attractive. I would go further and say that some of them are not unreasonable, and must command a considerable measure of sympathy. As the law at present stands a pedestrian who has been injured by a motor vehicle on a road has to prove, in order to obtain damages, that the person driving the car was guilty of negligence which caused the accident and the injury.
The purpose of the Bill, as expressed in the first clause, is to shift the onus of proof and in some respects to alter the incidence of liability, by limiting the defence to showing that the accident was caused by the negligence of the pedestrian. It is a usual principle of English law that the plaintiff in such a case must prove that the defendant has been negligent, and probably those of us who have had experience of trying these cases would say that the plaintiff succeeds in the majority of cases. There is, however, more than one principle in the law, and in the application of principles there is always a law of diminishing returns. The further some principles are extended the less useful or expedient they are apt to be found. There is another principle in our law which says that a person who keeps a savage animal, such as a tiger or a lion, does so at his peril, and if he brings such an animal on to the highway and
552
if the animal escapes or gets out of control the owner is liable for the consequences, apart from any negligence on his part.
This is no new principle, but a principle which has been in our law for generations, and it does not seem to be a very alarming or revolutionary change to apply it to a potentially dangerous machine like a motor vehicle. At any rate, it does not seem unjust to say that where a motor car has injured a pedestrian the onus should at least be on the driver to establish some lawful defence, if he is to escape paying damages. What defences should be open to him may be another question, with which I will deal in a minute, but it cannot well be disputed that a motor car which is being driven at a high speed is a potentially dangerous machine. I need hardly remind your Lordships that a railway train has fixed rails, a fenced track and signals, while a motor on the high road has none of these, and motors are often driven at the speed of an express train.
Those of us who have tried such cases know well the rule of thumb, which is more or less accurate, that half the number of miles per hour is the number of yards per second, so that fifty miles per hour is twenty-five yards per second. That is to say, while I count one, two, a motor travelling at fifty miles per hour will have gone fifty yards, and that does not give a pedestrian very much time to cross the road when a motor which is fifty yards off is coming along. The difficult question is not that of putting the onus on the motorist, but of deciding what defences shall be open to him, and it is here that the Bill may be going rather too far. The only defence permissible under it is for the defendant to satisfy the Court that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the pedestrian.
On the first question—that of onus—the Bill has behind it a great volume of European law and opinion, but it is not so strongly supported upon the second question—namely, as to the defences to be available to the defendant motorist. Permit me quite briefly to draw your Lordships' attention to the various codes. I have had them examined and I can state them in a couple of minutes. In

553
Belgium and in Spain the law is the same as it is with us; that is to say, the plaintiff must prove negligence to entitle him to succeed. At the opposite end of the scale come Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, and there the law is the same as is desired by this Bill which is now before your Lordships. The onus of proof is placed upon the defendant, and his only defence is that it was the plaintiff who caused the accident or his own injury. Between those two limits—the limits of Belgium and Spain, which are the same as ours, and of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, which is the same as this Bill wants—there are a number of codes—namely, France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Denmark and Sweden. Every one of those countries, so I am instructed, and the matter has been looked into, agrees with this part of the Bill, that the onus should be placed upon the defendant motorist, but I do not think there is a single one of those countries which confines the defence of the motorist to one defence as is apparently desired in this Bill.
For instance, in Italy and Sweden the defendant can avoid liability by proving that it was no fault of his. Let me give an example. Supposing a motor car which is being driven perfectly properly sees approaching it a motor car being negligently driven and swerves in order to avoid it and in the course of swerving knocks down a pedestrian, I can quite understand that pedestrian making the motor which was being negligently driven liable, but it does seem to me a little unjust to say that where a motorist has swerved in order to avoid a worse accident he should be compelled to pay damages. In France, Germany, Switzerland and Holland the defendant may prove that the accident was the plaintiff's fault or was due to force majeure, or was fortuitous and unavoidable. In Austria and Hungary there is another rather useful provision. The defendant may prove force majeure or that the accident was due to the fault of a third person. Upon that I would give your Lordships a recollection of personal experience. Two motor cars came into collision. They were both badly smashed up and the people in each car were badly injured. Now they both obtained damages from a motor car which was not in the collision
554
at all. It was a swerving case and one of the two motorists who came into collision swerved to get out of the way of a third motorist. The result was that both motorists who came into collision recovered damages from a motorist who was not actually in the collision.
In Denmark, the position is that a motorist is entitled to prove inevitable accidents. Denmark, Holland and Hungary have a law which seems to me to be a useful law, and that is that if there is a degree of negligence on the part of both motorists the damages may be apportioned; and in Denmark the apportionment may even go so far as to exclude the defendant's liability. May I say this in regard to that latter point of apportionment? Those who have had to try this class of case are often very much surprised by the small amount of damages given in some cases by the jury. When a motorist sues for damages, he is entitled to recover two sorts of damages—out-of-pocket expenses, his surgeon's bill and his nurse's bill and his loss of wages, and general damages for pain and suffering. It is a very extraordinary thing that often juries will only give the special damages, that is to say, where a man has lost £100 out of pocket they only give £100, and we always rather suppose that the view the jury has taken, although we do not know what takes place in the jurymen's minds, is that they very sensibly say: "Well, this man was a bit to blame himself. We do not like to give him nothing. We will give him his out-of-pocket expenses." So, in effect, the result is the same as it is in Denmark.
There is another class of case I should like to mention. Supposing, as often happens, a motor car when being driven splashes the mud into a pedestrian's eye and injures it. Is the motorist to be liable for that? That is a matter which wants careful thinking about. I doubt if it could be said that that is a case where the motorist should be liable in damages. One other point. This Bill if it passes will make a considerable difference in insurance policies. That is a subject on which I am not able to give your Lordships much assistance, but the information supplied to me is this. Informal inquiries have been made as to the possible effect which the passing of this Bill would have upon the rates

555
of premium charged for policies complying with Part II of the Road Traffic Act, but it seems doubtful whether the companies will be able to give any very definite figure. That a substantial increase in these rates would be necessary can hardly be doubted. In the first place an entirely new class of accident would rank for compensation—namely, where there has been no negligence on the part of the motorist, or no proved negligence. Secondly, the number of cases in which excessive or even unfounded claims would be pressed by unscupulous litigants would undoubtedly be increased and the evil is one which already is a matter of serious concern to insurance companies.
Therefore, to conclude, there is ample authority and ample opinion for the first proposal of this Bill altering the onus, but with regard to the other part, restricting the number of defences open to motorists, I think that wants very careful consideration. It is not for me personally to express an opinion, but, as I say, it is difficult to offer serious opposition to the Second Reading and there certainly are questions here which are worthy of very close attention and examination.
EARL BUXTON:My Lords, I had intended to go somewhat fully into the questions affected by this Bill and the arguments in favour of it, but the speech of the Lord Chancellor seemed so conclusive from a legal point of view that some of my remarks will, I think, be unnecessary. But your Lordships should remember that in the 24 hours of the day 18 persons will be killed and 533 persons will be injured in motor accidents. The Minister of Transport the other day said he was giving his attention to the matter and hoped to do something to meet the difficulty. Departments usually run at a low speed and my noble friend proposes to help the action of the Government by a measure dealing not so much with the danger as with the compensation which ought to follow any accident. I do not think anyone would desire to draw a Bill of indictment against motorists as a whole. On the contrary, I believe the vast majority of motorists feel responsible and are considerate of others.
Lord Buckmaster mentioned the other day that he had been motoring for
556
twenty years and had not even killed a hen. The vast number of motorists are in the same happy category. Indeed I think they require as much protection as do the pedestrians themselves. I do not know whether noble Lords will remember this little jingle:

Here lies the body of Matthew Bent,

Who died in a motor accident.

