Skip to main content

Ministry Of Mines Bill

Volume 41: debated on Tuesday 10 August 1920

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Appointment of Minister of Mines.

1. For the purpose of securing the most effective development and utilisation of the mineral resources of the United Kingdom and the safety and welfare of those engaged in the mining industry, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint an additional Parliamentary secretary of the Board of Trade.

My Lords, now that we have reached the Ministry of Mines Bill I desire first of all to put a question to the Government with reference to the course which they propose to pursue. The Amendment which I am about to move is, of course, in its nature consequential on the Amendment which was carried in Committee, altering the Bill in such a way as to eliminate the Minister of Mines and substitute for him a Secretary of the Board of Trade. Naturally I should move it without any observations at all, but I notice that there stands in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, an Amendment immediately following this one, in which he proposes, as I understand, to ask your Lordships to reverse the decision which was come to in Committee. Now the question I desire to put to the Government before I proceed with my observations—and the noble Viscount can answer by a nod of the head—is whether it is proposed to proceed with the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Viscount.

I wonder if I can answer with something more definite than a nod of the head. I certainly do propose to proceed with the Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Marquess wants to take the discussion on this point on his Amendment, which I do not think is in some way so satisfactory as if it were taken upon my Amendment, which raises a more direct issue. I am in his hands. If he or if the House thinks it would be better to take the discussion on the direct issue I am perfectly prepared, if I may say so without prejudice, not to oppose the present Amendment, if it is not to be taken as a general assent to the whole proposition.

If the noble Viscount does not object to my Amendment, I will not anticipate the discussion on his.

I cannot say I do not object, but I will not oppose, if it is understood to be without prejudice.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 6, leave out ("establishment of Ministry of Mines") and insert ("administration of mining industry").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

moved, after "lawful for His Majesty to appoint," to insert "A Minister or Mines, who shall, by virtue of his office, be."

The noble Viscount said: I think that your Lordships have taken the more convenient course, and I new have to move the Amendment which stands in my name. What I am thereby proposing, as the noble Viscount has already quite accurately stated, is to alter a decision arrived at by your Lordships on the previous occasion when, the House was in Committee. The reason I do that is this. First of all this decision was taken by a very small House, and was also passed. by a very small majority. I therefore think it fair to your Lordships to give you the opportunity of considering this point again, because your Lordships will see that much turns upon this particular point. The second reason why I ask your Lordships to reconsider this matter is that the discussion on the point was a very general one, as to the setting up of different Departments and so on, and the precise point at issue in this particular Amendment —namely, whether the officer at the head of the Mines should have a position of limited independence as a Minister, or merely be an Under-Secretary, and therefore subject to all the disabilities of the office of the Board of Trade—was not very much discussed, and I want to ask your Lordships to concentrate your attention upon that particular issue.

I think we may fairly say that we have gained something by the discussions which have already taken place, because I think we are all agreed that these different duties connected with the Ministry of Mines and connected with the administration of the mines which are now scattered between different Departments, should be concentrated under one officer. Whether he be called an Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade or a separate Minister I am not now discussing, but we are all agreed so far. Moreover, I think that was involved in the Bill which was passed by your Lordships, at the instance of Lord Gainford, some time ago.

We get down, therefore, to the smaller point as to what the head of this Department should be. There are three things which he might be. First of all the Government might propose that there should be a separate and independent Minister of Mines—an important officer not answerable to any other Department or to the head of any other Department. I think that is the type of grandiose scheme which would not have recommended itself to your Lordships. If I may interpret the feelings which you have displayed on other occasions towards the creation of new Ministries, I think there would have been what Lord Salisbury would call "some enthusiasm" in rejecting such a proposal. Therefore the Government have not taken that course, because they want to keep this off from any grandiosity of proposal. The other alternative is to merge all these duties in the Board of Trade and I suppose possibly to have an additional Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade.

The proposal of the Government is rather different. It is that the Parliamentary officer at the head of this Department shall be called a Minister, and shall have a rather larger salary—£500 a year more than the ordinary Under-Secretary is deemed to earn—and that this officer should have a certain amount of independence. That is to say, he should have to answer questions in Parliament and deal with the general routine, but that he should be, in matters of general policy, under the direction of the President of the Board of Trade. Thus you would have certain advantages. You would free the President of the Board of Trade from the enormous additional labour of dealing, as he must necessarily deal otherwise, with all the details of administration; and you would have a special officer, with a position of some dignity, to whom all persons con- neeted with the coal mines could resort with perfect freedom, knowing that it was his business, and his business alone, and that he had no other business except to attend to the mines. That proposal has been received with satisfaction by the coal industry. I use the term "coal industry" in a collective sense. It is rather remarkable as a point on which the miners and owners are alike united, and in the Division which we had in favour of the Ministry of Mines my noble friend Lord Gainford walked into the Lobby, if not with enthusiasm, with a whole-hearted satisfaction that these were the proposals of the Government and that he was acting with the miners themselves in the action which he took. Therefore, there is, so far, agreement.

At this stage I should like to deal also for a moment with the question of finance, because I think there was some impression among your Lordships that there would be more expense if there was this Ministry with limited independence than there would be if the duties were merged under the Board of Trade. That is not so. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 5 of the Bill there is a limitation of the expense. It is an unusual clause, but it was agreed by the Government that the expenses of this Ministry should be limited to a certain amount. They must not be more than £250,000 a year. Therefore, the question of expense which is involved centres round £500. If you think that the Government scheme should be adopted you will certainly support the payment of £500 more than the sum proposed by Lord Salisbury. The financial difference is a difference of £500 only, and I submit with great respect that if you are really going to secure (as we hope you will) harmony in the coal trade by the expenditure of this extra sum, there is not one of your Lordships who will not support it with great satisfaction.

There is one further point which I wish to press, and I desire to press it as forcibly as I can. It is this. There is some fear that this Bill and all its valuable provisions, and all Part II, setting up the hierarchy of committees, may not, be worked by the men. It would be a great misfortune if that were so, and there is a proposal, as your Lordships know, that in certain circumstances the Ministry of Mines, with, I suppose, the assent of Parliament, could indicate that Part II should no longer exist. It was thought that you could not keep elaborate arrangements of this kind open for ever. We hope that the fear I have mentioned will not be realised. Your Lordships may think that this question is perhaps one of nomenclature and of amour propre which may make a very great difference as to the acceptance of the whole scheme by the miners themselves. Your Lordships are very well aware that great masses of men are very often not governed by logic, though they are sensitive to the existence of sentiment, and there is no doubt that on this question of the nomenclature of the Ministry of Mines a good deal of sentiment among the miners is concentrated. This point was expressed very strongly by Mr. Brace in another place on the Third Reading of the Bill. He said that this was a matter to which their attention was very much directed.

What I want to urge upon your Lordships is this. If there is a risk that this Bill, with, as we hope, its beneficent effects, may not be successfully put into operation, and if the chance of its successful working would be a good deal lessened by the rejection of the Government proposal, is it worth while for your Lordships to take the risk of lessening the chance of the operation and success of the Bill by refusing to accept the Government's scheme and by quarrelling over this matter of £500? I strongly urge your Lordships to give the Bill the best chance that you can, to support the action of the Government, and thereby to satisfy the whole of the industry, not only the owners and employers but the great masses of the men themselves. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to support the Amendment which I have moved.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 11, after ("appoint") insert ("a Minister of Mines, who shall, by virtue of his office, be").—(Viscount Peel.)

My Lords, it is a very unusual procedure for your Lordships to be asked, upon Report, to reverse the decision come to in Committee. I do not mean to say that there is anything irregular about it—

but it is not the usual course to pursue. The noble Viscount complained that the Committee in which the Amendment was carried contained a small number of your Lordships. The noble Viscount will remember that I did my best to persuade the Government not to run that risk, but they were absolutely determined to do it and they forced your Lordships, much against the wishes of many noble Lords, to take this decision at an inconvenient time. It hardly lies in their mouths, I think, to complain of the result. But this is a small point. The real matter is the substance of this proposal. The question is whether there is any good ground for your Lordships to reverse the decision to which you have come. I put it in that way because obviously the burden of proof has changed. When we were in Committee the burden of proof rested upon those who wished to change the Government Bill. Now that your Lordships have decided in Committee that it should run in a certain way and the Government desire to go back to the original words, the burden of proof is upon them. Have they any ground to show why this should be done?

I do not intend to detain your Lordships more than a few minutes, but let me state the case briefly. Your Lordships' House, in conformity with the general opinion throughout the country, is opposed to the creation of these abundant new Ministries. There are too many new Ministries already. The feeling of the country is quite definite about it. It is against these new Ministries. It believes that they lead to expense; it believes that they lead to undue Government interference and the checking of private enterprise; and it believes that they lead to all sorts of bureaucratic activity. The country, with a sure instinct, knows all these things to be bad, and therefore there are everywhere evident symptoms of a desire to abolish many of those Ministries which exist and to prevent the creation of any more. The Government, notwithstanding that feeling, propose to create a new Ministry in the shape of a Ministry of Mines.

