Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
I was dealing with the question of the way in which the price was going to be fixed, and I was giving an example of price-fixing where it was the invariable experience that when you come to fix the prices you do not fix them upon what the most efficient producer does, but something nearer to the least efficient producer. That will undoubtedly be true in this case. If that is so by fixing a minimum price, as you are going to do under this extraordinary Clause, you are not only committed, but you are actually directed and ordered to fix a minimum price for every class of coal sold by every owner in the country. If you are going to fix the price at that which suits the least efficient mine, you ire giving a serious discouragement to efficient selling and to the amalgamation of selling organisations, and you are directly stabilising the quota of the more extensive pits at an unnecessarily high price.
There is no doubt at all that the ten dency will be to fix the minimum prices at prices that will suit the most expensive pits. If you do that you give a double advantage to those pits, and you are giving an unnatural and a thoroughly unnecessary sort of subsidy to the least economic pits. Then let me show how hopelessly inelastic is this provision. You have to fix prices for every class of coal, and in no case must the coal be sold lower than the minimum price which has been fixed. A proposal of that kind cannot be carried out without causing great inconvenience and loss to the-trade. We do not know on what principle those prices are going to be fixed. How are you going to deal with a mine which accepts a contract for 10 tons of coal and a mine which is dealing with a contract for 10,000 tons of coal? Apparently, the minimum price is fixed for a particular class of coal. A man may have a contract to deliver 10 tons or 10,000 tons of the same class of coal. Under this provision, is the man who is selling 10,000 tons of coal to be compelled to sell at the same price as the man who is selling only 10 tons? Apparently, under this Clause that man is so bound, unless you have a second series of compulsory prices based on the varying amounts sold as well as on the various classes of coal. I do not believe anybody can conduct their business under a number of restrictions of that kind. You must have elasticity which enables you to have varying prices according to the amount that is sold, and the sellers should be able to vary the price by aggregating it over a number of different classes of coal. The President of the Board of Trade knows the coal trade very well, and I am sure he will not dissent from that proposition, because he knows that where a large buyer comes into the market for a very large consignment of coal, the seller generally quotes an "all-in" price, and he may not be able to do that on one class of coal, and it would suit the pits much better that he should be able to deliver a variety of coal rather than the particular class of coal in regard to which the price has been fixed. Under this Bill the seller will not be able to do that. If a seller, in making his contract for supplying 10,000 tons of coal, wanted to mix two classes of coal, and he had given an "all-in" price, if that price was rather cheaper than the price fixed for the better class of coal, he could not make up part of his cargo out of the other class however convenient it might be, or however advantageous it might be to him in maintaining the good will of his customer, and that possibly a foreign customer. I put it to the President of the Board of Trade, with all the knowledge which he has amassed of the coal trade, does he believe that anyone can work the inelastic provision which he has put forward? I say that such a proposal is hopelessly unfair to the consumer, and I do not believe you can put in any amendment to this proposal which will protect the consumer. I know the right hon. Gentleman thinks that all the machinery he has inserted in the Bill will give effective protection, but you can only have one effective protection for the consumer, and that is to give people freedom to charge a lower price if they find that it is to their business interest. I think these people should be encouraged to compete with each other, limited though they are by the quota. But after forcing the quota upon them, do for heaven's sake let the keen selling pit give the consumer the benefit of its better organisation. You cannot protect the consumer if once you pass this provision, because you will find it unworkable. Not only will you penalise the consumer, but, at the same time, you will be penalising the efficient pits which, according to the President of the Board of Trade, you are desirous of helping under this scheme. This is the acid test, and if you leave this Clause in, you leave the consumer unprotected.6.0 p.m.
On my return from Geneva, which is associated with the cause of world peace, I find that a calm has settled down on the face of the Coal Mines Bill, and I will endeavour to act in keeping with that spirit in a necessarily brief speech on each of these Amendments. This Clause of the Bill provides for the fixing of minimum prices under the district schemes, with, in the second part of the Clause, a safeguard that these minimum prices will not be undermined by rebates or private arrangements or other devices, which could of course in practice make a considerable inroad into any minimum price regulation. The large question before the Committee, having regard to the stage of the Bill which, we have now reached, is whether any kind of minimum price provision is necessary at all. In the earlier stages of these Debates I remember the argument that, if there was a proper adjustment of standard tonnage and an appropriate quota, and if that applied to all the pits—as it would apply under this scheme—in any district, the question of price regulation might be left to take care of itself. Up to a point there is a good deal of support for an argument of that kind, but the argument is very far from being complete. If we take the case of the Westphalian Syndicate, it is true that that syndicate sells through an adjacent body, and by that device it gets price regulation, but that did not relieve the syndicate of the task of regulating output, that is to say, output or quota was bound up with minimum price. Similarly, in the case of South Wales, to take an illustration from this country, I believe that there they began with some form of simple price regulation, but they had to pass to a quota; and to take a case in the reverse direction, in the Five Counties Scheme, which was founded upon the regulation of output in terms of quota, there seems to be no doubt at all that there was a certain weakness in that scheme, owing to the fact that it has not been possible to maintain a complete minimum price control, because of those owners which remained outside the scheme. I suggest to the Committee that, even if the standard tonnage and the quota are complete, there is still a case for minimum price. It is beyond dispute, and this is really the essence of the Government's defence of this Clause, that, even where we had a complete scheme applicable to any district, with all the owners in that district included, and with the standard tonnage and quota complete, the presence of even one or two people who practised weak selling would make a very serious inroad into the success of the plan. I put that forward as a general consideration in defence of this Clause.
Moreover, there are certain facts at the moment which I think the Committee would do well to bear in mind. I am advised that, because of the weakness in foreign selling in the Durham area, there has been a further inroad upon the position of the coal industry in that district, more particularly vis-a-vis Belgium and Germany, whereas, on the other hand, where there has been a more complete regulation, as in South Wales, it has been possible to maintain the price at a somewhat better level, and thus contribute to the stability of the industry. Therefore, in view of the broad features to which I have just referred, and of the concrete illustrations of what is going on every day under existing conditions, I am satisfied that it is the duty of the Government to retain this Clause in the Bill. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has suggested that this is a problem which must have adverse reactions on the home demand. In other words, he seemed to argue that it is the home demand which is going to be penalised and to carry a great part of the contribution, while other sections of the demand will get correspondingly easier conditions. I must not go back to the decision taken by the Committee in regard to the export levy a few days ago, but I would say, on this question of minimum prices, and, indeed, all the other features in the Bill, that the condition of this industry is from many points of view hopeless unless the export trade can be substantially recovered. I do not take the view that there is going to be any generally adverse effect on the home demand. That there will be a higher price for certain classes of home demand is beyond dispute, but that is not to suggest that there is going to be an extravagant price, or anything other than what I have constantly described as an economic price within this country—that is to say, the prevention of the sale of coal at a loss. If we cannot bring that about by this scheme, it is idle to proceed with this Bill at all. There are far more safeguards than my right hon. Friend suggests. A great deal of the argument which has been led against this Bill has proceeded on the assumption that owners and the industry generally are going to force up prices to such a point as to make conditions almost impossible for the consumer. What would be the inevitable effect of any tendency of that kind? There would be an overwhelming and an irresistible demand for the repeal of this legislation. There would be a widespread encouragement of the use of all alternative forms of fuel—fuel oil and the rest; and it has been pointed out to us again and again what a large part of the Mercantile Marine has been adapted for the use of fuel oil, and how many alternative arrangements to coal have been made. All of these forces would be stimulated, and, therefore, in my judgment, the owners and the industry would be cutting their own throats if they took any step of that kind. Under this scheme, however, we provide for committees of investigation, not only nationally, but in the districts, and, if there is any abuse under a district scheme, it will be the duty of the committee to investigate it at once. I have previously indicated that, while all these complaints would not be exclusively complaints on price, they would very often be complaints on price, and this machinery comes into immediate operation. Beyond that there is the right to independent arbitration, and, if a remedy is not found, the scheme could be modified in such a way as to provide a remedy, or, in the last resort, the Board of Trade may put in a scheme of its own. AH these safeguards exist, and I suggest that they will be sufficient if there is to be any confidence in this industry at all—and I have never disguised the fact that under this Bill we must trust the industry. That is the only way in which the Bill can operate. We think that the provisions which have been made for safeguarding all legitimate interests are reasonably complete. There is not the slightest doubt that, if we took away this provision from the Bill, it would be open to any class of weak sellers which could survive, and, in my judgment, would survive, even under the complete quota regulation, to do a great deal in an individual district, and it might be in a number of districts, to undermine the whole plan, which is a plan not for maintaining excessive prices, but for safeguarding the sale of coal at an economic level. If that step were taken, it would be just as well to abandon the Bill altogether. For these reasons it would not be wise for the Committee and the Government to accept this Amendment, and it will be our duty to resist it if it is pressed to a Division.I live in constant admiration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He is, without exception, the most lucid speaker that we have in the House, and from time to time I have paid a tribute to him for the clear way in which he has put forward his argument. I confess, however, that I have never known him so halting as this afternoon. That very logical faculty which enables him to put before the House so clear an account of what he is trying to commend to it, involves that he himself must be one of the first to see the pitfalls of his own argument, and to me it was quite obvious that he was thoroughly aware of the great chasms that were in front of him as he proceeded. Let us look for a moment at the argument which he has presented. By way of a preliminary, I would point out to the Committee that, when you give, in addition to the right to fix a quota, the privilege also of fixing prices, you are giving a double defence. In the ordinary way, a business man is quite content if he can fix the amount of production according to the amount of the demand, because the old doctrine of economics always applies, that, if the demand exceeds the supply, you will certainly get a good price, because no one will be compelled to work for anything less than an economic price. It is when you get a surplus of supply over demand that you have that competition which induces some people to sell, occasionally, at less than an economic price. But if your supply is only equal to the demand—and that is the condition which is being created by this Bill—there is absolutely no need whatsoever to fix a minimum price, and to do it by an Act of Parliament in such circumstances is something that has never been seen in any country in the world.
What are the excuses which the right hon. Gentleman is presenting? He has given two illustrations. One is that of the Five Counties Scheme, where the weakness of the situation was that there was no compulsion upon all the coal-masters to come into the group, and there was no quota of production for the whole district, so that a variety of people stood out, amongst them some of the Friends of right hon. Gentlemen on the bench below the Gangway, who induced them to see the weakness of this scheme, and who were largely responsible for the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), when he addressed the House upon the iniquity of any price-fixing system at all. You have undoubtedly, in these circumstances, what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade described as weak sellers. Because they were outside the scheme, and nothing could compel them to come in, they took advantage of the fact that there was a certain group which had agreed to keep up prices, and they came in and undersold them. In such circumstances, of course, you have weak sellers, and you require the fixation of prices. But when the Government compels everyone to come into the group, and fixes the quota for the whole group, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for fixing a price, because weak sellers are entirely done away with. The production of a district is fixed only at the amount of the demand. Who is the fool that will come in and sell at an uneconomic price in such circumstances? Where are you going to find weak sellers when they have been eliminated by a system of quota? What is being done is to put a power into the hands of a group who may undoubtedly abuse it very severely. My right hon. Friend's other illustration was that of South Wales. There there was a voluntary scheme, but no quota, and no power to fix a quota. It is useless to try to keep up prices if production is unlimited, because, immediately the coal is produced, the people who have produced it must find a market for it. Everyone is competing against everyone else, and an attempt to keep up prices is useless. Neither of these cases is at all an illustration for my right hon. Friend's argument. Let us see what is going to happen. His argument, as I have already pointed out, is as to the danger of the weak seller bringing down his scheme, but everyone who contemplates the situation that is going to arise knows that there are going to be no weak sellers against whom protection is required. The situation is going to be settled by the Government under the scheme. But, says my right hon. Friend, look at the safeguards. How is the position being safeguarded? I agree that you can, by the system which has been adopted in the Bill, if the abuse becomes of a very inordinate character, take measures under the Bill to have that abuse destroyed, although that is going to take a considerable time, and it will be necessary to go through a very large number of processes to accomplish it. But in the meantime people who may be hunting for markets may be very severely caught, and may lose the opportunity of making their contracts while all this long process is being gone through of inquiry in the districts, by the Consumers' Council, and ultimately by the Board of Trade. How long is that going to take, and what is the consumer going to do in the meantime? That is not really the kind of circumstance that I fear; I do not think that the coalmasters are going to be such fools as violently to abuse the position. What they will do will be to make their increases such as will make attack upon them very difficult, but still such as to be sufficient to affect the market, and undoubtedly to affect injuriously the position of those who, upon very narrow margins, are attempting to make contracts the basis of the price of which is the coal that they have to purchase. This question of the price of coal runs through the whole gamut of their trades—cotton, wool, linen, steel, and so on. They are working on a very small margin, and an increase in the price of their coal is going to make the difference between getting a contract and not getting it in these other trades. I nave not the slightest doubt that these increases of price which the right hon. Gentleman says are inevitable, and which be intends to produce by his Bill—for it is because he regards coal as a sweated industry that he is taking these measures in its favour—I have not the slightest doubt that this increase in prices must be in the home market, because you cannot increase prices in the export market, where you are in competition with other countries. What is going to happen to all these consumers' prices for the coal which is really the food of their industries, when these prices are increased by a figure which they cannot violently attack upon the economic statistics of the coal trade, and yet which makes all the difference in their contracts? I venture to say to this Committee that, when you gave to the coalmasters the power to fix the quota, you gave all that was economically necessary, if even that is necessary; but to fortify this extraordinary power is more than I can imagine any Legislature in its senses agreeing to. I am sure that my right hon. Friend only succumbed to it under some extraordinary pressure, but why the Liberal party should have chosen this, of all occasions, to desert from their attitude of opposition is almost impos- sible to imagine by anyone who recalls the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen on this topic. Was ever a proposal so scornfully torn to tatters as he did with this proposal of fixing prices? It seems unconscionable that he should run away to-day from the attack which he so strongly made in favour of the consumers of this, country. Moreover, the Liberals will not even acknowledge the position. They have to find an excuse if they are not to be branded before the country as people who are in favour of dear coal; and, accordingly, they blame the condition of the Naval Conference for the fugitive retreat which they have been making. It was not the Naval Conference; it was another conference at a luncheon that took place the other day. It is unimaginable that that luncheon was arranged while the danger of this sword of Damocles was held over the head of the Government; there was some arrangement about which we have still to learn before this matter is cleared up, although it takes some of the sting out of the Division Lobbies to-night. We, at least, are here to maintain what we believe to be right in this matter, and not what we believe to be expedient, and I, for my part, cannot conceive that even the Ministers who present this Clause for our acceptance can possibly believe that it ought to be commended to the country.I want to reinforce my right hon. Friend's arguments by pointing out some of the grave practical difficulties of fixing minimum prices, as we have to do under this Clause for every class of coal. That involves the classification of every class of coal raised in the country. When coal comes out of the mine it passes over the screens. It is sized into six, seven or eight different sizes. Many of those sizes are then sent on to the washery or to the dry cleaner. Coal is sold dry or it is sold washed. Many of those sizes, after they have been washed, are mixed, and in that way you have one colliery producing 15 or 16 and up to 20 different grades of coal. As between colliery and colliery there are vast differences in the grades of coal produced from identical seams. I could give an example of coal raised at two adjacent pits from the same seam. At one colliery the coal has always com- manded a price of 4s. a ton more than the same coal from the same seam at the adjacent colliery. I do not want to throw too much light upon the secrets of the coal trade, but your classes of coal are not fixed things. They vary according to the state of trade. When trade is good, you can sell your coal very much easier than when trade is bad, and you can sell your washed coal with a higher percentage of dirt and ash in it when trade is good than when trade is bad.
When you have sold washed and graded coal with more ash or dirt in it than it ought to contain, you get a complaint. You send your agent to meet the buyer. You agree, possibly, that the coal was below specification and you are threatened with an action for breach of warranty. You make a reduction in the price to meet that complaint. Under this Bill no owner will be free to make a reduction to meet a complaint of that sort. He would be infringing the Statute and laying himself open to a fine. What has been found about selling coal with fixed prices is that you cannot classify it thoroughly according to scientific, calorific analysis. All that has been done, or ever will be attempted, is to classify your coal according to its destination. That seems to me to be totally unfair. You say to your buyer, "Because you are a public utility company, because you are gas or electricity, you will have to pay a certain price," but the industrial user buying his coal, turning it into electric power or gas, for exactly the same purposes, because he is not a public utility company, will get his coal at a different rate. Our experience has been in the Five Counties Scheme that output regulation is good for the industry and for the consumer as well. Output regulation has succeeded in doing four things. It gives regularity of work, and regularity is good for every human and inhuman organism. It has concentrated production at the better pits. The pits that have been closed have been preserved as a national asset and not abandoned and thrown away. The day will come when they will be required again. I look forward to a gradual re-expansion of the British coal trade. If you are going to have pits closed and abandoned, pits in many cases partly developed, you are throwing away a great national asset, because no mining engineer is ever going to re-open a col- liery that has been abandoned for any length of time. The big thing that regulation of output has succeeded in doing is reducing the cost of production. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has explained this afternoon that he attacked the quota because he thought it would increase the cost of production. In the Midlands you have had regulation of output working for over two years. The quarterly summaries published by the Mines Department show clearly what the effect of regulation has been upon the cost of production. There are four great districts where there has been no alteration in wages in the last 2½ years—Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales and Scotland. If you look at the cost of production in the last quarter before the Five Counties Scheme operated, the March quarter of 1928, and then at the last quarter available to-day, the September quarter of 1929, you will find that the fall in the regulated districts of Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire has been 5d. and 7d. per ton, and the fall in the unregulated districts, South Wales and Scotland, has been, respectively, only 4d. and 2d. Fixation of prices, on the other hand, to my mind has no saving grace at all. An increase in the all-round price is going to help to keep alive the pits which at present are economic, and some of which are inefficient. The only necessity for fixation of price is to finance the shorter hours that are being introduced under the Bill. We can quite understand and sympathise with the very grave dilemma in which hon. Members below the Gangway have placed themselves in this matter. They refused to support the proposal we put forward for the spreadover of the hours, a proposal which would have made unnecessary any rise in the price of coal. They have, therefore, supported something which makes necessary a rise in the price of coal. Cab drivers have some ugly words for people who hire a taxi and refuse to pay the fare. The other side of the dilemma is this. For many years the consumer has been the best friend of the Liberal party. Many a good proposal advocated by hon. Members on this side of the House has been defeated by the cry of "cost you more." The poor old war horse upon which the Liberal party has ridden to so many victories is going to be exported for slaughter. It is a very extraordinary thing to me that the Liberal party should have wasted so much of their breath in criticising and attacking the one thing it wants, the quota system, whilst leaving the consumer unprotected in the one dear coal Sub-section in this dear coal Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said on the Second Reading:He went on to speak of the consumers of domestic coal,"The Government have chosen that crude burdensome method, easy but pernicious, of merely putting up prices."
There they are! They have been completely thrown over. Now I come to what I consider the most vicious and dangerous part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He knows the system of wage ascertainment in the industry. If the price of coal at the pit is 14s. a ton, you first of all take off costs other than wages. Those costs are usually about 4s, a ton. That leaves you 10s. to divide between the owners and the men. Under the system obtaining, 85 per cent. of that—8s. 6d.—goes to the miners and is. 6d. to the owners. The pressure to increase the price of coal is not going to come so much from the owners as from the Miners' Federation, because out of every half-crown by which the price is increased, 2s. 2d. is going into the wages of the men and only 4d. into the pockets of the coal-owner. That is what I fear most under the Bill. There is no protection for the consumer other than the coalowner himself. In Germany, where they have compulsory fixation of prices, they have a National Coal Council, consisting of 50 per cent. representatives of the mining industry, men and owners, and 50 per cent. representative of the public and of Government Departments. When the men approach the owners for an increase of wages, and point out that all they have to do to meet the increase is to put up the price, the owners can say, "We will ask the National Coal Council to increase the price." They go to the Council and the increase is rejected. They can then go back to the men and say, "We have done our best to secure this but we have failed." What is going to happen under this Bill? The owners have no buffer of any sort. They know full well that the public are sick and tired of disputes in the mining industry and they will be tempted to take the easy course of putting up the price of coal. To my mind this is almost the worst proposal in the Bill. It is a real danger to the public. There is a real danger of infinitely dearer coal for every consumer of this valuable commodity."the most defenceless of all God's creatures against a monopoly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1677, Vol. 233.]
My hon. Friend represents a district which sometimes comes into competition with mine, and I cannot accept entirely as gospel what he has said about the merits of regularising coal output. He said that costs in Yorkshire and the other districts have come down more than in Scotland and elsewhere. But I think there is far more room for costs to come down in Yorkshire than in Scotland, Northumberland or the other districts. I want to pass on to what the President of the Board of Trade said because, he suggested that, owing to congestion on the Continent, trade with Durham was going down. It is true that the trade of Durham is not so good as it was. It is true that there is congestion on the Continent, but the real reason is because this Bill was introduced. There are not the number of demands coming from Scandinavia as have been coming in the past. They are waiting on that side until they can get coal which has been made artificially cheaper to them and dearer to us. That is the reason that trade in Durham and some of these counties is slacking off at the present moment. This part of the Bill is one of the reasons why the exporting districts are almost unanimously against the Bill. Ninety per cent. of our export trade is against the Bill and against this particular part of the Bill, because a minimum price cannot do any good to the export trade and is bound to do harm. In my opinion, it will do harm to miners' wages as well.