He was right, modestly motoring along;

He is just as dead as though he were wrong.

That, I think, is very much the position of most motorists. It is the reckless, the careless, the ignorant, those who have not got road sense who look upon the pedestrian as a nuisance with no rights upon the highway. My noble friend referred to public opinion and that has undoubtedly, even in the last few weeks, very largely expanded in emphasis and power, and I think that the motoring public and pedestrians are grateful to The Times newspaper for having given such prominence to the public protests that are being made. That will have some effect. I hope, for instance, it may have an effect on some of our magistrates who seem to me to take much too lenient a view of motor accidents, and who constantly fine when they ought to endorse, and endorse when they ought to take away the licence. Their usual reason is that when you take away a licence you destroy a man's livelihood. But surely a man who has already in many cases destroyed the livelihood of others requires no consideration at the hands of the magistrates.
The object of the Bill has been very clearly stated by my noble friend and by the Lord Chancellor. The desire is that the onus of proof should be changed from the one side to the other. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Lord Chancellor. One had been afraid that this Bill might be met by the legal objection that you cannot, and ought not, to apply special laws to special cases, but I think he removed that difficulty which might have stood in the way. After all, the position is a very grave one. The present position in regard to the motorist has created a totally new position, which ought to be dealt with on its merits and not simply by applying precedents to it. That was done when the railways were introduced. They

557
were hedged about in every possible way, and new laws were laid down in order to meet the danger. In the case of motorists what has happened so far is that they have had encouragement in every way. They have been licensed, and been given special advantages; their existence has been recognised and they have been allowed a great deal of liberty. It is time, therefore, that they should also have some curtailment of their liberty in the way that my noble friend proposes.
I had intended to quote precedents from abroad, but the Lord Chancellor has already done so. There is, however, another precedent nearer home which I think meets the case, even better than the one mentioned by my noble friend. That is the case of an accident in a mine. Where there is an accident in a mine it does not matter whether the miner is contributory to it or not. He receives compensation apart from any question of whether he was himself to blame. My noble friend does not go so far as that in this Bill, because if it can be shown that the pedestrian is to blame the motorist will be able to plead that against his liability. My noble friend pointed out that out of the number of persons killed and injured half of them, or nearly half, are pedestrians. Somebody in dealing with this matter the other day said that motorists in a year killed and injured more persons than were killed or wounded in the battle of Waterloo. But that is not a correct estimate of the position. At the battle of Waterloo, roughly speaking, there were 140,000 combatants, French and English. It would be truer to say that the real position, under present conditions, is that the whole of the armies on both sides at Waterloo might have been killed and wounded, and yet they would only amount to two-thirds of the number of injuries and deaths caused by motorists in one year. That proves what a terrible position it is.
It is still more terrible for the unfortunate pedestrian who does not have the advantage of motoring, a not unworthy part of citizenship. I am not saying for a moment that many pedestrians are not stupid or inconsiderate or vacillating, very often take undue risks, and are, in many ways, a cause of great annoyance to motorists. But, after all, to be a cause of annoyance is not a criminal offence, and it hardly justifies a sentence of death or a sentence of disablement. I think it is
558
forgotten by those who, as I have heard, desire to oppose this Bill that in every case it is the motorist who is the aggressor. I have never heard of any pedestrian attacking a motor. In every case it is the motorist who is the aggressor against the pedestrian. The Lord Chancellor spoke just now of the difficulty of distinguishing sometimes between the contingent liability, but I happened to read only a day Or two ago in one paper three cases of pedestrians who had been killed on the footpath, not in attempting to get across the highway, through the negligence and incompetence of motorists.
I think it might interest your Lordships if I quoted one or two figures in order to show the liability which ought to be put on the motorist as against the pedestrian. The Minister of Transport some while ago issued a tabulated statement as a result of investigations in regard to road accidents occurring outside the London area. In the four years covered by this rather limited inquiry there were 1,618 accidents, of which drivers were responsible for 930 —more than 50 per cent.—mechanical defects of machines were liable for 293–16 per cent.—and road conditions were responsible for 21 per cent. All these accidents, whether the fault of the driver or whether the fault of the machine or of some condition in the road, must be added together to show the danger to the non-motorist, because these accidents would not occur if some of these things did not exist. The figures amount to this, that while 86 per cent. of the whole of the accidents are due either to the fault of the driver or to road conditions or mechanical defects of the vehicle, only 5 per cent. of the whole are due to the fault of the pedestrian.
My noble friend has pointed out that half of these accidents are to pedestrians, yet only 5 per cent. are due to the fault of the pedestrian. It is immaterial to the unfortunate victim whether the accident is due to the fault of the driver or to a defect of the machine or to road conditions; the fact remains that he suffers injury from the motor car. How is he to prove negligence? The Lord Chancellor said when there is an accident the pedestrian has at present to show negligence on the part of the driver in order to obtain compensation. Surely anyone who is run over by a motor car is not in a position at that moment to say what actually happened. He is probably knocked un-

559
conscious; at all events he is knocked down, and as far as he is concerned he is quite unable to say what contributory negligence there was on the part of the driver. The worst of it is compulsory insurance has, I think, very much reduced the feeling of responsibility on the part of motorists themselves. As my noble friend pointed out the scale is weighted at present very greatly against the pedestrian. In the case of motorists themselves both parties to an accident are insured, and the insurance companies can fight it out. When it is a case of a motorist against a pedestrian the motorist has the powerful insurance company behind him, whereas the unfortunate pedestrian has no one but himself and it is very difficult for him to bring his case into court.
The Lord Chancellor pointed out with great force that it is almost impossible for an ordinary pedestrian to undertake an action against the motorist. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Bill. It seems to me that the present scale is weighted against the pedestrian and this Bill does, to a certain extent, redress the balance. To me, as a layman, at all events it seems only justice and common sense that where a pedestrian is killed or injured without fault of his own, without contributory negligence, he should receive compensation. This Bill, of course, is not a prevention Bill, but it is a Bill which I think is just, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I rise to say a few words against this Bill and in opposition to its Second Reading. I have endeavoured to keep an open mind on the question although I confess that at first sight it is shocking to a lawyer to be asked to place upon any person the onus of proving innocence. I had hoped that some reason might be given for it, but the noble Lord who introduced the Bill had not quite the courage to say really what he meant by it, although he did quote a case which showed what must have been in his mind. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was more courageous. He put it before your Lordships in this way: Let us declare that a motor car on the highway is a public or a private nuisance. That was the decision in Powell versus Fall, to which the noble Lord referred, and the noble and learned Viscount on
560
the Woolsack really put it on the ground that it might be treated as a wild beast escaped on the highway. If we are going to do that let us be certain that that is what we mean. Of course, if it is a nuisance and causes damage the question of negligence does not come in, but short of that it does shock one to hear the suggestion that the onus of proof of negligence should be put upon the unfortunate motorist. We know that this is a very serious question, we know that it is one that must bear upon everyone's sentiments, and we feel that something ought to be done. But because we feel that we ought not to be driven to do something which is manifestly unfair.
Certain figures have been quoted and I am going to quote other figures but only one set. I wish to refer to figures given by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police for the year 1930. In that year in the Metropolitan area there were 885 fatal accidents. Those were analysed for police purposes and 76 per cent. of them were due to pedestrians. I suppose anybody who has a motor car must know that there are a very great number of pedestrians on the road who do not pay sufficient care to the present conditions upon the road. It does seem to me that we ought to be a little careful before we run away with the idea that an Act must be passed to give every right to the pedestrian whether right or wrong. This Bill is in favour of pedestrians and in favour of no one else, and if a motorist could show that the accident was due to the act of God or the King's enemies nevertheless he would have to pay damages. It does seem to me that that is a matter which might have been thought of before this Bill was put before your Lordships. I think the noble Lord who introduced the Bill might have had that matter in mind. He told us that it was very difficult for the pedestrian to prove negligence, but it seems to me that the defence of contributory negligence has been left in Clause 1 of the Bill.
There is another question on which I should like to say a word or two. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said something about insurance companies and the effect of this Bill. When the Road Traffic Act was under