I dare say your Lordship's are aware that there is a large organisation, consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament and also of many gentlemen of great distinction in the business world, that has been formed in order to check as far as they can the growing expenditure under which the country suffers, and one of the main things they have put forward is that there should be a limitation of these new Ministries. That is the first branch of the case. The next branch is that the particular form in which this new Minister was proposed by the Government—the form which the noble Viscount now proposes to restore—seems to us to be thoroughly unworkable. He is to have a double nature. He is to be partly a Minister of Mines, quasi independent, and partly a Secretary of the Board of Trade, not at all independent, and he is to be a Minister of Mines "in virtue of his office" as Secretary to the Board of Trade. Of all astounding phrases that could have been used I think "in virtue of his office" is the most astounding, and the Government proposes to put these very words back into the Bill. What can those wonderful words mean? They can mean nothing other than this, that the Minister of Mines, so far from being entirely associated with mines, is to be "by virtue of his office" a Secretary of the Board of Trade in all respects. Otherwise there could be no meaning in the words. He is to be a joint Secretary of the Board of Trade in addition to being a special Minister of Mines. That is the proposal which the Government makes, and it appears to be entirely inconsistent with the argument that the noble Viscount has submitted to the House.

Our proposal is a much simpler, and a much more straightforward one. I do not use the word straightforward in any invidious sense. We say that the policy of the Government Bill makes, in the last resort, the President of the Board of Trade responsible. Very well. Let there be no doubt about it. Let there be no ambiguity. Let there be no question as to the Minister's responsibility for any act done. I have urged upon your Lordships—and except that the Government have forced us to consider it again, I should not dare to refer to it once more—that nothing makes bad administration more certain than an ambiguity as to the responsibility of the Minister, and as to the real control of Parliament. The real control of Parliament lies in this, that if anything is done wrong in administration you have somebody whom you can hold responsible—some one, as the phrase goes, to hang if things go wrong. Some mistake is made in the administration of mines and there is a Minister to whom you can say, "You are paid £5,000 a year, or £2,000, or £1,500 a year (or whatever the figure may be) to do this thing right, and you have done it wrong, and you must answer for it. "That is what Ministerial responsibility means. If you leave in doubt whether the Minister of Mines or the President of the Board of Trade is responsible, you can never bring home responsibility for any mistake that may be made. Therefore we must make it clear. The Under-Secretary fairly stated the alternatives in his speech just now, and I think he rightly eliminated the alternative of making the Minister of Mines entirely dependent, though he did not recommend—

We are very often agreed, but if the Under-Secretary had a free hand I think we should agree much more often. What I was saying was that the noble Viscount has very properly eliminated the alternative of making the Minister of Mines completely independent. The only other way out of the ambiguity of the Bill, as the Government introduced it, was the Amendment which your Lordships passed in Committee on my Motion. Let the Secretary of the Board of Trade who is constituted by this Bill have all the advantages that he requires, but let us get rid of the ambiguity, and let us make the President of the Board of Trade responsible and check extravagance and bureaucracy.

On the Committee stage of the Bill I thought the discussion was sufficiently prolonged, and I did not intervene upon this particular point, but I should like to mak it clear why it was that Lord Joicey and I, endeavouring to represent the interests of the coal industry, supported the Government on that occasion. We are absolutely at one in our strong objection to the creation of new Ministries, whether in connection with food, munitions, or anything else. We have felt that these Ministries have been extravagant, and the last thing that we want is to encourage a Ministry of Mines to become an all-powerful Government Department, as are the other independent Ministries to which reference has been made. But we have, as a coal trade, a very strong view—which may be regarded as prejudice by my noble friends on my left—in favour of officials who shall have exclusively work connected with coal mines at the Board of Trade, and who are not identified with any other interest. We have had sufficient experience of seeing how our interests, first in one Government Department and then in another, are put on one side whilst various other matters are discussed by the permanent heads who have interests in a large number of other questions. Take, for instance, the Board of Trade with their great shipping interest and all their varied interests connected with textiles, manufactured. goods, shipping, toys, leather, and innumerable other things.

What we desire is, if Parliament decides that there shall be a Mines Department, whether it be presided over by a Minister of Mines or by a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that he and all those under him should concentrate solely on work connected with mines. Coal mining is one of the chief industries, if not the key industry, of the country. The wages paid to miners are greater than are paid in any other industry in the country,. and we feel that we ought to have access to a Minister, whether he be a Minister of Mines or a Parliamentary Secretary, who shall have no duties to perform other than those of looking after the great interests of the coal-mining industry, and we further desire that the men under him should be-solely engaged in connection with the work of his Department. We believe that as control diminishes, so may the existing staff of the Coal Control Department be reduced. We do not want a body set up, which is going to be extravagant and to suffer from swelled head and unnecessarily to magnify itself. What we want is a co-ordinated body to whom we shall have access. It was because we thought this object would be better secured by a Ministry of Mines than by a Parliamentary Secretary that Lord Joicey and I voted with the Government, and I propose to vote with them again to-day.

I hope that your Lordships will adhere to the decision you came to with clearness and precision the other night, and will oppose the Amendment of my noble friend which is now before the House. I listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Gainford, and with the exception of the last remark that he made—a remark which he only made quite tentatively—I agree with every word that he said, and I think that those who support the proposal for confining this to an Under-Secretary would equally share that view. I think every one in this House fully realises the importance of a great industry like this having co-ordinated under one Department all its various functions, and that can perfectly well be done by the establishment of an Under-Secretary under the President of the Board of Trade.

As I read this Bill, the Under-Secretary who is to be appointed is to be an ad hoc Under-Secretary for exclusive purposes in regard to mines, and all the functions that will be applied to him and that he will be asked to perform will be functions which an Under-Secretary should be perfectly capable of undertaking. My noble friend Lord Peel, in urging your Lordships to support his Amendment, said that this Minister of Mines would be under the presidence of the Board of Trade for the general direction of policy. That is quite compatible with the duties of an UnderSecretary—in fact, I should venture to say very much more compatible with the duties of an Under-Secretary than of a Minister.

We must remember that there already exists a Minister for Labour. The really important functions that a Minister for Mines would have to perform would, in the ordinary course of events, be referred to the Minister for Labour. The ordinary routine work could perfectly well be carried out by an Under-Secretary. It is those larger and more grave questions, questions of differences of opinion which lead to strife between the two great bodies in the industry, that would, in the ordinary course, if there were a Minister of Mines, have to be referred either to the President of the Board of Trade or else to the Minister of Labour. I therefore cannot for the life of me see—and I listened with great care to my noble friend's speech—what function there is that an Under-Secretary could not perfectly well perform.

At the risk of being told that I am repeating an argument, in asking your Lordships to reject this Amendment I am going to repeat one which I advanced the other day, because I think it is of great importance. There at present appears to be very little likelihood that this Bill when it is on the Statute Book is going to be given effect to, because we are told that by a unanimous decision the miners are not going to associate themselves with these measures. There is a clause in the Bill which says that if this be the case, Part II—the operative part of the Bill-is to be brought to a termination at the expiration of a year. All this elaborate machinery of the various committees is to be brought to an end. Then there will merely be left, as I said the other night, a skeleton Ministry with a very substantial limit of expenditure—I venture to say it is a most excessive limit of expenditure—of £250,000 a year, with practically no functions to perform except those of the routine work connected with the Government in their relation to the Ministry. It is for these reasons that I sincerely hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment.

The noble Viscount, in his speech to which we have just listened, made a great point of the question of sentiment with regard to a Ministry of Mines. When you get on the ground of sentiment you get on very dangerous ground, and misunderstanding is very possible. What he said on that point did not carry conviction to my mind. There has been a great deal said in the country on a very much larger policy than any that he has adumbrated, and the question of a Ministry of Mines is very apt, when discussed by the less informed in the mining industry, to lead to the belief that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government. That, my Lords, is an argument which seems to me of such effect that it is quite sufficient to decide me to support the Bill as it has been amended.

I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I think I ought to say one or two words on points that have been raised, more particularly because I think they were stated under some lack of appreciation of the general position in which this Minister would be placed.

If your Lordships do not wish that I should reply to the points I will not do so.

It seems very ungracious, of course. If the noble Viscount wishes to make an explanation I am sure your Lordships would wish to hear it; but I understand it is the order of the House that on Report we only make one speech.

It is very good of your Lordships. There are two points which were made by the noble Marquess. One was that he took great. exception to the phrase "by virtue of his office," and seemed to think that there was some rather mysterious meaning attached to it. All that it means is that in the case of an ordinary Under-Secretary he would be appointed by and be responsible to the. Minister. Those words are a drafting expression to attach the Minister of Mines to the President of the. Board of Trade. If those words were not there, and if his position as a Secretary of the Board of Trade were not defined, then he would be a Minister of Mines independent of the Board of Trade; and it is to do precisely what the noble Marquess wants that those words were introduced to establish this connection and also the subordination of the Minister to the Board of Trade. Therefore I do not think the noble Marquess really ought to object to those words.

The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, reminds me that in speaking again I am doing so in the exercise of privilege. Therefore I am in a very favourable position indeed. The second point is that my noble friend made great play with the question of responsibility, and suggested that, in all Government matters there should be some head that could be definitely hit. Of course, there is a head to be hit to advantage. In most Departments you have two heads to hit, and it is much better to inflict punishment on two heads than on one. In the ordinary Department you can hit the Under-Secretary and also the Minister as well. In this case, of course, the President of the Board of Trade, as I explained, is ultimately responsible for the action of the Ministry of Mines; but the first front of action, as it were, falls upon the Minister himself, who has to answer questions whether in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. He is in the first case responsible for the general administration of the office, but he is subordinate for all general directions of policy to the President of the Board of Trade, and therefore there is no question of avoiding responsibility, nor could the President of the Board of Trade in the last resort avoid that responsibility. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not think there is any question either of divided responsibility or of lack of responsibility in this case.