I want to call the attention of the Committee to what really happens when you are selling coal. A colliery perhaps at one period of the year secures contracts to enable it to carry on for a considerable time, and then comes a period when additional contracts cannot be obtained. There is an interval. It goes into the market until it can get another long contract and becomes a weak seller and cuts the price to a certain extent. Unless it does so the pit may grow idle and go on short time for a certain period and the men lose work. If a pit can quote a lower price for a short period and lose a certain amount per ton, that system of competition, although it creates a weak seller at the moment, is a great safeguard to the wages of the men. I will give another illustration concerning what happens when a contract has been obtained to send coal across the North Sea to Scandinavia. The coal has been obtained at the colliery, but there is a delay in regard to the shipping, and the colliery has either to sell that coal or else it has to stop work. We cannot store coal in this country as they do in Westphalia. Our coal is not of the same kind. Our gas coal, for instance, when once it is on the top, deteriorates. The only way of storing coal is by putting it into coal wagons, and that becomes an expensive job after a short time. Therefore, when an accident of this kind occurs and the ship is delayed, the coal master is bound to go into the market and accept an order for coal at a very low price so as to enable him to keep his colliery running. This Bill fixes prices so near the economic market price that you will not be able to cut prices in that way, and the pits will have to go short of orders and the men will have to work short time. For these reasons, our export trade is entirely against this proposal of fixing prices. They believe that, with the intricacies and difficulties of the export trade and the necessity for taking quick action, the proposal is inevitably going to do far more harm than good. My hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) made reference to the difficulty of classifying coal and fixing prices for every single kind of coal. He mentioned the varieties and sizes of coal at one colliery alone. You have not only to consider the various grades of coal, but also the various qualities of coal. You have gas coal, steam coal and coking coal; all these are divided into various classes, and, when you start to subdivide them into sizes, you are going to get such a long list of mixed prices that the whole thing will become impracticable. A fixed price of this kind is not necessarily going to help coal masters when they start to sell coal against competitors abroad, seeing that our lowest price is fixed too low. We know exactly what the price is for each particular quality of our export coal. Our competitors will be sure to undercut us and go a little lower and so obtain orders in consequence. For these reasons, the exporting districts are very much against this Bill.As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) has said, this Subsection is the acid test of the real intention of the Measure. In fact, we have reached the most important obstacle in the grand nationalisation of coal race in which the President of the Board of Trade has been engaged for some time. He has flown some of his fences in the beet possible style. He has pecked here and there but recovered, he has gone a "purler" over Becher's Brook and been able to remount with the assistance of his trainer the Prime Minister, and now as he is coming to the Canal turn the spectators are holding each other's breath to see what is going to happen, all except the late occupants of the Liberal Benches who are so breathless over their audacity in having voted against the President of the Board of Trade on a previous Amendment that they have no breath left to hold. If we did not see this in black and white before our eyes, it would be incredible that a Socialist Government should bring forward a Bill containing a provision of this sort. One could have understood it if the President had presented to us a scheme which, under some of these Clauses was going to break up rings and trusts in the interests of the consumers and set up a maximum price above which it was not to be permissible to sell one of the necessities of life to the people of this country. Here we are facing this Gilbertian state of affairs, that, instead of breaking up trusts and combines and rings, we are actually incorporating them in the Bill, and the President of the Board of Trade and his myrmidons are going out into the districts to the owners to compel them to come in and furnish the wedding of the State and the coal industry.
Instead of protecting the consumers of the country with regard to the fixing of prices above which they must not sell, the Government are fixing in this Clause which we seek to delete, a price below which they must not go. I cannot understand why a Government which claims to have business-like methods, and claims, above all, to represent the interests of the consumers and the workers of the country, should bring forward a suggestion of this kind. When history is written, it will be found that this was not a question of applying the experiences of the past to a solution of the problems of the present, but what I can only call the optimistic ruminations of exuberant youth who thought that industrial problems only began when they were old enough to take an interest in public life. They suggest that the solution of the problem in the coal industry is to fix minimum prices below which no one is to be allowed to obtain coal, and they give an indication that there are only, apparently, two prices which need consideration. It is quite true that by regulations with regard to hours, wages, and conditions of safety, and with regard to welfare, pithead baths and so forth, you can by statute, frequently regulate your pithead cost. That is one price which you can fix. You can, as has been tried in this Clause, fix prices at which yon will sell, but there is a third price which the President of the Board of Trade seems to have lost sight of, and that is the price which the purchaser in the world market is willing to pay. That is the serious thing which is contained here. We poor consumers in this country have to carry the coal baby which is being handed to us under this Sub-section; but, when it comes to a question of what is the real primary market of our coal industry—the export market—it is no use fixing minimum prices if the foreign purchaser is not going to pay the price which is fixed. You are immediately faced with a situation where you have a Socialist President of the Board of Trade who is actually going to bring into being the old problem of carrying coal to Newcastle because the minimum price of home-produced coal is such that the foreigner can undercut him and can import coal from abroad at a much cheaper rate. This is the kind of possibility in fixing a minimum price. Only the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down here and in a spirit of childish petulance charged a section of the community with hatching a conspiracy against him to kill commerce. I wonder what the Lord Privy Seal had to say about that matter. He has not lost opportunities, both inside this House and outside, of paying tribute to the way in which the bankers and other industrial leaders have helped him in the stupendous task which he is trying to carry out. We might talk about a conspiracy to destroy confidence by bringing forward a Clause like this. If there are any conspirators at work in this matter, they are sitting on the front bench opposite. These are the people who are hatching this gunpowder plot. The arch conspirators, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are like a pair of Guy Fawkes who come and threaten us with this Sub-section.On a point of Order. Is the speech to which we have listened anywhere within 1,000 miles of the Amendment?
I am following the hon. and gallant Member very closely, and, when he is out of order, I shall rule him out of order.
I am sure you are following me as closely as I am following the Rules of Order. It is unfortunate that the custom has died out of making classical quotations from Latin and Greek writers in this House. That is not because hon. Members are not familiar with the great writers of Latin and Greek, but because that familiarity is regarded with a kind of contempt. I will, however, venture a quotation which has not the same familiarity. It is a Chinese proverb. I would not dare to quote it in the original, though I might if I were unduly pressed. The proverb is:
Or, as St. Paul would say, "Avoid every appearance of evil." The right hon. Gentleman has not only failed to avoid the appearance of evil, but he has failed to avoid evil itself in this extremely evil Sub-section. I ask him to consider this shrewd Chinese proverb and to apply it to this Measure. [Interruption.] I often feel that when a Scotsman quotes Burns to me, I want him to translate it into English."Don't tie your shoelaces in your neighs hour's cucumber field, and don't scratch your head under your neighbour's apple tree."
Translate it into Chinese.
I am certain that I should be out of order. This is the most dangerous provision in the Bill. It is the coping-stone of all the menaces in it against the welfare of the people of this country, and it is astonishing that hon. Members below the Gangway, realising that fact, have failed to put their real convictions into operation. They are postponing action. What is in store for the President of the Board of Trade at a later stage I do not know, but if the gods are good to him and he gets this Measure on the Statute Book it will be the writing on the wall for the Labour party; they will be weighed in the balances and found wanting in their responsibility to the people who sent them here and in common honesty to the electors who were so foolish as to believe what they said.
I have tried to discover the point the hon. and gallant Member is making and I think he is getting far beyond the Amendment.
I am very sorry. My anxiety in denouncing this vicious provision has led me to denounce the vicious party who have fathered it. I trust that we are going in our full strength into the Lobby against this proposal and show that we realise its implications and do not seek to be in any way identified with a Bill which has for one of its provisions such a thoroughly dangerous and vicious proposal as this.
I want to put the point of view, in respect of this provision, of the class of consumer I have the honour to represent—the fishermen. I am surprised that hon. Members of the Liberal party who have professed from time to time to be interested in the welfare of fishermen have not put in a word of protest against this particular proposal. What will be the position of the trawling industry if this is accepted? Their experience under the Five Counties Scheme is that they have had to pay more for their coal, and that those who participate in that scheme, the coalowners, have been able to give a rebate of 3s. per ton on export coal which places foreign trawlers in a far better position than our own fishermen. Under that scheme they have the option of buying coal in an alternative market, in Blythe or in Scotland, but once this Bill is on the Statute Book they will have no alternative market. The, reason why the fishermen hear the result of such a proposal is this:
I have had some calculations made as to what an increase of 1s. per ton would mean on the earnings of the men on fishing boats. To a vessel which sails into the Icelandish waters to fish it will make a difference of £150 in the earnings for the year. The skipper will be £14 4s. 9d. out of pocket if there is a 1s. increase per ton on coal, the mate £10 7s. 2d., with a proportionate sum for each member of the crew. If you take the Scottish fishing boats into account, where the system of sharing is somewhat different, a 1s. increase in the price of coal will make a tremendous difference and if it happens, as it may, that there is a larger increase, it will be almost impossible to make the industry pay. We have been told by hon. Members who represent mining districts that the sole object of the Bill and this provision is to increase the price of coal; and we are bound to view it from the consumers' point of view. I protest on behalf of the fishermen of this country and I hope that some Liberal Members, as a sort of death-bed repentance will remember the promises they have made to their fishermen constituents and go with us into the Lobby against this proposal.Divide!
I want to say a few words from an altogether different point of view. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has just spoken from the standpoint of the fishermen. They are supposed to be arrayed against the miners—a case of divide and govern. Get the fishermen up against the miners—
Not a bit of it.
That is the argument.
On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in charging me with making a statement which I have not made, and with charging the fishermen I represent with something that they do not intend to do at all? All they are asking for is a fair and square deal.
That is not a point of Order. That is a question of different points of view.
I desire to speak from the consumers point of view. The workers in the East End of London want to know why they have to pay 2s. 7d. per cwt. for their coal. They want to know how much the miners get out of that 2s. 7d. [Interruption.] So far as we are concerned we have no objection to the miners getting bettor conditions and we are willing to back them all the way through. But the workers in the East End of London cannot understand why there is all this talk about the price of coal by hon. Members opposite who have only just become our pals. The consumer is, they say, their only interest. Who are the consumers? The producers form 80 per cent. of the population, and they are consumers as well as producers. Why cannot we study the consumer and producer together. You cannot separate the producer and the consumer. People, it is said, must have cheap coal. Later on it will be cheap beer, in the interests of the consumers. Really it is not in the interests of the people who use the coal or drink the beer but in the interests of the people who make a profit out of both. Our export trade is to be this and that. The other day I listened to the Debate on a Vote of Censure when we were told that in order to get trade we should have to have protection—
The hon. Member is not entitled to raise that Debate on this occasion.
It is only as an illustration; it is not an argument. I was trying to point out that the argument then was that we should build up a barrier against foreign countries in our own markets. Now we are arguing that we must not do the same as foreigners. They are giving subsidies to their coal trade and organising their internal markets, while underselling us in the other markets. Yet, when we say that something similar must be done we are told that we must do nothing of the kind. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have Free Trade and Protection. This Bill does not go the way we in the East End of London should like it to go by a long way. I should like to see the day when the land, the mines, and the minerals of the country are national property. This Bill is a compromise, and should be accepted as such. We shall not go whole heartedly into the Lobby in support of it, only half heartedly, and with the hope that some
Division No. 228.]
| AYES.
| [6.58 p.m.
|
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Logan, David Gilbert |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Freeman, Peter | Longbottom, A. W. |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Longden, F. |
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gibbins, Joseph | Lowth, Thomas |
Alpass, J. H. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Lunn, William |
Ammon, Charles George | Gill, T. H. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
Angell, Norman | Gillett, George M. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
Arnott, John | Gossling, A. G. | Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Gould, F. | McElwee, A. |
Ayles, Walter | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McEntee, V. L. |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mackinder, W. |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | McKinlay, A. |
Barnes, Alfred John | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
Barr, James | Groves, Thomas E. | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
Batey, Joseph | Grundy, Thomas W. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Mansfield, W. |
Bellamy, Albert | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | March, S. |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth. C.) | Marcus, M. |
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Markham, S. F. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Hardie, George D. | Marley, J. |
Benson, G. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Marshall, Fred |
Bantham, Dr. Ethel | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mathers, George |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Haycock, A. W. | Matters, L. W. |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hayday, Arthur | Maxton, James |
Bowen, J. W. | Hayes, John Henry | Melville, Sir James |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Messer, Fred |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Middleton, G. |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mills, J. E. |
Bromfield, William | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Milner, J. |
Bromley, J. | Harriotts, J. | Montague, Frederick |
Brooke, W. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
Brown, C W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Money, Ralph |
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hoffman, P. C. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Hollins, A. | Mort, D. L. |
Buchanan, G. | Hopkin, Daniel | Moses, J. J. H. |
Burgess, F. G. | Horrabin, J. F. | Mosloy, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
Buxton, C R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) |
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Isaacs, George | Muff, G. |
Calne, Derwent Hall- | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Muggeridge, H. T. |
Cameron, A. G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Murnin, Hugh |
Cape, Thomas | Johnston, Thomas | Naylor, T. E. |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
Charieton, H. C. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
Chater, Daniel | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
Church, Major A. G. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Palin, John Henry |
Clarke, J. S. | Keily, W. T. | Paling, Wilfrid |
Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, Thomas | Palmer, E. T. |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kinley, J. | Perry, S. F. |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Knight, Holford | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
Compton, Joseph | Lang, Gordon | Phillips, Dr. Marlon |
Cove, William G. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Picton-Turbervill, Edith |
Daggar, George | Lathan, G. | Pole, Major D. G. |
Dallas, George | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Potts, John S. |
Dalton, Hugh | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Price, M. P. |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawrence, Susan | Quibell, D. J. K. |
Day, Harry | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lawson, John James | Raynes, W. R. |
Dickson, T. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Richards, R. |
Dukes, C. | Leach, W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Duncan, Charles | Lee, Frank (Derby. N. E.) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
Ede, James Chuter | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
Edge, Sir William | Lees, J. | Ritson, J. |
Edmunds, J. E. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lindley, Fred W. | Romeril, H. G. |
Egan, W. H. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
day we shall have a Labour Government in power not in office who will be able to carry out the policy of national ownership of all the things that are necessary for the people of this country.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 229.
Rowson, Guy | Snell, Harry | Wallhead, Richard C. |
Salter, Dr. Alfred | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Watkins, F. C. |
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Sorensen, R. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
Sanders, W. S. | Stamford, Thomas W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
Sandham, E. | Stephen, Campbell | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
Sawyer, G. F. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wellock, Wilfred |
Scrymgeour, E. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Scurr, John | Strauss, G. R. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Sexton, James | Sullivan, J. | West, F. R. |
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Sutton, J. E. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Sherwood, G. H. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Shield, George William | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
Shillaker, J. F. | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Shinwell, E. | Tillett, Ben | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Simmons, C. J. | Toole, Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Sinkinton, George | Tout, W. J. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Sitch, Charles H. | Townend, A. E. | Wise, E. F. |
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Wright, W. (Ruthergten) |
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Turner, B. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Vaughan, D. J. | |
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) | Viant, S. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Walkden, A. G. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
Smith, Toms (Pontefract) | Walker, J. | |
Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Wallace, H. W. |
NOES.
| ||
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Colville, Major D. J. | Haslam, Henry C. |
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
Albery, Irving James | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
Atholl, Duchess of | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
Atkinson, C. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hurd, Percy A. |
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Hurst, Sir Gerald S. |
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Iveagh, Countess of |
Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) |
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
Beaumont, M. W. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. |
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Dixey, A. C. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
Berry, Sir George | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Lane, Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) |
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Edmondson, Major A J. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
Bird, Ernest Roy | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
Boothby, R. J. G. | England, Colonel A. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) |
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) | Liewellin, Major J. J. |
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Everard, W. Lindsay | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey |
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
Boyce, H. L. | Ferguson, Sir John | Lymington, Viscount |
Bracken, B. | Fermoy, Lord | McConnell, Sir Joseph |
Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Fielden, E. B. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
Brass, Captain Sir William | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Macquisten, F. A. |
Briscoe, Richard George | Ford, Sir P. J. | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. |
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
Buchan, John | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
Buckingham, Sir H. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Marjoribanks, E. C. |
Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
Burton, Colonel H. W. | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Meller, R. J. |
Butler, R. A. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
Butt, Sir Alfred | Gower, Sir Robert | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Grace, John | Mond, Hon. Henry |
Carver, Major W. H. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland. N.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
Castle Stewart, Earl of | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) |
Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Muirhead, A. J. |
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
Chapman, Sir S. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
Christie, J. A. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'l'd) |
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert |
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hammersley, S. S. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | O'Neill, Sir H. |
Colfox Major William Philip | Hartington, Marquess of | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
Peake, Capt. Osbert | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
Penny, Sir George | Savery, S. S. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
Pilditch, Sir Philip | Skelton, A N. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
Power, Sir John Cecil | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
Pownall, Sir Assheton | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
Preston, Sir Walter Ruebon. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
Purbrick, R. | Smithers, Waldron | Wells, Sydney R. |
Ramsbotham, H. | Somerset, Thomas | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
Rawson, Sir Cooper | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
Reid, David D. (County Down) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
Renter, John R. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Withers, Sir John James |
Reynolds, Col. Sir James | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Womersley, W. J. |
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
Ross, Major Ronald D. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. | Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) |
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thomson, Sir F. | |
Salmon, Major I. | Tinne, J. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Todd, Capt. A. J. | Captain Wallace and the Marquess of Titchfield. |
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Train, J. | |
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
We have now decided that the coal-owners are to have the power not merely to have a quota, but to fix the price without any direction being given so far as to the terms on which that price has to be fixed. I submit to the Committee that, having passed this provision giving a price-fixing right to coalowners, it is absolutely essential that we should put in some directions as to the conditions to which they are to have regard in fixing the price. Otherwise, it is a plain invitation to fix the price as high as they think they can get. Now that you have put them into a compulsory price ring from which they cannot escape except under penalties and are forcing them to fix prices, the least the President of the Board of Trade can do is to give some directions as to how this price ring is to operate. I submit that the reasonable provision to put in is that the district board, in fixing prices, should have regard, firstly, to the prices which have been paid during recent months, secondly, to the average profits which have been made in the district—on that, there is the periodical ascertainment—and, thirdly, to the economies in the cost of production or the methods of distribution which might reasonably be expected from an efficient conduct of this business. We are asking very little in asking for those three things. The first two are obvious. As to the third, we are told that the whole object of this Bill is to make the industry more efficient—though I do not believe it will have that effect. If that is the object, then let us put in, as a direction to the people who are fixing the prices, that they must take into consideration the economies that can be looked for if the industry is reorganised under this Bill. Those considerations ought to be there when the district board fixes prices and also when there is an appeal. If you put in no provision at all and people complain of the price, they have a right to go to arbitration or to the district committee which the President of the Board of Trade sets up in the next Clause. Unless you put in a general rule by which the tribunal is to be bound in fixing prices, the considerations to which they are to have regard, how will your appeal tribunal or your arbitral tribunal decide whether the price is reasonable or unreasonable? There is no test of reasonableness. The coalowner will say, "Under the Statute I am told to fix a price; I fixed a price to give myself a reasonable return and to pay wages. There is nothing else in the Bill. How can you convict me of fixing an unreason- able price when there is no test?" What are the conditions which the President of the Board of Trade thinks the district board will be bound to have regard to in fixing the prices and what are the conditions which the court of appeal will have regard to? If he does not put in those provisions or some similar provisions, the district board will be free to do as they like and the appeal will be completely useless."Provided that in the determination of such price the following matters shall be taken into consideration, namely:—(a) the price or prices usually paid during the previous 12 months for coal of the class concerning which the price is to be determined; (b) the rate of profit, if any, per ton made on the average of each coal mine in the district during the previous 12 months; (c) the economies in the cost of production and in the methods of distribution and sale that might reasonably be expected to he effected with regard to any class of coal by organisations for the production and sale thereof."
I am afraid it will be impossible for the Government to agree to the insertion of these words. I will try, as briefly as possible, to give the reasons for that attitude. My right hon. Friend asks me how these prices will be fixed in the different districts and what conditions will be taken into account. The Bill at the present time provides for the standard tonnage and quota, and now, in the provision which we have passed, for the fixing of minimum prices below which coal will not be sold by the owners within a district scheme. At the present time, the price schedules in these colliery districts are very elaborate affairs. These price schedules will be continued in all their elaboration and all their detail under this scheme, subject, however, to a district regulation that as regards classes of coal there will not be disposal of that coal below these minimum prices. There may be cases, and probably will be cases, in which owners are able to get a better price, and there is nothing to stop that better price being obtained, so long as the minimum price regulation is not infringed.
That will be the ordinary way, and I have not the least doubt that the executives of the owners in the different districts will take into account the kind of demand for the different classes of coal, the prices which have been ruling within recent times, and the importance of keeping the market, both at home and abroad and if possible improving the market. All these elementary conditions in daily business will be before them under the district schemes, as they are before them now for the whole industry so that in that way the minimum prices will be fixed, and there will be power to vary them from time to time, together with the safeguard to which I alluded on the previous Amendment. I quite appreciate the desire of my right hon. Friend to introduce safeguards, but I suggest that it is altogether impossible to put these words in the Bill with the idea that they will have any practical meaning at all. Let the Committee observe what we are asked to do. First of all, we are invited to take into account the prices which have been ruling during the previous 12 months for the class or classes of coal, but in practice these prices might not be any criterion at all. There might be all kinds of exceptional conditions or difficulties, which would make the enforcement of a direction of this sort—and it is no use putting it in unless it will be a direction—virtually impossible or at any rate very difficult. In the next place, it is suggested that we should take into accountThe suggestion may be that the object is to fix a minimum price in such a way as to safeguard the position of the efficient mine and thereby confer on the efficient undertaking a much larger profit. No doubt, up to a point, there is something in that argument, but this Amendment would not appreciably affect that, because if it is a profit, it can only be an average rate of profit for the previous 12 months, and in this average the inefficient and the efficient, the good and the bad pits, or the profit and loss are all mixed up so that on this point the arrangement does not appear to me to be calculated to achieve any practical result. I have always been satisfied, personally, that with the quota regulations and basic tonnage on a sound footing, and with price regulation, the tendency in this industry, if the industry itself is to survive or to regain its strength, will be inevitably in the direction of getting rid of the weaker pits, and that, of course, is strengthened by the new amalgamation proposal. In the third place, we are to take into account economies in the cost of production in determining what the minimum price is to be. Although I do not for a moment question the sincerity with which my right hon. Friend or the Opposition advance this Amendment, I am satisfied that they will at once appreciate the great difficulty of making a practical proposition of such a provision. How could we place any precise figure on the economies which may result over a period? I submit that an Amendment of this kind would not really achieve the object which my right hon. Friend has in view, and that the effective safeguards are those which I described in reply to the previous Amendment, namely, that it must be to the interests of this industry in its present condition to dispose of its coal at the most favourable price, but at an economic price. In any case, such attention will be directed to the price level as will inevitably lead to cases being put before the investigation committee. The industry does not desire that at all, and I suggest that those safeguards are reasonable. I will, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, which, even if it were inserted, could have no practical application."the rate of profit, if any, per ton made on the average of each coal mine in the district during the previous 12 months."
