asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the proportion of output from Briton Ferry in various forms which goes to France, he will suggest to the French Government the desirability of a reciprocity on their part by permitting steel turnings and scraps to be shipped from such ports as Brest, Pornic, and Rouen?

The French Government have, since the outbreak of War, granted export permits for certain quantities of steel turnings and scrap for Briton Ferry, at the instance of His Majesty's Government, who will continue to support applications for further quantities.

asked when the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's pipe-line was cut; whether it has been repaired; and, if so, when?

The line was first damaged in the first week of February. The necessary repairs were finally completed by the second week in June.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce that the Anti-Aircraft (London) Corps is, or is not, to pass under the control of the War Office?

No decision has yet been reached in this matter.

asked whether the War Office authorities can see their way to give the usual pension to the dependants of Mr. Thomas Morgan, of Seven Sisters, near Neath, who joined the Royal Army Medical Corps early in October last and served at the Western Hospital, Cardiff, but who, as a result of the strain of his duties, suffered a mental collapse and subsequently died in Bridgend Asylum?

I think the hon. Member is misinformed as to there being a "usual pension" in such cases. The scheme is not yet set up.

May I ask if there is any hope for the relatives?

The case is included in the scheme as soon as it is set up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the remuneration of clerks to pension committees for work in connection with the investigation of Army and Navy separation allowance claims is at the rate of 2s. 6d. for each of the first fifty claims and 1s. for every subsequent claim in each quarter of the year; if he will say what sums have been paid or are payable for such work to the clerks of the pension committees for London, Manchester, Glasgow, Dublin, and Cardiff, respectively; and (2) how many claims for Army and Navy separation allowances were reported upon by pension officers in each of the quarters ended 31st December, 1914, 31st March, 1915, and 30th June, 1915, respectively; how many claims in the same periods, respectively, were considered by pension committees; and what sums have been paid or are payable to clerks of pension committees for their work in connection with such claims in each of the same periods, respectively?

The approximate numbers of claims and applications for reconsideration of claims, to Army and Navy separation allowances for dependants, reported upon by pension officers in the quarters ended 31st December, 1914, 31st March, 1915, and 30th June, 1915, are 226,000, 304,000, and 284,000 respectively. I am unable to say how many claims were considered by pension committees and sub-committees in the same periods. The remuneration of the clerks of pension committees and sub-committees for this work is at the rates stated by the hon. Member. Complete accounts of the fees payable to the clerks have not yet been rendered by them, and information as to the amount payable in respect of any of the three quarters in question is not, therefore, at present available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether pension officers are entitled to any and, if so, what addition to their ordinary remuneration for their work in the investigation of claims for Army and Navy separation allowances; whether he is aware that, on account of the increase in the ordinary work of the pension officers and the difficulty in augmenting the staff in war time, their duties in connection with separation allowances involve overtime work; whether he is aware that all other Civil servants of the same grade as pension officers, including those in the same Department, have been paid overtime throughout the past twelve months when doing extra work; whether he proposes to pay pension officers overtime on the same scale as other Civil servants for their work in the investigation of separation allowance claims; and (2) whether the work of investigating and deciding upon claims for Army and Navy separation allowances has since the beginning of the War been discharged by pension officers, while a small percentage of such claims, namely, those in which the claimants are dissatisfied with the award of the pension officers, have come under review by the pension committees; whether, notwithstanding that the work thus thrown upon the pension officers has been exceedingly onerous, involving for the most part overtime work, pension officers have received no additional remuneration for this work; whether the clerks to the pension committees have received, and continue to receive, additions to their ordinary remuneration for their work in relation to separation allowances; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the grievance referred to?

The function of the pension officers in connection with claims to Army and Navy separation allowances for dependants is not to decide upon the claims but to investigate and report as to the fact and degree of dependence. I fully recognise the demands which have been made upon the pension officers in consequence of this addition to their duties, and the question of awarding special remuneration for it will be considered. The matter cannot, however, be settled without consideration of other Departments where there has been war pressure, and I am not at present in a position to announce my decision. I would remind the hon. Member that the clerks of pension committees are in a different position. They are not, like the pension officers, whole-time employés, and are paid fees to cover out-of-pocket expenses.

Does it all come to the fact that one set of officers are getting no pay for very heavy work and that the others who are doing very little work are getting very heavy pay?

No, Sir, I do not think I can agree with that description.

Is that not to be inferred from the right hon. Gentleman's answer?

I do not think so.

Is it not a fact that in many cases the work of these pension officers is not at all appreciated by the persons whom they examine?

I believe the pension officers' work is most excellently done.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to pension officers to act more closely in concert with local committees? There have been many cases in which that is not the case, and the difficulty is thereby increased.

I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will bring any particular case to my notice, and I shall be glad to inquire into it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now make a statement in reference to the request for proficiency pay by ex-Volunteers who attained proficiency while members of the Volunteer Force and who are now serving in His Majesty's Forces?

After very full consideration it has been found necessary to adhere to the decision that service in the Volunteer Force does not count for proficiency pay.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether anything will be done to expedite the promotion of officers who have been in the trenches over six months and who are recommended by their commanding officer for promotion, and to remedy the hardship of having officers who have seen no service, but have received promotion at home, being sent out to take precedence of officers who have seen much service, but who are retained for some reason or other in their original ranks, especially as the officers referred to have been acting as captains and first lieutenants for a considerable period without receiving any addition of rank or pay?

The promotion of officers is governed by establishment. I have already on several occasions explained in what circumstances and to what extent temporary promotion is given to officers who have been acting in higher ranks than their permanent rank. When reinforcements are required in a certain rank, officers are sent out from home, but, unless the units are to be starved of reinforcements, it is not possible to arrange that no officers of ranks higher than the lowest are sent out in this way, and if captains or lieutenants are sent they must take their proper precedence. With the rapid promotion which is now obtained, I do not think cases of supersession such as the hon. Gentleman has in mind are in any way frequent.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will try to expedite the promotion of these officers who have been transferred from the Reserve, but are still kept in the lower rank? Is it a fact that only one regiment has been dealt with so far as regards the promotion of any of these officers?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Member is alluding to. If he is alluding to the general scheme for giving temporary rank to officers serving in a higher rank than their permanent rank—

I am alluding to the case of officers who have gone out as second lieutenants. They have been out there six months and have been recommended for promotion by their commanding officer, but they still remain in the lower rank.

Now I recollect to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding. I have made representations on the subject, and it will not be lost sight of—indeed, I hope the matter will be expedited.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the number of cases in which officers went out as second lieutenants at the beginning of the War and have since been superseded by officers holding the rank of lieutenant which they gained at home, without having had any experience in military operations?

That is precisely the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn my notice. My answer, therefore, is in the affirmative.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will, if no objection exists, inform the House what losses were suffered by what troops during the fighting at Tanga last November?

Amongst the 2nd Batt. Loyal North Lancashire Regiment and the British officers serving with the Indian troops the casualties were:—

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the meat ration served out to His Majesty's troops in this country and abroad is almost exclusively beef; and, if so, whether, having regard to the amount of mutton exported from Australia to this country, it would be possible to issue mutton in lieu of beef more frequently?