561
consideration I met a lot of insurance people and was present at a great number of informal discussions. It was by no means easy to get them to come in under the Road Traffic Act, but they did come in and they came in loyally. If we now pass this Bill, which undoubtedly will enormously increase their liabilities, it seems to me that we shall be doing something without knowing what we are being led into, and if we try to do it without their assistance then we may have a very serious position. For instance, in Austria at the present time because an enactment of this kind has been passed practically the whole of the motor industry in Austria has been stopped. I should have thought that that question ought to be considered before putting forward the proposals in this Bill without, as far as I can gather, making any kind of inquiry among the insurance companies.
I shall not say much about the question of foreign countries, and I will only deal with one foreign country in order to show your Lordships that we cannot get very much help from that direction. It is perfectly true that in France the onus is thrown on the motorist, but in France the onus is always on the person who is alleged to have done a wrong. The whole law as laid down in the French Code puts the onus on a person who has done an injury to show that it was not his fault. There is another difficulty in dealing with French law. There are two codes in French law, the Code Peénal and the Code Civil. In the case of a motor accident proceedings are usually taken under the Code Peénal, which is more or less equivalent to a case brought before a magistrate here for an offence under the Motor Car Acts. Assuming that the Court finds a driver guilty the Court can then and there go on to award compensation under the Code Civil. I only put that before your Lordships, without going more deeply into the question, in order to show that we are not going to get much advantage from the French law. My submission is that we ought to consider this matter from our own point of view. There is a great danger in being carried by a very proper sentiment into a wrong method of trying to deal with what is undoubtedly a very serious matter.
There are other methods that have been tried in other countries. One method is that of saying that no one shall drive a
562
motor car unless he has undergone very careful examination. That I know is a thing which the noble Earl whom I hope we shall hear later favours, but I am also aware that it was considered by the Royal Commission which did not approve it. As one who has driven for a very long time in this country and fins also driven a very great deal in France, I do know that as a rule you find drivers in France more careful than they are in England. I do not say for a moment that they are better drivers. We have as good drivers in this country as in any country, but taking the average driver you meet on the road I think that French drivers are more careful. If I may put it in this way, there are fewer careless drivers to be met on the roads there. That is a matter that might be considered. If it were adopted it might help considerably the unfortunate state of affairs that exists to-day. That is only one possibility. I do not put it forward as a definite solution, but something that might be tried. There are other ways. In France there are discouragements to anybody going through a village which in fact prevent people from driving fast, and something of the same sort might be worth consideration. We ought not, without consideration and merely because we feel our sentiments are hurt by the horrible figures, to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, on the face of it, causes great hardships to one who may be an innocent person without considering and trying other methods.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, a short time back I made a statement in your Lordships' House which I desire to repeat. I said that as the law stood today a man who is driving a motor vehicle might by his negligent act kill or maim a person on the King's highway and be subject to no liability, civil or criminal. I do not believe that such a state of things ought to continue. This Bill is an attempt to do something, not, as I understand it, to throw the burden upon the motorist's pocket, but something that will at least ensure that when a foot passenger is injured on the highway he will be secure of compensation unless his injury is solely due to his own fault. It appears to me to be an extremely reasonable Bill and I cannot understand why the noble Earl who has just sat down should have

563
been so shocked at the provisions which it contains. The opponents of measures such as this seem to rely on one of two alternative defences. They say, first, that you are changing the law. Well, of course, if the law is not adequate it has to be changed. It is no use complaining that you are changing the law if the law as it is does not remedy existing wrongs. Next they say: "Oh, yes, assuming there is a grievance do try something else." With that, my Lords, we are thoroughly familiar. I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, introducing a Bill in 1929 in which he did propose one of the remedies which have been referred to. Everybody said: "Did you ever hear of such a ridiculous remedy?" and his Bill was laughed out of the House. Now, as an answer to this Bill, we are asked to introduce once more a discussion which was vain and futile then.
It seems to me that this Bill deals with a very real existing mischief. It happens that owing to action I took a short time ago in this House I have been the recipient of an enormous number of letters from those who have suffered accidents at the hands of motor cars. Some are terrible to relate, but the ones which moved me most have been tales of poor men who say they can get no remedy because they find themselves immediately up against a wealthy insurance company and they have no money to go to lawyers to fight them. Anyone who knows anything of the history of negligence actions in the Courts knows that, is true and the man, unless he obtains leave to sue in formâ pauperis, cannot get anybody except what are known as speculative lawyers, who are by no means the most desirable class in the community to encourage. Apart from that, this man has a formidable wealthy opponent and cannot get what a man who is in a position to fight can get. Even if he could he has, as has been said, to be put to great expense in getting witnesses. Further, he may be in the most difficult position that, owing to the blow that may have nearly cost him his life, he is not able to give clear and definite evidence as to what has occurred. I heard the noble Earl, I have no doubt inadvertently, refer to the unfortunate motorist, but he suffers no such shock when he is running down a pedestrian.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I have known a motorist killed.
LORD BUCKMASTER: What, by the action of running over a pedestrian?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Certainly, or in swerving away from the pedestrian.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is another story. That is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the case of a motor car running a man down. I say that in that case the man run down is practically incapacitated from giving a clear account and that the motorist is not. If there is some rare occasion where that is not so it is a matter too small for the law to consider. I believe the remedy should be much more wide than the Bill proposes. I believe the right course is to provide that there should be an insurance against every accident caused to a pedestrian by a person driving a motor vehicle and that insurance should cover everything. The present insurance seems to me to be the most mischievous you could create because it insures a man against the consequences of his wrong-doing. So far from discouraging him from doing wrong it encourages him. Why should these reckless people pause? If they injure anyone they do not suffer in person or in pocket and it is about time the law was changed.
On a former occasion the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made some most valuable suggestions as to what might be done, but I do not think they are relevant on this Bill which merely affects the question of civil liability. Those who drive motor cars have received a very great concession at the hands of the public. They have obtained dominion of the road, and foot passengers, who were formerly equally entitled to their use, are now nothing but people permitted to use the loads on tolerance, and they have positively been permitted by Statute to drive these ears at any pace they please on the country roads subject to ineffectual restrictions about reckless and dangerous driving. When they have that right it is only fair that they should have some further obligation cast on them. Of what the result of the exercise of the right has been the figures are only too evident. It is no use saying those figures refer to sentiment. They refer to innocent people