The other point made by Lord Islington also showed, I think, some lack of appreciation of the reasons why the employers and the miners and the Government are anxious for that particular proposition, because he said "Ah, but there are questions connected with mines that ought to be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour." Now, that is one of the reasons specially for setting up this Ministry. It is what the miners and the owners complain of. There is no more wearisome thing in the whole world than going about from Department to Department, and being sent on from Department to Department; it impairs your health and ruins your digestion and your patience.

I will discuss that on a later Amendment. The whole object is to concentrate these duties in one Minister, so that miners and employers may know where to go and place their laments and complaints before him, and not be sent off to a Ministry of Labour, as my noble friend suggests.

Lord Treowen took some exception to my observation about sentiment, and said he thought the fact that there was some sentiment in this thing would determine him to vote against the Government. I do not quite follow his argument. Although the miners are not represented in this House it surely would be unwise for this House to ignore their feelings. They are a very potent body outside, and upon their feelings, and upon the way in which they look on this Bill will depend whether this Bill is a success or not, and whether harmony is introduced into the industry or not. Therefore I submit most respectfully that your Lordships would be wise indeed to attach great importance to their feelings, to remember that they have, from their point of view, had a tremendous disappointment, that the whole policy of the Government has gone against them, that what they advocated—nationalisation—has been refused by the Government; and they are only asking now, as a concession to sentiment, that this Ministry should be called the Ministry of Mines, and should be regarded as wholly and solely devoted to their interests. There are many sources of difficulty and danger in this country and outside this country. It would be a great thing if in the coal industry at least harmony could be introduced and one source of trouble in this country in the years immediately to come were eliminated by the successful working of this Bill.

CONTENTS

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)Astor, V.Ranksborough, L.
Peel, V.Shandon, L.
Bradford, E.Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)Sinha, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E.Armaghdale, L.Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Eldon, E.Colebrooke, L.Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Lytton, E.Gainford, L.Sudeley, L.
Onslow, E.Hylton, L.Wester Wemyss, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)Inverforth, L.Wigan, L. (E.Crawford)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.Bertie of Thame, V.Erskine, L. [Teller.]
Bedford. D.Chaplin, V.Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Bath, M.Chilston, V.Farrer, L.
Salisbury, M.Hood, V.Gisborough, L.
Hutchinson, V.Harris, L.
Abingdon, M.

(E.Donoughmore.)

Inchcape, L.
Denbign, E.Knutsford, V.Islington, L. [Teller.]
Doncaster, E.Kintore, L. (E.Kintore.)

(D.Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ampthill, L.Lambourne, L.
Harewood, E.Anslow, L.Leigh, L.
Jersey, E.Askwith, L.O'Hagan, L.
Malmesbury, E.Avebury, L.Ruthven of Gowrie, L.
Midleton, E.Chaworth, L. (E.Meath.)Sandys, L.
Morton, E.Cheylesmore, L.Sumner, L.
Russell, E.Crawshaw, L.Treowen, L.
Selborne, EDenman, L.Vernon, L.
Stanhope, E.Desborough, L.Wemyss, L. (E.Wemyss)
Verulam, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 2:

I have a series of Amendments on the Paper which are all consequential, carrying out the decision which your Lordships have just come to.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

Page 2,lines 6 and 7, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

Page 2, line 10, leave out("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

Page 2, line 16 leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

Page 2, line 26, leave out ("Minister of Mines and his officers") and insert ("Board of Trade")

Page 2, line 32, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade")

Page 2, line 37, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 48.

Clause 3:

Powers of regulating export and price of coal.

3.—(1) During a period of one year after the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, it shall be lawful for the Minister of Mines, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, from time to time to give directions—

  • (a) regulating the export of coal and the supply of coal for the bunkering of vessels; and
  • (b) regulating the pithead price to be charged for coal sold for consumption in the British Islands and for coal sold for the bunkering of vessels trading between ports in the United Kingdom.
  • Amendment moved—

    Page 3, line 1, leave out ("Minister of Mines subject to the approval of the").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "trading between ports in the United Kingdom." The noble Lord said: I must apologise for not having been in your Lordships' House on August 4 when this Bill was in Committee. Had I known that these words were to be proposed by Lord Gainford I would have made a point of being here. I do not know why he should want to restrict the powers of the Ministry of Mines or the Board of Trade, as it will be now, from fixing the price of coal for sea-going ships to oversea ships when he allows them to fix it for ships trading between ports of the United Kingdom. The ports of the United Kingdom are open to all the world. There is no restriction upon Japanese, French, German, Scandinavian, or. American ships from trading on the coast of England, and the idea I fancy may be that, if the Board of Trade fixes the price for bunker coal for British ships, they will be obliged to fix it at the same price for foreign ships; otherwise there will be retaliation.

    The quantity of bunker coal taken in this country amounts altogether, I think, to 14,000,000 tons, and of that only 14 per cent. is taken by foreign vessels. As things stand at present, the price of bunker coal in London is 100s. a ton, while the price to a factory in London is about 40s. to 4.5s. a ton. We cannot understand why one of the great industries of the country, the industry on which the salvation of the country practically depended during the war, should be penalised as against other industries. The shipowners suggest that the power given to the Board of Trade should be exercised, if the Board think fit, in regard to bunker coal for oversea ships as well as for coast-wise vessels.

    The shipping industry is now on the downward grade; I do not believe that any of your Lordships would be disposed to put a shilling into it at the present moment, and if that industry is to be penalised by having to pay this enormous sum for bunker coal you may depend upon it that in a very short time ships will be laid up and liners and vessels taking passengers to India, Australia, South America, and the West Indies will have to close down. Shipowners cannot possibly afford to run them, and, even if the rates of passage money are put up to compensate for this enormous price of hunker coal, it will stop people travelling. I sincerely hope that this Amendment to the Government Bill will be accepted by your Lordships' House.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 3, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("trading between ports in the United Kingdom").—(Lord Inchcape.)

    I have no objection to these words being omitted, but only with a view of inserting other words in their place. By accepting the Amendment which was moved on the Committee Stage your Lordships decided that no new powers of Government control should be given to the Ministry. But it has been pointed out to me that the words which were inserted— "vessels trading between ports in the United Kingdom"—were not sufficiently wide to include the tugs which work in the various ports of our country, nor the fishing vessels which go from and return into English ports. It is with a view of dealing with those kind of ships, in addition to the other ships which are trading between port and port, that I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, with a view to inserting the following words, of which I have given notice to the noble Lord on the Woolsack —namely, to insert "other than vessels proceeding to ports outside the British Islands."

    May I remind those who were not present that the reason why your Lordships voted with me the other night was that the Government, by their proposal as it originally stood in the Bill, were for the first time taking powers in connection with control which they had never exercised. Moreover, in all previous Bills dealing with the coal trade the shipping interest had advocated that there should be no power to limit the present coal supplied for bunkers to foreign-going ships. It was assumed by the Board of Trade that they might possibly have powers under D.O.R.A., but, as I explained to your Lordships, we have taken the best counsel's opinion we could get, and Sir John Simon is quite positive that under the Defence of the Realm Act the Government have no powers whatsoever to impose any conditions as to the limitation of prices in connection with bunker coal for foreign-going ships. It is because we feel as a coal trade that at this hour no new powers should be given to the Government that I press your Lordships to support me in the same way as you supported me two or three nights ago.

    The shipping trade come to us ad misericordiam and say, "We want the price of coal lowered." They already get coal at a much lower price than it is supplied at to foreign countries. From time to time we have made voluntary arrangements with the shipping interest, and not very long ago we made an arrangement with them to reduce the price of bunkers, and we did that voluntarily. Now they ask us to do it again to-day. I can only speak for myself. I am always quite prepared to see that an article is sold to a consumer in accordance with the condition of his industry. If it can be proved to me that in the world's freight market a reduction of a few shillings on a ton of coal is going to make all the difference to the shipping interest, and that the money is really going into the pockets of the shipowners and going to keep the ships on the seas, every coal owner would, of course, be a fool if he was not prepared to sell coal to the shipping industry at a reduced figure in order to secure that market.

    There is one other point. We are hoping that this industry may be rapidly decontrolled and that a scheme may be put forward which will protect the public in regard to the quantity of coal required for home industries and domestic purposes, and also protect the shipping industry by keeping sufficient reserves of coal in this country before any coal is sent for export. If we could put up a scheme of that character for decontrol the prices which are now being obtained, the high prices obtained, would tend to he reduced. It will not be very long before in the natural competition which must take place between coalowners there will be a further drop in the price of bunker coal.

    Amendment moved

    Clause 3, page 3, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("trading between ports in the United Kingdom") and insert ("other than vessels proceeding to ports outside the British Islands").—(Lord Gainford.)

    Lord Inchcape, on behalf of the shipping interest, desires to delete the words "trading between ports in the United Kingdom." The effect will be that the Board of Trade can give directions over coal sold for the bunkering of vessels; it restores to the Government the power of dealing with the price of bunker coal. I pressed this strongly on the Committee stage but the decision was adverse. Obviously, as the proposal has been made again the Government cannot be expected to do otherwise than support their own Bill, and they will, of course, support my noble friend in the Lobby. It is much more than a question between shipowners and coalowners. The Government think it desirable that they should have this power. If there is less prosperity in the shipping trade they should have power, in the interests of the trade of the whole country, to regulate the price of bunker coal.