I hope my right hon. Friend will press this Amendment. What does the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade amount to? It amounts to this, that he will leave everything to chance, and that he will leave the safeguards to chance, because the appellant will not be able to say that any particular price is wrong. All that he can say is that he disagrees with it. There is no guidance given to those who fix the price to enable the appellant to point out whether or not it is fair. The right hon. Gentleman said that the minimum is fixed, but that he expects that in most districts the owners will be able to get something more. He contemplated that the minimum price would not be the price, but that there would be from some customers a higher price to be exacted. Take, for example, the next Amendment, which will not be called, to the effect that there should not be a differentiation in price between one customer and another. Under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme he contemplates that the owners will be able to fix one price for one type of customer and a totally different price for another type of customer, and he is not going to give the customer who has been picked out for the higher price any chance of making good his appeal by giving directions in the Bill as to how the price is to be fixed. I do not want to delay the Committee, but I hope we shall divide upon this Amendment.
I want to sound a note of very grave concern, on behalf of those great producing industries of this country which are dependent on coal, because I do not see in this Bill sufficient safeguards for them in the matter of the fixing of prices. I support the Amendment, not because I think it is perfect, but because it adds some safeguard to assist these consumers. These basic industries certainly have some rights under the Bill. They have a costly and slow procedure to go through if aggrieved before they can get justice. There is the national committee of investigation, there are the local committees of investigation, and finally there is the Board of Trade. But contracts do not wait for committees of investigation. In the iron and steel trade we have been through hard times, and our contracts abroad are snapped up quickly. While this slow machinery is being gone through, Australia, South Africa, and other Empire countries and foreign countries are buying and will buy elsewhere, and then what happens? Furnaces and mills go off, and coal pits dependent on them go off too, and then what is the good of a minimum price if a coal pit has to shut down because it cannot get its coal sold?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman very earnestly to consider what he is doing to-night. This Amendment, at any rate, does add some safeguard for these consumers. It may be said that this question of fixing prices is not a new question, because trades other than the coal trade have adopted the method before now, and particularly the iron and steel trades, which have adopted national agreements to fix prices. Yes, they have adopted national agreements, and have done so successfully, but the whole difference between those agreements and what we are asked to do here is that they were entirely voluntary, and the safeguard of the consumers lay in that fact; whereas, for the first time in the history of this or any other country that I know of, we have before us now a proposal to place the whole might of Parliament behind a ring or combine to keep prices up. It seems to me to be paradoxical that such a proposal should come from Members of the Labour party, who have gone up and down the country talking against rings and combines; and I strongly urge the Government to accept this Amendment.I expect the President of the Board of Trade is familiar with the details of the first marketing scheme, namely, that of the South Yorkshire owners, and I believe it is the case that in that scheme there were set forth four different classes of consumers according to the order in which they were to be shot at. The first on the list were the gas and electricity, municipal and public utility undertakings; then came the household and domestic users; then locomotive coal, and then coal for industrial purposes. For that very
Division No. 229.]
| AYES.
| [7.30 p.m.
|
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
Albery, Irving James | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hurd, Percy A. |
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. |
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Dairymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) |
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
Atholl, Duchess of | Davies, Dr. Vernon | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. |
Atkinson, C. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Knox, Sir Alfred |
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Dixey, A. C. | Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. |
Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) |
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) |
Berry, Sir George | England, Colonel A. | Liewellin, Major J. J. |
Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey |
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Everard, W. Lindsay | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
Bird, Ernest Roy | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | McConnell, Sir Joseph |
Boothby, R. J. G. | Ferguson, Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Fermoy, Lord | Macquisten, F. A. |
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Fielden, E. B. | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. |
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Maitland, A. (Kent. Faversham) |
Boyce, H. L. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
Bracken, B. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Marjoribanks, E. C. |
Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
Brass, Captain Sir William | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Meller, R. J. |
Briscoe, Richard George | Ganzoni, Sir John | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Mond, Hon. Henry |
Buckingham, Sir H. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Gower, Sir Robert | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) |
Burton, Colonel H. W. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
Butler, R. A. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
Butt, Sir Alfred | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
Carver, Major W. H. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Muirhead, A. J. |
Castle Stewart, Earl of | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) |
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herb, R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | O'Neill, Sir H. |
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
Chapman, Sir S. | Hammersley, S. S. | Peake, Capt. Osbert |
Christie, J. A. | Hanbury, C. | Penny, Sir George |
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hartington, Marquess of | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
Colfox, Major William Philip | Haslam, Henry C. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
Colville, Major D. J. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley) | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
Courtauld, Major J. S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Purbrick, R. |
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Ramsbotham, H. |
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
reason, I should have thought it would have been advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to accept this safeguard, which would turn the attention of the price-fixing committee to the classes of coal and the prices previously ruling in those classes, rather than to the classes of consumers of the coal in question. I suggest that in order to remove apprehensions from the classes set forth in the order of vulnerability, he should accept some sort of safeguard like this, in order that the prices ruling should be the criterion, and not the class of consumer who is going to be charged.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 274.
Remer, John R. | Smithers, Waldron | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | Somerset, Thomas | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
Reynolds, Col. Sir James | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wells, Sydney R. |
Ross, Major Ronald D. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
Salmon, Major I. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Withers, Sir John James |
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Thomson, Sir F. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Tinne, J. A. | Womersley, W. J. |
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
Savery, S S. | Todd, Capt. A. J. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Train, J. | Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) |
Skelton, A. N. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Turton, Robert Hugh | |
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
Captain Margesson. |
NOES.
| ||
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Duncan, Charles | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Ede, James Chuter | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Edmunds, J. E. | Lawrence, Susan |
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lawson, John James |
Alpass, J. H. | Egan, W. H. | Lawthor, W. (Barnard Castle) |
Ammon, Charles George | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Leach, W. |
Angell, Norman | Freeman, Peter | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
Arnott, John | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lees, J. |
Ayles, Walter | Gibbins, Joseph | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Llndley, Fred W. |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Gill, T. H. | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
Barnes, Alfred John | Gillett, George M. | Logan, David Gilbert |
Barr, James | Gossling, A. G. | Longbottom, A. W. |
Batey, Joseph | Gould, F. | Longden, F. |
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
Bellamy, Albert | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lowth, Thomas |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lunn, William |
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Groves, Thomas E. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
Benson, G. | Grundy, Thomas W. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | McElwee, A. |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | McEntee, V. L. |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Mackinder, W. |
Bowen, J. W. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | McKinlay, A. |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hardie, George D. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
Bromfield, William | Haycock, A. W. | Mansfield, W. |
Bromley, J. | Hayday, Arthur | March, S. |
Brooke, W. | Hayes, John Henry | Marcus, M. |
Brothers, M. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Markham, S. F. |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Marley, J. |
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Marshall, Fred |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mathers, George |
Buchanan, G. | Herriotts, J. | Matters, L. W. |
Burgess, F. G. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Maxton, James |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Melville, Sir James |
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Hoffman, P. C. | Messer, Fred |
Calne, Derwent Hall- | Hollins, A. | Middleton, G. |
Cameron, A. G. | Hopkin, Daniel | Mills, J. E. |
Cape, Thomas | Horrabin, J. F. | Milner, J. |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Montague, Frederick |
Charieton, H. C. | Isaacs, George | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
Chater, Daniel | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Morley, Ralph |
Church, Major A. G. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
Clarke, J. S. | Johnston, Thomas | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
Cluse, W. S. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Mort, D. L. |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Moses, J. J. H. |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
Compton, Joseph | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) |
Cove, William G. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Muff, G. |
Daggar, George | Kelly, W. T. | Muggeridge, H. T. |
Dallas, George | Kennedy, Thomas | Murnin, Hugh |
Dalton, Hugh | Kinley, J. | Naylor, T. E. |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kirkwood, D. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
Day, Harry | Knight, Holford | Noel Baker, P. J. |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lang, Gordon | Oldfleid, J. R. |
Dickson, T. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
Dukes, C. | Lathan, G | Palin, John Henry |
Paling, Wilfrid | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Townend, A. E. |
Palmer, E. T. | Shillaker, J. F. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Perry, S. F. | Shinwell, E. | Turner, B. |
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Vaughan, D. J. |
Phillips, Dr. Marlon | Simmons, C. J. | Viant, S. P. |
Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Sinkinson, George | Walkden, A. G. |
Pole, Major D. G. | Sitch, Charles H. | Walker, J. |
Potts, John S. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Wallace, H. W. |
Price, M. P. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
Quibell, D. J. K. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Watkins, F. C. |
Raynes, W. R. | Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
Richards, R. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda) |
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Wellock, Wilfred |
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Snell, Harry | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Ritson, J. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Sorensen, R. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Romeril, H. G. | Stamford, Thomas W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Stephen, Campbell | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Rowson, Guy | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
Salter, Dr. Alfred | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Strauss, G. R. | Wilson, C. K. (Sheffield, Attercllfle) |
Sanders, W. S. | Sullivan, J. | Wilton, J. (Oldham) |
Sandham, E | Sutton, J. E. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Sawyer, G. F. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Scrymgeour, E. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) | Wise, E. F. |
Scurr, John | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
Sexton, James | Thurtle, Ernest | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Tillett, Ben | |
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Tinker, John Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Sherwood, G. H. | Toole, Joseph | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. William Whiteley. |
Shield, George William | Tout, W. J |
I do not select the next two Amendments—
(1) In page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:(2) In line 15, at the end, to insert the words:"Provided that no price rates shall be fixed differentiating to the disadvantage of coal used for the production of gas and electric light or power or in relation to the supply of water in comparison with those for coal sold for any other purpose";
The following Amendment—in page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words"Provided that the owners of coalmines shall not in respect of any coal sold or supplied by them, which is used, or intended to be used, for carbonisation or gasification, show any undue preference in the matter of prices in favour of such coal as against coal of the same nature and grade supplied to gas undertakers."
anticipates Amendments later on the Order Paper."and of paying any compensation that may be due from the district fund in consequence of an order by a committee of investigation or by the judicial commissioners as hereinafter provided."
I take it that we could, if necessary, have a general discussion on this subject, and that we shall not be prejudiced?
It would be inconvenient to have a discussion on this Amendment, at this stage, anticipating the results of Amendments;, not yet reached, which provide for the setting up of judicial commissioners. If the subsequent Amendments are carried, the consequential Amendment required here could be moved on Report. The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman)—in page 7, line 24, at the end, to insert the words
is not required now. Clause 2 (3, a) has been deleted. The central scheme no longer provides for collecting levies for facilitating the sale of coal."Provided that no moneys so raised shall be applied to facilitate the sale of any coal to he exported at a less price than is charged for such class of coal for bunkering ships."
I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, to leave out from the word "by," to the word "of," in line 6, and to insert instead thereof the words
This Amendment relates to the following Amendment—in line 7, at the end, to insert the words:"an accountant authorised by the executive board for this purpose."
Clause 3 deals with the provisions of the district schemes and the powers of the executive board. One of the powers is given in paragraph (k), which provides"and for the submission by him of a report to the executive board."
The executive board is composed of coalowners, who either own coal mines in the districts or are competitors with the owners of other coal mines in the district, and it seems to me that it would not be fair that one coalowner in an official position should be able to examine the books, accounts and papers of his competitors. Although we on this side do not agree with the Bill, I think that if the Bill is to be passed it is necessary for the executive board to be provided with necessary information, and my submission is that the executive board shall employ an accountant to examine the books and papers, and make a report to them."for the production to and inspection by the executive board or any person authorised by them of books and accounts relating to any coal mine in the district;"
As this Amendment and the following Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member are very serviceable Amendments, we will accept them.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
"and for the submission by him of a report to the executive board."—[Mr. Smithers.]
I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, after the word "by," to insert the words:
It may be that the general words in the Clause were intended to cover these three subjects for arbitration; indeed, I think they were so intended, because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the course of the discussion on another Clause the other day, said that owners would be protected, that it was one of the safeguards given to a dissentient owner in that he could go to arbitration both on the quota, the price fixing, and the standard tonnage. In order that that shall be made quite clear, I am moving to insert these words in the Clause. The words in the Clause as printed simply provide that the scheme shall set up a method of arbitration for securing that any owner of a coal mine in a district who is aggrieved by the act or omission of the executive board may refer that matter to arbitration. I do not think it follows that these three particular matters would come within the general words, and, if it be the intention of the Government that arbitration should be followed in respect of these three matters, it cannot do harm to insert them in the Clause. While I am moving this Amendment, I would ask the Government to give us a little more information with regard to this arbitration. Under Clause 11 the Arbitration Act is barred. In the ordinary course, when a person aggrieved is given by Statute the right to go to arbitration, the Arbitration Act provides how the arbitrators are to be appointed and what is to happen if one of the parties claims arbitration and the other party refuses to appoint an arbitrator. It deals with obstruction of that sort, and it enables any legal question that arises in the course of arbitration to be referred to the Court, and, generally, it regularises what would otherwise be a very obscure, catch-as-catch-can sort of procedure of arbitration. For some reason, the Government have struck out this well-recognised form of arbitration and have provided that the scheme shall secure to an owner an arbitration without any of the safeguards which this House in the Act of 1889 thought its duty to insert into general arbitration matters. Now we are asked to give up a well-understood procedure and to accept a procedure which is not defined at all. It is no answer for the Government to say "the scheme is going to set up the procedure." That means that the Government do not intend to follow the provisions of the 1889 Act. If that is so, they should say now in what way they mean not to follow the 1889 Act. I do not know what the Government mean. They say at one moment, in order to pacify doubts, that they are providing a form of arbitration, and yet in their Bill they minimise that and prevent a person who has gone to arbitration from going to a Court of Law in the event of a legal question arising. It may be for that purpose that they have knocked out the 1889 Act. If so, let them say so, because some legal question may arise which an ordinary lay arbitrator cannot deal with. If the 1889 Act is incorporated, there is power then to go to the Law Courts to have that legal point settled. The only reason, it seems to me, that the Government should decide to bar this 1889 Act is in order to deprive the claimant from having his legal right of going to the Law Courts in the case of a legal point arising. I must wait and hear what the Government are going to say. If that is so, then this arbitration is a pure farce. You are putting compulsion on owners of collieries without giving them a satisfactory means of appeal; and I am not wrong in saying that the means of appeal would be unsatisfactory. Parliament considered in 1889 the form of arbitration and passed the Act of that year. They did that because they thought the provision then made was fair and would secure justice. It seems to me to be setting back the hands of the clock if the Government now are going to say that, notwithstanding the unsatisfactory nature of arbitration without the Act, we are still going to insist upon arbitration without the Act, because we are going to deprive the appellant of his right to go to law."the amounts of the standard tonnage, or the quota, or the price below which coal cannot be sold or."
The Amendment moved relates to paragraph (l) which is designed to give any owner in a district scheme agreed to within this scheme the right to go to an independent arbitration with a view to finding a remedy. I have always understood that the words "act or omission" and more particularly, for this purpose, the word "act" covers all the steps that will be taken by the referees in any district scheme that would cover the standard tonnage or quota or fixing of minimum prices. That is the plain intention of this Clause as it stands and in practice I think I can say to the Committee, with safety, that there would not be a moment's doubt. My right hon. Friend says, "If this is the case why not specify it in the Clause?" I am advised that the danger of specification is that it may make it appear that these three duties he enumerates are not duties of the executive body. We are on much safer ground in relying on the word "act," it is comprehensive.
As regards the other points, I cannot pronounce on the law regarding arbitration in the Act of 1889, but, if I may anticipate, I should like to say, regarding Clause II, that the Attorney-General will deal with any legal considerations involved. My opinion is that that is elaborate legislation, and for purposes of this kind, namely, direct business arbitration, all that machinery is not required. The machinery of the Act of 1889 for arbitration is provided for parts of this Bill, but the machinery is not required for the whole of the Bill. This Clause makes provision for the parts to which it shall apply. That is the position as I understand Clause 11 of this Bill. My hon. and learned Friend reminds me that Clause 11 is now part of the legislation which has been passed.It is true it became part of the Bill, in the face of this sort of discussion, at four minutes to Eleven, when the matter was last under discussion. I intervene for half-a-minute to obtain the assurance that when it came up for consideration on Report, we should be free to re-open it.
There is no misunderstanding on that point. That is quite true regarding the Report stage of the Bill. What I say is that for the Committee stage, in which we are now engaged, this matter is already passed.
The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the questions which I put, or else I cannot understand him. I understand that Clause 11 is part of the Bill until we get to the Report stage, but am I right that by Clause 11 it is intended to deprive those who go to arbitration under Clause 3 of the rights under the Arbitration Act of 1889? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question, or if he prefers that the Law Officer himself should answer it, then I hope the Law Officer will advise the Committee on the matter, for it is important. If he says that this is arbitration for the protection of a dissentient coalowner, we must see what value there is in the protection. There are two forms of protection: one provided by the Act, which is real protection; the other is protection by arbitration provided for in this scheme. But the right hon. Gentleman has not given any direction as to what is to be contained in the scheme. As the Bill now stands, it debars the Act of 1889, and it puts nothing in its place.
8.0 p.m. There are two different values to be placed on arbitration, dependent on whether Clause 11 excludes arbitration under the Act of 1889, or whether it does not do so. I ask, which is the case. I hope that the Law Officer will reply. May I ask this further question: This is a Clause by which it is intended to enable the coalowner—what I call the dissentient coalowner—in a district, to go to arbitration, first of all, on the question of the quota. He may say his quota is too little. What are the parties to do? First of all, each district has a district allocation, and then each pit has a quota. The allocation will, presumably, be spread among all the owners in that district. Supposing that there are 100 owners and one of them goes to arbitration after the allocation has been made—after each of the 100 has got his quota—and the arbitrator says "Your quota is too little and we are going to give you some more. You shall have 50,000 tons a year more." Where is it going to come from? It has to come from the rest, out of the quotas which have been given to the other 99. Are they to go to arbitration, and, if so, is it to be before the same arbitrator, or are you to have 99 or 100 separate arbitrations? Do not forget that this is a compulsory Bill and is quite different from a voluntary scheme. In the case of a voluntary scheme, they are working together to get the scheme through, or they can go out of the scheme, but under a compulsory Measure the dissentient will go to his advisers and say, "How can I get out of this?" and it will be pointed out that he can break the scheme down if there are to be 100 arbitrations. If his quota is increased, it has to come from somebody else and the question will arise: Are they all to be parties to the arbitration? Are they to be bound by the arbitration, or, if not, is each of them in turn to be entitled to go to arbitration because his quota has been cut down? If the executive Board have said "We think your quota is such and such a figure" there is a good prima facie case for that man to go to arbitration, for by means of further arbitration he may hope to get back some of that which is being taken away from him. Having done that as regards the quota, then comes the question of price. How is the dissentient to have his price altered? Are you to take into account his efficiency and the cost of production and the fact that if the district price were kept in his case, he might be profiteering to a large extent. Would he be entitled to say to the arbitrators, "I want to sell at a lower price. I could do better business and more business by selling at a lower price." Are the other owners of pits in the district to be able to go each to his arbitrator and say, "I want mine altered because the other fellow has had his altered." We ought to know these things. It may be that such cases would not arise, but if they did it would lead to absolute chaos, and there is nothing in the Bill which can reassure us. The right hon. Gentleman should assure us whether everybody is entitled to arbitrate on all these questions, and who are to be parties to the arbitration. Is each arbitration to breed a fresh one and is each owner in the district to be entitled to go to arbitration?As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with the arbitration point, and I propose to answer on the other matter that has been raised. I should be very sorry indeed if I thought for a moment that the results of the arbitration proposed under the Bill would be anything like the picture which has just been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. But let us be quite clear as to the arrangements in the Bill, and I think a description of those arrangements will very largely remove any doubts which remain on this matter. There is a central or national machinery for determining or ascertaining the total output of the country as a whole. That national machinery is representative of all the 21 districts, or whatever the smaller number of districts will be after they have been amalgamated under the Bill. In each district there is a district allocation, which is, of course, a portion of the aggregate national demand. Within that district allocation there is the application of a quota to each pit within that district, which quota is uniform, but may be varied from time to time, and which relates to the standard tonnage fixed for each pit within the district.
Each district can alter it?