565
killed and wounded on the King's highway in numbers that stagger us to believe. I say the Bill ought to pass, and that steps ought to be taken swiftly and drastically to secure that once more there shall be security for the people to use the roads of this country which are their rightful heritage.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, as one who had control as far as the State has control of the roads for three or four years, may I detain the House for not more than five minutes? What strikes me in these debates on this subject is the prejudice against all motorists shown by certain members of your Lordships' House. The Bills or Motions are very largely decided by that prejudice, and the actual provisions of the measure under discussion are not really gone into. The noble Lord who bas just spoken, as a matter of fact, has assumed that all motorists are careless, that the fatalities on the road are all the fault of the motorists, and that therefore something must be done, whether it alters the law rightly or wrongly or whether or not it makes for injustice to those who use motor vehicles or motor cycles on the roads.
If your Lordships will bear with me for only five minutes I will endeavour to deal with the Bill and not with the surrounding prejudices, which unfortunately hover round a very controversial subject. As a man in the street, and not a lawyer, I say that at present if any person suffers injury on the roads he cannot obtain damages unless he proves negligence on the part of the driver of the motor car or motor cycle or pedal cycle or horse-drawn vehicle. Therefore the law says that a man is innocent unless he be proved guilty. What does this Bill do? This Bill seeks to enact that the law shall still assume that the driver of a pedal cycle or horse-drawn vehicle is not negligent until he is proved to be negligent, but that in the case of the driver of a motor car or motor cycle, if he is involved in an accident, it is not necessary to prove negligence: he is assumed to be guilty. Is it right to divide the users of the road, because all the King's subjects have equal rights to use the roads, subject to legislation—is it right and fair to divide the users of the road into sheep and goats? Is it right that this handicap, this considerable dis-
566
ability, shall be put upon the motorist and not upon the driver of a horse-drawn vehicle or the rider of a pedal cycle, or upon a pedestrian?
Take an example, as I see it. Perhaps noble Lords who are lawyers can show that I am not taking a proper case, or a legal case. If a farmer's gig hurts someone in a motor car the person hurt in a motor car under the Bill cannot claim compensation unless he can prove negligence on the part of the driver of the farmer's gig, but if the driver of the motor car hurts someone in the gig that person who is hurt can bring a claim for compensation against the driver of the motor car without proving negligence on the part of the driver of the motor car. That is contrary to the principle of Common Law, contrary to the principle laid down in our Courts, and against the principle of elementary justice. Let me take a case which would appeal to Lord Danesfort. He has always taken a great interest in, and rightly stood up for, the minority in the Irish Free State, in which I thoroughly sympathise with him. But supposing it was enacted in the Free State that if a Protestant drove a motor car he should be assumed to be negligent, whereas if a Catholic drove a motor car he would have to be proved to be negligent before a claim against him could succeed. My noble friend would say that it was grossly unjust, and therefore on what grounds does he divide the users of the road into drivers of motor vehicles and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles and pedestrians?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Why not?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: It is not for me to show why not. If the noble and learned Lord is going to make a change in the law it is for him to prove why it should be made, when the law has always been as I have stated it. Then I may ask whether these non-motorist users of the road are such innocent persons as is sought to be made out. In 1930 there were 26,000 accidents attributed to pedal cycles and 4,000 attributed to horses and horse-drawn vehicles. So that in that year there were 30,000 accidents caused by people who are the under-dogs, according to this Bill, and it seems to me that a case for this differentiation has not been made out. Then may I ask your Lordships to

567
remember that this Bill deals only with civil compensation and damages, and not with criminal liability at all? A great portion of the speeches which we have heard up till now has really been dealing with criminal liability for offences which are dealt with under the Road Traffic Act, and that is quite irrelevant to the Bill under discussion. All we are discussing now is whether it should be made easier for certain people who use the road to get damages against another class who use the road, and, as Lord Halsbury mentioned, this, will undoubtedly have to be very seriously considered by the insurance companies. I submit that this Bill will not—I wish it would—have any effect upon accidents on the road, because every motorist has to be insured, and therefore the damages will have to be paid, not by what my noble friend describes as the offending party, but by the insurance companies. Therefore, although there will be a small increase in the premiums owing to this Bill, if it becomes law, it will not be sufficient to make the motorist, if he is negligent, any less negligent.
I will not detain your Lordships much longer, but I would just like to deal with one more matter, and it is this. Are the supporters of the Bill right in assuming that the number of accidents in which motor vehicles and motor cycles are involved are increasingly the fault of motor drivers? because that would appear to be one of the main arguments put forward by the noble Lord in support of this Bill. If that was so I should be inclined to give more attention to his proposition, but, as a matter of fact, it is not so. In the ten years, 1921 to 1931, the number of motor vehicles licensed increased by 151 per cent. and the number of fatal accidents increased by only 135 per cent. So it is proved by statistics that in Great Britain the number of fatal accidents did not increase in the same way as the number of motor vehicles licensed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Not in the same proportion.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Certainly they have increased absolutely but not relatively. Finally—the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, did mention this figure, but I must use it again because it is very significant—there is the Report of the Com-
568
missioner of Police for the Metropolitan police area for 1930. It is an official Report, and therefore we may take it that it is as reasonably accurate as anything you could get. In 1930 the number of pedestrians killed or injured in the Metropolitan police area was 885, but who were the people at fault? According to the Commissioner of Police, out of those 885 accidents no fewer than 678 were due to the faults of pedestrians. Seventy per cent. of the accidents in 1930 to pedestrians in the Metropolitan police area were therefore due to their own fault. I do not know whether Lord Halsbury is going to a Division, but it does seem to me so unjust to divide the users of the road into two categories, one of which you favour and one you do not favour, and it seems so unfair and un-English to assume that a man is guilty unless he proves that he is not, that if the noble Earl does go to a Division I shall support him.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry I am unable to agree with what has fallen from my noble friend, and I cannot help thinking that his long association with the Ministry of Transport has rather deformed his otherwise admirable judgment. This is a small Bill and does not deal with the prevention of accidents at all. It deals merely with the very large number of cases of people who are killed or injured in the streets or on the roads of this country, who are unable even to begin to recover judgment because they are unable to prove the negligence of the motorist. My noble friend talked about elementary justice, but, after all, what can be more elementarily just than to say that people who are injured by hundreds and thousands on the roads ought to have some means of recovering compensation unless it can be shown that they are not the people who are responsible for the injury?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Then would my noble friend amend the Bill so as to include pedal cyclists and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I will not forget that point. But the real short answer to that I will give immediately. The thousands of accidents are not due to those pedal cyclists and horse-drawn vehicles. There are a few of such

569
accidents, but everyone agrees that this evil, which has excited the public mind all over the country and has caused such very great indignation, is entirely the consequence of the presence of motor cars on the roads. I am not for a moment saying that all drivers of them are guilty, but, it is the fact that there is this vast number of accidents caused by motor cars, which causes the great practical evil, and when you can show an equally great practical evil arising from pedal cyclists, I quite agree we may have to extend the provisions of this and other Bills to pedal cyclists as well as to motor cars.
This is entirely a practical matter. Just consider what happens in the case of an accident. A child is knocked over in the road. It may be that nobody sees the accident at all. It may have been entirely due to the negligence of the motorist, but the child cannot give evidence. How can it? It is knocked over, and probably knocked senseless, if not killed. It has no opportunity of giving evidence. The consequence is that there is no remedy at al]. That is not an extravagant case. That is what actually happens. I have here an extract from the report of the Poplar Hospital and they say this—a very striking phrase:
"Meanwhile, the first year's working of die Act indicates that motor accidents to children are always the fault of the child, for in no single case has the Hospital's account for the child been paid."
What does that mean? Under the Road Traffic Act where an accident occurs for which, under the present law, the motorist is liable, he has to pay, in addition to anything else, the cost of the hospital charges, and he has to insure in order to recover that cost. In no case has any payment been made by the insurance company in respect of children who have been treated at Poplar Hospital. Why? Because the children are unable to prove the negligence of the motor driver. But it is fantastic to suppose that in every case the child has been the sole person to blame for that accident. The instances might be multiplied enormously.
The evil is a, very great one, and is felt very deeply, as the correspondence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has shown. This is a very small measure of justice, which I hope your Lordships will certainly approve in
570
order to put a stop to this particular evil. I do not understand the attitude of mind which says that this is to create a special case for motorists and does not apply to other users of the highway. As soon as the same conditions can be shown to exist with regard to other users of the highway, whether pedal cyclists or the drivers of farmers' gigs, I quite agree you must extend this legislation. For the moment we are dealing with the particular evil of the motorists. My noble friend Lord Halsbury said that he was very much afraid of the effect of this upon the insurance business and that in some country—Austria I think it was—the effect of extending the liability of motorists to all cases of this kind had been to create a very great difficulty with the insurances, and had hampered the motor industry. I am quite ready to hamper the motor industry if it is necessary to do that in order to protect the lives of children and other people in this country and to give them reasonable compensation for the injury that is done to them. I do not believe that that is at all likely to be the case here. But, if it be so, consider what it means. It means that the claims are so great which this Bill will open up, that so many people are now injured and killed and have no remedy, that the moment you give them this remedy you will place a tremendous burden on the motorists. It shows the tremendous nature of the evil which exists. It seems a very strong argument for the Bill, not against it.
I certainly hope that this measure will be passed. Some references have been made to other preventive measures which might be taken. I hope very much that the Legislature will take other and very extensive preventive measures to deal with this evil. I am interested to observe, as Lord Buckmaster has pointed out, that some of the provisions which I suggested two years ago have now received the support of advocates of the motor trade and the motor interests, who at that time regarded them as ridiculous. I have no doubt you will have to do a good deal more. There are a great many evils. I could mention half a dozen on the spot which ought to be dealt with. But this is a quite separate and distinct matter. It is not part of the preventive legislation; it is merely to give compensation to those who at present are injured in very large numbers through the fault of