On a general scale mutton is issued twice a week to the troops at home, arid abroad the proportion of mutton sent out is 10 per cent. It has not been considered advisable to increase this proportion, as a more frequent issue of mutton has not hitherto been popular with the troops. In view, however, of the different conditions now obtaining the matter will be further considered.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will say, seeing the Government have guaranteed the dividends of railway companies, why soldiers before they leave for the front are not allowed a free pass to say good bye to their relatives; whether he is aware that in the case of married men who have made an allotment to their wives these men are unable to find the money for the half-railway fare, seeing that many of these regiments are brought long distances from their homes to certain camps before they leave for the front?

If the question is intended to suggest that under the arrangements made with the railway companies no question of cost is involved, the hon. Member is mistaken. Military as well as financial considerations are involved in the grant of passes. I have the subject under consideration in conjunction with the military authorities at the present time.

asked the Secretary for Scotland what special steps, if any, he proposes to take with reference to the employment of discharged and disabled sailors and soldiers on the land in Scotland; and whether he has yet considered the resolution from the Royal Scottish Arboriculture Society, urging the expedition of schemes of afforestation in Scotland?

The Board of Agriculture for Scotland is making inquiry as to the matter referred to in the first part of the question. The resolution mentioned in the second part of the question has been referred to the Scottish Advisory Committee, who will consider it and report to the Board.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date or dates was martial law proclaimed in Ceylon, and to which provinces did the proclamation extend; whether martial law is still in force; whether he has any evidence that the rioting, as a consequence of which martial law was proclaimed, had an anti-Government character or was entirely due to local religious and racial animosities; whether courts-martial have been trying ordinary cases of rioting; whether any sentences of death have been passed and executed; whether forced levies are being raised from individuals who had no connection with the riots in order to pay compensation; and whether he can make any statement as to the present situation in Ceylon?

Martial law was proclaimed in the Western Province and the Province of Sabaragamuwa on the 2nd of June, and in the Central, Southern, and North-Western Provinces on the 3rd of June. As far as I am aware, these Proclamations are still in force. Martial law w as also proclaimed as a precautionary measure in the Province of Uva and the North-Central Province on the 17th of June, but this Proclamation was revoked on the 29th of June.

The evidence at present obtained is to the effect that the rioting was chiefly due to racial and religious animosities. Special Commissioners, who possess judicial powers as district judges and police magistrates, deal summarily with ordinary cases of riot, and only remit to courts-martial those cases which appear to them sufficiently grave to warrant such procedure. Sentences of death have been passed in certain cases, but I am not aware whether they have been confirmed or executed.

In assessing the compensation to be paid, it is considered that, where all villages in a district would appear to have been concerned in rioting, it is right that every village in the district should contribute except such as can satisfactorily prove that they took no part in the riots. The latest information which I have received shows that the situation is satisfactory.

May I ask for a further explanation with regard to those cases which are submitted from the ordinary Courts to court-martial? What is the distinction in such cases? Is it agreed, when tranquility reigns and the ordinary Courts are sitting, that they should consider the cases, and on what grounds, therefore, are grave cases submitted to court-martial? Is it considered that they will receive a better trial by court-martial?

The trials are all under martial law, but it is considered better that ordinary criminals should be dealt with by ordinary methods. The others are under the ordinary military government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any evidence has been received that German intrigue instigated these riots?

There is no evidence at all that has reached me to that effect, but I should not be myself inclined to say it was impossible that it had something to do with it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that letters have been issued by Customs authorities demanding from exporters, under severe penalties, proof that goods which have, under permits from the War Trade Department, been consigned to the Netherlands Overseas Trust have not reached enemy destinations; and if, in view of the fact that exporters have no control over the delivery of goods consigned to the Overseas Trust and no responsibility in regard thereto, all such letters already issued will be withdrawn and the further issue of such letters prevented?

The letters in question have been issued in pursuance of the powers conferred upon the Board of Customs and Excise by Section 5 (1) of the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915, and I see no reason why they should be withdrawn. The Board inform me, however, that in the case of goods exported under licence specifying the Netherlands Overseas Trust as the consignee, they are content with evidence that the goods have in fact reached the Trust.

asked the President of the Board of Education what steps he proposes to take to supervise the hours of labour, the remuneration, and the conditions of labour where children of school age are employed in any capacity; and whether, in such action as he contemplates, he will arrange that inspectors of schools shall visit the places of employment and report to his Department the conditions amid which children are employed?

I may refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on the 7th July to the hon. Member for Brighton, and on the 22nd July to the hon. Member for West Bradford, of which I am sending him copies.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the progress of the steps which are being taken for the development of British trade after the War in neutral markets and notably in China?

A Special Commissioner is now in China, and his report should prove of considerable assistance in this direction. An Assistant Commercial Attaché has also recently been appointed in China. Steps have been taken to bring to the notice of British traders the opportunity afforded by the War to secure trade previously in German hands, and I have reason to hope that some of the trade in neutral markets so secured will be permanently retained.

asked the Home Secretary what are the terms of the instruction issued from the Censor's office or its representative in Ireland to Irish newspapers to suppress all mention of the banishment of Irish Volunteers from Ireland for their political opinions, without trial or accusation, and all matter relating thereto; and under what Statute, if any, this instruction has been issued?

No such instructions have ever been issued.

Is it from the right Hon. Gentleman or from the Censor that the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle receives his power and instructions for the action he has taken in this matter?

I do not think instructions are received either from the Censor or from myself.

He has done it off his own bat.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will give the terms of the instruction issued from Dublin Castle to Irish newspapers to suppress all mention of the banishment of Irish Volunteers from Ireland for their political opinions, without trial or accusation, and all matters relating thereto; and under what Statute, if any, this instruction has been issued?

No instructions of the nature indicated in the question have been issued by the Irish Government.

asked the Home Secretary what has been done or is about to be done for the destitute young English woman sent to prison by magistrates at Gravesend for having married a German who is now interned in this country; seeing that, as an English woman by birth and race, she would not be admitted to Germany and cannot be sent there; whether any grant has been asked or obtained for her out of the moneys placed in the hands of the American Ambassador for destitute Germans; and, if not, whether she will be employed in the internment camp in which her husband is or in some way be enabled to live elsewhere than in prison, since she is not accused of any illegality?

This case was mentioned at Question Time yesterday. I have been in communication with the justices about this case, and though the girl undoubtedly contravened the Aliens Order, I have felt justified in all the circumstances in advising the remission of the fine imposed. The girl, as I stated yesterday, has already been released, the fine having been paid for her. The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police has made temporary provision for her, and I do not anticipate any difficulty will arise if she wishes to return to her parents.

asked the Home Secretary whether Baroness von Schroeder, who, together with her husband was naturalised after the outbreak of War, and who has sons fighting in the German army, has been permitted to go abroad; and, if so, to what places?