I will come to that point in a moment. The real test, as I have always tried to explain to the Committee, is the fixing of an accurate standard tonnage for the individual pits. I have not the least doubt but that that standard tonnage will be fixed for the individual pits or undertakings in this country with relation to some recent period, and to what those undertakings have actually been doing, and will be related also, of course, to the aggregate demand and the district allocation. If the standard tonnage is fixed as I have described, and if the application of the quota is uniform to all the undertakings in that district, only varying in the way I have mentioned, therefore, the field for dispute and for arbitration about the quota is appreciably reduced, and it is much more likely indeed that there might be dispute about the standard tonnage. Then let the Committee observe that the district machinery is represenative of all the owners in that district and in most of the districts there are majorities—in some cases large majorities, in other districts email majorities, and in only one or two districts minorities—who will be concerned, but they do not apply for arbitration in the way suggested. They go forward as a representative body, of which they themselves are members, and they discuss the situation of the undertakings in the district upon which the standard tonnage has been fixed. They know the circumstances and may be trusted, if they know anything about their business, to come to a sound arrangement. Supposing some of them are aggrieved or disaffected. Then they have the right to go to an independent arbitrator, some competent person who will take into account all the factors mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and ascertained whether the quota is a fair one, having regard to the history of the undertakings. If it is not fair, then he will give a decision which is enforceable, and of course if that decision involves a higher standard tonnage it must be carried out by means of adjustment with the other undertakings in the district.
Who makes the adjustment?
The ninety-nine others are bound to accept it because they themselves are parties to the arbitration, or at all events have submitted the case from their body to this independent individual. That is the way in which it will be fixed, and I suggest it is the only way in which it ever could be fixed, and I do not anticipate anything like the wholesale disputes and arbitrations which have been visualised to-night. Do let us remember that it is to the interest of the industry to get on with the scheme when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and it is not to the interests of the industry or any other industry to spend the remainder of its days in disputes and arbitrations.
It may be convenient if I endeavour to answer the right hon. Gentleman at this stage, only prefacing my remarks with an expression of regret that I cannot answer him more fully at the moment. I think I am right in saying that the questions which he asked are not indicated in the actual Amendment, but those questions were raised quite recently, and I remember collecting a most formidable list of precedents showing the number of recent Acts which contain this very provision that the Arbitration Act of 1889 should not apply. I am afraid I have forgotten most of them for the moment, but I remember that the list started with the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920 and included a great many Acts passed during the lifetime of the last Administration. I had those facts in readiness on a former occasion, but the discussion on this point for some reason did not take place.
The actual reason was that in order to keep faith we allowed a Clause to go through, there being no suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on that occasion, and although we wished to have an explanation on this point, only three minutes were left, and it was impossible to have it.
No doubt that is the explanation. At any rate, I am sorry that I am not quite so well primed with information to-night as I was on that occasion, but I think I can advise the Committee to a certain extent. Of course it is the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Arbitration Act of 1889 sets out the general scheme under which arbitrations are to be taken, and it is part and parcel of the provisions of that Act, among other things, that if you accept arbitration you have to take the arbitrator's law as well as his facts. But in all these recent Acts to which I have referred, it has been found desirable to exclude the Arbitration Act of 1889, and probably the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many judges have expressed the view that sometimes it is unsatisfactory to combine arbitration proceedings with legal proceedings. Many proceedings start with arbitration, and then the case goes before a Judge from whose decision there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the House of Lords. This procedure has been described as combining the worst features of both law and arbitration. In these circumstances I can well understand that the Legislature in recent years has very frequently taken the course which we have adopted here, of excluding the Arbitration Act of 1889, except in so far as any of its provisions may be applied by the scheme or the rules made under this Measure. I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already said that this matter will be considered before the Report stage, and I repeat and emphasise that statement. We will look into this matter very carefully, and on Report stage I shall come prepared and armed with the authorities which I had on a previous occasion, in order that I may be able to answer the right hon. Gentleman more fully.
I am perfectly prepared to accept the Attorney-General's statement that a Clause to this effect appears in several other Acts, but that does not justify putting it into this Bill without some better reason than mere precedent. There is one feature about this Bill which we ought to bear in mind in discussing this question. There are no fewer than 21 different districts, and the Attorney-General will agree with me that there are various matters of law which quite obviously will arise under this scheme. There is one of the duties of the executive board of which we were reminded in the Debate on the Clause immediately preceding this, which struck me at the time as a very forcible illustration of what I mean. Let me call attention to Subsection (2, f) of Clause 3 and the provision for ensuring that the actual consideration, obtained by the sale or supply of the several classes of coal, shall not be less than the minimum price. I suggest that there you might get a very difficult question of law of the sort I mean. You have a scheme providing for the classification of coal. As has been pointed out you may in fact, get different qualities of coal, even from the same seam in the same district, and you might have questions arising of different qualities in coal which is classified as being all the same. The sort of point which might arise in this. If in order to meet a defect of quality of a particular coal got from a particular classification of coal you make an allowance for that, if you like in anticipation of threatened litigation, is that or is it not a diminution in the price paid? Obviously, that sort of device might be used collusively.
I am pointing out that you might get in one district or another the arbitrator saying that this is or is not to be taken into account in saying whether or not the proper price has been obtained. You might get in one district one decision and in another district another decision, and no means of deciding as between the coal owners of one district and the coalowners in another the propriety of the decision. The particular illustration may be a good one or it may be a bad one, but I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that it is at least not inconceivable that points of law may very frequently arise in which you may, as the whole thing tends to be final, have one determination made by an arbitrator in one district, and a different determination by one or more arbitrators in the same district; but, at any rate, you may get a conflict between a decision in one district with the decision in another district, with the result that you get a state of chaos between the coalowners of the country. I understood the right hon. Gentleman, when the point was brought up before but not discussed, to say that it was intended definitely that there should be no appeal to the Courts from the case stated by the arbitrators. I understood him to say that that was to be the effect of it, unless, of course, a scheme provided for it—as it could—but unless the scheme provided that there might be reference to the Courts, a reference to the Courts would be excluded. I am bound to say that, whatever precedents there may be in other Acts which do not raise problems of this sort, it is a very serious thing in this Bill, which raises the sort of problems which we are now discussing, that there should be no machinery for referring this matter to the Courts at all.
Division No. 230.]
| AYES.
| [8.20 p.m.
|
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | O'Neill, Sir H. |
Albery, Irving James | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Peake, Capt. Osbert |
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Power, Sir John Cecil |
Atholl, Duchess of | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
Atkinson, C. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben. |
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Gower, Sir Robert | Purbrick, R. |
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Grace, John | Ramsbotham, H. |
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
Berry, Sir George | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Remer, John R. |
Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. |
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Reynolds, Col. Sir James |
Bird, Ernest Roy | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil |
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
Boyce, H. L. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
Bracken, B. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Salmon, Major I. |
Brass, Captain Sir William | Hanbury, C. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
Briscoe, Richard George | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hartington, Marquess of | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks Newb'y) | Haslam, Henry C. | Sassoon, Rt. Han. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
Buchan, John | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Savery, S. S. |
Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Skelton, A. N. |
Butler, R. A. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Smith, Louis W. Sheffield, Hallam) |
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
Carver, Major W. H. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smithers, Waldron |
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hurd, Percy A. | Somerset, Thomas |
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Iveagh, Countess of | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
Chapman, Sir S. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
Christie, J. A. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. D. (W'morland) |
Colfox, Major William Philip | Knox, Sir Alfred | Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
Colville, Major D. J. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
Courtautd, Major J. S. | Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Thomson, Sir F. |
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Train, J. |
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Locker-Lampeon, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Turton, Robert Hugh |
Dalkeith, Earl of | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
Datrymple-Whlte, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
Davies, Dr. Vernon | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Wells, Sydney R. |
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
Dixey, A. C. | Meller, R. J. | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
Eden, Captain Anthony | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Withers, Sir John James |
Edmondson, Major A. J. | Mond, Hon. Henry | Womersley, W. J. |
Elliot, Major Walter E. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
England, Colonel A. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
Everard, W. Lindsay | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) |
Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
Ferguson, Sir John | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | |
Fcrmoy, Lord | Muirhead, A. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Fielden, E. B. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Captain Wallace and Sir George Penny. |
Fison, F. G. Clavering | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | |
Ford, Sir P. J. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
NOES.
| ||
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Arnott, John |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Alpass, J. H. | Attlee, Clement Richard |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Ammon, Charles George | Ayles, Walter |
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Angell, Norman | Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) |
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 272.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hoffman, P. C. | Perry, S. F. |
Barnes, Alfred John | Hollins, A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
Barr, James | Hopkin, Daniel | Phillips, Dr. Marlon |
Batey, Joseph | Horrabin, J. F. | Picton-Turbervill, Edith |
Bellamy, Albert | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Pole, Major D. G. |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Isaacs, George | Potts, John S. |
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Price, M. P. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
Benson, G. | Johnston, Thomas | Raynes, W. R. |
Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Richards, R. |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
Bowen, J. W. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Ritson, J. |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Kelly, W. T. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Kennedy, Thomas | Romeril, H. G. |
Bromfield, William | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
Bromley, J. | Kinley, J. | Rowson, Guy |
Brooke, W. | Kirkwood, D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
Brothers, M. | Knight, Holford | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Lang, Gordon | Sanders, W. S. |
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Sandham, E. |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Lathan, G. | Sawyer, G. F. |
Buchanan, G. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Scrymgeour, E. |
Burgess, F. G. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Scurr, John |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Lawrence, Susan | Sexton, James |
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Caine, Derwent Hall- | Lawson, John James | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
Cameron, A. G. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sherwood, G. H. |
Cape, Thomas | Leach, W. | Shield, George William |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Charieton, H. C. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Shillaker, J. F. |
Chater, Daniel | Lees, J. | Shinwell, E. |
Church, Major A. G. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Clarke, J. S. | Lindley, Fred W. | Simmons, C. J. |
Cluse, W. S. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Sinkinson, George |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Logan, David Gilbert | Sitch, Charles H. |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
Compton, Joseph | Longden, F. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
Cove, William G. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Daggar, George | Lowth, Thomas | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
Dallas, George | Lunn, William | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Dalton, Hugh | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Day, Harry | MacDonald, Malcolm (Basset law) | Snell, Harry |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | McElwee, A. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Dickson, T. | McEntee, V. L. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Dukes, C | Mackinder, W. | Stephen, Campbell |
Duncan, Charles | McKinlay, A. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
Ede, James Chuter | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Edmunds, J. E. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Strauss, G. R. |
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sullivan, J. |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Mansfield, W. | Sutton, J. E. |
Egan, W. H. | March, S. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Forgan, Dr. Robert | Marcus, M. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
Freeman, Peter | Marley, J. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Marshall, Fred | Thurtle, Ernest |
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Mathers, George | Tillett, Ben |
Gibbins, Joseph | Matters, L. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Maxton, James | Toole, Joseph |
Gill, T. H. | Melville, Sir James | Tout, W. J. |
Gillett, George M. | Messer, Fred | Townend, A. E. |
Gossling, A. G. | Middleton, G. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Gould, F. | Mills, J. E. | Turner, B. |
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Milner, J. | Vaughan, D. J. |
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Montague, Frederick | Viant, S. P. |
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Walkden, A. G. |
Groves, Thomas E. | Morley, Ralph | Walker, J. |
Grundy, Thomas W. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Wallace, H. W. |
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham. N.) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mort, D. L. | Watkins, F. C. |
Hall, Capt. W. P (Portsmouth. C.) | Moses, J. J. H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
Hardie, George D. | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Wellock, Wilfred |
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Muff, G. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Muggeridge, H. T. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Haycock, A. W. | Murnin, Hugh | Wheatley, Rt. Han. J. |
Mayday, Arthur | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff. S.) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Oldfield, J. R. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
Herriotts, J. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Palmer, E. T. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling. |
Wise, E. F. |
I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
If this, or a similar Amendment, be not inserted in the Bill it will not be possible for people who have entered into contracts prior to the scheme being imposed to complete those contracts. It would be impossible for manufacturers to have any idea of their coal costs for the future, and that would naturally create a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has an Amendment on the point on the Paper later, and if he will give me an assurance that be will move that Amendment I shall not press this one."(o) for the completion of contracts entered into prior to the publication of a scheme."
I rise at once to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This subject was very carefully considered, and in the Clause which will later be submitted and explained by the Attorney-General my hon. Friend will see that his point is met.
In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out paragraph (b).
This Amendment is really complementary to the Amendment passed some days ago by which we took out of the Bill the provision for a central levy on home coal to raise a subsidy for export coal. Paragraph (b) provides for a district scheme, and by asking the Committee to delete this paragraph I am asking them to delete the power to impose a district levy. The proposal in this paragraph is not so serious in one respect as the former one, because it affects only a district instead of the whole country, but the principle is the same. There is the same element of unfairness to home industry as compared with foreign industry, which would be able to obtain British coal at a lower rate. I do not wish to go into the arguments raised on the former Amendment, which was fully debated at the time, but I think it must be admitted on all sides that if, as a result of this or any other scheme, home producers have to pay more for their coal than their competitors abroad there must be a distinct grievance, which will react very badly on industry and on employment in this country. That it merely affects a district is no reason for permiting a "coal ring" to have statutory power to raise a levy to the detriment of our home industry. As has been shown by the operation of the Five Counties Scheme it is quite possible for this sort of arrangement to be made voluntarily, and there is far less objection under a voluntary arrangement, because obviously competition can come in if the operations become too serious and are really detrimental to the country; but when by an Act of Parliament we make it a Statutory provision, of course the element of competition disappears, and the chance of a consumer getting redress is taken away. There is an even stronger reason against this paragraph being left in the Bill. Without the provision as to a central levy, which we struck out of the Bill a few days ago, this district levy cannot possibly operate, because any district scheme has to receive the consent of the central council, and it is obvious that a council which represents the whole of the districts will not consent to one particular district having an advantage in the sale of its export coal which is not common to the other districts, and so there will always be a majority on the central council against any district which tries to secure to itself an advantage which other districts would not be able to obtain. The provisions of this paragraph therefore become absolutely unworkable and absolutely futile, and in the interests of tidiness alone I suggest to the Government that this miserable fragment of an undesirable whole should be removed. We have been heartened in regard to this proposal by the Liberal speeches which have been made in support of it. One source of our information in support of this Amendment has been that derived from the speeches we have heard in this House made from Liberal benches which have absolutely convinced us that the proposal of a central levy in the Bill was both mischievous and unworkable. I hope hon. Members will agree to delete this provision also and treat it in the same spirit of common sense as that which has been shown in regard to other proposal.I have always regarded this Clause as being closely connected with the one which the House recently decided to delete. The export levy was contained in two Clauses of the Bill in relation to the central scheme and the district scheme. Powers were given to the Central Committee to impose the levy in order to cheapen the export of coal from the country as a whole, and after full debate it was decided that the provision should be omitted. Now we come to the corresponding provision in the Clause that is before us, which empowers the district to impose a similar levy on all coal raised in the district in order to promote the export. I should be very interested to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he can distinguish between these two provisions, and whether the decision which has been reached in the one case should not also apply to the other. Prima facie, I should have thought that it would, but before making any statement upon the subject I shall be interested to hear the statement which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to make to inform the Committee why, while the House has rejected the principle of the export levy, he should retain it when applied to the district.
I quite agree that from some points of view we are discussing substantially the same problem in the district levy as was discussed a night or two ago when the national proposal was rejected by a narrow majority in the House. I should be out of order in recalling the circumstances of that Debate except in so far as they correspond, but I think I am entitled to say that probably there is a certain amount of misunderstanding, and the position is one of which I do not exclude the possibility of review, because, rightly understood, it is very largely a question of differential prices, and of an effort to keep certain classes of coal on the market, which can only be done by steps being taken to ease the price in that market, whether for a short or a long time as may be required. That part of the national scheme is, however, for the time being out of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) quite properly put the question whether there is any distinction between a national or central scheme and the corresponding district scheme, and he added that if there is any distinction of that kind he hoped that the Government would accept this Amendment.
I have no hesitation in saying at once that in my view there are vital distinctions between the national and the district levies, and I can give a very good illustration as to what would happen in Scotland as between Lanarkshire, and other parts, and the Fifeshire district. That really accounts, to some extent, for the appearance of this permissive district levy scheme. Assume for a moment that the difficulties among the owners in Scotland are overcome, and that a marketing scheme is provided for that part of the country, the effect of which is to improve the pithead price level for pithead coal, and to strengthen the general return to the industry and its resources. Then one of the effects will be to increase the amount available for miners wages in the Scottish wages ascertainment district, but the immediate result will be to place the Fifeshire district in Scotland, which is overwhelmingly an export district, at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the Scottish coalfield. Unless there were some method of adjusting prices within the scheme as a whole Fifeshire would not be able to retain more than a fraction of its export trade. Accordingly, that matter was under discussion with the Scottish owners among others and indeed owners in other districts in the country where the conditions correspond. It was suggested that it would not be possible to work the scheme, or the scheme would not become applicable unless it included a device of that kind. The object of a levy on the whole of the coal within say the Scottish area, or any other of the 21 districts, would be to ease the export prices, in order to retain the export market, and incidentally to meet those different conditions in ways applicable within that district, according to the variety of the trade as between home and export. Therefore, there is a vital distinction when we come to the district levy as compared with the national pool. It may be suggested that, if you have a district levy in all the 21 districts in this country, you will, in fact, achieve the national levy which has already been deleted by the House. I would say at once that there is no possibility or danger of any result of that kind developing. In the first place, I have already reminded the House that it is purely permissive in character, and that the only effect of the decision of last week was to take away from the Board of Trade the power of bringing the central levy into operation. I am perfectly satisfied that in some of the districts where these schemes are established a levy will be proposed. It might also be on a national basis, but, of course, on voluntary lines, subject to the consideration that all the owners come in. There can, however, be no question of an accumulation of, say, 21 district levies having a national pool on the lines of the proposal which has been deleted. In the first place, I am satisfied that there would never he a levy in more than, perhaps, a small number of districts, because this is a part of the Bill which has always been permissive, and only to be applied where it was necessary to facilitate the sale of certain classes of coal, particularly export coal and coal for the heavy industries, and where the market should not be retained on any other basis. This is where, in the absence of a scheme of this kind, the trade would be lost, and that is the central consideration. In the first place, therefore, there will a levy of this kind, probably, only in a number of districts, but certainly in a district of the nature of Scotland, which I am assuming would be covered by the scheme, and where the problem is between exporting Fife and the rest of the country, which is more particularly devoted to inland demand. Moreover, there is this further safeguard, if the House desires a safeguard in any district levy—and that is all that is before us now—that the proceeds can only be used to facilitate the sale of certain classes of coal within that district. They can never be transferred to any central organisation, and, in the absence of the provision which has been deleted, cannot become part of the central scheme. I regard this provision as essential in the district schemes. Otherwise, there will be a very serious problem in Scotland, and that problem might be so large as to prevent the appearance of a scheme at all, which in my opinion would be a disaster, in a very important part of the coalfields. I trust that with this explanation the Amendment will be rejected.The President of the Board of Trade has made an effort to draw a distinction between a central scheme and the district scheme with which we are now dealing, but the difference is merely a matter of volume, a matter of size. The problem is exactly the same whether it applies to the whole country or whether it applies to the district. The right hon. Gentleman has given us an example, as he says, between Lanarkshire and Fifeshire. He says that the inland market must assist the export market if the export trade is to be maintained. I should like to put to him the biggest example that we have at the present time of a levy for the assistance of export trade, namely, that of the Central Collieries Commercial Association. I think he will agree with me that the main reason for the levy in that case, and the main reason why a subsidy on exports was ever agreed to in that district, where there was no compulsory control, no 100 per cent. control as there is at the present time, was that the inland market came to the conclusion that it was to their advantage to entice other collieries, or a cerain number of collieries, to send their coal abroad. They were actually subsidising the sending of coal abroad in order to relieve the pressure which then existed in the home market. It was not really a public-spirited effort to increase the export trade, but in order to relieve themselves of a certain amount of competition in the home market.
We know that under the Five Counties Scheme the export coal from that district is somewhere about 8 per cent. of the total output, and they have a levy of 3d. a ton to give a certain subsidy to that 8 per cent. of export coal. But that, as I have said, was not done with the idea of saving the export trade, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested may have been the case as between Lanarkshire and Fifeshire. It was done really with the idea of relieving the home trade of additional competition. It was found that when the export trade from Yorkshire and the other counties in the scheme was bad, and they were not able to com- pete against their foreign competitors, they were, instead of exporting their coal, coming into competition with the companies which had been dealing in the home trade. That, of course, pushed down the price, and acted adversely on the collieries producing for the home trade. I do not call that a selfish reason. It was a business reason. It was not a public-spirited idea of helping the export trade so much as a desire to relieve themselves of competition that induced the 92 per cent. of home trade producers to subsidise the 8 per cent. of export trade in those counties. Unless some such situation arises as between, say, Lanarkshire and Fifeshire, I do not think that the home trade will be found to be public-spirited enough to act in that way. The right hon. Gentleman knows his own countrymen from a business point of view better than I do, but, if they are able to enjoy their home trade at an increased profit, I cannot quite visualise them sharing that profit and saying that, as the conditions are rather hard on the export trade, they will hand over to them some of the profits that they are making on the inland market. I can no more visualise that than I can visualise the four-fifths of the country's production which is used for home consumption putting a levy on itself for the purpose of subsidising and assisting the export trade. What is going to happen in South Wales, for instance, under a district scheme? We know that something like 80 per cent. of the production of South Wales is exported, and only 20 per cent., or something less, is consumed in this country. It is quite impossible, on that 20 per cent., to raise a sufficient levy to provide what would really be an adequate subsidy to assist the export trade in South Wales. Suppose that the Five-Counties Scheme, if it still continues as a scheme, were to carry on the subsidy or to increase it, or suppose that Northumberland and Durham raised a subsidy on their home-consumed coal to subsidise their export coal. We know that the types of coal are not identical, but at the same time it is not likely that the South Wales representatives on the Central Scheme would consent to the subsidising of export coal from other districts, when they in South Wales could not possibly obtain a subsidy from any scheme that could be raised in that district. I maintain that the levy under the central scheme which we defeated last week only differs from the district scheme in the matter of scale. Obviously, the district scheme is bound to be smaller in extent than the central scheme, but its object is exactly the same, its incidence would be the same, and, therefore, I have been hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would almost consider this Amendment as consequential on the Amendment of last week, and would allow it to be carried. I was certainly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) failed to see the similarity between the two cases, seeing that, when we went into the Lobby last week to defeat the central scheme, after very powerful speeches from below the Gangway, the position was perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members on those benches. I should certainly be very surprised indeed if they could find anything in what the President of the Board of Trade has told us which will show any very real distinction as between the central scheme which we defeated last week and the district scheme which we are hoping to defeat to-night. I hope we shall repeat the process of last week and defeat the district scheme.I am really astonished that the President of the Board of Trade has not at once said this is practically the same thing in another dress as what was decided on last week, that it is, therefore, consequential and that the matter is settled by last week's vote. I was rather concerned to hear the right hon. Gentleman hint that even the decision of last week must be subject to some form of review. It makes it all the more important that on this question, which is a matter of local arrangements, which in a cumulative condition become a national arrangement, we should see whether the Committee would have preferred something carried which is against the opinion of those who expressed themselves in the Lobby last week. But there is something even more important. I believe all the industries of the country which depend on coal are up against a very serious position, and the mere hint of any increase in the cost of coal for our own industries in order to subsidise the export trade will have a paralysing effect to a very great extent upon trying to enable our people to key themselves up to face a very serious situation. No one knows better than the President of the Board of Trade that in his office, which he adorns in many ways, he must in his heart of hearts wish to see British industry assisted.