571
the motorists, and yet are unable to obtain compensation. It is to check that evil, and that evil only, that this Bill is brought forward.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mount Temple made great play with the point that in this Bill you are dividing the road users into two classes, and legislating against the motorists and not against pedal cyclists and drivers of horse vehicles. He said that a quarter of the total of the road accidents could be attributed to these last two categories—the accidents against pedestrians or in general?
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: In general.
LORD LAMINGTON: It is to the pedestrian we are trying to give some satisfaction under this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that this Bill is one entirely in favour of the pedestrian. I hope it is. Everything has been up till now to the great detriment of pedestrians. They cannot enjoy the use of the road; their nerves are acutely expectant of some fast motor coming along; and it is only right if they suffer injuries that they should get some compensation. This seems to me a most modest proposal, and one that ought to have been passed long ago. I do not think either of the two speeches which have been directed against the measure was really convincing that there is anything unjust about it. The burden imposed on motorists is only a slight increase in what they have to pay for their insurance as a protection against possible injury done to others. It seems to me this is a thing that your Lordships ought to pass with acclamation. The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in his Bill, dealt with another point, that there should be more severe penalties imposed upon those guilty of careless driving. I dare say that is right, but in the meantime this Bill gives some security to the person on foot who is injured getting some compensation. At present motorists can go to the Court with powerful motoring associations to defend the cases for them without, I understand, any expense to them, whereas the pedestrian has to get legal advice on his own account in order to submit his case. I think it is only fair that he should get some redress in this very proper and moderate fashion.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not intend to intervene at any great length. If your Lordships could bear with a few remarks from the point of view of the user of a motor car I should be indeed grateful. We have all been appalled, in fact the whole country, as the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort said, has been appalled by, and is now well aware of, the terrible casualty roll occurring upon the roads. I think, if I may say so, that that was probably responsible for the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, into your Lordships' House recently, and is probably also at the bottom of this Bill. I myself have always been very much surprised that it is really only comparatively recently that this appalling casualty roll seems to have awakened real interest in the country. When the Road Traffic Act was going through your Lordships' House I ventured to refer to figures of accidents taking place on the highway, and I think a number of your Lordships were half incredulous when I mentioned the appalling total of the figures.
But I think we ought to be careful not to be led away by the idea that those figures all represent motor accidents, or that all the people killed or injured have been killed or injured by a motor vehicle. A very large percentage of the number of accidents on the highway, as can be ascertained by anybody who looks into the figures, are accidents in which motorists have no concern whatever. At the same time I do not think anybody will challenge the statement that the casualty roll is high, is too high, far too high; and I am perfectly certain that every member of your Lordships' House is only too anxious to see something really effective done. I myself want to see something effective done to try and improve conditions on the road and save life. I should like to submit to your Lordships that the way to save life on the highway is certainly not to pass this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, in moving the Second Reading, made it quite clear that the purpose of his Bill was to place the onus upon the motorist while exempting other classes of road users from the same supervision.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not quite accept that description of the Bill.
EARL HOWE: I stand corrected if it is not so. I do not want in any way to

573
give an unfair description of the Bill. I submit that the way to make the highway safe, to bring home to every highway user the responsibility which he has when he uses the road, it does not matter if he is on foot, in a vehicle or on a cycle, whatever he is doing, is not by a Bill of this kind. Your Lordships will remember that the Road Traffic Act provided for a Highway Code. The Ministry of Transport produced an admirable document called the Code of the Highway. I wonder whether, if your Lordships were to go out into any of the back streets round the Palace of Westminster and to select a certain number of pedestrians using the highway, you would come across a single one who had ever seen or heard of the Code of the Highway. The Code of the Highway laid down a certain code of conduct for all road users, and I submit that the Ministry of Transport were quite right in that, because they were trying to bring home to all road users the responsibility which they have to one another.
This Bill seems to me to apply merely to one section of road users. I should like to see some sort of getting together on this between the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, and perhaps the Government. I thought from what was said when Lord Buckmaster's Bill was under consideration in your Lordships' House that something of that sort was contemplated. I thought the Ministry of Transport were going into the whole question to see whether some further amendment of our law, whether criminal or civil, could be made, but so far the matter does not seem to have got very much further. I am very much afraid of the effect of the passing of this Bill. I think the effect would be a psychological one. It would probably work in this way. The pedestrian would sally forth on to the highway and say: "Well it doesn't matter much what I do, because whatever happens I shall have no responsibility in law."
LORD DANESFORT: Would he like being killed?
EARL HOWE: I do not say he would like being killed; at the same time it must be obvious that if a man uses the highway—and we all use it on foot very often—he should have some responsibility
574
for himself and for his dependants. He must not be encouraged to say: "It does not much matter what I do. I can stroll across the street as I like." Anybody who has practical experience of modern traffic conditions knows perfectly well that much recklessness is displayed by a very large percentage of pedestrians. In fact the amount of recklessness is really appalling. One has only to go through the streets to see that. Crossing places are provided, refuges are provided, and they are not used. There is a subway outside these buildings and it is exceptional to see anyone use it. They all go across the highway. Continually you see pedestrians emerge from behind stationary vehicles, sometimes you see them walking across the road reading newspapers, and taking no account of themselves or their dependants. The noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, permitted himself to say that the motorist did not suffer, or words that amounted to that.
LORD BUCKMASTER: What I said—I trust I was right—was that when a collision took place the pedestrian who was struck was knocked unconscious and the person in the car was not.
EARL HOWE: I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble and learned Lord, but there is no doubt whatever in my mind that if a motorist—an ordinary human being like every one of us, because we are all motorists nowadays—is involved in an accident which results in personal injury to another, the agony of mind he goes through transcends everything that has been said on the subject to-day. Something has been said with regard to increased insurance premiums. That is a matter for serious consideration. We must not, I think, place further restrictions on, or still further hamper, any industry in this country to-day, and before we take any such steps as would be involved in the passing of this Bill we ought to look at all its likely ramifications. We ought not to take any steps which would increase insurance premiums unless it is really necessary. Whether if this Bill goes to Committee we shall get information on that point I do not know, but it is a point which should receive attention.
Insurance companies have an arrangement between themselves—the so-called "knock for knock" agreement. That