I am informed that Baroness von Schroeder has not gone abroad.

Not been abroad. That is the question on the Paper.

I am sure the answer I have been furnished with means that. Our information is that she has not gone abroad in the sense that she has not been abroad.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if all the motor cars belonging to or in the service of all Departments of the Admiralty have distinctive marks upon them by which they can be readily recognised by the public as being used on Government service?

Generally speaking, the answer is in the affirmative.

The usual "O.H.M.S." and so on?

Yes, or "R.N.A.S."

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Frederick Evans, Royal Naval Service, of His Majesty's ship "Cæsar," who was discharged on 15th February, 1915 (Certificate No. 2,127 D), on the ground of ill-health, within a few months of the period of twenty years' service which would have entitled him to a bounty, has recently died at the Aberystwyth Infirmary and has left behind him a widow and two small children, the Admiralty will give favourable consideration to their claim for the allowance which Frederick Evans would have been entitled to?

Not having fully completed the necessary period of service, the late Seaman Evans was not entitled to the Royal Naval Reserve gratuity, and the Regulations do not provide for the payment of any proportionate part of the gratuity in respect of the completion of any less period than twenty years. He was originally awarded a Naval Disability Pension of £13 14s. a year for life, but as, on a further review of his case, it is considered that the disease for which he was invalided may be regarded as developed in the Service, the pension awarded will 'be revised in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants), and any additional sum due on this account, as from the 1st March, will be paid to Evans' legal representatives. The necessary inquiries, with a view to the award of a pension to Mrs. Evans and of allowances for her children, are being made.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any authority over county councils in respect of their expenditure upon main roads directly under their control; and, if so, whether he exercises or is prepared to exercise such authority in order to prevent the continuance of excessive expenditure at any rate during the War?

Except as regards expenditure proposed to be defrayed out of loan, my right hon. Friend has no authority other than that involved in the audit of the accounts of these councils.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of Irishmen arrested, imprisoned, now in prison, expelled, and now under notice of expulsion, respectively, in Ireland, on political grounds, since the War began, specifying the number of cases in each class in which there has been no trial; the number of those imprisoned with hard labour; and the number now in prison without trial or accusation?

No Irishmen have been arrested, imprisoned, expelled, or given notice of expulsion on political grounds since the War began.

Are not those punished under the Defence of the Realm Act punished on political grounds and no other?

No, Sir. I do not consider that anyone who is found trespassing in a prohibited area, or who gives false information about the presence of German submarines, can be said to be punished on political grounds.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House showing what these gentlemen have really done; whether they have been merely criticising the general policy of the Government or done something more serious such as would qualify them for Cabinet rank?

asked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he will state the reasons justifying the deductions insisted upon by the National Health Insurance Commissioners (England), in circular I.C.L. 124, of one-third of the quarterly accounts of panel practitioners, chemists, and institutions, after services have been rendered and an agreement has been entered into by each party?

There is no question of any deduction from or abatement of the remuneration payable under the agreements to which the hon. Member alludes. The circular in question had reference only to the subject of advances on account of that remuneration, and indicated the extent to which such advances might safely be made without risk of exceeding the sums which will ultimately prove to be due under those agreements.

asked why there has been no advance on account nor adjustment of the deductions of 10 per cent. made in the accounts of doctors, chemists, and institutions for the year 1914; and whether the Government will instruct the Commissioners to deal with the deductions owing to enlistments upon a less arbitrary and more generous basis by a temporary increase of the Treasury Grant, if necessary, considering that the medical profession has undertaken the free treatment of soldiers' wives and families and other dependants and have lost the most healthy portion of their panel?

The final settlement for 1914 has been unavoidably delayed by certain difficulties arising out of the present state of war. The balance due, which is considerably overestimated in the hon. Member's question, will be ascertained and paid as soon as is practicable; while in the case of the chemists, who might otherwise have suffered hardship, steps were taken in April last to effect an emergency settlement which is now in progress. In reply to the second part of the question, I cannot admit the implications of the hon. Member's epithets or his suggestion that a further sum should be provided by the Exchequer.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state when he hopes to announce the name of the independent valuer whom he has nominated in connection with the widening of Duke Street, Cardiff; and whether, in view of the violation of the promise given to the representative ratepayers' association that they should be heard by the Duke Street Improvement Committee before that committee put forward any scheme to the city council of Cardiff, he has ensured that, at the promised independent inquiry by the valuer nominated by the Local Government Board, the Cardiff Ratepayers' Association will be given an opportunity to formulate their objections?

If the hon. Member will refer to the reply given to his question of the 12th instant, he will see that he is under a misapprehension as to the position. At that date my right hon. Friend had already received the report of the valuer nominated by him, who was satisfied that the scheme is a fair and equitable bargain. No other independent inquiry has been promised, and at the present time none is contemplated. The name of the valuer is Mr. John Murray.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say how many county and district inspectors of police in Ireland receive yearly allowances, and how much, for the upkeep of a man servant and never keep one; how many receive yearly allowances, and how much, for the upkeep of a horse but use a bicycle or hired car when they require one; how many policemen of all ranks are now engaged in political espionage, as distinguished from ordinary police duties; and whether, as an example of and inducement to thrift, he will stop these items of expenditure or bring them under the notice of the Economy Committee?

A servant's allowance of £15 per annum is paid to 217 county and district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary, of whom 194 have servants, the remaining twenty-three being at present without them for various reasons. The allowance of £50 per annum towards the maintenance of either a horse or a motor car, the possession of one or other of which must be certified each month by all officers drawing the allowance, is at present paid to 212 of them. It is part of the ordinary duties of all members of the force to exercise such supervision as may be possible and necessary over persons who have committed or are suspected of committing illegal acts. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in 1907 the Government of India recommended to the local government the introduction of suitable temperance teaching in schools; whether he is aware that the Secretary of State for India, in his dispatch to the Governor-General of India in Council, dated 29th May, 1914, suggested the adaptation of the syllabus of the Board of Education in England for this purpose; and whether he can state what steps have been taken in each of the major provinces of India to carry out this recommendation?

My information is to the effect that on receipt of Lord Crewe's Excise dispatch of 29th May, 1915, the Government of India requested local governments to give effect to the suggestion referred to by the right hon. Member, and that in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal the Education Department has been called upon by the local government to submit proposals. I presume that similar steps have been taken in other provinces. I will ask the Government of India to see that the action taken in each province is noticed in the next Provincial Excise Reports.

asked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take in view of the decision of the House of Lords to postpone the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill until after the Recess, especially having regard to the inconvenience and loss to many soldiers and sailors who are waiting to get their permanent pension fixed under this Bill; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on 18th November, 1914, a pledge was exacted by the then Leader of the Opposition from the Government that they would act on the decision of the Select Committee, and that such a pledge was given on behalf of the Government; therefore, does not this pledge constitute a binding bargain between all parties in the State that they would abide by the findings of the Select Committee?

I will deal with this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow.

Are we to understand from that statement that the House is going to rise to-morrow, whether this Bill passes or not?