    May I make a personal explanation? I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Inchcape would have been present on the Committee stage. He kindly signed a "Whip" urging noble Lords to attend. If among the twenty-eight or so Amendments down in my name there was one to which he could not agree, I apologise to him for having apparently stolen a march upon him.

    There is no doubt that the words should be struck out because Lord Gainford is not quite satisfied with them and proposes to substitute other words which he has read. Therefore, there will be no division of opinion on the question of striking them out. Substantially we are on the same point as to whether the policy your Lordships pursued in Committee should be maintained. I see no reason for changing the vote I then gave and I shall support Lord Gainford in his Amendment.

    On Question, Lord Gainford's Amendment agreed to.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 3, line 9, leave out ("when") and insert ("whilst") and leave out ("given") and insert ("operative").—(Viscount Peel.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendments moved—

    Page 3, line 10, leave out ("Minister of Mines subject to the like approval") and insert ("Board of Trade").
    Page 4, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("Minister of Mines subject to the like approval") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 4:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 4, line 26, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 4, line 27, leave out ("to him") and insert ("the Board").

    Page 4, line 28, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").

    Page 4, line 31, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").

    Page 4, line 32, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").

    Page 4, line 34, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert. ("Board of Trade").

    Page 4, line 36, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 4, line 37, leave out ("their") and leave out ("his") and insert ("the").

    Page 4, line 38, after ("duties") insert ("of the Board under this Act"), and leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").

    Page 4, line 40, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 5:

    Staff remuneration and expenses.

    5.—(1)The Minister of Mines may appoint such secretaries, assistant secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister of Mines may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine.

    (2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister of Mines an annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, assistant. secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry of Mines such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.

    (3) The expenses of Orr Ministry of Mines, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament:

    Provided that the total amount of such salaries and expenses shall not in any year exceed two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.

    (4) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Mines such of the persons employed under any other Government. department in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act to the Minister of Mines, as the Minister of Mines and the other Government department, with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.

    (5) The Minister of Mines may from time to time distribute the business of the department amongst the several persons transferred and attached thereto in pursuance of this Act, in such manner as he may think right, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister of Mines:

    Provided that such persons shall be in no worse position as respects the tenure of office, salary, or superannuation allowances than they would have been if this Act had not been passed.

    moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: After the decision your Lordships have arrived at there will be no serious division of opinion on my Amendments to this clause.

    I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl but I understood his Amendments were consequential, and therefore is it worth while to discuss them?

    I only want to make it clear that the point raised by Lord Gainford is met—namely, that there will be a Department, under a Secretary, of individuals and persons employed for the sole purpose of dealing with mines. There will be no question, if we leave the Amendments as I propose, of the work being done in general by the Board of Trade, but there will be a distinct number of persons attached to the Beard of Trade for this particular work. What there will not be will be the appointment of a large number of secretaries and others and the whole paraphernalia of a new and exceedingly costly Ministry.

    I do not wish to detain the House on these consequential Amendments, but I do wish to point out that under the Bill there was a limitation on the expenditure of the Board of Trade. Under the proposals of the noble Earl there will be no limits at all.

    Amendments moved—

    Page 5, Page 5, lilies 20 to 23, leave out subsection (1).

    Page 5, line 25, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act").

    Page 5, lines 25 to 34, leave out from ("salary") to end of subsection(3).

    Page 5, lines 35 and 36, leave out ("Ministry of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 5, line 39, leave out ("Minister of Mines, as the Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade, as the Board of Trade").

    Page 6, line 3, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 6, line 6, leave out ("he") and insert ("they").

    Page 6, line 8, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Earl of Midleton.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 6:

    Seal, style, and acts of Minister of Mines.

    6—(1) The Minister. of Mines may sue and be sued as, and may for all purposes be described by the name of, the Minister of Mines.

    (2) The Minister of Mines shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister of Mines, or of a secretary, or any person authorised by the Minister of Mines to act in that behalf.

    (3) Upon and by virtue of the appointment of any person to be Minister of Mines, all property of whatever description, and the benefit of all deeds, contracts, bonds, securities, or things in action, vested in his predecessor at the time of his predecessor ceasing to hold office shall by virtue of this Act be deemed to have been transferred to and to vest in and enure for the benefit of the person so appointed, in the same manner as respects such deeds, contracts, bonds, and securities, as if he had been contracted with instead of his predecessor, and as if his name had been inserted therein instead of the name of his predecessor.

    (4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section eleven, and subsections (2) and (3) of section twelve, of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister of Mines and to the Ministry of Mines and to the office of Minister of Mines in like manner as they apply to the Ministers and Ministries mentioned in those sections.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 6, leave out clause 6.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 6, line 37, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert. ("a Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act").

    Page 7, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("a Parliamentary Secretary under this Act").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 8:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 7, line 7, leave out ("The Minister of Mines shall subject to the approval of").

    Page 7,line 8, after ("Trade") insert ("shall").

    Page 7,line 31, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 10:

    My Amendments to this and the next four clauses are also consequential.

    Amendments moved—

    Page 9, line 21, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 9, line 28, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 11:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 10, line 4, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 10, line 12, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 10, line 20, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 10, line 28, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 10, line 29, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 12:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 10, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("the Minister of Mines may subject to the approval of").

    Page 10, line 37, after ("Trade") insert ("may").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 13:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 11, line 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 11, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 11, line 31, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 14:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 11, Page 11, line 39, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 11, line 40, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 11, Page 12, line 1, leave out ("he thinks") and insert ("they think").

    Page 11, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("and subject so the approval of the Board of Trade").

    Page 11, line 10, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 16:

    Fees to members and expenses of committees and boards.

    16. There shall be paid to the members of pit committees, district committees and area boards and of the National Board such fees for attendance at meetings thereof as may be prescribed by the regulations, and such payments, together with any expenses incurred in accordance with the regulations by such committees and boards in the discharge of their functions, including the remuneration of the secretary and other officers of such committees and boards, shall—

  • (a) in the case of pit committees as to the fees of the representatives of the owners and management of the mine, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the committee, be payable by the owner of the mine, and as to the fees of the representatives of the workers employed in or about the mine, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the committee, be payable by the workers employed in or about the mine; and
  • (b) in the case of district committees and area boards and the National Board as to the fees of the representatives of the owners and management, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the respective committees and boards and the National Board, be payable by the owners of mines, and as to the fees of the representatives of the workers, together with one-half of the said expenses, be payable by the workers employed in and about the mines and shall be apportioned amongst the owners of and the workers in and about the various mines in the district or area or throughout the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with the regulations;
  • and the sums so payable by or apportioned to the owner of any mine shall be defrayed as part of the working expenses of the mine, and all sums payable under this section shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt at the instance of the secretary or other officer of the committee or board concerned.

    had on the Paper an Amendment to omit from paragraph (a) the words "as to the fees of the representatives of the owners and management of the mine, together with one-half of the expenses incurred by the committee."

    The noble Viscount said: The effect of this Amendment is again to ask your Lordships to restore the Bill to the position in which it stood before your Lordships amended it on the Committee Stage. The original proposal was that the whole of the expenses of the district committees, area boards, and National Board should be paid by the owners. After the decision of your Lordships I do not desire to press for the restoration of this clause, especially as I know that although I had the support of the coal owners in the previous Division I am not going to get it in the present. I was, however, going to make a suggestion in the way of a compromise, and it is that the original arrangement should stand as regards the pit committees—that is to say, in the case of the pit committees the charge for their meetings and committees and so on should fall upon the industry, but in the case of the district committees, area hoards and National Board the expenses should be divided. I understand that there is really a good deal of difficulty in the case of the pit committees in collecting their share of the fees from the men in particular pits, and any excessive expenditure is of course safeguarded under the Regulations, by which the number of the meetings of these pit committees is regulated, defined, and limited. Therefore if such a proposal as I have suggested would meet with your Lordships' assent, I would move the Amendment in such a form that the expenditure only falls upon the industry in the case of the pit committees, and in the case of the larger committees is to be divided between the owners and the men. I suppose I must move formally to put myself in order, but if my suggestion is accepted I will move the Amendment in a limited form.

    Amendment movtd—

    Page 12, line 27, leave out from ("Committees") to ("be") in line 30.—(Viscount Peel.)

    I am in rather a difficult position, in making a compromise on behalf of those whom I represent, in not being able to see them. This question of the payment of fees of the men attending the pit committees and district committees and the fees of the men attending the area boards and National Board is one upon which the coal owners take a very strong view. They think that it is desirable that each party to an arrangement should pay its own expenses and its own fees. In the coal trade we have had conciliation boards, pit committees, and a large number of the men representing the miners interests have seats on the county councils. We have also had arrangements by which the price of coal should be ascertained. The men have never taken any exception to the principle that each side in connection with all these matters should bear its own expenses. The trade union funds can very well do it. If the expense is borne exclusively by one side it puts not merely a premium on a larger number of meetings being held than is required, but it is also a premium upon the trade unionists asking for as large fees as they possibly can exact out of the funds of the coal owners. Eventually, of course, that would react upon the price of coal. It is a good plan for individuals to contribute to the expenses connected with proceedings of this kind; and when the noble Viscount argued the other day that he hoped that if coalowners paid for both it would promote harmony between trade unionists and the owners, and that trade unionists might forget they were trade unionists, it seemed to me to be an argument which was rather thin. I do suggest that at any rate both sides should pay the fees for the attendance whether at pit committees, district committees, area or national boards, but I would be prepared, speaking only for myself, to meet the noble Viscount if he thought it was desirable that the expenses in connection with the staffs which will be created—expenses other than the fees and personal expenses—should be borne out of the funds of the owners. I am prepared to meet the noble Lord to that extent.