The problems of our industry depend on the basic price of fuel. Cheap coal means more employment. None of us wishes to see one industry suffer in order to benefit the rest. I have frequently heard that the miners have paid for other industries, but surely the miners realise one thing. I admit that, all through the War, and after it, they bore very heavy burdens on their shoulders. I sat for a mining constituency till they turned me out, and I gained a very high respect for miners. I recognise the difference between their trade and any other. I recognise the extraordinary heroism they showed in times of danger. I never met an unpatriotic miner in my life, but I have met people in the House who seem to assume that the miner wishes to be treated as a man apart from the rest of the country. I believe the miners would be the very last to say they wish to put one man out of employment by any selfish action of their own. 9.0 p.m. None of us represents industries. We represent constituencies, which are in miniature the whole national life of the country. We are not thinking of a section or a class. We think of the good of the country as a whole. Surely the whole Debate last week showed that the opinion of the House, as representing the national feeling, was opposed to taxing one part of the trade which had an immediate effect on our industry for the benefit of giving a competitive impulse to our coal for export. Therefore, I believe in this Amendment we must realise that there is no distinction, and the right hon. Gentleman, usually so clear, was to-night in some difficulty be show the difference between 21 districts all with this power, should they all have the same impulse to do this thing, and a national agreement. It is very hard to see any at all except, as he said, that the Board of Trade, in the first idea which was turned down last week, would have something more to say to it. I was in Scot- land last week, and I visited some of the coal areas in Fife, and I feel very strongly that this House has to think most carefully what it does, because the opinion, as far as I was able to gain it in a short time, was that the Bill is going to do irreparable damage to the mining industry in Scotland. None of us know how the Bill is going to emerge after these changes, but one thing we have to be quite consistent about is that the cost of fuel to our own industries shall not be put up, because that must be bad for British trade. As far as I can understand from the Debate last week, it is bound to put up the price of coal. That, after all, is the whole object of the scheme. If it does not do that, it will not help our export trade. I am told already that the Westphalian coal people and others are now saying, "We are not quite sure about the position of British coal for export, but if it is going to be a form of subsidised coal, we will also start subsidising," so are we really going to get the benefit that some hope they may get by stimulating export trade? At the same time we are certain only of one thing, that our industry will suffer detriment. Is this the time and place where anyone would suggest that we should do anything of that sort? I should like to mention one other point. I believe the public utility organisations, which depend entirely on cheap coal, will get their fuel at no very greatly increased price. Obviously, great undertakings like electricity, railways, gas and so on can make forward contracts and get advantageous terms. I believe they can effect even greater economies than they have done in matters of distribution. It is not only that. You cannot get prosperity for any of the public utilities until you restore confidence to the industries of the country, which at present have a feeling of insecurity. I am convinced that this Bill has contributed more towards the feeling of insecurity to British industry than any other Bill that has been put through the House. Until you can restore confidence, you are not going to improve trade. It seems to me that this Amendment is really consequential on what was decided last week, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us some explanation which will prove that it is indeed a different thing altogether in principle and in fact from what was decided last week. I am cer- tain, if the Amendment passes, a great many things which we fear, and which when presented to the Committee were defeated last week, will in effect be brought about, greatly to the detriment of British industry, at a time when we want to do everything to stimulate trade and get confidence back to employers of labour, without which they cannot employ men whose only fault is that they have not an opportunity of contributing towards the wealth of the country by getting to their proper employment.We have come to a rather perplexing situation with regard to this Amendment because in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said, this Amendment is, in many respects, consequential on the one which we dealt with last week. I cannot see how, if one is out of the Bill, the other can possibly remain in. My right hon. Friend quoted the words of the Subsection, and I should like to quote them again because the President of the Board of Trade did not deal with the particular point. Sub-section (b) says:
these are the words which I want to emphasise—"for empowering the executive board, subject to the consent of the central council,"—
Whatever the President may say, the arguments for the central and for the district schemes are exactly the same. His speech to-night, although naturally, under the circumstances, shorter, was exactly on the same lines as the speech which he made when he pleaded for leaving the central levy in the Bill. I cannot see how we can possibly leave in this district levy after the Committee, in their wisdom, have decided to get rid of the central scheme. He says that there are 21 districts and that all of them will be able to make their own arrangements. I cannot imagine any greater chaos than that which will be created if we have 21 different levy schemes for the different districts, and no central scheme. I shall be interested to hear—and I hope that we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)—exactly what is the Liberal position. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to hear what the President of the Board of Trade had to say, and I think that we now want to hear what he has to say. We on this side are definitely against the levy, and the grounds which we gave in great detail last week for rejecting the central levy are equally applicable for rejecting the district levy. I do not see how we can possibly pass a scheme for subsidising the export trade. It will immediately add an additional burden to the industries which have to meet competition from abroad, particularly the iron and steel industry. I do not intend to go into that question, but I know from my own experience the amount of unemployment which at the present moment is being caused in all the big iron and steel districts in this country by reason of the fact that cheap iron and steel and cheap manufactured goods are coming into the country. If we give a levy deliberately to our foreign competitors by selling them cheap coal while putting up the price to our own customers in this country the position will become worse than it is at the present moment. I would like to emphasise the small point made by the Mover of the Amendment that even for the sake of tidiness it would be right to accept the Amendment and turn out the district levy, just as the central levy has been got rid of I cannot conceive what may happen if we allow the district levy to be left in the Bill when we have prevented the central body from making any levy whatever On many occasions it has been said that we consider this a dear Coal Bill, and it is this provision for a levy and the provisions in respect of prices dealt with earlier this evening which have given the Bill that name. I hope that even now the President of the Board of Trade may reconsider his decision, even though it might be necessary in later stages of the Bill to make a drastic alteration, and will accept this Amendment allowing this Sub-section to be left out as was done in the case of the central scheme."to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies."
I must confess that the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment has taken me by surprise. I certainly thought that when the central levy was left out the Government had accepted the decision of the Committee that we were not to have a levy for subsidising the export trade. I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman just now. He is generally lucid but I confess that he did not indicate what the difference is between a district levy and the central levy. He said that you could establish a pool in Scotland by which the export trade could be subsidised at the expense of the home trade. That was exactly the point upon which I have given practically the only vote which I have given against the right hon. Gentleman upon this Bill. I do not like any of the Bill. I throw the whole responsibility for it on to the Government, but I did vote against the export levy because I thought that that was the worst feature of the Bill.
I certainly do not like this part of the Bill and I shall be compelled to go into the Lobby against the right hon. Gentleman to-night if he persists in retaining this Sub-section. The principle is exactly the same as that which was dealt with last week. By means of district levies the country will find itself in the very position which we wished to avoid when we rejected the Sub-section last week. I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter and see whether he cannot meet us by accepting the Amendment or amending the Clause so that we shall not have this particular feature of putting a tax upon the home trade for the benefit of the export trade.I feel it my duty to emphasise what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). We are greatly astonished at the attitude which has been taken by the Government in this case. We should certainly have expected that on this matter the Government would have accepted the very deliberate decision of the Committee last week, which was, that in the view of Parliament the home consumer ought not to be taxed by means of levy in order to give a subsidy to the coal which is exported to the advantage of the foreign consumer. I listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in order to see whether there was any substantial difference between the issue which was decided last week and the issue which is before us now. I cannot find that he had in any way distinguished between the two. The principle is exactly the same. Indeed, the very illustration which he gave emphasised that. He said that in Scotland you have two coalfields. You have Lanark and you have File, and the proposal now is that the consumers of Lanark coal shall be made to pay a levy in order to promote the export of Fife coal. If those districts had happened to be two separate districts, or if under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, they afterwards decide they will be two districts, then the application of such a levy would be impossible. But it is because they happen to be one district now that you adopt the very principle which the Committee condemned last week and are going to tax one section for the benefit of the other.
It was decided that the Lancashire consumers should not be taxed in order to promote the export of Durham coal, but you are proposing that the Lanarkshire consumers shall be taxed in order to pro-mote the export of Fife coal. But what was done last week was not so much on account of the varying interests of one district and another, but what the House had principally in mind was the home consumer and the foreign consumer. And now you are proposing, in any district of the country which happens to adopt this scheme, deliberately to raise the price of coal to all the home consumers in that district in order to give a levy so that coal sold abroad to the competitors of British trade should be at a cheaper rate than that which obtained to the home consumer. That is what the Committee condemned last week, and I think it is bound to reassert its opinion to-night. If it does not, the matter will have to be considered on Report stage. The Committee is taken by surprise at finding this matter raised again. It was fully argued last week. It is not necessary to repeat the arguments because it is impossible to find any new one's on one side or the other. All the contentions raised on the former Amendment apply for and against the present provision. It is true that this is voluntary. It is true that after the Amendment was carried last week we left the power to the coalowners to raise these levies in a voluntary fashion. That is true; and so it would be if we accepted this Amendment. They would still have power to do it in a voluntary fashion in the districts, but Parliament would not be responsible. It would be a trade arrange- ment, and it might be a question later on whether Parliament should intervene and by Statute forbid it.Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that once the power is taken from the Central Board to overlook any district arrangement for this purpose, that once each district has the power of forming a scheme, the Government and the Central Board would not have any say at all in the matter? The only safeguard is taken away if the Amendment is accepted.
I do not agree. If the matter became an abuse it might be necessary for Parliament to legislate to prevent it. That is a matter on which I express no opinion at the moment; but the hon. Member is not right. Subsection (3, e) says:
Therefore, there is still consent to be obtained from the Central Council, although Parliament has decided that the Central Council is not to do it itself. The Bill is left in a state of confusion. The fact that there is still left to the whole country voluntary powers is not conclusive on the matter. Our view is that Parliament ought not by legislation to tax, for this is indirectly a tax, the home consumers of coal in order to give a subsidy to our foreign competitors, and I still adhere to that contention. The matter was argued fully on the last occasion and there is nothing new to be said on either side. This Amendment is not in any way fatal to the Bill. When we carried the Amendment last week the Government accepted the decision, quite rightly and wisely, and went on with the Bill; and the same applies to this Amendment. If it is carried it would not be in any way vital to Part I or to the Bill as a whole. The considerations which led my hon. Friends to abstain on an earlier Amendment do not apply now. We did not feel that we could at this juncture take the responsibility of defeating the Govern- ment on a provision which they might probably regard as vital to Part I, which they might regard as vital to the Bill as a whole. We did not desire to take that responsibility at this juncture, for reasons which were given by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But those considerations do not apply now. This Amendment is not more vital to the Bill than the one carried last week and, therefore, for those reasons we on these Benches feel obliged to vote in favour of the Amendment."for empowering the executive board, subject to the consent of the central council, to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies, imposed upon them at such times and for such periods as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the scheme in proportion to the output or disposal of their respective coal mines in the district, for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district";
It is gratifying to know that hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway are at the last moment going to support us in the Lobby. [Interruption.] I was only expressing my gratitude. This Amendment has been on the paper for some weeks, and it cannot have escaped the astute Parliamentarians in the Liberal party. They must have realised that it was not consequential, and that we should have to carry it against the Government. They have had ample opportunity to make up their minds as to their position—
I assumed that it would have been accepted by the Government.
I do not think anybody could rightly anticipate that the Government would voluntarily accept an Amendment which was contested so strongly last week. I was under no such misapprehension, although I have not the benefit of the close counsels with the Government which hon. Members below the Gangway apparently enjoy.
I do not want the hon. and gallant Member to misunderstand me. I have had no assurances from the Government on the point.
I realise that, but the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members below the Gangway do apparently have frequent consultations and come to agreements with Members of the Government on the Front Bench. We do not enjoy that privilege, and I should have thought the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) would have known the mind of the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this Amendment. I can only imagine that this last minute change of front on the part of the Liberal party is the fact that so many of their own Members have left the Committee that it is safe for them to vote against the Government.
Division No. 231.]
| AYES.
| [9.23 p.m.
|
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Marcus, M. |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Marley, J. |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Marshall, Fred |
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Groves, Thomas E. | Mathers, George |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Grundy, Thomas W. | Matters, L. W. |
Alpass, J. H. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Maxton, James |
Ammon, Charles George | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Melville, Sir James |
Angell, Norman | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Messer, Fred |
Arnott, John | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Middleton, G. |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Mills, J. E. |
Ayles, Walter | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Milner, J. |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Haycock, A. W. | Montague, Frederick |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hayday, Arthur | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
Barnes, Alfred John | Hayes, John Henry | Morley, Ralph |
Barr, James | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
Batey, Joseph | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Mort, D. L. |
Bellamy, Albert | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Moses, J. J. H. |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Herriotts, J. | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Muff, G. |
Benson, G. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Muggeridge, H. T. |
Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Hoffman, P. C. | Murnin, Hugh |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hollins, A. | Naylor, T. E. |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hopkin, Daniel | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
Bowen, J. W. | Horrabin, J. F. | Noel Baker, P. J. |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Oldfield, J. R. |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Isaacs, George | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Palin, John Henry |
Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Paling, Wilfrid |
Bromley, J. | Johnston, Thomas | Palmer, E. T. |
Brooke, W. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Perry, S. F. |
Brothers, M. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Picton-Turbervill, Edith |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Pole, Major D. G. |
Buchanan, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Potts, John S. |
Burgess, F. G. | Kennedy, Thomas | Price, M. P. |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Quibell, D. J. K. |
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Kinley, J. | Raynes, W. R. |
Calne, Derwent Hall- | Kirkwood, D. | Richards, R. |
Cameron, A. G. | Knight, Holford | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Cape, Thomas | Lang, Gordon | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lathan, G. | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
Charieton, H. C. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Ritson, J. |
Chater, Daniel | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
Church, Major A. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Romeril, H. G. |
Clarke, J. S. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Rowson, Guy |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Leach, W. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
Compton, Joseph | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Sanders, W. S. |
Cove, William G. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sawyer, G. F. |
Daggar, George | Lees, J. | Scrymgeour, E. |
Dallas, George | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Scurr, John |
Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, Fred W. | Sexton, James |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Day, Harry | Logan, David Gilbert | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | Longbottom, A. W. | Sherwood, G. H. |
Dukes, C. | Longden, F. | Shield, George William |
Ede, James Chuter | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Edmunds, J. E. | Lowth, Thomas | Shillaker, J. F. |
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lunn, William | Shinwell, E. |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Egan, W. H. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Simmons, C. J. |
Forgan, Dr. Robert | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Sinkinson, George |
Freeman, Peter | McElwee, A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Mackinder, W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Gibbins, Joseph | McKinlay, A. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Gill, T. H. | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Gillett, George M. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Gossling, A. G. | Mansfield, W. | Snell, Harry |
Gould, F. | March, S. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out" stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 220.
Sorensen, R. | Townend, A. E. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Stamford, Thomas W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Stephen, Campbell | Turner, B. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Vaughan, D. J. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe | Viant, S. P. | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
Strauss, G. R. | Walkden, A. G. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Sullivan, J. | Walker, J. | Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Sutton, J. E. | Wallace, H. W. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Wallhead, Richard C. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) | Watkins, F. C. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wise, E. F. |
Thurtle, Ernest | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
Tillen, Ben | Wellock, Wilfred | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Tinker, John Joseph | Welsh, James (Paisley) | |
Toole, Joseph | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Tout, W. J. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith. |
NOES.
| ||
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Elliot, Major Walter E. | McConnell, Sir Joseph |
Albery, Irving James | England, Colonel A. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. |
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Everard, W. Lindsay | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Falle, Sir Bortram G. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Ferguson, Sir John | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
Aske, Sir Robert | Fermoy, Lord | Marjoribanks, E. C. |
Atholl, Duchess of | Fielden, E. B. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
Atkinson, C. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Meller, R. J. |
Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Foot, Isaac | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Millar, J. D. |
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Forestier-Walker. Sir L. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
Beaumont, M. W. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) |
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Moore, Lieut.-Colonol T. C. R. (Ayr) |
Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
Bird, Ernest Roy | Glassey, A. E. | Muirhead, A. J. |
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Gower, Sir Robert | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Grace, John | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) |
Boyce, H. L. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | O'Neill, Sir H. |
Brass, Captain Sir William | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
Briscoe, Richard George | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Peake, Capt. Osbert |
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Penny, Sir George |
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
Buchan, John | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Power, Sir John Cecil |
Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
Butler, R. A. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben |
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Purbrick, R. |
Carver, Major W. H. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Pybus, Percy John |
Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hanbury, C. | Ramsbotham, H. |
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtemth, S.) | Hartington, Marquess of | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Haslam, Henry C. | Remer, John R. |
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. |
Chapman, Sir S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Reynolds, Col. Sir James |
Christie, J. A. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil |
Colfox, Major William Philip | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
Colville, Major D. J. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
Courtauld, Major J. S. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Salmon, Major I. |
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Hurd, Percy A | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hunt, Sir Gerald B. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Iveagh, Countess of | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
Croom-Johnson, R. P. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Savery, S. S. |
Dalkeith, Earl of | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Skelton, A. N. |
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.) |
Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Smithers, Waldron |
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Somerset, Thomas |
Dixey, A. C. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
Duckworth, G. A. V. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Liewellin, Major J. J. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
Eden, Captain Anthony | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
Edmondson, Major A. J. | Long, Major Eric | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Turton, Robert Hugh | Womersley, W. J. |
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert | Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k) |
Thomson, Sir F. | Wayland, Sir William A. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton. |
Tinne, J. A. | Wells, Sydney R. | |
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Todd, Capt. A. J. | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) | Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender. |
Train, J. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | |
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Withers, Sir John James |
The next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) and other hon. Members' and subsequent Amendments appear to hang together.
I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, after the word "make," to insert the word "additional."
We have had a certain amount of talk about the last Amendment being consequential upon the Amendment which we dealt with last week. I would submit to the Attorney-General that this Amendment really is on exactly the same lines as the one which he accepted in the previous Clause, also last week. The object of it is to obtain the positive approval of Parliament when any alterations or additions to this particular Section in the Act mentioned in this Sub-section are to take place. Last week, I pointed out to the Committee that, under this Sub-section, it is suggested that it may be possible to bring in matters in addition to or in substitution for matters mentioned in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this Clause. The point here is exactly the same. Authority is given here under this Act for the Board of Trade to amend the Bill and to add to it and actually to alter the terms of the Measure. I maintain that it is extremely wrong for this Committee or this House, later on, to give sanction for a Bill to be amended without the positive approval of this House. The Attorney-General agreed with me last week on a very similar Amendment, and I do not think he can draw any distinction between this Amendment and the one he accepted last week. Last week the Amendment he accepted was on Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 and this is Sub-section (4) of Clause 3. In both Clauses the Bill originally laid down that an order was to be laid before the House for negative approval. I maintain that the position is exactly the same. If he considered that that Amendment should be accepted last week, I maintain that he should also show the same spirit of acceptance on this occasion. [Interruption.] He will notice that it appears rather more complicated now. With regard to any Amendments within the scope of the Act, we agree that it is reasonable that they should receive only the negative approval of the House, even if it requires that, but we maintain that when it is a question of amending, actually altering, what will be an Act of Parliament, it is essential that that should be the subject of a special resolution of approval by both House of Parliament.The prospect of the Board of Trade having power to amend a scheme without coming to this House to get approval in one form or the other, positive or negative, is one which seems to fill the right hon. and gallant Member with horror. He seems not to have remembered that the part of the Bill which we have previously passed, namely, Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, expressly states that any scheme may be amended with the approval of the Board of Trade.
Not that the Act should be amended.