My hon. Friend must understand that I am, to-morrow, going to move the Motion for the Adjournment.

Are we to understand that the soldiers and sailors are to go without their pensions for the convenience of the Government?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many loyal supporters of the Government, who are quite prepared to fall in with his Motion, feel a great deal of concern about starting for the holidays with this question unsettled.

I am sure that is so.

Then why do not you insist upon it?

May I appeal to the Prime Minister to tell us to-day whether the Bill will be proceeded with before the Recess, and I would ask him whether he thinks it is fair to us to only make a statement to-morrow, when the only thing that is open to us to do is to continue the discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment.

I have nothing to add to what I have said.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we Members of Parliament are receiving letters every day asking us questions about the pensions of these men, and does he not think that it is really a most serious matter that we should now have a delay of two months before this Bill comes into operation?

Yes, Sir. I quite sympathise with the hon. Member's observations.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the discussion was curtailed on this Bill on account of the urgency of the measure, and will he take that into account in reconsidering his decision as to the length of the Recess?

I shall not reconsider the decision in regard to the length of the Recess, but I shall take all these other matters into consideration.

Having regard to the large number of Members who desire to take part in the Debate to-morrow, and the further fact that it is generally understood that two Members of the Cabinet are going to make important Ministerial statements, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-morrow?

Not unless I receive something like a general expression of opinion that such is the desire of the House.

By what method does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we can convey our views in the direction he has suggested?

By the ordinary method.

Are we going to have the Closure moved to-morrow before 11 o'clock?

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

In view of the decision that the first Clause which stands on the Paper in my name was outside the scope of the Bill, I may be allowed to express considerable regret that it has not been possible for that reason to bring to the notice of the House a scheme which would have had a very great effect in enabling purchasers in London and elsewhere to obtain coal at low prices. No more can be said about that, but it is an additional argument which I venture to put before the House in support of the Clause which now I am allowed to move. The Clause as it appears on the Paper differs from the Clause which I moved in Committee, and if its drafting is not exactly as it should be that is due to the fact that it had to be drafted in the course of a few minutes after the Committee stage, when everybody thought that the Report stage was going to be taken on the following morning, and that therefore all Amendments would have to be put on the Paper at once. While I apologise for the form of the new Clause, yet in bringing this subject once again before the House may I say that one of the principal causes, if not the principal cause, of the dissatisfaction which led to the appointment of the Committee on low prices was the fact that among the very poorest of our population, especially among the very poorest in London, last winter the prices of coal were rushed up to a figure which was absolutely exorbitant. When speaking in the Committee I ventured to make use of the expression "a political fraud," and though I did not say that the Bill was a political fraud, as in itself I do not consider it to be so, yet I did say this, and I adhere to it:—

"If this Bill goes forward in the shape in which it now is the Government will be considered to have fathered a political fraud. …. If the public, in the course of next winter find, as I believe they will certainly find, unless this Amendment is carried, that they are not in a better position than they were last year, they will say the whole thing has been a fraud."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, col. 1767.]

I still believe that to be the case, and if this Bill goes forward as it is at present, without any definite provision of the kind affecting the sale of coal in small quantities by hawkers among the poor, and the prices go up to 38s., 40s., and 45s. per ton, as they did last winter, I feel certain, judging from the number of letters which I have received on the subject during the last two or three days since the subject began to be discussed, that the public will say that they have been absolutely misled by the promises of the Government with regard to the prices of coal. This matter was raised early in the year, and very much was said in the Debate on the prices of coal and food with regard to the exorbitant prices which the poor were suffering from, and when this question came before the Committee that point was considered, and they expressively say—

"We also recommend that the Government should at once consider the question of inviting the London County Council to arrange that the council itself, and any other public bodies which already possess or can secure the necessary facilities should during the coming summer acquire and, so far as possible, store within easy roach of London large stocks of household coal to be sold during the winter at prices and under conditions to be fixed in consultation with the Government to the traders engaged in supplying small consumers. Such a step would, we believe, have a salutary effect in steadying prices."

It is the case of the small consumer about which I am most concerned throughout this discussion, and it is with the object of benefiting the small consumer that I put down this proposal, which I have some slight hope that the Board of Trade may accept. The Government have brought in a Bill to fix the increase in the price that is to be paid for coal by the purchaser at the pit-mouth as compared with the price of 1913. They have also gone further, as was announced by the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Beading of this Bill, because they have entered into agreements with merchants in London by which an additional sum—the figure has never yet been stated, but I believe it to be 7s. 6d.—is to be allowed to the merchants at which to sell over and above the price which they have to pay for the coal at the London depot. So there is the 4s. at the pit-mouth, then there is the freight, and then there is this margin which has to be added in the case of all coal in London sold to the ordinary consumer. But those agreements do not and cannot regulate the additional price which will be put on the coal hawked among the poor.

As far as I am able to see, the poor people of London, and I believe elsewhere, are really to be left not only to the mercy of the coal merchants—many I have no doubt will adhere to their undertaking—but also to the mercy of the hawkers, who it would appear have no obligation placed upon them at all. May I point out once again that, during the three months in which the rapid rise of coal took place, to the ordinary householder the price in February was 7s. over and above the price in November, but the hawkers at that time raised the price to the poor, by increases, from 11s. 4d. to almost 17s., so that the enormous increase which took place in the price of coal really fell on the very poor. The reason is that the very poor are always living on the verge of famine prices, and the moment any difficulty occurs, whether it be in coal or anything else, the poor man suffers. The poor man cannot buy more than half a hundredweight or a hundredweight of coal at a time, for he is a person who is living from hand to mouth, and he has to purchase at whatever price he can. It is for that reason that any shortage falls immediately and with the greatest heaviness upon the very poorest of the people. I regret that the Board of Trade has not seen its way to do more in this direction than it has' done. That it can be prevented I am certain.

Last winter in many parts of London, when coal was being hawked at 38s. 4d. a ton in those districts where the poor people dwell, coal at 26s. 8d. was being supplied by various charitable institutions and others at the rate that the ordinary well-to-do consumer paid for his coal. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, of which we hear so much, through its committee have, all through this winter, provided coal for the wives of soldiers and sailors upon their paying 1s. 4d. a hundredweight, which is about 26s. a ton. The woman who pays the 1s. 4d. gets a ticket and goes to the coal merchant, where she is able to get her coal with the ticket. Under this course of business the coal merchant is sure of his money, his dealing with the coal is simplified, and in this way the poor can be saved from this exorbitant system of charges by hawkers, about which we have heard so much during the last year, t believe something could be done in this direction; but if this House leaves the Bill as it stands, and gives no one any authority to deal with this question, I do not see how anything is going to be done. Therefore I suggest that it we could give the Board of Trade power to at any rate limit the amount of the additional price to be put upon the sale of coal in small quantities, I believe it would have a very desirable effect. If it be said that it is impossible to do that, then we have done our best, but if something can be done, the Board of Trade, I have no doubt, will give us their aid to carry it through.