575
means that if an insurance company had to deal with a pedestrian who happened to be insured—and I believe a certain percentage of pedestrians are insured now —because he had been concerned in an accident with a motorist, the two insurance companies would get together. It is quite an open question how much the pedestrian would get out of it. Certainly in accidents involving two motorists the "knock for knock" arrangement makes it almost impossible for responsibility to be brought home to the individual really responsible. I hope that whatever is done in this matter will not be done in a hurry. I think that some case has been made out for the Bill which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, brought before your Lordships, and I think that some case has been made out by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, for his Bill, but I do hope that we shall not legislate in haste and that we shall examine the matter from all angles and look at alternative proposals, such as examination of drivers, the arrest of cars, better provision of crossing places and subways, the better siting of refuges and so on. Those are matters perhaps hardly germane to the present discussion, but as I say I hope we shall not legislate in a hurry because we might then be led into passing a Bill which might defeat its own object.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, before this Bill passes to the Committee stage there is one small point to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord who introduced it. I imagine that the Bill has been considerably amended since it was first conceived. When I look at the marginal note to Clause 1 I find it reads "Damages recoverable in cases of bodily injury or damage to property," but there is not a word about damage to property in the Bill.
LORD DANESFORT: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to explain. The first draft of the Bill did contain something about compensation for damage to property. That was struck out of the Bill, but by an oversight the marginal note was not altered. That is how it is that those words "or damage to property" appear in the marginal note. The noble Viscount is perfectly right. They ought not to be there.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I thought there had been some slipshod drafting about it. I should like to see "damage to property" included. Why not? If a motorist kills a man's dog or his sheep or his horse, or if he knocks down his area railings or drives into a shop front, as often happens—and very often not through negligence but by reason of some other cause, skidding on the road, or the steering gear not acting, or something of that sort—why should not the owner of that dog, sheep, horse, shop front or area railing receive some compensation? I hope that when the time comes we shall alter this Bill to include these things.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, may I as one who is a motorist as well as a walker make one or two observations about this Bill When I first read this Bill I had some measure of sympathy with it, but I cannot see my way to support it to-night. Everyone regrets the toll of accidents on the roads to-day but I cannot see that there is any difference between the position now and the position when we passed the Road Traffic Bill. I cannot see what circumstance has arisen lately to justify the shifting of this burden on to the motorist. The Home Secretary in another place recently gave figures as to the number of accidents last year. I do not think they are available in printed form but they show that while there has been an increase in non-fatal accidents there has been a decrease in fatal accidents. Since the passing of the Road Traffic Act all accidents have to be reported, and I think the fact that fatal accidents show a decrease is quite gratifying.
I do not think that the Bill before us to-night can really be said to make any improvement in motor legislation. Nor can I see what act of rectitude the pedestrian has committed to make him the recipient of the honour done him by the noble Lord in introducing this Bill. It is a noteworthy fact that 76 per cent. of the accidents in the Metropolitan police area in 1930 were the direct result of the negligence of pedestrians. That relates to fatal accidents only but I do not see that that gives the pedestrian any right to claim privileges which are not given to other users of the road. Motorists have been fair game to be shot at by every-

577
body. It is not true that the motorist has no responsibility. He is covered with responsibility. He is taxed on the right hand and taxed on the left hand. He contributes millions to the Exchequer. The margin between the income and expenditure of the ordinary man is very small and as the result of this Bill is bound to be the increase of insurance premiums it will have the effect of driving off the road many poor men who are now running cars. I maintain that in many cases the person who is thus driven off the road will not be the person you want to see off the road and for that reason I say it is a bad Bill.
I can conceive a, much better Bill which would provide for examination of drivers before they are licensed. It is a horrifying thought that in all countries where there are tests for dnivers—this is about the only country left without tests for drivers—30 per cent. of those who apply for licences are rejected. It is the 30 per cent. that we want off the road and the other 70 per cent. should not be penalised because of this 30 per cent. Many of these people are dependent upon a car for a few hours healthy recreation in the country with their families. I am not a lawyer and I cannot go into legal points but after many years driving both in America and in Europe, in nearly all the countries that have been mentioned to-day, I know that in every country except this some measure of traffic responsibility rests on the pedestrian. To-day we have gone beyond the position when the man who walks along a road can consider himself a privileged person. Every person on the road to-day must consider himself a unit of traffic. The motorist is regulated by the police, he has to pay attention to street lights and to white lines, and it must be realised by the pedestrian that he also must suffer regulation. I think the time has come when this division of road users must cease. It has become almost a class war and it is wrong. We must stop the bickering between motorists and pedestrians and everybody must combine to make the roads safer and pleasanter. I cannot see that this Bill does that. It is widening the gap between motorists and pedestrians and I cannot see my way to support it to-night.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to supplement what was said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack as to the view which the Government take with regard to this matter, and more especially from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport. Before I apply myself to the provisions of the Bill perhaps I might be allowed to introduce a remark or two regarding certain matters alluded to in the course of the debate. Quite naturally a great deal of attention has been paid to the appalling number of accidents upon our roads. We at the Ministry are fully aware of the figures involved, but I would like to emphasise what has been said by Lord Mount Temple—I do not say this in any way in derogation of the Bill—that the provisions of the Bill if put into operation would in all probability have no effect at all on the number of accidents that are now occurring. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in referring to this subject, expressed his view of the effect upon it of a system of compulsory insurance, but the fact is that two years ago, when Parliament was considering this very important subject, it determined after very careful examination to introduce the provision that every motorist should be compulsorily insured and we have to view this particular measure in the light of that fact.
The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, referred to certain figures with regard to accidents. Various sets of figures have been alluded to. The noble Earl has left the House, but I think I ought to correct a misapprehension that may have been created by his having quoted those particular figures. The figures he quoted are not really a fair sample. I think he stated that only 5 per cent. of the accidents were said to be due to pedestrians. Those figures are not a fair sample because they are the result of investigations by the Ministry of Transport into certain kinds of accidents. They are not accidents for a definite period in a definite district, but investigations into accidents where suspicion exists that there may have been a mechanical defect in the vehicle or a defect of the road. I think therefore it must be acknowledged that these figures cannot be generally applied.

579
The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, referred to other figures, figures I think in the Metropolitan district, of the numbers of killed.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Not people killed, but pedestrians only.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Pedestrians who were killed. I think he said that in 76 per cent. of the cases the fault lay with the pedestrian. In commenting on that I will only say that it is extremely difficult to assess the proportion of responsibility. I do not think you can draw too definite conclusions from those figures. I only want to refer very shortly to the provisions of the Bill because the Bill has been very carefully and thoroughly discussed this afternoon, but the main object of it is, as is generally agreed, to provide that in cases of accidents on the road caused by a motorist the onus of proof should be shifted from the injured person to the driver of the motor vehicle—that is in cases where injury or death is caused and the question of compensation may arise. As a matter of fact this Bill goes a good deal further than that. As a matter of fact in practice it will leave the driver with only one line of defence and that is to prove that the accident was due solely to the negligence of the injured party. I will not go further into that although I may say a word or two about it later on in connection with another matter.
May I refer for a moment to the practice in other European countries? I think the noble Lord who introduced the Bill relied to a considerable extent upon that argument. Well, my Lords, we have made very careful inquiries the gist of which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given to the House. Though I agree that in most other European countries the general principle which is the principle involved in this Bill is accepted, I would point out once again that the application of that principle varies very considerably. As I have said, in the case of this Bill there is only one line of defence left open to the motorist. In every European country, except two I think, there are other lines of defence to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has referred. I do not wish to go into that any further. I merely referred to it again to show that the statement that the principles
580
involved in this Bill are accepted almost generally throughout other European countries perhaps requires a little qualification.
One matter has not been referred to in this House, but I think it has been at some other stage in connection with an earlier Bill the noble Lord introduced. A comparison was made, I think, with the Air Navigation Act. In the case of the Air Navigation Act it is perfectly true that the pilot of the aeroplane is held responsible for any damage he does to property or individuals as the result of any action of his. But even in that case he is in a position to refute a claim against him if he can prove contributory negligence on the part of the injured person. Reference has also been made to the Workmen's Compensation Act and the terms of compensation which exist under that Act. There, again, I do not think that we have quite a just analogy, because obviously, in the case of employers who may be called upon to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, those employers have a very special responsibility towards their workmen; and in addition to that the scale of compensation which is paid under those Acts is fixed, whereas the liability under the present Bill, if it become law, is absolutely unlimited. I think that makes a very considerable difference. Further, if a workman in a case which is brought under the Workmen's Compensation Acts wishes to obtain larger compensation than that which he is entitled to under those Acts, he must claim at Common Law in the ordinary way, and prove negligence on the part of the employer. I have referred to these matters just to show that the question is not as simple as it would appear to be on the face of it. Indeed the whole of the discussion which has taken place this afternoon does go to show that we are dealing with an extremely complicated matter which requires very careful examination, and I hope that no definite action will be taken until we are satisfied that we have examined the subject from every possible aspect and angle, and are satisfied that we are doing the right thing.
There are a number of other complications to which reference has been made. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, the Lord Chancellor, has