    The proposals of the Amendment which the House carried last week were these—that each party should bear their own fees, but that the staff expenses should be divided between the coal owners and the trade union funds respectively, and if the noble Lord would agree that that latter portion should come out of the coal trade but that the fees for the men attending these various meetings should come out of the respective pockets of the two parties, we may come to an agreement. I would point out further that if it is any advantage to the men for us as coal owners to make a deduction at their request from their wages in order that their fees shall be collected out of their wages by us, we shall be very glad to do so.

    My suggestion went rather further than that of the noble Lord. I suggested that the decision of the House should stand as regards the district and area committees and the National Board. In those cases the expenses should be shared by each side paying one half. That is exactly in accordance with the decision of your Lordships. All I was going to suggest was that an exception should be made in the case of the pit committees, and I should be glad if I might move an amendment in that form. That is to say I will move only the Amendments in page 12, line 27, page 12, line 31, and page 13, line 10. I will move it in that form. It is in the case of pit committees only that the expenses will be borne by the industry. I understand there is a good deal of difficulty in collecting the money in these cases.

    There is no danger of what the noble Lord suggests of unnecessary and exceptional meetings, because the meetings do not depend upon the men or upon the owners. They depend on the Regulations which are laid down. There is no fear of excessive sums being borne, and I am advised that, at any rate in the case of the pit committees, it would be eminently desirable that they should be paid in this way, in order that both the owners and the men, coming together in these discussions, should feel that they are in support of a common industry which bears their expenses, and that they do not come there as representatives of different and hostile camps. I strongly urge upon your Lordships that very small compromise—that the whole of your decision should stand except in regard to the pit committees, in which case the charges should fall on the industry.

    My Lords, I feel very much the force of the argument addressed to us by my noble friend Lord Gainford. It is true that these labour corporations are very rich and, upon the face of it, there seems no reason why they should not pay their share. At the same time, it is perhaps unwise to push the argument to its logical conclusion, and I must say that the noble Viscount has come forward with a very reasonable compromise. My noble friend will not get all he asks for, but he will get a good deal, and no doubt the case for paying the miners' side in the case of the pit committees is stronger than it is in regard to the other committees. They are not likely to be so expensive and they are more immediately attached to the industry than the larger committees which deal with wider considerations. I should be inclined to suggest to my noble friend that, having gained so much, he might be willing to accept the compromise.

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 12, line 31, leave out from ("mine") to ("and") in line 35.— (Viscount Peel.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 13, line 3, leave out the first ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Gainford.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 13, line 5, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Gainford.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 13, line 10, leave out ("all sums payable under this section").—(Viscount Peel.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17

    Provisions as to regulations under Part II.

    17. The provisions of sections eighty-six and one hundred and seventeen of, and Part I of the Second Schedule to, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which relate to general regulations shall apply with the necessary modifications to regulations under this Part of this Act:

    Provided that, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice. to the validity of anything previously done there-under

    Amendment moved—

    Clause 17, page 13, line 18, leave out from ("Provided") to the end of the clause.— (Lord Gainford.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 18:

    Cessation of Part II in certain eventualities.

    18. If at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade, on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines, that the scheme of this Part of the Act has been rendered abortive by reason of the failure on the part of those entitled to appoint representatives as members of the pit and district committees. area boards, and the National Board to avail themselves of such right, the Board of Trade shall issue and publish in the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes a certificate to that effect, and thereupon all the provisions of this Part of the Act shall cease to have effect.

    moved, at the commencement of the clause, to leave out "at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act," and to insert "on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."

    The noble Marquess said: This is a substantial Amendment. which I hope the Government will see fit to accept. 1 can explain it; in a few words. There is a danger—I will not put it higher—that the miners may refuse to work Part II of the Bill. I think it would be a most unfortunate and deplorable thing if they did, as Part II, although certain criticisms have been made against. it—I myself have ventured to make criticisms—does, on the whole, embody the principle of partnership in the management of the mines. That is a principle to which we all, including, I believe, noble Lords of every shade of opinion, look for the solution of the industrial difficulties of this country. Therefore, I think it would be deplorable if the miners refused to work this scheme. At the same time, it is possible it may happen, and the Government, therefore, provide in the Bill as it stands that in that case the Minister himself is to have the right practically to strike out of the Bill the whole of Part II.

    I submitted in Committee, and I submit again, that that is much too great a power to entrust to a Minister. It is a matter which ought to be done by Parliament itself, and I suggest in this Amendment that in this deplorable event there should be substituted for the spontaneous action of the Minister the action of the two Houses of Parliament. I will only add one observation. Those of your Lordships who were in Committee are aware of the point, which I repeat in one form. It is not going to be necessarily a very simple issue to determine, because the case may arise where a certain number of committees are made operative by the miners while other committees are rendered nugatory by their refusal. Then the very difficult question will have to be decided as to whether that constitutes a sufficient amount of refusal to warrant the striking out of the whole of Part II. Every degree of difficulty may arise and it seems to me that it is very important indeed as to who is to decide whether Part II is to be repealed. It is not merely that certain parts of the country may operate the Bill while other parts refuse, but it may very well happen that the pit committees might be made operative and the superior committees not operative.

    That is not merely theory on my part. The miners object to these committees because of the authority which is given to them over wages and that wages point applies very much more to the larger committees than to the smaller committees. Therefore, it might easily be that the miners may say, "We are willing to have pit committees, but we will not have any share or part in operating the bigger committees." That is a difficult question. What is to be done in those circumstances? I say that it is not fair to trust an issue of that kind to a Minister who will be subject to all sorts of irregular and unofficial pressure. All sorts of visits to Downing-street will be going on perpetually. We are quite familiar with that kind of thing. That is what I am sure the country and the Government themselves would desire to avoid. Place the authority where it ought to be placed—namely, on both Houses of Parliament—and I am sure that we shall then do the best thing.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 13, line 25, leave out from ("If") to ("it") in line 26, and insert ("on the thirty-first day of duly, nineteen hundred and twenty-one"). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    I was rather surprised to see the Amendment of the noble Marquess on the Paper, because I undertook on behalf of the Government to look into this question myself, and it was in deference to the arguments used to your Lordships that I placed on the Paper an Amendment in slightly different words from those of the noble Marquess. Though I was very much interested to hear the admirable argument that the noble Marquess addressed to your Lordships upon it, I was also surprised to some extent, because what he desires is already given effect to in the Amendment that I myself have put down.

    I agree with the noble Marquess that this matter should not be decided merely by the. Minister of Mines—or shall I say by the Under-Secretary for Mines—but shall be decided by Parliament. I will, however, urge the noble Marquess to accept the form in which I have put down the Amendment— namely, that "a Report of the circumstances, and that Report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of one month from the date when it is so laid all the provisions of this Part of this Act shall cease to have effect unless in the meantime a Resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament."

    The reason for putting it down in this form is that the President of the Board of Trade does not himself report under this Bill unless he wants to put an end to Part II on the ground that it has failed to work. If he reports so strongly on a matter of that kind which so much affects his own Department, the probability is that there will be a prima facie case in its favour. My words suggest that the provisions of Part II shall cease to have effect unless during those days when the Report lies upon the Table both Houses say that the scheme ought to go on. If they differ from the view of the President of the Board of Trade and say it ought to go on, they should say so. I suggest that my form is the preferable one.

    I agree that there is very little difference between us, and we are much obliged to my noble friend for having accepted the weight of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and, in the interval between Committee and report, put down an Amendment. I would only put this forward for his consideration—Is not the positive resolution better in the circumstances? The President of the Board of Trade goes down to the House of Commons and lays a Report on the Table of that House, and says "I deeply regret that after the experience of the year we find that the miners as a class will not work this Bill, either in the pit, committees, in the districts, or in the areas; therefore I am bound with great regret to advise Parliament to put Part II of this Act out of operation." Would it not be better if we concluded that such a Report—which we all from the bottom of our hearts hope may be so—will never be made, and ask that Parliamentary sanction should be given directly for putting Part II out of operation rather than leave it in the air on the chance that no private member will take the matter up.

    There is not a great deal in it, but the noble Marquess's form of Amendment, it will be seen, forces a debate on both Houses, because unless they pass this Resolution Part II cannot come to an end. The advantage of the form that I have put down is that if the Report is generally accepted no debate is raised upon the matter, but if the Houses or Parliament object to it then a debate is raised. I think there is some slight advantage in my form of words, and I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to accept them.