I apologise to the House for spending so much time on this particular question, but I submit that, by merely giving the Board of Trade power to make regulations, we shall be doing, no harm and may be doing a great deal of good. The London County Council, as I pointed out in Committee, have made a by-law for regulating the sale of coal in small quantities. The by-law imposes the obligation upon the hawker to show upon a board fixed to his cart the price o£ coal, it may be 35s. a ton or whatever the charge may be, and by the by-law he is not allowed to sell the coal by any kind of subterfuge for more than that amount. But there is no by-law to regulate the figure put on the board fixed to the cart, and I believe, if the Board of Trade had that power, that it might regulate in London the price at which the hawkers would be allowed to hawk the coal I earnestly ask the President of the Board of Trade not to refuse this merely discretionary power which I suggest should be bestowed upon his Department, and I believe a great thing for the poor people in the coming winter could in this way be accomplished, while very likely it would avoid a good deal of dangerous agitation, which I feel certain would occur if the price next winter should be anything like the figure to which it reached last winter.

I beg to second the Motion.

Representing, as I do, one of the poorest of the East London constituencies, I should fail in my duty if I did not urge the Government to accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment. My right hon. Friend stated that those who have fairly large salaries can to a large extent protect themselves from the ordinary advance of winter prices. There are very few of my Constituents who can do that. But I am not at the moment urging the case of people who can even buy a ton of coal at one time; I am asking consideration for a class of people whom I am sure the Government will try; to help, and I believe the House would desire that it should do so. It is quite a common sight in the winter to see little children carrying seven pounds or fourteen pounds of coal for which they have been sent to the coal dealer in some back street or slum. All that this particular Amendment does is to say that if the Government cannot fix a retail price at which coal shall be sold by the ton, at any rate let them, where the price per ton is fixed by the ordinary methods of competition, step in and say that the rate of increase for the small quantities shall not be above a certain scale.

These poor people cannot help themselves. It is deplorable that they are being compelled to buy their coal, as many of them buy the necessaries of life, in driblets. All this is deplorable enough, but when you consider that advantage is taken of their extreme poverty to make an increased profit out of them because they are not able to buy two or three hundredweights or a ton at a time, I do think that the House will see that there ought to be protection for these people. The Government, at any rate, have dealt with the main problem, the big difficulty, in regard to the maximum price at the pit-head, but, in view of the facts I have stated, the proposal which is now made is no very heroic thing which the Government is called upon to do, nor a very difficult thing, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a very useful help for these poor people, who are really deserving of all the assistance we can give them. I shall be told, perhaps, by some hon. Members that it is an impossible thing to do, and that these small hawkers or small coal dealers in these poor constituencies will find some other way of getting the increased percentage of profit out of them. I do not think that is any legitimate excuse for not doing this much, at any rate, for these poor people, who have to pay these large prices all over London. It has been suggested that the hawker would say: "If you only have 14 lbs or 28 lbs. or half a hundredweight, I will get an extra sixpence for bringing it to your door, or lifting it off the cart." The ingenuity of these poor people will, at any rate, run to this: that they will send their children, as they do now, to carry the coal from those small coal yards. I hope that the Government will not, because they cannot do more than this, decline to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend. I beg to second.

The object which my hon. Friends have in view is undoubtedly a good one, and if it were possible to help those whom they represent, in this House, by the adoption of this Clause, I should certainly be one of the first to support it. The Clause itself does not provide any machinery for carrying out the obligation which is placed upon the Board of Trade. But I do not criticise it on those grounds, for its object is one with which we all sympathise, and the only question is how far that object can be carried out by this proposal. The case of the small purchaser who buys small lots, practically by the pail or scuttle, has always been difficult, not only because they are the victims of those with whom they trade, and here I would say in passing, that all the traders are not to be put in the same category, but victims of their own habit. Panic in the demand for coal is by no means unknown amongst the large consumers. Directly we get cold weather in London there is, by a great part of the population which is not provident, and have no means whereby it can be provident, a rush for the moment to pay almost anything to get a coal supply. This was a case that was brought before the Committee presided over by Mr. Vaughan Nash. They spent a good deal of time on that Committee in trying to deal with this particular case, because of the extreme necessity, and that Committee were certainly as benevolently-minded as this House, and they came to the conclusion, after examining the case, that it was impossible to give relief effectively to those poor purchasers, by means of fixing maximum prices, and they said so in their Report. The very first paragraph of that section of the Report which provides us with recommendations, declares that they could not recommend that maximum prices should be fixed, I presume for this or for any other class. That is not the view of my right hon. and learned Friend who proposed and of my hon. Friend who seconded this Clause. I put to them one or two of the difficulties which seem now and seemed to the Committee insurmountable. The first is that the only way in which this could be made effective would be for the Board of Trade itself to deal with the case of every district in London, and it is quite conceivable it might be necessary to deal with the case of almost every street in London. But even when they had dealt with it, and arrived at what they thought to be a fair price for the scuttle of coal, they would be faced with the constant difficulty of having to follow the hawker from door to door before they knew whether he was or was not adopting the regulation. It was because of the impossibility of dealing with the small coal trade in that way that the Committee were not prepared to recommend maximum prices, even for the relief of those small consumers.

The Committee also reported against dealing with maximum prices for large consumers.

Yes, they did, for the retail trade, but they did not report against regulations at the pit-head. The effect of this proposal, as it is now on the Paper, and as it is commended by the right hon. Gentleman, if it were passed and the price fixed by the Board of Trade were too low, might lead to whole districts being deprived of the advantage (and there is some advantage), of sale in email quantities. Indeed, one of the dangers of dealing with retail maximum prices is that in the effort to cut down prices for small consumers and purchasers we may do the next worst thing, or perhaps worst of all, namely, prevent the supply reaching the district at all, and the Committee had that also present in their mind. If they came to the conclusion that this is not the best way of dealing with the situation, I fear I must accept their view. I should not be prepared to leave the case there. When the Committee reported I at once put myself into communication with the London Counts' Council, and, for reasons which they thought good, they ultimately decided that they themselves could not and were not prepared to establish depots. There is another suggestion which my right hon. and learned Friend had down on the Paper, but which does not come within the scope of this Bill, namely, that offices for the sale of coal in small quantities in every Metropolitan borough or within the Metropolitan police district might be provided. It is not in order to discuss that proposal now, but that certainly would have been one of the ways of dealing with the sale of coal by providing for its distribution, and that is really the serious matter before us, over the areas where it is most needed. Indeed, if the sale of coal could properly be placed under control, I know of no other or better way of dealing with it than that.