581
referred to the kind of question which might arise if this Bill were passed into law. We have also the question of the rates of premium which would have to be paid under the present compulsory insurance system. We have had them referred to, and, as has already been said this afternoon, although the Government have only made informal inquiries with regard to this matter, I think it is quite certain that owing to the extra liability placed upon the insurance companies as a result of this Bill, the premiums would have to be substantially increased. We have also to consider the question of a provision which has been made under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, on behalf of the hospitals. There, of course, it will have the same kind of effect. It will tend to increase the rates of premium which will have to be paid if this Bill passes into law, and there are a number of other liabilities which have to be taken into account. There is also this, I think, which has to be considered, that the standard of compensation paid in this country is probably very much higher than that which is paid in any other country in the world—in any other European country at any rate—and the value that is placed upon human life and limb is probably greater. That consideration also tends to send up the rates of premium, with an effect which we are not able to gauge at the present moment.
I have really very little further to say. May I sum up in a few words what I feel in regard to this Bill? The Government do not want to be unsympathetic at all, but I think the chief objection to the Bill at the present moment is that it really goes too far. It goes further than any analogous law in any other country in Europe, except in two small countries. I think it would, too, in practice occasionally—I do not say necessarily very often—work definite injustice upon the motorist, and I think that should be avoided if it possibly can be. At the same time I quite frankly admit that there is a great deal to be said for the principle that the onus in a case of this kind, of personal injury upon the highway, in which a motor car is involved, should be cast upon the driver—that in that case he should have to prove, in order to be relieved of liability, that he used all due diligence and care in order to avoid the accident. I must
582
admit there is a great deal to be said for that principle, and that view has been urged with great eloquence and great sincerity by a considerable number of your Lordships this evening. I think I might add that I should be right in saying that the practice of the Courts in this country, as the law stands at present, is tending more and more in this direction. As the Government do not wish to be unsympathetic, and realise that there is considerable force in what has been said by the supporters of the Bill, it is not the intention of the Government to divide against the Second Reading, but I must make it clear, in fairness to the Government, that in not dividing they must not be considered as finally committed to the main principles of the Bill.
I would only like to emphasise once again that really this matter is not a simple one. It bristles with difficulties, and every kind of consideration has to be taken into account. In fact it really requires the most careful scrutiny and examination. In view of the fact that we have had a very full and useful debate this afternoon, I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider a suggestion that I would like to make, and it is this, that if this Bill receives a Second Reading he should be prepared not to press the further stages of it during the present Session. That is only a suggestion, and I make it for two reasons in particular. In the first place, because I think it is generally admitted that owing to the state of business in another place, and other considerations, it really is quite impossible that this Bill should in any case become law during the present Session. My second reason is that I honestly believe it would be very difficult, unless we had time to make further investigations into the whole question, to deal with this subject satisfactorily and immediately in a Committee of this House. If the noble Lord accepts my suggestion, or indeed in any event, I am prepared to give him an undertaking that the Government will continue to examine the matter with the very greatest care, with a view to seeing whether in the circumstances it would be desirable in the long run to effect an alteration in the law such as is suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, while I am grateful for the sympathetic con-

583
sideration given to this Bill, both by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and by Lord Plymouth, I can only say at the present moment that I am quite prepared to give the suggestion he has just made most careful consideration. I really cannot go farther than that at the moment. But may I add this? I think there would be a certain advantage, both to the Government and to the House, in considering this Bill in Committee. There have been various suggestions made in the course of this debate which raise what are really Committee points, and if we go into Committee the House will have an opportunity of considering those points, thrashing
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PUBLIC HEALTH (CLEANSING OF SHELL-FISH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORT- GAGES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY ELECTRIFI- CATION
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will
584
them out, and really learning a good deal more about the situation than we do at this moment. I think in that way, if we have not time to get the Bill through another place, we might probably lay the foundations for another Bill next Session, founded upon greater knowledge and after fuller discussion. May I thank the noble Earl for what he has said, and say that his suggestion shall receive the fullest consideration? I will discuss the matter with him and with others.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall now be read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS.

Lansdowne, M.

Ullswater, V.

Conway of Allington, L.

Danesfort, L.[Teller.]

Denbigh, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Lucan, E.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Askwith, L.

Luke, L.

Selborne, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Monkswell, L.

Bayford, L.

Rochester, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Teynham, L.

Hood, V.

Clwyd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E.[Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Wharton, L.

Poulett, E.

Lawrence, L.

ascertain and publish full details of the cost of the electrification of the Southern Railway, both capital costs and working expenses; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a short time ago I was reading a newspaper report of the sitting of the Conference on road and rail transport. According to this report the principal subject discussed that day was the electrification of suburban railways, which it appeared to be assumed would be highly advantageous if a large traffic could be secured. I happen to have devoted a good deal of attention to this subject and the more I study it the more sceptical I become of the advantages of electrification for any kind of surface railway. I am not of course now speaking of underground lines and extremely long tunnels, where electrification has obvious advantages. I wrote to the for itself, and I suggested that be-