    I am very anxious to meet the noble Viscount. I do not agree with him, of course, but it is a minor point of difference, and on the whole I think I must give way and allow the Government to put it in the form they suggest.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 13, line 32, leave out from ("issue") to the end of the clause and insert ("a report of the circumstances, and that report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of one month from the date when it is so laid all the provisions of this Part of this Act shall cease to have effect unless in the meantime a resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament"). —(Viscount Peel.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 13, line 37, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").
    Page 14, line 1, leave out ("and subject to the approval of the Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    There is an Amendment which ought to have been put down on the Paper. It is page 14, line 8, to leave out in subsection (2) "Minister" and insert "Board of Trade." I beg to move.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 14, line 8, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Board of Trade").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 14, line 10, leave out the first ("or") and insert ("of").—(Lord Gainford.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at the end of Clause 19: "Provided as follows: 'Before any scheme comes into force it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during which that House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration presents an address to His Majesty against the scheme or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the snaking of any new scheme.'" The noble Earl said: I have discussed this matter with the Government, and they are willing to accept the Amendment in the amended form in which I now submit it to the House.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 14, line 15, after ("section") insert ("Provided as follows: 'Before any scheme involving the amendment or repeal of any local Act of Parliament comes into force, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days during which that House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration presents an address to His Majesty against the scheme or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new scheme'")—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 21:

    Establishment of fund for improvement of social conditions of colliery workers,

    21.—(1) There shall be constituted a fund to be applied for such purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation, and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines and with mining education and research as the Minister of Mines, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, and subject to the consent of the Board of Trade, may approve.

    (2) The owners of every coal mine shall before the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and before the same day in each of the subsequent five years, pay into the said fund a suns equal to one penny a ton of the output of the mine during the previous calendar year, and the sums so payable in respect of any mine shall be defrayed as part of the working expenses of the mine and shall be recoverable either as a debt due to the Crown or by the Minister of Mines summarily as a civil debt:

    Provided that in the case of the first payment the amount shall be calculated with reference to the output during the six calendar months ending the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and twenty.

    (3) The duty of allocating the money from time to time standing to the credit of the said fund to the several purposes aforesaid shall be vested in a committee consisting of five persons, appointed by the Minister of Mines, of whom one shall be appointed by him after consultation with the Mining Association of Great Britain, and another after consultation with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. The committee shall have the assistance of three assessors appointed by the Minister of Health, the Board of Education and the Secretary for Scotland respectively; the assessors shall have the right of attending meetings of the committee and of taking part in the deliberations thereof, but not of voting; and different persons may be appointed by the above-mentioned departments to act as assessors in relation to different matters:

    Provided that the Committee shall take into consideration any scheme submitted by a district committee, and that before allocating any money for a local purpose they shall consult with the district committee concerned.

    (4) The committee may invite a local authority to submit a scheme for any of the purposes to which the fund may be applied, and if such scheme be approved by the committee they may make such grants in aid to the said local authority out of the fund and upon such conditions as may seem to them desirable:

    Provided that in no case shall any grant be made out of the fund for building or repairing of dwelling-houses.

    (5) Where money is allocated for the purpose of meeting the cost in whole or in part of providing accommodation and facilities at a coal mine for the workmen taking baths and drying clothes, and such accommodation and facilities are so provided, section seventy-seven of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, shall apply as if such accommodation and facilities had been provided under that section, provided that (a) cost of maintenance shall not be deemed to include any interest on capital expenditure so far as that expenditure was met out of money allocated from this fund, and (b) the contribution of the workmen to the cost of maintenance shall be reduced by the proportion which the money so allocated from the fund bears to the total capital expenditure.

    (6) Payments out of and into the fund, and all other matters relating to the fund, and moneys standing to the credit of the fund (including temporary investments thereof) shall be made and regulated in such manner as the Minister of Mines, subject to the approval of the Treasury, may direct.

    (7) The Minister of Mines shall in each year cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination showing the receipts into and issues out of the said fund in the financial year ended the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall certify and report upon the same, and such account and report shall be laid before Parliament.

    moved, in subsection (1), after "There shall be constituted," to insert "in each of the districts mentioned in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act." The noble Earl said: My noble friend will recollect that it was clearly understood that this matter would be brought forward again on Report.

    Yes, Clause 21. The point of my Amendments, which all stand or fall together, is this. By the scheme of the Bill a large fund is created to be devoted to purposes of social improvement, recreation, research, and education, but the expenditure of this fund is in the hands of a specially appointed central committee, and so far as the words of the Bill go it looks as if this money would he spent wholly or mainly on big central objects. The purport of my Amendments is to divide this fund up so that there should be a fund in each district, and the fund of each district should be used for the scheduled purposes in respect of that district. But I further suggest that on the recommendation of the National Board to the Central Committee one-tenth of the fund in each district may be taken for some general purpose affecting the miners as a class, and not affecting them in any one locality. The nation has great reason to resent the attitude to it of Mr. Smillie and of those who act with him in making representations to the Government on behalf of the miners; but although the nation resents Mr. Smillie's attitude, it never associates with that attitude the miners themselves. It puts down Mr. Smillie's action to the faulty constitution of the Miners' Federation, and it never will forget the splendid part the miners played in the war.

    They, in a greater degree perhaps than almost any other class of the community, rallied to the Colours in the hour of danger. Therefore I think we all rejoice to see that this fund is to be established. It is a very large fund. It appears to be a fund that will eventually reach five and a-half millions sterling, which will then I understand be the capital of the fund, the interest on which will be administered for the purposes of social improvement, recreation, education, and research.

    What some of us fear is that this will become a general fund and, though used for purposes no doubt excellent in themselves, that it will lose all association with the men who have worked in the districts from which the fund has been derived. If you look at the Schedule you will see that the districts are all large districts. You have Fife and Clackmannan, the Lothians, and Lanarkshire. The vast majority of these are whole counties. Or you may have the South Wales coalfields. I suggest that the county area is a very real area for all purposes of English life, and that the miners who belong to a given county, such as Cumberland, ought not to have the benefit of the money contributed from the Cornish mines for the purposes of social improvement, recreation, and education.

    It is very important that the miners should associate this fund with their own locality and with the work they have done in the mines from which the fund is drawn. They should not come to regard it, as surely they will otherwise, as a central Lind taken from, heaven knows where, which comes to them like manna from heaven and has no connection with them or their work, and is administered by a Central Committee in London without any reference to the individual requirements of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Cumberland, Warwickshire, Kent, and so on.

    We think, in fact, that there is the greatest possible advantage in identifying the fund with the district, and making it the exception and not the rule that the fund should contribute to a central fund to be administered for the whole of the mining industry throughout England, Wales, and Scotland. That is the object of my Amendments. I suggest that we take the discussion of this first Amendment, because if that is carried everything else becomes consequential. If that is lost, it will indicate that the House does not approve of the suggestion I have made.

    Amendment, moved—

    Page 14, line 33, after ("constituted") insert ("in each of the districts mentioned in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

    I was rebuked at an earlier stage of the proceedings because I asked your Lordships to reverse a decision at which you had arrived on the Committee stage—

    I do not object to it at all, because I think anybody is perjectly justified in asking the House to reconsider its decision. I am only pointing out that there is some inconsistency in the action of gentlemen opposite, and that I feel perfectly justified in the action I took. I ask the House in this case to adhere to a decision which was arrived at in Committee, and to adhere to a decision reached not only after a long discussion but after a definite compromise had been arrived at as well.

    The noble Earl was not here. I will state what I mean by compromise. There was a special Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Joicey that in the spending of the money by this central committee there should be consultation with the districts, and he withdrew his Amendment on that under-standing—

    I really must protest against the attitude of the noble Viscount, because, it I may venture to say so, I think he is misleading your Lordships. It was never accepted. The Amendment, was undoubtedly put in, but I rose in my place immediately and said that the compromise m as unsatisfactory. It was the old compromise of the oyster and the shell. The Government got the oyster and we got the shell. There was nothing in it. I protested against it and said we should raise the matter again at the next stage.

    I did not understand that the noble Lord was to raise it again at the next stage. Of course, all compromises are unsatisfactory; neither side likes them. At all events no further action was taken upon it. I will deal with the case on its merits. All I am asking your Lordships to do is to say that this fund, so raised, should be spent, after consultation with the districts, under the general directions of this committee of five persons who are set up under the Bill, and who, I understand, the noble Earl wishes to retain under the Bill.

    Before I deal with the question of principle, may I say that I do not quite understand what this committee of five are going to do, because it is only under certain circumstances that they may spend on general objects one-tenth of the fund so raised. If that is all they are going to do it would obviously be hardly worth while to go to the trouble and expense of setting up this particular committee. At all events, the point is that this fund which is raised from 1d. per ton on coal is raised upon the industry all over the country and should be administered by a central committee. That is the proposal of the Government. The proposal of the noble Earl is that the money coming out of particular districts should be spent in those districts: that for this purpose the coal industry should be treated as split up into a number of units, instead of being treated as one industry.

    He said, first of all, that the miners would not pay much attention to this money if it came from a central unit, but would be much more interested in it if it came from their own district. I do not know whether the noble Earl is familiar with miners, but I do not think they would make much trouble as to where the money came from so long as it was going to be spent on objects of which they approved. If you isolate the expenditure in the different districts you split up the whole industry into certain specific districts; whereas the object of rasing this money was that it should be spent generally in the interest of the industry as a whole.