I have had to apply my mind to these Amendments to see exactly what is contemplated by the word "additional" which he desires to insert, and I am bound to say that I regard it as very difficult to see whether that word has any meaning at all. In the first place, we start with the assumption that a scheme may be amended according to the provision I have just pointed out, in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, with the approval of the Board of Trade and without any other sanction whatever. Next, we observe that in Sub-section (3, c) of Clause 3 a scheme may provide
What then, I ask, are these additional provisions which are here contemplated? I hear it said they are within the Act. Of course they are. I appreciate the exceedingly subtle distinction between additional provisions and provisions for any matters in addition to, but what I am quite unable to undertand is this: What are these additional provisions which we are here talking about, unless they are Amendments? They are something manifestly within the scope of the Act, and an Amendment commonly takes the form of an addition. I agree that under the guise of an Amendment we cannot introduce new matters, and I appreciate that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had that in his mind. He deals with that is his proposed paragraph (b), but I am at a complete loss—and I say this quite seriously—to understand what is being dealt with in paragraph (a) which is not an Amendment already covered by Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, or is not an incidental or consequential provision already contemplated by paragraph (c). Therefore, in so far as the first part of this Amendment is concerned, in which the word "additional" comes, I would suggest that really the additional provision for matters mentioned comes to nothing more than the Amendments already provided for which can be approved by the Board of Trade without any further sanction at all. When we come to the proposed paragraph (b), which is really the gist of the matter, what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants here is to substitute a positive approval for a negative approval. I quite follow that we had the same subject matter for discussion a week ago, and that then, with regard to the central scheme, I was authorised to accept the Amendment. That perhaps shows the disadvantage of being too reasonable, because I am bound to say that I cannot extend—I have no authority to extend—that concession to accepting any such Amendment here, and I would suggest that neither is it a matter of authority alone, because I have discussed the matter with the President of the Board of Trade. It is one thing to say you are prepared to accept a provision for positive approval where you are dealing with a central scheme, with one scheme of one body, and it is another and a wholly different thing to say you will accept the principle of positive approval where you are deal- ing with district schemes, in which case you are concerned with a considerable number. Many people nowadays are complaining of the great demands made upon Parliamentary time, and people are suggesting that by reason of the excessive demands made upon Parliamentary time, Parliament is finding it impossible to be the adequate machine which it ought to be. It is impossible for us to say that we can accept an Amendment that any provision of these 31 district schemes, any Amendment, or any alteration, or any matter in addition to those mentioned, cannot be introduced unless you get the positive approval of Parliament. Is it to be said there is no logical distinction between the concession we made with regard to the central scheme and our refusal of that concession in the case of the district schemes? I am speaking from recollection, but I think I am right in saying that the Amendments, some of which were tabled in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and most of them at any rate in the names of the Members of the party opposite, have throughout borne that principle in mind, and those very Amendments have made it quite plain that, in the case of the central scheme, they wanted a positive approval, and in the case of the 21 district schemes, they were content with a negative approval. That is the position which the Government take up. It is impossible for us to say that, with regard to each of these 21 district schemes, we can have exactly the same machinery as we can for one central scheme. We consider that, by providing for the negative approval, we have provided a perfectly adequate safeguard in the case of the 21 district schemes; and, therefore, I cannot in this case accept the Amendment."for such matters as appear to the Board of Trade to be incidental to, or consequential on, the foregoing provisions of this section."
We are discussing the whole of the Amendments in connection with this Clause. In regard to the small but rather complicated Amendments with which the Attorney-General has dealt, I think it is not unreasonable, having regard to the decision which the Committee has previously arrived at in reference to the power to make variations in the schemes which are strictly, within the terms of the Bill, vested in the President of the Board of Trade, it would not be reasonable for us to press those Amendments, which I think all cover the same point, and exactly the same issue, which was decided against us in a previous decision. But when it comes to the paragraph (b), which we seek to insert, exactly the opposite is the case. Therefore, if it seems reasonable that we should refrain from asking the Committee to express an opinion contrary to that which was expressed a few days ago, it seems to us wholly unreasonable for the Attorney-General not merely to reverse a decision taken by the Committee but to reverse a principle which he himself accepted. This is not a question of a small matter of convenience; it is a very real question of principle, which the Attorney-General accepted on the last occasion.
There are two types of amendment that might be made to schemes. There are amendments which might be made which are within the scope of all the Clauses which we have passed. That is a variation within the scope of something which the Committee has already approved. Then we come to Sub-section (4), which is wholly outside that:and unless either House resolves that the Order shall not be made the Board may make such an Order. That is wholly a different matter. That, in fact, is a complete variation of this Act of Parliament. It save so in terms. It says that what it is proposed to put into the scheme is not something incidental or consequential but something additional to the powers that Parliament is now giving to the Board of Trade, or a substitution for the powers which Parliament by this Bill confers upon the Treasury and the Board of Trade. If hon. Members look through all the bureaucratic Acts of Parliament which have been passed they will not find that this House has devolved upon a Minister of the Crown the power to make an Order, which does not require a positive Resolution, which alters an Act of Parliament which this House has passed, and here we have an Act of Parliament of such importance that we are taking the whole Committee stage of it quite rightly, upon the Floor of the House. If the Attorney-General can find a precedent, I am sure it is a bad precedent. He said that people were becoming anxious because Parliament was getting overworked and that we must not put on Parliament the duty of considering all these Orders, because it had more important things to do. I do not know about that. I should have thought that if there was one thing that the country was really anxious about it was not that Parliament should hustle its business and be able, by delegation of its work to a Minister, to find time to pass a great many new Acts of Parliament. I should have thought that what people were really anxious about was that there should be proper Parliamentary control over Government administration. I understand that there is sitting at the present time a Royal Commission to consider this very question. That Royal Commission would not have been set up if there had not been some ground for establishing such a Royal Commission. Very strong criticism has been advanced by the Lord Chief Justice in regard to the growing tendency—we have all been guilty of it and must stand in the dock—of inviting Parliament to delegate its powers. I may have sinned in common with some of my right hon. Friends in the past, but I am certain that we never did anything like this. I have no recollection of ever having invited Parliament to give me power to alter an Act of Parliament and I am certain that what the country is interested in is that Parliament should retain a very direct control over the administrative action of the Government. Think what this Bill is. This Bill, and the operations of the executive boards under the Bill, is going to touch the life of every single person in this country, and those who operate it are going to operate with very few principles laid down for them, except a wide charter of self-interest. This is surely a case where we should be very careful to preserve Parliamentary control. Last week we were dealing with the central scheme. The words in the Clause dealing with the central scheme were absolutely identical with the words dealing with the district scheme. I would ask the Committee to look back at Clause 2 where we were dealing with the central scheme. In Clause 2 (4) there are these words:"If … it is necessary or expedient that the district scheme should make provision for any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters mentioned in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of this Section, the Board may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order."
It was on that Section that the Attorney-General said that it was quite reasonable and fair that Parliament should be required to express positive assent before an Amendment of the Act was effected. To-night, he refuses to accept that principle, although the provision is exactly the same, and exactly the same matters are involved. There is no limitation as to what may be done in the district scheme "in addition to or in substitution for matters." The Attorney-General says, "We were prepared to give you this concession when we were dealing only with one scheme, but now that we are dealing with 21 schemes and not one we are not going to give it to you; we are going to keep the power in our own hands." What justification, in the name of logic or commonsense or constitutional reality, is there for doing that? Under the central scheme there is one opportunity and one opportunity only for amending the Act, but in these 21 district schemes there are 21 opportunities for amending the Act, yet the Attorney-General, with his great sense of logic, says that it was right and proper that Parliament should retain its control where one scheme was involved, but that where 21 schemes are involved giving power to amend the Act in 21 different ways, then Parliament ought to divest itself of control. I do not think that I ever heard a more illogical or, if I may respectfully say so, a less constitutional defence than that which is now put up by the Attorney-General. I sincerely hope that he will reconsider this matter. He said that he was not authorised to make such a concession. This is a very grave matter of principle, and I hope that we may have some consideration of the matter from the President of the Board of Trade."If it is necessary or expedient that the central scheme should make provision for any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this Section, the Board may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an Order, etc."
Division No. 232.]
| AYES.
| [10.0 p.m.
|
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Atholl, Duchess of | Beaumont, M. W. |
Albery, Irving James | Atkinson, C. | Bellairs, Commander Carlyon |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham. C.) |
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Betterton, Sir Henry B. |
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman |
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Bird, Ernest Roy |
Aske, Sir Robert | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft |
I said that I had discussed this matter with the President of the Board of Trade.
I accept that assurance from the Attorney-General. Therefore, he was speaking with the full authority of the Government. This is plainly a matter which must be pressed to a Division. In dividing on the matter we are dividing in favour of a principle which the Attorney-General thought to be right and which he advised the Committee to accept a week ago. I cannot for the life of me conceive what change has taken place which should make us go back on that which seemed wise to the Committee a week ago, and which the Attorney-General advised us to do.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in page 9, line 36, at the end, to add the words:
"(b) If the executive board for any district make to the Board of Trade representations that, for the purpose of regulating or facilitating the production, supply, or sale of coal, or any class of coal, by owners of coal mines situated in that district, it is necessary or expedient that the district scheme should make provision for any matters in addition to or in substitution for the matters mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, the Board may lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order providing that the scheme may be amended so as to provide for the matters with respect to which the representations were made, and those matters shall be specified in the draft order, and, if each House before the expiration of a period of twenty days on which that House has "at next after the draft is laid before it resolves that the order shall be made, the Board shall make an order in the terms of the draft to take effect on such date after the expiration of that period as may be specified in the order, and the scheme shall he amended accordingly in manner provided by the scheme."
Question put, "That these words be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 272.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Penny, Sir George |
Boyce, H. L. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
Bracken, B. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Power, Sir John Cecil |
Brass, Captain Sir William | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
Briscoe, Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben. |
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Purbrick, R. |
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Ramsbotham, H. |
Buchan, John | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Hanbury, C. | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Remer, John R. |
Butler, R. A. | Hartington, Marquess of | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. |
Carver, Major W. H. | Haslam, Henry C. | Reynolds, Col. Sir James |
Castle Stewart, Earl of | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil |
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Salmon, Major I. |
Chapman, Sir S. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
Christie, J. A. | Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hurd, Percy A. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
Colfax, Major William Phillp | Iveagh, Countess of | Savery, S. S. |
Colville, Major D. J. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
Courtauld, Major J. S. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Skelton, A. N. |
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
Croom-Johnson., R. P. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Smithers, Waldron |
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. | Somerset, Thomas |
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
Dalkeith, Earl of | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Spender-Clay. Colonel H. |
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
Davies, Dr. Vernon | Long, Major Eric | Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lymington, Viscount | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
Duckworth, G. A. V. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Macquisten, F. A. | Thomson, Sir F. |
Eden, Captain Anthony | Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Tinne, J. A. |
Edmondson, Major A. J. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
Elliot, Major Walter E. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
Elmley, Viscount | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Train, J. |
England, Colonel A. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
Everard, W. Lindsay | Meller, R. J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
Ferguson, Sir John | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
Fermoy, Lord | Mond, Hon. Henry | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
Fielden, E. B. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
Fison, F. G. Clavering | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Wells, Sydney R. |
Ford, Sir P. J. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
Galbraith, J. F. W. | Muirhead, A. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
Ganzoni, Sir John | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | |
Gower, Sir Robert | O'Neill, Sir H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William | Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender. |
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Peake, Capt. Osbert |
NOES.
| ||
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bellamy, Albert | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) |
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. | Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Buchanan, G. |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Benson, G. | Burgess, F. G. |
Alpass, J. H. | Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) |
Ammon, Charles George | Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) |
Angell, Norman | Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Caine, Derwent Hall- |
Arnott, John | Bowen, J. W. | Cameron, A. G. |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Cape, Thomas |
Ayles, Walter | Broad, Francis Alfred | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Brockway, A. Fenner | Charieton, H. C. |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Bromfield, William | Chater, Daniel |
Barnes, Alfred John | Bromley, J. | Church, Major A. G. |
Barr, James | Brooke, W. | Clarke, J. S. |
Batey, Joseph | Brothers, M. | Cluse, W. S. |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Leach, W. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
Compton, Joseph | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Sanders, W. S. |
Cove, William G. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sandham, E. |
Daggar, George | Lees, J. | Sawyer, G. F. |
Dallas, George | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Scrymgeour, E. |
Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, Fred W. | Scurr, John |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Sexton, James |
Day, Harry | Logan, David Gilbert | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | Longbottom, A. W. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
Dickson, T. | Longden, F. | Shield, George William |
Dukes, C. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Duncan, Charles | Lowth, Thomas | Shlliaker, J. F. |
Ede, James Chuter | Lunn, William | Shinwell, E. |
Edmunds, J. E. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Simmons, C. J. |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Sinkinson, George |
Egan, W. H. | McElwee, A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
Forgan, Dr. Robert | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
Freeman, Peter | Mackinder, W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | McKinlay, A. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Gibbins, Joseph | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Mansfield, W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Gill, T. H. | March, S. | Snell, Harry |
Gillett, George M. | Marcus, M. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Gossling, A. G. | Markham, S. F. | Sorensen, R. |
Gould, F. | Marley, J. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Marshall, Fred | Stephen, Campbell |
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mathers, George | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Matters, L. W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Groves, Thomas E. | Maxton, James | Strauss, G. R. |
Grundy, Thomas W. | Melville, Sir James | Sullivan, J. |
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Messer, Fred | Sutton, J. E. |
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Middleton, G. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Mills, J. E. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Milner, J. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
Hardie, George D. | Montague, Frederick | Thurtle, Ernest |
Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Tillett, Ben |
Haycock, A. W. | Morley, Ralph | Tinker, John Joseph |
Hayday, Arthur | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Toole, Joseph |
Hayes, John Henry | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Tout, W. J. |
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Mort, D. L. | Townend, A. E. |
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Moses, J. J. H. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Turner, B. |
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Vaughan, D. J. |
Herriotts, J. | Muff, G. | Viant, S. P. |
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Walkden, A. G. |
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Murnin, Hugh | Walker, J. |
Hoffman, P. C. | Naylor, T. E. | Wallace, H. W. |
Hollins, A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
Hopkin, Daniel | Noel Baker, P. J. | Watkins, F. C. |
Horrabin, J. F. | Oldfield, J. R. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
Isaacs, George | Palin, John Henry | Wellock, Wilfred |
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Paling, Wilfrid | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
John, William (Rhondda, West) | Palmer, E. T. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Johnston, Thomas | Perry, S. F. | West, F. R. |
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Phillips, Dr. Marlon | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Whitetey, William (Blaydon) |
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Pole, Major D. G. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Kelly, W. T. | Potts, John S. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Kennedy, Thomas | Price, M. P. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Kinley, J. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Kirkwood, D. | Raynes, W. R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Knight, Holford | Richards, R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
Lang, Gordon | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wise, E. F. |
Lathan, G. | Riley, F. F (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
Law, Albert (Bolton) | Ritson, J. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Law, A. (Rosendale) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W Bromwich) | |
Lawrence, Susan | Romeril, H. G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. |
Lawson, John James | Rowson, Guy | Smith. |
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Division No. 233.]
| AYES.
| [10.11 p.m.
|
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Ammon, Charles George |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Angell, Norman |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Alpass, J. H. | Arnott, John |
The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 210.
Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Palmer, E. T. |
Ayles, Walter | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hoffman, P. C. | Perry, S. F. |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hollins, A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
Barnes, Alfred John | Hopkin, Daniel | Phillips, Dr. Marlon |
Barr, James | Horrabin, J. F. | Picton-Turbervill, Edith |
Batey, Joseph | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Pole, Major D. G. |
Bellamy, Albert | Isaacs, George | Potts, John S. |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Price, M. P. |
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Johnston, Thomas | Rathbone, Eleanor |
Benson, G. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Raynes, W. R. |
Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Richards, R. |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring) |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
Bowen, J. W. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kelly, W. T. | Ritson, J. |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Kennedy, Thomas | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Ken worthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Romeril, H. G. |
Bromfield, William | Kinley, J. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
Bromley, J. | Kirkwood, D. | Rowson, Guy |
Brooke, W. | Knight, Holford | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
Brothers, M. | Lang, Gordon | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Sanders, W. S. |
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lathan, G. | Sandham, E. |
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Sawyer, G. F. |
Buchanan, G. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Scrymgeour, E. |
Burgess, F. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Scurr, John |
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sexton, James |
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Lawson, John James | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Calne, Derwent Hall- | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
Cameron, A. G. | Leach, W. | Sherwood, G. H. |
Cape, Thomas | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shield, George William |
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Charieton, H. C. | Lees, J. | Shillaker, J. F. |
Chater, Daniel | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shinwell, E. |
Church, Major A. G. | Lindley, Fred W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Clarke, J. S. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Simmons, C. J. |
Cluse, W. S. | Logan, David Gilbert | Sinkinson, George |
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Longbottom, A. W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Longden, F. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
Compton, Joseph | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
Cove, William G. | Lowth, Thomas | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Daggar, George | Lunn, William | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
Dallas, George | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Dalton, Hugh | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Day, Harry | McElwee, A. | Snell, Harry |
Denman, Hon. R. D. | McEntee, V. L. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Dickson, T. | Mackinder, W. | Sorensen, R. |
Dukes, C. | McKinlay, A. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Duncan, Charles | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Stephen, Campbell |
Ede, James Chuter | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
Edmunds, J. E. | Mansfield, W. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | March, S. | Strauss, G. R. |
Egan, W. H. | Marcus, M. | Sullivan, J. |
Forgan, Dr. Robert | Markham, S. F. | Sutton, J. E. |
Freeman, Peter | Marley, J. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Marshall, Fred | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Mathers, George | Thomas, Rt. Hon J. H. (Derby) |
Gibbins, Joseph | Matters, L. W. | Thurtle, Ernest |
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | Maxton, James | Tinker, John Joseph |
Gill, T. H. | Melville, Sir James | Toole, Joseph |
Gillett, George M. | Messer, Fred | Tout, W. J. |
Gossling, A. G. | Middleton, G. | Townend, A. E. |
Gould, F. | Mills, J. E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Milner, J. | Turner, B. |
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Montague, Frederick | Vaughan, D. J. |
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Viant, S. P. |
Groves, Thomas E. | Morley, Ralph | Walkden, A. G. |
Grundy, Thomas W. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Walker, J. |
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wallace, H. W. |
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mort, D. L. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Moses, J. J. H. | Watkins, F. C. |
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
Hardie, George D. | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Muff, G. | Wellock, Wilfred |
Haycock, A. W. | Muggeridge, H. T. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Hayday, Arthur | Murnin, Hugh | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Hayes, John Henry | Naylor, T. E. | West, F. R. |
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Oldfield, J. R. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Herriotts, J. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) | |
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) | Wise, E. F. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling. |
Wilson, J. (Oldham) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) Paling. | |
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
NOES.
| ||
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'l'd) |
Albery, Irving James | Ford, Sir P. J. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | O'Neill, Sir H. |
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Peake, Captain Osbert |
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Penny, Sir George |
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
Atholl, Duchess of | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
Atkinson, C. | Gower, Sir Robert | Power, Sir John Cecil |
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben |
Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Purbrick, R. |
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Ramsbotham, H. |
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
Beaumont, M. W. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Remer, John R. |
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. |
Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Revnolds, Col. Sir James |
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) |
Bird, Ernest Roy | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil |
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Hammersley, S. S. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
Boyce, H. L. | Hanbury, C. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
Bracken, B. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hartington, Marquess of | Salmon, Major I. |
Brass, Captain Sir William | Haslam, Henry C. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
Briscoe, Richard George | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
Buchan, John | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Savery, S. S. |
Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
Butler, R. A. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Skelton, A. N. |
Carver, Major W. H. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hurd, Percy A. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.) |
Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Iveagh, Countess of | Smithers, Waldron |
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Somerset, Thomas |
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
Chapman, Sir S. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
Christie, J. A. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
Colfox, Major William Philip | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
Colville, Major D. J. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
Courtauld, Major J. S. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Thomson, Sir F. |
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Tinne, J. A. |
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Long, Major Eric | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Lymington, Viscount | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
Croom-Johnson, R. P. | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Train, J. |
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Macquisten, F. A. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
Dalkeith, Earl of | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
Davies, Dr. Vernon | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
Duckworth, G. A. V. | Meller, R. J. | Wells, Sydney R. |
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
Eden, Captain Anthony | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
Edmondson, Major A. J. | Mond, Hon. Henry | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
Elliot, Major Walter E. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
England, Colonel A. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Womersley, W. J. |
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
Everard, W. Lindsay | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
Ferguson, Sir John | Muirhead, A. J. | |
Fermoy, Lord | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Fielden, E. B. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Captain Sir George Bowyer and |
Sir Victor Warrender. |
Clause 4—(Committees Of Investigation)
The next Amendment I call is the first standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). There are several Amendments hanging together, and I think the first one will settle them all.
I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
"(5) (a) The Lord Chief Justice shall appoint commissioners (hereinafter referred to as judicial commissioners), consisting of a chairman, who shall be a judge of the supreme court, a chartered or incorporated accountant, and a person having industrial and commercial experience, for the purpose of hearing and deciding such matters as may be submitted to them under this section.
(b) The meetings and procedure of the judicial commissioners shall be regulated in accordance with rules framed by the chairman for the purpose.
(6) (a) The judicial commissioners shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any matter coming before them under this section in respect of—(i) discovery and production to the judicial commissioners of documents and for the purposes thereof the judicial commissioners shall have power to appoint and employ accountants and other experts to make such investigations and reports as they shall order; and (ii) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise; and (iii) compelling the production of documents; and (iv) punishing persons guilty of contempt; and a summons signed by one of the judicial commissioners may be substituted for and equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of any documents.