585
fore reporting it would be advisable to go fully into the question of the finances of electrification. I was informed in reply that the subject was not within the competence of the Conference to enquire into. Here therefore is the Conference allowing counsel to beg this exceedingly controversial question which, according to its own account, it has no power to examine.
I do not suppose that many people ever expected much from a Conference composed, with the single exception of the Chairman, of people who have been appointed judges in their own cause, but if the Conference has not even the power to enquire into the accuracy of assertions made before it it is hardly justifiable to go on spending public money on proceedings that are a pure farce. I venture to suggest to the Government that instead of allowing the Conference to grope about in the dark they should themselves take action to settle this important point. I can tell the Government that they will find it very difficult to get the figures from the Manager of the Southern Railway. One would suppose that the Royal Commission on transport or the Weir Committee on main line electrification would be in a good position to ascertain the facts. The Royal Commission stated in their Report that in view of the appointment of the Weir Committee they deliberately abstained from any serious examination of the subject and they confined themselves to quoting some highly optimistic remarks made by the Chairman of the Southern Railway which they did not attempt in any way to investigate. The Weir Committee, beyond a couple of evasive phrases of which it is impossible to make head or tail, said nothing.
It is a most extraordinary thing that the cost of electrification schemes, which was obviously the most important thing that the Weir Committee had to enquire into, has simply been slurred over. There is not in the whole Report a single definite figure. What is the explanation of the unwillingness of the Southern Railway and others to give to the public full figures relating to the cost? The inference is that, financially, electrification is a failure and that the persons responsible for it are reluctant to admit the fact. Anyhow, the question of the cost of suburban electrification is one that enters largely into the existing road-rail controversy and it is most undesirable that
586
references to it should be confined to unproved assertions. I hope the Government will do something to clear up the fog which now surrounds this question. It is impossible not to be struck by the attempt that is being made to force the country into railway electrification without any proper information as to the probable result of such a policy.
All the known facts are against electrification. The estimates for laying down the national grid have proved to be absurdly too optimistic. I think the actual costs so far are at least double the estimated costs. It is impossible to find out the costs of the electrification of any surface line apparently because they are so high that the people responsible dare not disclose them—I can think of no other reason—and, finally, we are presented with the Weir Committee's Report, which is to my mind one of the least convincing documents I have ever read. I do not think we need take seriously the statement that the Report is merely intended as a tentative suggestion. It is really a panegyric of complete railway electrification. I do not often agree with the railway companies but I am glad to see that they appear for the most part to be making a firm stand against all attempts to induce them to accept the principles of the Report. I believe that in this they are perfectly and entirely right.
I need not comment upon the wild extravagance and optimism of the financial proposals of the Report, but I should like to point out that at least one radical objection to electrification is simply not mentioned at all. The electric motor is at the present time an extremely crude and imperfect machine which in comparison with any reasonably well-balanced steam locomotive knocks the road about to such an extent as to involve a heavy extra charge for maintenance. So far from this being even mentioned the Report calmly suggests that large economies might be secured by the mass production of electric locomotives. Mass production involves standardisation. I do not pretend to be an electrical engineer, but I do know the outlines of the question of railway electrification and I have no hesitation in saying that to standardise the electric motor as it is at present would be to lay the foundations of endless troubles in the future. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked the Government a Question and I will do what I can to answer it. In the letter the noble Lord was good enough to send to the Ministry he referred—indeed he did so this afternoon—to certain statements which were reported to have been made at a Committee. I was not quite clear as to which Committee he meant but I presume he means the Committee which is presided over by Sir Arthur Salter—the Road-Rail Conference.
LORD MONKSWELL: Yes.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The noble Lord suggested that this Committee should have been empowered to deal with the particular question which he has raised this afternoon. I only want to point out that the Conference was not set up for that purpose. That Conference was set up for another purpose. It was specifically asked to deal with the question of road and rail transport of goods—goods transport in particular and not other forms of transport. Therefore I do not think that the noble Lord should be surprised that the Chairman of the Conference did not consider himself entitled to deal with the specific question of railway electrification.
The noble Lord in his question asked whether the Government would ascertain and publish full details of the cost of the electrification of the Southern Railway, both capital costs and working expenses. I can only say that according to the evidence which was given by Sir Herbert Walker to the Committee of Inquiry—this is another Committee—the Committee of Inquiry on London Coach Services, the Southern Railway had expended up to date about £10,000,000 on electrification of which sum approximately one half had been spent since 1923. The Government is not in possession of details of this expenditure and it is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by their publication even if the company were agreeable to that course. While certain items of the cost of working the electric services are shown in the company's accounts, a substantial part of such costs is included in the traffic and other general working expenses of the Southern Railway system which are not sub-divided between electric and steam
588
working. As regards the comparative cost of working steam and electric services, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that comparative estimates of the working of steam and electric services are given in the Report of the Committee on Main Line Electrification over which the noble Lord, Lord Weir, presided. The Committee reported on March 24, 1931, and their Report was published.
LORD MONKSWELL: I have got all that.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: In connection with this question I should like to emphasise this point, that it is absurd to suggest that the railway companies would be prepared at the present moment to embark on the vast capital expenditure entailed by conversion to electric working unless they were absolutely satisfied that there was a reasonable expectation of return upon that capital. One cannot really conceive of a set of people acting in any other way. Apparently the noble Lord has not a very high opinion of this Committee, but I may point out that in their Report they said:
"So far as we have been able to establish all electrification of suburban railways in this country has been successful from an economic and technical aspect, while in addition the service to the community has been substantially improved."
There are other extracts from this excellent Report which I could quote. I do not desire to weary the House, but it might be worth while to bring one or two points to the attention of your Lordships. With regard to this question of the cost of electrification comparative estimates of steam and electric working were made and they appear in that Report.
LORD MONKSWELL: Estimates, but not figures. I want figures of what actually happens, not estimates of what may happen.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Then perhaps it is not worth while going on with this question. The noble Lord stated that the Report of the Weir Committee was valueless so far as this is concerned. I, on the other hand, think a great deal of weight should be given to the views expressed by that Committee. I am not quite clear as to what other points the noble Lord would like me to deal with but I think I might point out that, with

589
regard to the general question of a comparison between the cost of operation of steam and electric haulage, the Committee state:
"One of the effects of the development of demand following on improved services has been to make it quite impossible to establish any sound comparison between the costs of operation of steam and electrical haulage on suburban lines, because in every case the adoption of electricity has vitally altered the traffic conditions and no comparison can be set up."
The Committee add:
"Where electric haulage has been adopted on suburban services, the railway companies have found themselves in the position of having a transport machine of such improved capacity as to procure very rapidly an increased revenue."
I think that is a very strong passage in the Report. The Committee go on to say with regard to the Brighton extension of the Southern Railway electrification scheme:
"We were informed that that would involve an increase of between 100 per cent. and 150 per cent. in passenger train mileage and that the scheme would be justified financially if as a result there were an increase of only seven per cent. in the passenger traffic."
Then, in their conclusion, the Committee state:
"British Railway electrification up to now has been confined to suburban lines, and the result, economic and otherwise, has been favourable."
That is a statement which I think cannot possibly be ignored, and it is a statement which, coming from a Committee such as that responsible for it, would carry considerable weight with most people in this country.
I am afraid it is not possible for me to obtain further information for the noble Lord from the figures and facts now at our disposal. The manner in which these figures are compiled is determined from time to time by the Railway Clearing House with the approval of the Minister of Transport. We can see no particular reason at present for demanding an alteration in the way in which those figures are compiled. It is not
590
possible to produce the figures asked for by the noble Lord from the statistics at our disposal in their present form. I should have been only too glad if it were possible to give the noble Lord a fuller answer, but I trust that he will be at any rate partially satisfied with what I have been able to tell him.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. To a large extent I think he and I agree and with regard to the competence of the Conference it had not occurred to me either that they would go into the question. The only reason I put down the Question was that I saw a definite report of a sitting of this Conference which apparently lasted all day and according to this report hardly any other subject was discussed except that of railway electrification. To my certain knowledge there are no definite figures of the costs of electric railways and it certainly seems to me that before we go in for electrification we must know the costs. There is the most definite conspiracy to prevent these figures being published. I hope the noble Earl will take note of that.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will take note of that.
LORD MONKSWELL: If the noble Earl will look through the Report he will see, as I have said in my opening statement, that there is not one single definite figure on which one can rely. There are estimates in plenty but estimates mean absolutely nothing. In the case of the electric grid the cost has turned out to be at least double the estimate given. I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer but I do think it would be a good thing if the Ministry of Transport would have the whole matter looked into. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.

NORTH-EASTERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  SCARBOROUGH GAS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
KENDAL CORN RENT BILL.
Committed for Tuesday next.
GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL.
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
KETTERING GAS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:

V. Hereford,

V. Mersey,

L. Redesdale,

L. Atkin (Chairman),

L. Conway of Allington:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday, the 13th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitioners referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select
Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:

M. Dufferin and Ava,

L. Mendip (V. Clifden),

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss) (Chairman),

L. Howard of Penrith,

L. Rhayader:

Agreed to; and the said lords appointed according: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 14th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heart by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

BATH GAS ORDER, 1932.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Bath Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME GAS ORDER, 1932.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE AND DERBY- SHIRE GAS ORDER, 1932.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERTFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HAILSHAM WATER) BILL. [H.L.]