    Moreover there are a good many objects, as the noble Lord knows, for which this money can be spent. A great many of these objects are rather apt to, or certainly may, overlap or interfere with or affect schemes made by other authorities, such as the Ministry of Health, the education authority, and so on, because the money can be spent on recreation, on matters of health, and on matters of education. Therefore for good administration it is very important that you should have some central board that can be in touch with these great central organisations, and which will be able to decide whether or not the expenditure of this money does or does not overlap, or does or does not conflict with an object that has been otherwise carried out. If you do not do that, if you split up into districts what will happen, I suppose, will be this, that instead of the Board deciding it on general and, let us hope, impartial principles, you will have all these matters brought back to the Ministry itself, who will have to decide, with the natural consequence that you will get politics introduced into the expenditure of this money. I respectfully suggest that that would be a great misfortune, and it would be better to allow this money to be spent by this independent body of five persons who will have a general knowledge of the whole situation, who will be able to expend the money in the best interests of the trade, and who will not be exposed, as a Minister must necessarily be exposed, to the pressure of political interests, which inevitably must affect a Minister when he is spending public money.

    I urge on my noble friend that the suggestion which was repudiated by the noble Marquess is not really so bad a corn-promise, because you place the general responsibility for the spending of the fund on the central body, but they are bound to consult these local or district bodies and to ascertain from them therefore the general wishes of the locality. That is a middle way between entire centralisation and total decentralisation, and I submit that it is a fair compromise.

    My noble friend quite unintentionally has misrepresented the affect of my Amendment. I leave the central committee exactly as it is to administer the whole fund, only the instruction is that it is to administer in each district money raised in that district, to the extent of one-tenth, on the request of the National Board.

    That, I think, would be very much confining the usefulness of the fund, if only one-tenth can be spent.

    Yes, but that is quite different from £5,000,000, and it is not much use. You must either have centralisation or decentralisation. It is very little use setting up this central board and telling them they must spend in the locality the money raised in the locality.

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendments moved—

    Page 14, line 35, after ("mines") insert ("the district").

    Page 14, line 36, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 14, line 38, leave out ("and subject to the consent of the Board of Trade ").

    Page 14, line 39, after ("mine") insert ("in each district").

    Page 14, Page 15, line 2, after ("fund") insert (" for the district ").

    Page 14, line 7, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 14, line 12, after ("allocating") insert ("in each district").

    Page 14, line 13, after ("fund") insert ("in the district").

    Page 14, line 15, leave out ("Ministry of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").

    Page 14, line 16, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board of Trade").— (The Earl of Selborne.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 15, line 29, after ("Committee") insert ("if any").—(Viscount Peel.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Amendments moved—

    Page 15, line 29, at end insert:

    ("Provided further that upon a recommendation in that behalf made from time to time by the National Board the said fund to an amount not exceeding one tenth of the aggregate annual total thereof for all the districts may, if the Committee think fit, be applied in any year to purposes authorised by this section being of benefit to the interests of workers in or about coal mines either generally or in more than one district").

    Page 15, line 31, after ("fund") insert ("in a district").

    Page 15, line 34, after ("fund") insert ("in the said district").— (The Earl of Selborne.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    moved to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (4), and to insert "grants may be made out of this fund for building or improving the dwelling houses of workers in or about any coal mine, provided that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by that coal mine."

    The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would ask permission to read one paragraph from the Report on which this clause is based, the Interim Report of the Sankey Commission, and I would draw attention to the fact that it was signed not by the miners but by Mr. Justice Sankey himself, and the other three independent members—namely, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Sir Arthur Duckham and Sir Thomas Roy-den, and it is therefore not prejudiced. Paragraph 21 says—
    "Evidence has been placed before the Commission as to the housing accommodation of the colliery workers in various districts. Although it is true that there is good housing accommodation in certain districts—and to some extent —there are houses in some districts which are a reproach to our civilisation. No judicial language is sufficiently strong or sufficiently severe to apply to their condemnation."
    Paragraph 22 goes on to say that this fund shall be raised at a rate of 1d. per ton to include the housing and amenities of each particular coliery district.

    As a coal owner myself I entirely agree with what Lord Joicey said during the Committee stage, that there are many collieries where things have been done properly in the past, but I cannot see that this is any reason why the provision which was recommended in the Report should not be carried out with reference to those collieries where the conditions are bad. I would even go further. I think it is a pity, when the Government get a Report of this kind, that they can devise no means of penalising the owners who have very bad conditions indeed. However that may be, a year after this Report the Government brings in this Bill, in which they set up the fund recommended by the Commission, and the one thing which is definitely excluded as being the only thing the money cannot be spent on is housing. About nine-tenths of the evidence, filling many pages of the Blue Book which contained the Report of the Commission was on this very subject of housing. It was the one point with regard to social well-being, as laid down in the Bill, to which great attention was devoted. It therefore does seem a most extraordinary procedure to bring in a clause which establishes this fund, and then exclude the one object for which those who originated the fund first thought of it.

    Furthermore, the creation of this very large fund of £5,000,000 to be spent on somewhat vague objects, is a very different matter when you have the recommendation of a Commission which has gone into the whole matter in the greatest possible detail and heard many witnesses. It might be said, "Well, on the strength of all that the Commission have done in the way of investigation we can go in for these vague objects." The way it has been done is quite different, because these vague objects to which the money is to be devoted were never considered at all by the Coal Commission, and have never been investigated by anybody. Housing is the first condition of social well-being, and much has been said upon it by many members of the Cabinet.

    I understand that the reason why this provision was inserted in another place was that it was stated that there would be overlapping with the other housing schemes of the Government. Personally, I fail to see why the money in this fund cannot be available without in any way interfering with the administration of a housing scheme by another Department. It is purely a question of money, and one has only got to walk round the country or. for that matter, quite close to your Lordships' House, to see placards inviting the public to subscribe to Housing Bonds. I cannot personally see why this money should not be usefully devoted to the same purpose. Furthermore, if the money is diverted from housing to these schemes of recreation and social well-being, which are so ill-defined, it only means that the £1,000,000 which would otherwise be available for housing next spring, would have to come out of the taxpayer's pocket. I would further point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, that there is nothing compulsory about this Amendment. It merely says that the money may be used for housing; it does not in any way force the Central Committee so to use it.

    The second part of the Amendment, which limits the amount subscribed by the mine in question, is necessary because the Government have decided that the coal industry is to be decontrolled as soon as possible, and it would obviously be bad if, when that time came, the owner of bad houses was being subsidised by the men who had spent money on good ones. I would urge upon your Lordships the importance of this matter, because we are dealing with no less than £1,000,000 of public money, which, for the first year at any rate, comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. It is definitely laid down in the Bill that it is to be treated as working expenses, and so long as control goes on it does not come out of the owner's pocket because he is guaranteed his fixed profit, and it conies out of the pool. if it did not come out of the pool it would conic out of the Exchequer. Therefore that £1,000,000 is quite definitely to come out of the Exchequer. For that reason, my Lords, I hope that you will pass this Amendment.

    Amendment moved—

    Page 15, lines 35 to 37, leave out from ("desirable") to the end of subsection (4), and insert ("grants may be made out of this fund for building or improving the dwelling houses of workers in or about any coal mine, provided that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by that coal mine").—(Lord Vernon.)

    Before the noble Viscount replies, I would appeal to him to accept this Amendment after the excellent case which has been made for it by my noble friend Lord Vernon. I do not want to go into the larger subject, but I have the strongest possible opinion that in the future it will be found absolutely necessary to force public companies to deal with their own housing when they require additional accommodation. The objection that might be made to giving the whole of this money to housing, if it could be done as a national question as is proposed by the Government, would be not merely the objection put up in another place, to which my noble friend alluded, but the objection that those who had been behindhand in housing would profit under the Bill, while collieries which had been more considerate would lose. That is entirely prevented by the Amendment, because my noble friend particularly suggests that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by the coal mine in question.

    If the noble Viscount rejects the Amendment it really means that the Government propose to say that while there shall be a fund for luxuries in a particular locality, the luxuries may be provided while the necessaries have to wait until, perhaps, the distant future when the localities can deal with it. That is really why I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.

    I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, made a vigorous and well-argued speech in favour of allowing this fund to be used for the building of houses. He was supported by my noble friend Lord Midleton, who, when the Housing Bill was before this House, expressed the desire that the building of houses should be made an incident of a particular industry. The effect of the Amendment moved by Lord Vernon is, of course, that the whole or part of this fund which has been collected for the purpose of research, recreation, education, and other matters, may be spent upon housing.

    My noble friend asks why it should not be spent upon housing. There are three grave reasons against it. First of all, very large sums are being spent by the taxpayer and smaller sums by the ratepayer, as noble Lords well know, on this matter of housing. Local authorities are, as we all know, in a grave difficulty about building houses. They are looking about them in all directions to try and limit their liabilities in this regard, and I think it is quite clear that if it once gets about that here is a large sum of money which may be spent on housing, not one shilling will be spent by local authorities, these houses will not be built for the miners, and you will be starving that immense industry of its houses. That alone Seems to me to be absolutely conclusive against accepting my noble friend's suggestion.

    Again, his Amendment renders it completely abortive. It says, "provided that any such grant shall not exceed the amount contributed to the fund by that coal mine." This is a fund for the whole of the industry of the country, and there is £1,000,000 a year to be drawn. The amount provided by each coal mine would produce how many houses?