I take it that it is proposed that we shall have a general discussion on this Amendment and then have one Division—unless the President of the Board of Trade accepts it, and I hope he may, because it is an Amendment of great liberality and reasonableness. It is a matter of happy augury for us all that the Naval Conferences has so far advanced to success as to enable some of our Friends to join us in the Lobby. It is very cheering news that has come to us during the dinner hour. I hope they may feel emboldened to support this Amendment also. The object of this Amendment is to set up an authoritative judicial commission. We have now passed, on our downward course, this "charter of oppression" which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon us. We now have the coalowners free from all restrictions and conditions to settle the price of coal which they think they are best able to extract from the consumer, and there remains to us but one opportunity of giving the consumer, in the last resort, some potent and authoritative court of appeal to which he may take his grievances. All that the right hon. Gentleman proposes is that the consumer may go to a committee of investigation, where the lion and the lamb will lie down together. The coalowners and the miners will form one side of that tribunal—and I have no doubt they will agree very well. There will also be representatives of the consumers—or the consumed, as I think they might very properly be termed; and there will be an independent chairman. But that committee is to have no power. It is only to investigate, to discuss, to express an opinion. Very likely it will express three opinions. The coalowners and the miners will certainly express one opinion; I should not be surprised if the consumers — or consumed — expressed another; and it may well be that the independent chairman will express a third. But that division of opinion does not really matter very much, because the committee cannot do anything; it can only report to the President of the Board of Trade. Oh, no, it does something else first; it approaches the parties concerned and tries to see what it can do by using its good offices with them. Having failed in those good offices, the committee, in three sets, then approaches the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade tries its hand, and it approaches the parties, and if it does not succeed, with the parties—and having given them carte blanche to do what they like, I do not suppose it will be very successful—it may then itself have an investigation and send for papers and documents. I wonder how long this is going to take? It has taken some time for the Bill to go through Committee, but that is nothing to the time which will be occupied in this process. In November a consumer will complain of the price, and I suppose by about the following June, when prices generally have fallen, we may possibly get some conclusion from the Board of Trade. Six months will elapse and nothing will be done. This Amendment offers to the unhappy consumer a judicial tribunal to which he can apply. I can cite very good precedents for the setting up of such a tribunal. The Railway and Canal Commission and the Railway Rates Tribunal have been set up to deal with railway rates and the complaints of traders. Although in the case of railway rates and railway transport the railway companies are governed by Act of Parliament, the traders are given a judicial court of appeal as against the railway companies, and how much more important it is that some real right of appeal should be given to the consumers under this Bill where almost a free hand is allowed to the coalowners. It is no good telling us that the President of the Board of Trade has power to deal with these matters, because they are questions that cannot be dealt with effectively unless the tribunal has power to make an order. If a district committee found that the public were suffering, they would be able to say that the public shall not suffer any more and some alteration would be made. There should be an authoritative judicial court of appeal, and I propose by this Amendment that we should establish such a court. Such a tribunal should include a judge or an experienced barrister, a capable accountant and a man with commercial experience. That is exactly what is done in the case of the Railway and Canal Commission, and I think we should establish such a body as that which I am proposing, giving it power to hear appeals from the decisions of the local investigation committees. The tribunal, I suggest, should have power to deal in the first instance with any serious difference which arises between the traders and the coalowners covering the whole country. Such a question should not be made the sport of 21 different arbitration tribunals, and it ought to come before a proper tribunal and be settled according to principles which that tribunal would lay down. The tribunal I propose should be given power to alter schemes which militate against the public interest, and I do not see any point in an inquiry unless that can be done. I know that the Board of Trade have power to alter these schemes, and if they are found to be working against the public interest, then I think this judicial tribunal should have at least as much authority in such matters as that which is possessed by the President of the Board of Trade. If those committees recommend some proposal outside the scope of the Act they ought to come to Parliament. This is the last opportunity we shall have of giving the consumer any protection under this Bill, and there is every precedent for doing what I have put forward. The consumers ought to have an authoritative judicial tribunal before which their cases can be tried.(b) The judicial commissioners may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number."
My right hon. Friend has thrown great enthusiasm into his task of promoting the cause of judicial commissioners in what I understand is to be almost the last of these efforts during the Committee stage of the Bill. I think I can summarise the matter quite simply by saying that the choice before the Committee is between the establishment of elaborate machinery of this kind, and the machinery for safeguarding consumers and owners in the district schemes which is provided partly in the Bill, and is improved by the new Clause which the Government have on the Paper. As regards the functions under any district scheme, I think that my right hon. Friend is quite wrong in trying to establish any case, either on the basis of the Railway and Canal Commission or on the basis of the Railway Rates Tribunal. To take the latter as an illustration, that was a tribunal set up under the Railways Act, 1921, to perform a specific duty, namely, to fix the charges of railway companies in this country to give them the standard revenue of 1913, together with certain allowances for capital expenditure and the rest, while that remained un-remunerative. In other words, it was a specific duty under an Act of Parliament, and was not a problem relating to an industry like the coal industry. Railways had come into four great amalgamations or trusts, and they were given that form of guarantee, if I may so describe it. But there is no underlying guarantee of that kind in the case of the coal industry, because it operates, not only within this country, but outside, and is not in a semi-sheltered position as the railways are. I think that the Committee should not worry, if I may say so, at this late hour, with comparisons with the Railway and Canal Commission or the Railway Rates Tribunal.
The short question is whether this machinery which my right hon. Friend proposes is preferable to the machinery in the Bill. Quite shortly, what does the Bill provide? As regards the district schemes, on any grievance which may be felt by an individual owner regarding the quota, the standard tonnage, the minimum price, or whatever the conditions may be, he has a right to go to the executive body of his fellow-owners, and he is a member of that body or is represented on it. Then, if he is not satisfied, he has a right of immediate appeal to an independent arbitrator, a competent person, whose decision for all practical purposes will be final and binding in a matter of this kind; and, for all that I know, he may have certain rights in law as well, though I cannot pronounce on that. That is the position in regard to the operation of the scheme within the district, and it gives a plain protection, so far as the owner is concerned, in the matters which affect him when he becomes a party to or is brought into this district organisation. But probably the right hon. Gentleman has much more in mind the position of the consumer. All along we have sought to protect the consumers' interests, and, in so far as the Bill was originally inconsistent with that, we have sought to improve it. The district committees of investigation, though small in number, will be representative and competent to deal with any difficulty that arises in the functions or operations of a district scheme. I should hope that no large national question would arise and that this machinery would be quite sufficient for its purpose. Any industry or railway company, or any individual in the locality, who considers that the price of coal is too high, and that it has been raised by the operation of the district scheme, may go to the committee, which will take up the case and, if they are satisfied that there is an abuse, call upon the executive body to have it put right, or it can go to arbitration, and, if a remedy is not found, the scheme may continue on a non-statutory basis, but only if the Board of Trade approves and only if the scheme is broadly in keeping with the provisions of the central machinery; in other words, in my judgment, if this particular difficulty is not of major or commanding importance. If it falls into the latter category, the Board of Trade has power to withdraw the statutory basis of the scheme and, beyond that, it may put forward a scheme of its own, or it may vary the constitution and the personnel of the district scheme. That is far more economical than the judge and judicial commissioners which the right hon. Gentleman, in an access of bureaucratic enthusiasm, proposes to drive into this well-meaning legislation.The right hon. Gentleman knows what road is paved with good intentions.
The safeguards in the Bill are complete, with the long Clause which is to be moved later, and on those grounds I feel that this elaborate machinery is not required. With very great regret, in the presence of such universal good will, I am compelled to reject the Amendment.
I expressed my surprise earlier in the day that the Government should have refused to accept an Amendment which seemed to me to be consequential upon the decision arrived at last week, but I should have been exceedingly surprised if they had accepted the Amendment that is now before the Committee. It is one which has never had any support from these benches and is superfluous in view of the concessions which have already been made by the Government to the representations we made on the Second Reading. We then urged that the powers of control under this Clause in the interests of the consumer were wholly inadequate, and we strongly represented that the elaborate schemes in the Bill as it came before us were not a sufficient protection to the interests of the consumer. Among the four questions that were put on the Second Reading from these benches was the question whether the Government would make proposals in Committee for securing that the representations of the consumers should be adequately and quickly considered, and if they were held to be well founded, should be given effect to. That the Government have done, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) denouncing the Bill as it stood, entirely ignored the new Sub-sections which stand upon the Paper and which we shall reach in a few minutes. Those Sub-sections provide that, where representation is made that the scheme is likely to have an effect contrary to the public interest—that is the unfair and undue raising of prices—the matter shall be considered by these committees of investigation, including representatives of the consumers, and, if they think the representations are well founded, they may take action accordingly. If the mine-owners, who have the entire control of the committees under the Act, do not observe those recommendations, the matter can at once be put to the judgment of an independent arbitrator.
There is the further provision, to which the President of the Board of Trade did not draw attention in his remarks just now, that, where the arbitrator gives an award, it shall be the duty of the committees of mineowners to comply therewith. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon said, that there was no control of any sort, and that mineowners were left entirely free and independent to work their wicked will upon the consumers, is no longer the case. Machinery has been put into the framework of this Bill—I do not say anything at this stage on that—to meet the particular claim that was made. In these circumstances, the Amendment with regard to judicial commissioners is wholly unnecessary. Either these commissioners will have to deal with points of law, in which case they are really superseding the Courts of Law—and it is far better that such matters should be dealt with by the Courts—or else they will be dealing with matters which can be far better and more simply dealt with by the arbitrators who are now proposed under the provisions of the Bill. Under these circumstances, I trust that this Amendment will not be pressed, but if it is we cannot support it.I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade one question. Has he ever had any personal experience of arbitration, and has he any idea how long it takes, and how much it costs?
I support this Amendment. I think that it is a great improvement on the Clauses. It is a very difficult thing for any of us to take the responsibility which will be required to be taken in this matter. You want a semi-judicial body of this description. There may be vast sums at stake in the price of coal, far greater than are decided in the Courts of Law in any one year. There may be millions at stake in this matter. This is a far greater improvement on the Courts, and it will secure, at all events, that the commissioners shall be men of the highest possible standard. There is no guarantee of that in the subsequent Clauses. How do we know what the Board of Trade may be in the future? We may have a Board of Trade which is being dictated to from behind by miners, or mine-owners, or miners' representatives, just as we have a Government at the present time who are being dictated to by miners' representatives. The whole Bill is the result of what you may call a syndicalist alliance between miners and mineowners, and the wretched consumer is to be victimised because he is not organised. He will have to pay more and more under the Bill for his coal; he ought to have the protection of a semi-judicial tribunal.
I have listened to this Debate hoping to hear from one side or the other something about what is really meant by the word "consumer." The whole of the cumbrous machinery proposed by the Bill seems to be designed possibly to meet the needs of great consumers of coal like railway companies or the whole gas industries of the country combined. They might be able to use this kind of machinery. To them the judicial body proposed by the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) might possibly be more effective, and I think it is an improvement on the proposal in the Bill. But can anyone imagine the consumer who I have in mind, the ordinary humble consumer of coal who buys by the hundredweight, being able to get any redress either by the machinery of the Bill or the Amendment that has been moved. I have not heard a single word to show that the Government have done anything to deal with the complaints of any unjust increase of price which might be made by this combination of mineowners and workers, or have dealt in any effective way with the real consumers of coal in this country, the small consumers, humble people, to whom this is a vital matter.
I cannot say that I regard the judicial tribunal suggested by my right hon. Friend as being able really to deal with the case at all. There is no combination of these humble consumers. They have no trade union behind them or federation to speak for them. They have no one. The Government have no mercy upon them; and the Liberals have run away. They have no friends in this House and, therefore, I desire to say one word on their behalf. Whether we pass the proposal of the Government as it is or with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the fact remains that the humble consumers of coal are going to have the price increased against them; they are going to be ground down by a combination of mineowners and miners.There is one point to which I desire to call attention. Under the Clause to be submitted to the Committee only two parties are to be represented before the arbitrator. They are the investigating committee and the body charged with the duty of administering the schemes. There is no opportunity at all for the ordinary consumer of coal to be represented before that arbitrator, and that is one of the reasons why I so much prefer the Clause that has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) because it does seem important that when you are giving these tremendous powers of price-fixing you ought to ensure that the consumers of coal throughout the
Division No. 234.]
| AYES.
| [10.54 p.m.
|
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) |
Albery, Irving James | Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Chapman, Sir S. |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Boyce, H. L. | Christie, J. A. |
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Bracken, B. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George |
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Colfox, Major William Philip |
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Brass, Captain Sir William | Colville, Major D. J. |
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Briscoe, Richard George | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
Atholl, Duchess of | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. |
Atkinson, C. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. |
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Buchan, John | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. |
Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Butler, R. A. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. |
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Butt, Sir Alfred | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) |
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Carver, Major W. H. | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
Beaumont, M. W. | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Dalkeith, Earl of |
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey |
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) |
Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
Bird, Ernest Roy | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
country have some tribunal before which they can appear and have their casa heard. Taking the case before the Board of Trade is not the same tiling at all. As the learned Attorney-General will know, it has often been said that it is almost as important that justice should appear to be done as that it should be done, and the point of having a tribunal before which the consumers or their representatives can appear, rather than before the Board of Trade, is that they know then that their case has been heard. It is not just a matter of writing a letter to the Government Department and getting a very polite, formal reply within a day or two, and then a reply three weeks or so later saying that the matter has been disposed of. Really, it is most important that every consumer should be able in some way, through his organisation, perhaps, to appear before a person whom he will see and know that his case is heard. I should really have thought that, at any rate, at this hour of the evening, this proposal would have got support from the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members below the Gangway, because we have now seen that
"Hearts are bold again and arms are strong."
It seems to me, from the way in which Members of the Liberal party have gone this way and that on this proposal—if I may quote one more line from the same hymn—that
"Soon, soon to ancient warriors comes their rest."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 285.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
Duckworth, G. A. V. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
Eden, Captain Anthony | Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
Edmondson, Major A. J. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Salmon, Major I. |
Elliot, Major Writer E. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
Everard, W. Lindsay | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Liewellin, Major J. J. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
Ferguson, Sir John | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Savery, S. S. |
Fermoy, Lord | Long, Major Eric | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
Fielden, E. B. | Lymington, Viscount | Skelton, A. N. |
Fison, F. G. Clavering | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
Ford, Sir P. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Macquisten, F. A. | Smithers, Waldron |
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Somerset, Thomas |
Ganzoni, Sir John | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
Gault, Lieut.- Col. Andrew Hamilton | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East); |
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
Gower, Sir Robert | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)' |
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Meller, R. J. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mond, Hon. Henry | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Thomson, Sir F. |
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Tinne, J. A. |
Gritten, W. G. Howard | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
Gunston, Captain D. W. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Train, J. |
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Muirhead, A. J. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
Hammersley, S. S. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
Hanbury, C. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | O'Neill, Sir H. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
Hartington, Marquess of | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Warrender, Sir Victor |
Haslam, Henry C. | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Wells, Sydney R. |
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben. | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Purbrick, R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Ramsbotham, H. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
Hurd, Percy A. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Womersley, W. J. |
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
Iveagh, Countess of | Remer, John R. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | |
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Reynolds, Col. Sir James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Kindersley, Major G. M. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Captain Sir George Bowyer and |
Sir George Penny. |
NOES.
| ||
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bromley, J. | Dickson, T. |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Brooke, W. | Dukes, C. |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Brothers, M. | Duncan, Charles |
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Ede, James Chuter |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Edmunds, J. E. |
Alpass, J. H. | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
Ammon, Charles George | Buchanan, G. | Egan, W. H. |
Angell, Norman | Burgess, F. G. | Elmley, Viscount |
Arnott, John | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | England, Colonel A. |
Aske, Sir Robert | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Foot, Isaac |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Forgan, Dr. Robert |
Ayles, Walter | Calne, Derwent Hall- | Freeman, Peter |
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cameron, A. G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton). |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Cape, Thomas | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) |
Barnes, Alfred John | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gibbins, Joseph |
Barr, James | Charieton, H. C. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley). |
Batey, Joseph | Chater, Daniel | Gill, T. H. |
Bellamy, Albert | Church, Major A. G. | Gillett, George M. |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Clarke, J. S. | Glassey, A. E. |
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Cluse, W. S. | Gossling, A. G. |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Gould, F. |
Benson, G. | Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) |
Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Compton, Joseph | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Cove, William G. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Daggar, George | Groves, Thomas E. |
Bowen, J. W. | Dallas, George | Grundy, Thomas W. |
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
Broad, Francis Alfred | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
Brockway, A. Fenner | Day, Harry | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
Bromfield, William | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
Hardie, George D. | Markham, S. F. | Shield, George William |
Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Marley, J. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Haycock, A. W. | Marshall, Fred | Shillaker, J. F. |
Hayday, Arthur | Mathers, George | Shinwell, E. |
Hayes, John Henry | Matters, L. W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Maxton, James | Simmons, C. J. |
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Melville, Sir James | Sinkinson, George |
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Messer, Fred | Sitch, Charles H. |
Herriotts, J. | Middleton, G. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Mills, J. E. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South) | Milner, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Hoffman, P. C. | Montague, Frederick | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
Hollins, A. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Hopkin, Daniel | Morley, Ralph | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Hore-Belisha, Leslie. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Horrabin, J. F. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Snell, Harry |
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Mort, D. L. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
Isaacs, George | Moses, J. J. H. | Sorensen, R. |
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
John, William (Rhondda, West) | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Stephen, Campbell |
Johnston, Thomas | Muff, G. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Murnin, Hugh | Strauss, G. R. |
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Nathan, Major H. L. | Sullivan, J. |
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Naylor, T. E. | Sutton, J. E. |
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Kelly, W. T. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
Kennedy, Thomas | Oldfield, J. R. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Thurtle, Ernest |
Kinley, J. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Tinker, John Joseph |
Kirkwood, D. | Palin, John Henry | Toole, Joseph |
Knight, Holford | Paling, Wilfrid | Tout, W. J. |
Lang, Gordon | Palmer, E. T. | Townend, A. E. |
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Lathan, G. | Perry, S. F. | Turner, B. |
Law, Albert (Bolton) | Pethick, Lawrence, F. W. | Vaughan, D. J. |
Law, A. (Rosendale) | Phillips, Dr. Marlon | Viant, S. P. |
Lawrence, Susan | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Walkden, A. G. |
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Pole, Major D. G. | Walker, J. |
Lawson, John James | Potts, John S. | Wallace, H. W. |
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Price, M. P. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
Leach, W. | Pybus, Percy John | Watkins, F. C. |
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Quibell, D. J. K. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
Lees, J. | Raynes, W. R. | Wellock, Wilfred |
Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Richards, R. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Lindley, Fred W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Lloyd, C. Ellis | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | West, F. R. |
Logan, David Gilbert | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
Longbottom, A. W. | Ritson, J. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Longden, F. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Romeril, H. G. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Lowth, Thomas | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Lunn, William | Rowson, Guy | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
McElwee, A. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
McEntee, V. L. | Sanders, W. S. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
McKinlay, A. | Sandham, E. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Sawyer, G. F. | Wise, E. F. |
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Scrymgeour, E. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Scurr, John | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Sexton, James | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Mansfield, W. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | |
March, S. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Marcus, M. | Sherwood, G. H. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson. |
I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, to leave out from the word "scheme" to the word "is" in line 10.
In moving this Amendment, I will refer also to my subsequent Amendment—in line 22, after the word "them," to insert the words "under this Sub-section," and also to the proposed new Sub-sections (8), (9) and (10) which stands in my name. The effect of leaving out the wordsis to draw a distinction as to the work of the investigation committee relating to the structure of a scheme. This is intended to deal with the point that there was no adequate provision for consumers. The Government have now defined the structure of the Bill, and in the Clause on the following page we protect the consumer."or any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme."
We think that the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has inserted in the interests of the consumer are really so much camouflage. His original provision was useless, and it is not added to by the words which he now proposes, but we do not intend to divide.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 11, line 22, after the word "them," insert the words "under this Sub-section."
In page 12, line 11, at the end, add the words:
"(8) If after investigating any complaint made with respect to the operation of a scheme, a committee of investigation is of opinion that any act or omission of any persons in respect of their functions under the scheme is having or is likely to have an effect contrary to the public interests, it shall be the duty of the committee to make representations with respect thereto to the persons having power under the scheme to rectify the matter, and if, upon such representations being made, the matter is not dealt with to the satisfaction of the committee, the committee may refer the matter to a single independent arbitrator to be appointed by agreement between the committee and the body charged with the duty of administering the scheme, or, in default of agreement, by the Board of Trade, and the persons having power under the scheme to give effect to the decision shall comply therewith and exercise their functions under the scheme in conformity with the decision.
(9) A committee of investigation upon referring any matter to arbitration in accordance with the last foregoing sub-section, shall make a report thereon to the Board of Trade, and shall also report to the Board the arbitrator's decision and what steps have been taken to comply therewith, and the Board shall have power to make in the scheme such amendments (if any) as they think necessary for securing that the scheme will be administered in conformity with the decision, and in particular may by such amendments alter the composition of the body charged with the administration of the scheme as if the scheme had been made by the Board.
(10) The Board of Trade shall make regulations for the conduct of references to arbitration under this section, and such regulations shall make provision as to the persons by whom the remuneration of the arbitrator is to be defrayed, and all such regulations shall be laid before Parliament, and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply with respect to any arbitration under this section except in so far as they may be applied by the said regulations."—[Mr. W. Graham.]
Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clauses 5 ( Information to be furnished to Board of Trade), 6 ( Report to be laid before Parliament), 7 ( Information obtained under Act not to be disclosed), and 8 ( Offences and penalties) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause—(Duration Of Part I)
Part I of this Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.—[ Mr. W. Graham.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We must be grateful for small mercies. We do not propose to divide on this new Clause.
In reference to the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has moved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I take it that this demonstration on the part of hon. Members above the Gangway is an acknowledgement of the fact that the new Clause is being inserted in accordance with a request put forward from these Benches on the Second Reading, and that hon. Members are taking this opportunity of expressing their gratitude. I should like to express my own gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for this Clause and it is to be hoped that during the period of two or three years that will elapse before these schemes come to an end, the amalgamation provisions will have time to take full effect. I trust that those provisions will be accepted by hon. Members with equal enthusiasm.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause—(Effect Of Schemes On Contracts)
(1) A contract for the sale or supply of coal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall not be void or unenforceable as between the parties by reason that it cannot be performed without contravening the provisions of a scheme in force under Part I of this Act.