4.0 P.M.

In this Bill we cannot insert a Clause of that nature, but I think it is as well to let the House know what some of the largest of the coal distributors have undertaken to do in conference with me quite recently. They are concerned mainly with the large consumer, and the small consumer, for their purposes of organisation practically does not pay. Men who are dealing with an enormous quantity of coal cannot be bothered with the detailed organisation for distribution, scuttle by scuttle, or from door to door, nor are their depots in the districts where the demand is most insistent. These large purchasers who control such an important portion of the supply in London have both written and told me that they are prepared, should occasion arise—that is to say, if coal goes up in price unduly during the coming winter—to open in the poorer parts of London shops which will do for the poor people what the depots do for the better-to-do. The well-to-do classes are amply provided for in practically every district, but unless there are shops where the poor people can drop in and get the scuttle of coal they can buy, they must be driven into the hands of the hawker. Those merchants to whom I refer are prepared, with the help of others engaged in the trade, and in many cases with the help of philanthropic societies, to open coal shops in those poorest districts; and although it may be a different manner of business from that which they have been conducting in the past, I am sure I should be glad to hear that they had greatly extended the distribution of coal for which they are responsible in those poor districts. The poor are much safer in the hands of large merchants, who have a name to keep up, than in the case of the individual dealer who may not care a rap about his reputation, so long as he can get rid of his cartload of coal. That is one of the ways in which I hope some relief will come to the poor in London. But the Committee itself, when it went into the question, believed that it could only dominate prices in London effectively by controlling the price at the source of supply, and that is what the Bill attempts to do. Any attempt to fix retail prices by this House or by the Board of Trade or by any other legislating authority would I fear be futile, and would not attain the object which my hon. Friends have in view. I think it is in other directions that we must seek relief from the hawker troubles which were present in the minds of my hon. Friends. In so far as we keep down the pit-head price, I have no doubt some of the benefits will trickle through to the poorer portions of the community. I fear it would not be useful to any of us if we accepted the Clause as it has been moved, and I hope my hon. Friends will be satisfied for the present with other means of dealing with the question.

As far as I am concerned, I should welcome the adoption of this Clause by the Board of Trade. It is on all fours with the voluntary arrangement and agreement which the leading coal merchants of London have made with the Board of Trade, and that being so there can be no objection to it so far as I am concerned. In fact, I am not sure that it would not be helpful to those merchants if the duty were placed upon the Board of Trade, and the public knew that the Board, of Trade was sharing with us the anxieties and responsibility of regulating the price of coal for the small consumer. A very natural surprise exists throughout London at the variety of prices for the small consumer. It is rather extraordinary that in the Metropolitan area there should be such varying prices. As I told the House on other stages of the Bill, the cost of coal in the different districts of London varies to the extent of 3s. a ton. You get two workmen on a job, one buying his coal at King's Cross and the other at Streatham or Croydon. The King's Cross man has to pay so much a hundredweight, while the Streatham man may have to pay 2d. a hundredweight more. The man who lives at Streatham does not know what the railway rate is, and he thinks that he is being robbed to the extent of 2d. a hundredweight by somebody. My experience of the public is that while there is always a genuine objection to paying high prices for anything the thing that offends them more than anything else is the feeling that they are being robbed, overcharged, or exploited by the people who are sending them goods, whether coal, meat, or anything else. If you could have something which would give confidence to the people outside that these difficulties were being met by the Board of Trade and the coal merchants concerned, I think it would relieve public anxiety to a considerable extent.

Perhaps I might explain what really happens in regard to the sale of coal by small quantities. First of all, there are the trolleys which are sent out throughout London by the principal merchants. That trade has developed during the last twenty years. Previous to that, all coal sold in small quantities was sold by people called dealers. People who lived in London twenty years ago will remember that coal merchants, greengrocers, and a large number of that type of traders existed in London, and were called dealers. They came to the merchant's depot, bought coal, and were the means of distribution to the small consumers. About twenty years ago competition started amongst the leading coal merchants. One firm saw an opportunity of entering into a trade which the other large coal merchants were not doing, and they put upon the streets of London a large number of trolleys. The other coal merchants had to do the same thing in competition. So this trade by trolleys arose from competition amongst the coal merchants themselves, and they have done during the last twenty years a large trade in coal by the hundredweight and half-hundredweight. The men who take out these trolleys are paid so much a ton. It used to be 2s. a ton altogether. Then a question rose about wages. I do not think there was a strike, but there was a controversy about wages, and it was agreed that the men should have 2d. a ton more for every penny per hundredweight that the coal went up in price. The result is that when coal is 1s. 9d. or 1s. 10d. a hundredweight, as it was last winter, and I am afraid in some cases is now, the wages these men get is really a great deal more than was originally intended, and it seems to me rather too high, being about 3s. 6d. a ton. When a man under his trade union rate of wages gets 3s. 6d. a ton on the coal sold on his trolley, it very much increases the price of coal. It is only fair to the men to say that they do not put the whole of that into their pockets. These men trust their customers. They leave coal at a house, then misfortune comes to the customer, and they do not get their money. If you said to a trolley-man, "You have earned a lot of money; you have sold so many tons of coal, and you get 3s. 6d. a ton," he might fairly answer, that he had lost so much in bad debts. You cannot ascertain exactly what a man earns, and you cannot say positively that he earns more than he is entitled to for his work.

Then there is another side to the question. The man does not earn so much as might be thought; neither does the merchant. The merchant can only keep his round of trolley-men by sending trolleys up and down the streets in the summer at a considerable loss. If he did not do so the men would not have a round in the winter. This is not a trade that the coal merchants are very anxious to maintain, although of course we want to maintain our tonnage. At the same time, it is a trade that has grown up. With regard to the price of the coal sold on trolleys by responsible merchants, it has been said that last winter, when there was a famine in coal, the trolley-men were not satisfied with the price at which the merchant sent the coal out, and they asked for more money. That may or may not have been the case. I am afraid it was so in some cases, but it would not be fair to charge the whole of the trolley-men with it. To meet that difficulty the London County Council have made a by-law, which comes into force almost at once, making it obligatory on coal merchants to place on the trolley an enamel plate bearing the price at which the coal has been sold. That is to be a fixed price, and it will be an offence if the men charge more than the amount there displayed. That will be some protection for next winter which we had not last winter.

That is one method of supplying the small consumer. But there are a certain number of the old dealer class still left, and they are found, as my right hon. Friend has realised in going into this question, more in the poorest districts. They have remained in the poorer districts more than in the better-class neighbourhoods of London. Under them you get coal-sheds—I do not believe they are very numerous in London, but where they do exist it is a real hardship for the poor. When you take the whole Metropolitan area, and talk about the price paid by the poor for coal to these coal-sheds or small dealers, it would be wrong for the House to form the impression that a very appreciable quantity of coal is involved. It is a very small quantity indeed. I am not saying that in order to ask the House not to deal with that small quantity. I simply want the House to understand that it is not a large volume of trade. There is all the more reason, if it is a small volume of trade, that somebody should do something to remove the evil which exists. If the President of the Board of Trade had seen his way to accept the Clause as far as we as I merchants are concerned, we would have welcomed the intervention and co-operation of the Board of Trade. I apologise for speaking in this House about my own business. I have been in the House for ten years, and hon. Members who know me will agree that I have never, until this Bill came forward, spoken in reference to my own business or my own affairs. But I thought it my duty to the House on this occasion to do so. Speaking on behalf of the London coal merchants as far as I have any influence or control over what is to be done, I can only say that we shall be but too glad to put our minds to work in reference to this matter, quite apart from whether there is a gain or a loss. The quantity is so small, so far as the large merchants are concerned, that the question of profit or loss should not be considered.