    It might in some cases produce half a house a year or, possibly, one house in about five years. What would be the effect of it? You would, in those cases, draw out the whole of the fund provided for the recreation of the men. Your Lordships have already made your decision that the sum shall be spent locally and not generally. There would be indignation in the coal mines because the men would find they were getting nothing for education or recreation, but it was all being spent on houses which ought to be built by the local authorities, and which the men know ought to be built by the local authorities. With all respect to the noble Lord who so vigorously advocated this Amendment, I cannot imagine any suggestion which would produce such desperation and such trouble in the mining industry. The men would say, "There is money put up on the one hand to build houses which the local authority have the duty of spending. The local authority are spending this other money in building our houses; we have one or two houses built out of this fund, and all the hopes we had as to recreation, education, and so on, from this fund are going to be absolutely destroyed." I hope that your Lordships will not support this Amendment, which I consider would be most damaging to the harmony of the industry and to the way in which this fund will be spent.

    I can only speak for my own district in this matter, but I am quite sure that the money which is raised in the coal industry of Northumberland and Durham ought not to be diverted to housing. The miners are very well represented on our various local authorities, which are thoroughly qualified to look after housing schemes. I have just been making a calculation that in the five years at a comparatively fair colliery, raising say five thousand tons a week, which is a quarter of a million tons a year, if the fund was only raised in fivepences, it would realise something like £5,200.

    In the five years. That would mean that half-a-dozen houses would be put up in five years in connexion with improved housing accommodation at the colliery. The thing really would not work on the lines suggested by Lord Vernon, and I suggest that it should not be pressed to a division.

    The speech made by Lord Gainford introduces an element of difficulty, for it is no use enacting what may not be operative. It is a most astonishing thing when you read the clause. Here we have a clause raising a fund for the social well-being, recreation, and improved conditions of living of the workers. The subject which most constitutes their well-being and improves their conditions of life is excluded expressly by the Bill. That really is the proposal as the Government have presented it. The thing which every social reformer considers most important for the social well-being of the people is housing, and it is expressly barred by the terms of the Bill. It is a most astonishing proposal. I admit the argument of Lord Gainford, who speaks with experience, that there may be minor improvements in housing which might be extremely valuable and which will only absorb part of the fund; but these are absolutely barred by the Government. It is really most astonishing that we should have a clause which admits cinemas and excludes improvements in housing. Gardens, I suppose, would be excluded. It is surely a most astonishing proposal.

    I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. On first reading the Bill this provision was one upon which I fixed as one I should like to have amended, but on going more closely into the matter I realised the great difficulty there would be of dealing with it or effecting Anything substantial by an alteration. With regard to the latter part of the Amendment, which limits the amount that can be taken from certain districts, I can say from my own knowledge of South Wales that it would be absolutely impossible. There are certain collieries there which are very poor, and not a great distance away there are rich collieries. It depends on the character of the coal they have to work, and the need for improvement in houses is invariably in the neighbourhood of poor pits. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

    The noble Marquess says it is a most astonishing thing that housing should be excluded. That seems to me a most astonishing argument coming from the noble Marquess. Only a few months ago we passed a tremendous Bill dealing with the whole housing of the country, and when you have placed the duty of dealing with this problem on a particular Department it is not necessary to bring in another Bill dealing with housing. For Heaven's sake let one authority deal with it and one authority alone— I commend that advice to the noble Marquess.

    But the one Department to whom we have entrusted the work has not done it, and as far as we can see is incapable of doing it. I hope, however, the Amendment will not be pressed. At the same time I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he would be prepared to agree to a compromise that the words "Provided that in no case shall any grant be made out of the fund for building or repairing of dwelling-houses," should be taken out. They were not in the Bill as originally drafted. They were put in in the House of Commons, and they do seem to me to fetter unnecessarily the discretion of the Central Committee. It is quite easy to imagine cases in which a contribution might be made but which would be debarred by these words.

    I hope the noble Earl will not press any such Amendment because the effect of leaving out those two lines would be to allow the money to be used to housing. They were put in in order to prevent it.

    I understand that a large proportion of the money for housing is to be provided by the Exchequer, and therefore it is purely an Exchequer question. It appeared to me that by my Amendment the tax-payer might be saved at least half-a-million pounds, but in view of what has been said I will not, of course, press it.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    moved to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (4), which read—.

    Provided that in no case shall any grant be made out of the fund for building or repairing of dwelling-houses.

    I submit that this Amendment is out of order, because it is the subject we have been discussing. If your Lordships leave out these two lines it would mean that this money could be spent on housing.

    Not at all. The noble Lord proposed to leave out words and insert other words. I suggest that he should persist in moving his Amendment so far as leaving out the words are concerned, and then he would be wiser not to move the insertion of the other words

    I submit that the withdrawal of an Amendment is not a decision. If it had been negatived it would have been a decision. That is a well-established Parliamentary Practice.

    CONTENTS.

    Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)Peel, V.Ranksborough, L.
    Bath, M.Roe, L.
    Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)Rotherham, L.
    Bradford, E.Armaghdale, L.Sinha, L.
    Eldon, E.Clwyd, L.Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
    Lytton, E.Colebrooke, L.Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
    Onslow, E.Cozens-Hardy, L.Strabolgi, L.
    Astor, V.Crawshaw, L.Sudeley, L.
    Bertie of Thame, V.Gainford, L.Swaythling, L.
    Chilston, V.Harris, L.Treowen, L.
    Goschen, V.Hylton, L.Wavertree, L.
    Hood, V.Islington, L.Wester Wemyss, L.
    Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)O'Hagan, L.Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
    Queenborough, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Argyll, D.Morton, E.Ebury, L.
    Bedford, D.Selborne, E.Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
    Stanhope, E.
    Salisbury, M.Erskine, L. [Teller.]
    Chaplin, V.Hindlip, L.
    Abingdon, E.Kintore, L. (E. Kintore. [Teller.]
    Denbigh, E.Ampthill, L.
    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)Askwith, L.Leigh, L.
    Avebury, L.Sumner, L.
    Jersey, E.Denman, L.Vernon, L.
    Midleton, E.Desborough, L.

    Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

    Amendments moved—

    Page 16, line 10, after ("fund") insert ("in each district")

    Amendment moved—

    Clause 21, page 15, lines 35 to 37, leave out from ("desirable") to the end of subsection(4). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    I do not want to speak again but this is exactly the same subject over again. The noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment and now the noble Marquess wants to insert language which would allow of this money being spent on housing. I do not wish to state again the arguments against it. We must oppose it if it is pressed.

    I am well acquainted with many colliery districts in the country and I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. I look upon it as a serious blow to the erection of new houses for our colliers.

    On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—

    Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 25.

    Page 16, line 13, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 16,line 15, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 16,line 18, after ("fund") insert "in the several districts").— (The Earl of Selborne.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 22:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 16, line 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 16, line 25, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Board").

    Page 16, Page 16, line 26, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Board")

    Page 16, line 27, leave out ("his") and insert ("their")

    Page 16, line 33, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 23:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 16, line 39, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 16, line 40, leave out ("he considers") and insert ("they consider").

    Page 16, Page 17, line 1, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 16, line 2, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 16, lines 15 and 16, leave out ('Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade'")

    Page 16, line 17, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 16, line 19, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Board").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 24:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 17, line 21, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 17, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 17, line 24, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 17, line 28, leave out ("Minister of Mines and his") and insert ("Board of Trade and their").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 26:

    I desire to ask whether the definition of "mines" ought to be amended with a view to excluding stratified iron-stone mines. The Cleveland iron-stone mines, by an arrangement with the Government, I believe, are not to be included at any rate in Part II of the Bill and in certain provisions of Part III of the Bill, but they are not satisfied, as they are advised by their legal adviser, that there are words sufficient in the Bill to exclude them from the operations of Part II and of part of Part III; and I should rather like to know whether, in the opinion of the Government, they are excluded, or whether this definition of mines ought to be so altered as to exclude them.

    I understand that Part II and Section 21 of Part III do not apply. They apply to coal mines only, and the rest of the Bill applies to mines generally.

    Clause 27:

    Amendment moved—

    Page 18, line 10, leave out ("Ministry of Mines") and insert ("Mining Industry").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    First Schedule:

    Amendments moved—

    Page 19, line 7, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 19, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("including the Board of Trade")

    Page 19, line 10, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 19, line 15, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 19, line 18, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade")

    Page 19, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("Minister of Mines") and insert ("Board of Trade").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendments agreed to.

    Title:

    Amendment moved—

    Page 1, leave out ("establish a Ministry") and insert ("provide for the better administration ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) that the Bill be now read 3a .— (Viscount Peel.)

    I am only desirous of meeting the convenience of your Lordships, and of the Government, but I understand there is a desire on the part of those who advise the Government to have a few moments in which to consider the Bill between Report and Third Reading. I think, if the Government agree, it would be easier to take the other Orders on the Paper first, and then come back to the Third Reading of this Bill afterwards. It seems to me that it might be right to postpone the Third Reading till to-morrow, for drafting purposes, but in any event we have been moving at such an immense pace that the draftsmen cannot be certain unless there is a little interval between the Report and the Third Reading.

    In any case perhaps a little interval would be desirable, whether it be followed by the Third Reading or not. I should like to point out that there is very little of substance on the Order Paper now, because I believe that Lord Sumner is prepared to accept a proposal which I shall make to him in regard to the point he raised in connection with the Ministry of Food Bill. I see very little to provoke discussion until we come to Lord Salisbury's Question, on which I shall have a long statement to make. I suggest, therefore, that we postpone the Third Reading of the Mines Bill until a later stage in the evening.

    Motion postponed accordingly.