(2) Where the output or disposal of a coal mine exceeds during any period the quota
of that mine for that period, the owner of the mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme, nor shall any deduction be made from the quota of the mine for any subsequent period, in respect of the excess, if it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty or make the deduction or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator—
(3) The owner of a coal mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme by reason of the fact that he has, in pursuance of any contract, sold or supplied coal at a price below the minimum price determined in respect of that coal under the scheme at the time of the sale or supply, unless the price at which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied was lower than the minimum price determined in respect thereof under the scheme at the time when the contract was made, or, where no minimum price had then been determined in respect of the coal, unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was contracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme.—[ The Attorney-General.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the effect of schemes on contracts. It will be observed that the first part of the Clause provides that, as between two contracting parties, nothing in this Bill is to be treated as rendering a contract void or unenforceable. A contract remains entirely unaffected by any of the provisions of the Bill. Then we have to consider the effect of schemes not as between two contracting parties, but, as between the coalowner and the executive board. Sub-section (2) of the Clause deals with the question of excess of output. There may be, in respect of any given period, an excess of output for disposal, and it is manifest that, if one coalowner in a district exceeds his output, it may have an adverse effect upon other coalowners in the district. Consequently, it is only fair that, subject to the precautions which we have taken here, if anybody does exceed his output, the result of so doing will fall upon him rather than upon his brother coalowners who have not exceeded their output. The Clause provides, however, that no penalties or deductions are to be made, in respect of a coalowner who has exceeded his output, if it is adjudged that the excess was occasioned solely by the performance of contracts made before the 11th December, 1929, the date of the introduction of the Bill, that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of those contracts, and that having regard to the provisions of the central scheme, the imposition of the penalty, or the making of the deduction can, without substantial injury to the interests of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with. Then, in the last part of the Clause, we deal with the question of price. A coalowner in any particular period may fix a price. That price may be altered when delivery comes to be made. He may find himself, although the price is fixed at a time when there was no price fixing scheme in operation, in a difficulty by reason of the fact that when delivery comes, the price fixed may be altered. So the Clause makes it plain that all the owner may have regard to is the price that existed when the contract was made; and if he has fixed his price in accordance with the price fixed at the time the contract was made, he is not under penalty or disability by reason of the fact that there has been an alteration in the present date of delivery. We have still to provide for the case of the price being fixed at the present time, there being no price fixing machinery in operation. This proposed Clause deals with it in this way. In a case such as this, the price having been fixed at the present time, the coalowner is again to be under no sort of penalty or disability,What we have endeavoured to do, in regard to the ordinary commercial bargains, is to protect the coalowner absolutely; but in regard to the coalowners who, seeing the Bill coming, have taken the advantage to enter into contracts which, in the ordinary course of commerce they would not have entered into, we have provided that, if it is adjudged—and only if it is adjudged—that they had acted in that way, they may become liable to the penalties provided."unless it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty, or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator, that the quantity of coal contracted to be sold or supplied is greater, or the period over which the coal was con- tracted to be sold or supplied is longer than it would have been if no party to the contract had anticipated that the price would be regulated under the scheme."
We ought to know a little more about this Clause. I agree with the Attorney-General's interpretation of the Clause, but the Committee ought to understand a little more clearly its implications. I ask the Attorney-General to correct me if I am wrong. First of all, one can offend against Part I of the Bill either by selling below the minimum price or selling more than the quota. With regard to the minimum price, I have little to say about Subsection (3), which seems to me to deal with the difficulties which may arise. But with regard to the quota, apparently it is necessary, in order that a man, who in performance of a contract has to sell more than his quota, may be exempt, that the contract must have been made before 11th December last year. That is one of the conditions for his escaping a penalty.
Supposing that in the latter days of December a man, who has been accustomed to sell 100 per cent. of his output to some regular customers, knowing that this Bill has been introduced, but being in complete ignorance as to what his quota will be, either sells 100 per cent. of his output, or sells a certain percentage, say 80, which happens to turn out larger than the quota allotted to him, the contract is made after 11th December but shortly afterwards, and at a time when he could not possibly know what the quota is. He will then, as I understand it, be liable to a penalty. He does not come within the paragraphs, the first of which is that the excess was solely occasioned by the contract made before 11th December. So apparently he will be liable to a penalty. On the other hand, he cannot escape the liability which he has contracted to his buyer. The contract does not become void and unenforceable, because of the fact that under this law it has become unlawful for him to produce that amount of coal. It is a hard position for a man to be put into retrospectively in regard to a perfectly proper transaction entered into in the ordinary course of business within a few days of the time when this Bill was introduced and when he could not possibly know what his quota was to be. It is a hard thing for a man who has made a bad shot at his quota to be, apparently, saddled with a penalty, while at the same time he cannot escape under the ordinary law the obligations of his contract. I want the Attorney-General to consider this. Supposing that a coal owner had intelligently anticipated the form which this Bill was to take, and knew that a quota was to be imposed upon him, and that in making his forward contracts in December he put in a clause to the effect that in the event of legislation being passed curtailing his production the contract should be avoided, or avoided in proportion. I ask the Attorney-General whether, under the Clause as drafted, the coalowner would not still in spite of having put the clause in the contract, be liable to his buyer for the complete fulfilment of his contract; because this Clause as it stands makes no reference to any contrary provision in the contract. The Statute, as it will read, will say the contract shall not be void and unenforceable by reason of the quota Clauses and I suggest that the Statute would prevail and the clause in the contract would not. As the Statute says, the contract is not to be void and unenforceable, he would not be able to plead a clause in the contract saying that it should be avoided. This may be a mere matter of words, but I suggest that the point ought to be considered. The Attorney-General has told us quite truly, that this contract is not to be void and unenforceable, although the law has made it illegal to perform it, because that is the plain English. A man who, after the 11th December, did make a forward contract exactly as he had done in past years, for a quantity of coal no greater than he had delivered in the past, but which turned out to be larger than his quota will, retrospectively, have been doing an illegal thing, and yet he is to be liable to his buyer. I want to know why the Clause takes the form that it does. I am going to call the attention of the Committee to the original form in which this proposed Clause was printed, and to ask what is the reason for the change. I have before me the Blue Order Paper and the White Order Paper for 11th March. In the White Order Paper the Clause reads as it now stands, but on the Blue Order Paper for that date it reads as follows: Mr. William Graham to move the following Clause:(1) A contract for the sale and supply of coal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall be void and unenforceable as between the parties if it cannot be performed without contravening the provisions of a scheme in force under Part 1 of this Act.
The Attorney-General will deal with the legal point, but I should like to explain the reason for this variation in the Clause. An hon. Member in another part of the House accidentally put down a Government Clause, and that was printed for a day or two until the correction was made. That is the explanation, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept it.
I want to ask one question. I will assume that the Bill is law, a district scheme is in force, and the price is fixed for a certain grade or quality of coal. There is a provision that no contract shall be made for a period of 12 months. Suppose that a seller of coal sells coal for three years at the price fixed, ignoring the regulation as to the period? I want to know what the position would be? Would that man be liable for penalties for selling contrary to the price should the price be changed after the period had elapsed, and when the regulation said that no contract should be made for a larger period? That is a matter of great importance, because there is a great temptation to make long contracts in order to get orders on the order book.
Sub-section (1) of this new Clause provides for the sale or supply of coal, and Sub-section (2) deals with the case of a man who made a contract before the 11th day of December, 1929. If it is shown that a man before the Bill was heard of made an agreement in the ordinary course of his business, in pursuance of his legal rights, he has to show that the excess was reasonably necessary for the performance of that contract. Why should the unfortunate man who has acted in accordance with his legal rights, who did not try to anticipate any contract, who has done nothing whatsoever except what he was legally entitled to do in the ordinary course of his business, be asked, when he comes to carry out his contract, to prove that
which he has never heard of—"Having regard to the provisions of the central scheme"—
That is a piece of absolute tyranny. If he has fulfilled the conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b), he has done everything that an honourable man should be asked to do, or that an honourable man should ask him to do."the imposition of the penalty or the making of the deduction, as the case may be, can, without substantial injury to the interests of other coal mines in the district, be dispensed with."
I should like to ask what will happen where miners have a contract or agreement in regard to their wages that they shall have coal at a given rate under their wage conditions? There is also the case in which royalty owners have an agreement under which they get a certain amount of coal in lieu of royalties. How do they come in under this particular Sub-section? If the Government cannot answer these questions, no doubt, if they had a consultation with certain other powers below the Gangway, they would be able to give me an answer.
The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) pointed out the possibility of there being very hard cases, and I quite agree, but I would remind him of the old saying that hard cases are apt to make bad law. He will observe that that must be so inevitably, and for this reason. After all, unless you have some provision such as we have here, the hardest case will be that of the group of coalowners who represent the coalowners in a district governed by the scheme, who otherwise would find that their output was restricted by the fact that one of their fortunate members had entered into contracts under which he was entitled to increase his output, and, as the burden of that would otherwise fall on the other coalowners, it is thought to be only fair that, in the circumstances provided in the Clause, the coalowner who has entered into contracts after the 11th December, should, under these safeguards, be liable to what is called a penalty, but which is really more in the nature of a contribution to his brother coalowners who otherwise would suffer. That also answers the question of the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), who thought it very hard that, when a man had proved (a) and (b), he should also have to prove (c). The penalty is in the nature of a contribution, and surely it would be exceedingly hard if the burden were to fall upon the other coalowners and not on this one. The scheme provides that when he pays what is called a penalty, but which is really a contribution, it falls into the common pool, and the loss or profit is shared to that extent, not only by him, but by the others also.
Would it not be possible to make the way a little easier for the coalowner by substituting for the 11th December, when he could not possibly know anything of the matter in practice, the date of the passing of the Act?
I am afraid that would be impossible. These schemes have been discussed for a long time, and, if we were to accept the date of the passing of the Act, it might render the whole thing nugatory and it would break down.
Surely it is retrospective legislation. I pointed out that a man has made a contract in the exercise of his legal rights, with no knowledge of the introduction of this Bill.
Of course, it is retrospective legislation in the sense that it had not been passed, but there was intelligent anticipation that it would be passed. Unless you have some such provision as this, you knock the bottom out of the scheme. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir S. Roberts), under the Clause as it stands, so long as the coalowner supplies at a price in accordance with the price as it existed at the date of the contract for sale, he is not liable to any penalty. The remedy would be some provision in the scheme. If you had a provision in the scheme against contracts to any extent, let us say a longer period than 12 months, I could well understand that a coalowner who sold over a period of two years might find himself liable to a penalty, not because he sold at a wrong price, but because he fixed the contract for a longer period than the period allowed. Therefore, we have to look to the scheme for that and not to the Clause. Another hon. Member asked me several questions which seemed to relate to contracts between mine owners and royalty owners. I have previously pointed out that so far as contracts between two contracting parties are concerned, they are left intact.
I have in my mind details of a number of contracts made mostly in the latter part of December, not in anticipation of any legislation such as this. In the ordinary course of business for the coming year, many contracts have been made. I am assured by the Attorney-General that, as far as the two contracting parties are concerned, it means that a contract can be fulfilled, though it has been made before 11th December. The people I represent have great concern about the matter. They have submitted their case to an eminent legal authority, and he said that in his opinion a contract made, even with this Clause in the Bill, which is rendered illegal by a further Clause in the Bill, cannot be enforced in law, and cannot be regarded as a binding contract. If it is so, we are going to be in a very awkward position. If you have made a contract which cannot be enforced at law, it is not much use to either party. As far as the date 11th December is concerned, why has it been specially selected? In the original draft we understood that contracts that were made would be rendered null and void by the passing of the Act. Therefore, I do not think that it can be said that people have made contracts because of this Bill being introduced. I hope that we shall be given an assurance as to whether these contracts will be legally enforceable. If they are, then the fears and difficulties of these consumers will have largely passed away, but, if they are not, they will not be in a very favourable position under this Clause. I should like to know why the date of 11th December has been selected. Many contracts for the coining year are made towards the end of December.
I thank the learned Attorney-General very much for the answer which he has given to me. This is a matter of very great importance, and I would respectfully ask him to be good enough to look into the matter again very carefully before the Report stage? As far as I can see from his answer, he throws us back on to Clause 8, which imposes a penalty of £100, and a further fine of £20 a day if the offence continues. I think that it is difficult to see how in this case it could be a continuing offence. You might deliver once a week and easily pay £20, if you had only to pay that sum once a week. I think that this is a point which should be looked into.
May I put one point which, I think, may clarify the issue? I think that on such a Clause as this we might have been given the benefit of the views of the Liberal party. It is not one of the Clauses in which they are interested, bad as it is. The learned Attorney-General has been asked to justify the date of the 11th December. In his first speech, he said that it was put in, because it was the date of the introduction of the Bill. My hon. Friend asked why it should not have been the date of the passing of the Act? The learned Attorney-General said that anybody ought to have had sufficient intelligent anticipation to know that the Bill would become an Act of Parliament,
Division No. 235.]
| AYES.
| [11.45 p.m.
|
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Day, Harry |
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bowen, J. W. | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Dickson, T. |
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Brockway, A. Fenner | Dukes, C. |
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Bromfield, William | Duncan, Charles |
Alpass, J. H. | Bromley, J. | Ede, James Chuter |
Ammon, Charles George | Brooke, W. | Edmunds, J. E. |
Angell, Norman | Brothers, M. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
Arnott, John | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
Aske, Sir Robert | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Egan, W. H. |
Attlee, Clement Richard | Buchanan, G. | Elmley, Viscount |
Ayles, Walter | Burgess, F. G. | Foot, Isaac |
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Forgan, Dr. Robert |
Barnes, Alfred John | Cameron, A. G. | Freeman, Peter |
Barr, James | Cape, Thomas | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
Batey, Joseph | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) |
Bellamy, Albert | Charieton, H. C. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) |
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Chater, Daniel | Gibbins, Joseph |
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Cluse, W. S. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mostley) |
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Gill, T. H. |
Benson, G. | Daggar, George | Gillett, George M. |
Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Dallas, George | Glassey, A. E. |
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Dalton, Hugh | Gossling, A. G. |
and that, therefore, the date of the introduction of the Bill was adequate. I want to know how in the world anybody could possibly have had such an intelligent anticipation, considering that it was only yesterday, as far as we know, that the Liberal party decided that the Bill should become an Act. Really, to put the onus upon unfortunate coal-owners up and down the country to foresee from December what was going to be the attitude of the versatile members of the Liberal party is asking too much either of coalowners or of anybody else. I would suggest that an alternative date might be put in; the date when this new Clause was put upon the Paper, or, if they like it better, the 19th March, the decisive date when the Liberal party decided to help.
I will certainly look into the point to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) has called attention, and I express my thanks to him. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), I think I can reassure him that trawler owners need be under no misapprehension at all about the matter. As far as they are concerned as contracting parties, their contracts are absolutely untouched.
Question, "That the Clause he read a Second time "put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 147.
Gould, F. | McElwee, A. | Scurr, John |
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McEntee, V. L. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | McKinlay, A. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Sherwood, G. H. |
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Shield, George William |
Groves, Thomas E. | Mansfield, W. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
Grundy, Thomas W. | Marley, J. | Shillaker, J. F. |
Hall, F. (York, W. U., Normanton) | Marshall, Fred | Shinwell, E. |
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mathers, George | Simmons, C. J. |
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Matters, L. W. | Sinkinson, George |
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Maxton, James | Sitch, Charles H. |
Hardie, George D. | Melville, Sir James | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Messer, Fred | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
Haycock, A. W. | Middleton, G. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
Hayday, Arthur | Mills, J. E. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Milner, J. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Montague, Frederick | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Morley, Ralph | Snell, Harry |
Herriotts, J. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Sorensen, R. |
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Mort, D. L. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Moses, J. J. H. | Stephen, Campbell |
Hoffman, P. C. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
Hollins, A. | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Strauss, G. R. |
Hopkin, Daniel | Muff, G. | Sullivan, J. |
Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Muggeridge, H. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
Horrabin, J. F. | Murnin, Hugh | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Nathan, Major H. L. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Naylor, T. E. | Thurtle, Ernest |
John, William (Rhondda, West) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinker, John Joseph |
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Toole, Joseph |
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Oldfield, J. R. | Tout, W. J. |
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Townend, A. E. |
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Turner, B. |
Kelly, W. T. | Palin, John Henry | Vaughan, D. J. |
Kennedy, Thomas | Paling, Wilfrid | Viant, S. P. |
Kinley, J. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Walker, J. |
Lang, Gordon | Perry, S. F. | Wallace, H. W. |
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
Lathan, G. | Phillips, Dr. Marlon | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
Law, Albert (Bolton) | Potts, Jonn S. | Wellock, Wilfred |
Law, A. (Rosendale) | Price, M. P. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
Lawrence, Susan | Pybus, Percy John | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Quibell, D. J. K. | West, F. R. |
Lawson, John James | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
Leach, W. | Raynes, W. R. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Richards, R. | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
Lees, J. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Ritson, J. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
Lindley, Fred W. | Romeril, H. G. | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
Lloyd, C. Ellis | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
Logan, David Gilbert | Rowssn, Guy | Wise, E. F. |
Longbottom, A. W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
Longden, F. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sanders, W. S. | |
Lunn, William | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sawyer, G. F. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley. |
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Scrymgeour, E. |
NOES.
| ||
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Dalkeith, Earl of |
Albery, Irving James | Buchan, John | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey |
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Butler, R. A. | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) |
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Carver, Major W. H. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
Atholl, Duchess of | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Dixey, A. C. |
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Duckworth, G. A. V. |
Beaumont, M. W. | Christie, J. A. | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. |
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Eden, Captain Anthony |
Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
Bird, Ernest Roy | Colfox, Major William Philip | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
Boothby, R. J. G. | Colville, Major D. J. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Ferguson, Sir John |
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Fison, F. G. Clavering |
Boyce, H. L. | Crichton-Stuart. Lord C. | Ford, Sir P. J. |
Bracken, B. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
Brass, Captain Sir William | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton |
Briscoe, Richard George | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) |
Gower, Sir Robert | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Skelton, A. N. |
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
Greene, W. P. Crawford | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Mond, Hon. Henry | Smithers, Waldron |
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Somerset, Thomas |
Gunston, Captain D. W. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
Hammersley, S. S. | Muirhead, A. J. | Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
Hanbury, C. | Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Thomas, Major L. S. (King's Norton) |
Hartington, Marquess of | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Thomson, Sir F. |
Haslam, Henry C. | O'Neill, Sir H. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Turton, Robert Hugh |
Iveagh, Countess of | Purbrick, R. | Vaughan-Morqan, Sir Kenyon |
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Ramsbotham, H. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Remer, John R. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Reynolds, Col. Sir James | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
Liewellin, Major J. J. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil | Wells, Sydney R. |
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Ross, Major Ronald D. | Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay) |
Long, Major Eric | Salmon, Major I. | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
Lymington, Viscount | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
McConnell, Sir Joseph | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Womersley, W. J. |
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | |
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir George Penny. |
On a point of Order. Was that Division on the Second Reading of the Clause, or on the Question "That the Clause be added to the Bill"?
I put the question "That the Clause be now read a Second Time," and it was not challenged; and then I put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
I did not hear you put the Second Reading.
Clause 12 ( Interpretation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7—(Part I: Districts For Purposes Of Part I Of The Act Part Ii: Provisions As To Amalgamations And Adjustment Of Districts)
I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 8 to 12.
The Committee will be sorry to hear that my hon. and learned friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. S. Bevan), in whose name, among others, this Amend-mend stands on the Paper, is unwell. The object of the Amendment is to preserve intact as far as possible the area of the present so-called Five Counties Scheme, and I put it forward for the consideration of the Government, first, on the ground of gratitude that this Scheme has been rather the basis upon which they have framed their Bill; secondly, because it will reduce very largely the numbers of areas and schemes which the Government will have to consider, and very much simplify their work: and thirdly, because, to my mind, a large area is much better than a small one, because it is much fairer to the individual pits if they should go before the executive committee. If you have a small area, and an individual colliery owner has to go before his next-door neighbour and put his case, the prejudice, bias, and natural business keenness will be much more adverse to the individual than if he had to go before the executive committee of a much larger area.I have very considerable sympathy with the Amendment, because the effect of it would be not to change the 21 wages ascertainment districts as districts for the Scheme under the Bill, but to accept what is commonly known as the Five Counties Scheme, but which in fact covers about nine counties, as an area of the Scheme. I have always indicated that anyone familiar with the problem realizes that 21 districts are far too many for the purposes of this Bill, and for myself I should like to see them reduced at the earliest possible moment, but reduction is provided for in the simple and ready amalgamation which follows this list of 21 districts, and I am afraid it would not be, if we were to delete these words and make the Five Counties Scheme a scheme at once under the Schedule. For what it is worth, any influence that I can exercise will always be exercised in the direction of a smaller number of schemes, and there is nothing to prevent the organization now of the five counties from coming forward and itself promoting amalgamation in that area, and I have not the least doubt that amalgamation would be very sympathetically considered, but beyond that I cannot go. I can only repeat that it would be impossible to do it at this stage of the Bill; there are too many difficulties involved. I am not sure if the hon. Member intends to press this to a division, but as I understand that this will be the last Amendment to be called, I should like to use any final sentence in thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for their very great consideration during these prolonged Committee proceedings.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—(Bill 142).
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without the Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Four minutes after Twelve o'Clock.