I think the leading coal merchants will be well-advised if, after the Debates in this House, and after public attention has been drawn to this question, they undertake the responsibility of going to the various poor districts in London, and setting up in each of those districts some establishment under their own control where poor persons who have to buy small quantities of coal can buy them without the cost of the trolley-men's wages and other items which belong to the ordinary sales. Coal merchants will be well-advised if they apply their minds to this matter, and arrange to have some scheme which will prevent this question from ever rising again as a black spot in the distribution of coal in this Metropolis. I hope the House will see that we share the anxieties of everybody with regard to this question. We should have welcomed the insertion of this Clause in the Bill, but, failing that, everything we can do—at any rate, everything I can do—shall be done in the direction desired by my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson).

I am informed on good authority that coal is being sold to the poor in Fulham to-day at 1s. 9d. a cwt., which is 35s. a ton. That was the price ruling, I believe, in January last, and if that is a sign of what we are to expect next winter we have a very serious situation to face. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept this Clause, at any rate he will not treat the Report of the Departmental Committee as being the last word on the subject, but will realise that it is urgently necessary that something should be done to meet the hard case of London. The Departmental Committee have pointed out that the position of London in the matter of coal supply is peculiar. That peculiarity consists in this very unpleasant fact, that for reasons explained by the Committee, in times of scarcity London is the worst sufferer, and this further unpleasant fact, that while all London suffers badly the poorest in the community are hit hardest. That is mainly due to two causes. First of all, that they have no storage accommodation, and, in the next place, it is due to the very expensive system under which coal is distributed in London. Obviously it costs a great deal more to hawk a ton of coal round a large number of streets than if the customers purchased in larger quantities the amount of which was ascertained in advance. As, unfortunately, we are not able to discuss the Clause that my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras wished to propose, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, as he referred to it sympathetically, will, at any rate, try to see whether some arrangement cannot be arrived at by which this very heavy cost of distribution in London may be reduced. There was one passage in the Report of the Departmental Committee which really speaks volumes. It said that—

"During last winter the poor simply could not pay the prices that were demanded."

When we realise what that means, and the consequent suffering—and those of us who are London Members are obliged to witness it—I think we must admit that every possible means should be utilised in order to try to prevent anything like equal suffering in the coming winter. I just make these observations in the hope—and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give full consideration to this matter, for he is, I believe, in full sympathy with the desire and with what we have said—that some useful and practical step will be taken.

As a member of the Departmental Committee I apologise to the House for my absence, which was unavoidable, during the Debates on this Bill. The speeches which we have heard, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, has shown the grave importance of the issue which is now before the House. I quite agree with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that the Departmental Committee did not try to fix a maximum price. First of all, we had mainly in our minds the larger question of the larger supply, and we also had put before us evidence and statements similar to those made by the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall) as to the varying cost over the area, of Greater London, and the difficulty, therefore, of fixing one maximum price for the whole of that area. But I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade quite did the Committee justice in his résumé of the position at which they arrived. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that we had not fixed, or did not suggest, a maximum price for small quantities for London. But we did make so far as we could a distinctive proposition in our recommendations in connection with the necessity of something being done for these small supplies. Our recommendation may have been very crude in its character, but at least it pointed out that something would have to be done, unless we were going to be face to face with one of the gravest difficulties conceived of in regard to the supply of coal amongst the poorer people of the Metropolis, and other places of a similar character, during the ensuing winter.

Our recommendation was that steps should at once be taken—and I do not forget that we signed our Report far back in March—to consider, in consultation with public bodies, the question of the accumulation by such bodies of a reserve of coal in or near London for the use of the small consumers during this winter. It will be seen that our recommendation really probably covers the proposition of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson). He has indicated some machinery in his new Clause. We simply made a general proposition. But at bottom we distinctly stated that we—the whole of us—were convinced of the necessity that something definite must be done for the people who were likely to suffer in the ensuing winter—with coal at the price which they could not buy it; and that they ought not to be jockeyed as they were last winter and the beginning of this year. I am not going to put the blame upon the hawkers, because come of them are as honest as anyone else, or the trolley-men, but we urged that the poor should not be jockeyed by taking some substance supplied to them as coal, at the highest possible price, the burning qualities of which were very poor indeed. I ask, under these circumstances, whether it is not possible for something to be done, or indicated, that would alleviate the difficulty. I have had information from the Board of Trade to the question which I put yesterday. I am glad that they did, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day, approach the London County Council and that the London County Council said that they could not deal with the matter. It will be seen that by local authorities taking up and obtaining a reserve, the whole question of fixing the price could be settled, according to the cost of taking it to their various localities; you would not have a flat rate fixed, irrespective of the cost in any direction.

The right hon. Gentleman has done much, in my opinion, outside the scope of this Bill in, if I may say so, bringing some rational consideration to the minds of those concerned in the coal trade, and he indicated to us now, as reported to us by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, that there is in the minds of the merchants some idea that something could be done. How far, could he tell us—I should like it to be a little more fully stated—are the merchants going on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green. If we can have the assurance that they are going to meet this difficulty in a rational manner, I think that the House will be satisfied, and if it is met in that way it would suit quite as well as by legislation. I hope something will arise out of this Debate—not necessarily this Clause—which will impress, not only the community at large, but those interested in the coal trade, with the necessity of grappling with this grave and serious problem: otherwise, listening as we did to the evidence given to us by the various witnesses in respect to London and large places like London, we shall have a very serious problem to face in the ensuing winter.

The House was very glad to hear, and the outside public, and especially the very poor, that a decision has been taken, and that it is proposed to establish depots by the largest distributors of coal throughout London. We were very glad to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that he will give this scheme his hearty support. I am sure he will, from what I know of him personally, and the work he has done in connection with the poor, and the distribution of coal, when he was a Member, with the hon. Member who has spoken on the other side, of the London County Council. With all due respect, however, to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, I rather think he is not quite right when he said that there are not so very many now of those small distributors. I have had a little experience of that even in my own Constituency, and more so in the East End of London, and many other of the very crowded parts. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of poor people from cellar and garret who are continually, day after day, buying their coal in these very small quantities of 10 lbs. and 14 lbs.

I could not help feeling rather amused when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade just now gave us that picture of the poor people rushing, possibly in their thousands, and running up the price of coal to panic prices. It is very, very different from that. The panic with them is to find the few coppers to buy the coal. That is their difficulty. There is no danger of those poor people running up the prices. The trouble with them is to find the money to buy coal in the small portions which they have to buy it in year by year. I trust, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we are going to have these depots by the large distributors, and that this difficulty will soon be taken in hand; if not the poor people will suffer from the extortionate prices as they have suffered. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Clause lacked the machinery necessary to carry it out. The right hon. Gentleman, after all, has himself the ingenuity, and could find the machinery, especially when he seems to speak sympathetically about the Clause. If the only difficulty is that it lacks machinery I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he will, in conjunction with the Member for North St. Pancras, set up the machinery, and so pass the Clause. If we do that, and we also have these large depots by the distributors, it will, I am sure, do very much to lighten the burdens of the oppressed poor in London, who will be able to get their coal in this coming winter without having to pay extortionate and even famine prices. I heartily support the adoption of this Clause.

I am afraid that this Clause is being considered by the various speakers as if it were only a London Clause. I presume if it is passed it will apply equally to my Constituency as to the Metropolis. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Very well, then, at present the discussion has been almost monopolised by London Members, and there has been some talk about some London Commission. There has been, so far as I know, no desire expressed throughout the country for any such scheme as this; and what I am perfectly clear about is that it will neither work in London nor in the provinces.

The London Members have supported it up till now.

Exactly, and the London Members supporting it up to now have only spoken of London. I quite agree the London Members proposed it, but they were proposing a Clause which will apply to the whole of England, for you are not suggesting its non-application out of London. After all, would it work in the country as well as in London? How will a Clause like this work in the agricultural districts? I represent a little borough which is in the position of having agricultural districts adjoining the colliery area, and I have been trying to think, as well as I could, while the speakers have been busy, how this Clause can possibly apply to the West Biding of Yorkshire. I have given it up. In my opinion it cannot be done. The hon. Member who brought in the Clause made no attempt to show how it could do so. There is an utter failure to deal with the rest of the country. I would, if I may, without any impertinence, even take the London Members upon their own ground of London. I submit the Clause would not work at all in London. Hon. Members seem to think that they need but come to this House and plead for the poor of London. They need not do that. The House is not hard-hearted. We have heard that something should be done for the poor of London. What we are anxious to hear is that the London Members have found a way to do it—some practical solution! I am afraid we have been listening in vain. I do not use those words idly.

Twenty years ago I was living in these very poor areas of London, attempting to solve this problem. It was with us twenty years ago. I have been listening to London Members, and they have made no progress upon this subject. Exactly the same problem was with us when I used to discuss it with the late Hugh Price Hughes, who lived in St. Pancras himself. We tried to find a solution. Hugh Price Hughes was driven to the co-operative system. It was clear to us that you could not solve the problem except by some system of voluntary co-operation on the part of the working people themselves. I do not know whether he was right or wrong, but at any rate he had a constructive suggestion to make. I have not heard one from the House. I found twenty years ago, and I dare say it is true to-day, that within a mile and a half of this House coal was charged as much as 1½d. a hundredweight difference in two adjoining courts. It is not a question of the same place, or even the same street. You get two courts of the same street where totally different prices are charged. That was one of the troubles with which we were met. It did not only apply to coal. The people were buying cooked food from stalls and little shops in those courts at double and treble the price for which they could have bought the articles clean, fresh and raw, if they had taken the trouble to cook it themselves. I only mention this to show that the problem is a large one, and it has been with us ever since there was a London. I do impress upon my right hon. Friend that those who come from the provinces, and who know that this London problem is so intricate, would help if a feasible plan could be shown. I hope he will not think for a moment that we do not receive his attempts to find a solution in the best possible spirit, but the only reason we cannot support these Clauses at present is that they will not work.

There is the question of the quality of the coal. First of all, one would ask, is coal ever sold by the ton at St. Pancras or Somers Town? It is sold close by, on the siding, by the ton, but is it so sold in the narrow streets and courts of Somers Town? Even if it is sold by the ton, how will you prevent the sale of one ton or two tons at a price which will enable dealers to charge an extra price per hundredweight? I do not see anything in the Clause to obstruct that, and the ingenuity of the London dealer is second to none in the world, as everyone knows who is connected with the poor in London. Even if you overcome that difficulty, there is nothing to prove, so far as I see, that the quality of the hundredweight sold by the hawker is at all comparable with the quality of the ton. I am sorry upon these questions to have been continually somewhat of a destructive critic. It is no pleasure to me. I hope the House will consider I do it bonâ fide. I made sacrifices as a young man which very few have made in living on a very few shillings a week in a London slum and trying to battle with these problems. I have gone into the domestic credit of the very poorest, made returns upon scores and hundreds of cases, and submitted them to Hugh Price Hughes and his colleagues in connection with that work, and we were baffled again and again. I am sure the instincts of Hugh Price Hughes were right, and that unless you get some common co-operative action amongst the poor in these matters you will not get anything permanent.

The suggestion with regard to the opening of depots I was very pleased to hear, because it may make possible a suggestion I am about to make. I appeal to the large coal dealers in London that, whenever they establish one of these large retail places which are incidental to their business in one of these poor areas, they should allow it to merge into a voluntary cooperative system for the people in the district to take up. If they could establish one or two of these shops in some of these neighbourhoods where local people would come forward and let them merge into a voluntary co-operative system, where people could buy coal by the ton and distribute it amongst themselves by the hundredweight, sharing whatever profit or dividend there may be, I think that is a way in which to solve the problem in some parts of London. I put this suggestion forward in all good faith. I claim no credit for it, but heard it from Hugh Price Hughes twenty years, ago.

The suggestion which the hon. Member has just made is a very admirable one, and might solve the question in another twenty-five years or so; but we are dealing with a very urgent problem, which wants to be dealt with before the autumn comes on, and the suggestion in the proposed Clause is one which, I think, would enable the Board of Trade really to do something. The proposal is that, if in any particular district coal is being sold by the ton at a certain price, the Board of Trade could fix a margin for the distribution of smaller quantities above the price charged by the ton beyond which the coal should not be charged to the small consumer. The need for protecting the small consumer surely does not want urging; we know it already. I represent one of the poorest districts in London, and this matter comes home to me as it comes home to my Constituency, and, if it is not impossible, surely something ought to be done. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is quite impossible, and that the only thing that would make it possible—

My hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. I did not say it was quite impossible, but I said there was no practical value in the suggestion as put.

The right hon. Gentleman said the fixing of maximum prices would be impossible. I gather his real objection was that he did not see it was practicable, and that it would only become practicable if the deliveries were followed round by inspectors, and every sale were checked. The London County Council employ inspectors to test quality and weight, but they do not examine every delivery. They pounce upon deliveries here and there, and the effect of the liability to discovery in giving short weight or improper quality has been such as to put tens of thousands of pounds into the pockets of the poorest purchasers in London. I do not see why you need examine every delivery if the distributor knows that he is liable at any moment to be detected. It is only the exceptional man and the exceptional case where that would occur. I do not want to go into the whole question, but I do want to press on the right hon. Gentleman, the fact that we have a very large and extremely poor population in many parts of London, who do not want to wait for the evolution of a co-operative scheme such as my hon. Friend suggests, but that they want protection between now and next September. The prices already even in the summer are far higher than they ought to be, and only by fixing some limit beyond which prices shall not be charged, and by doing that in such a way as to enable the population more or less to protect themselves by knowledge of that, will we be able to protect them at this critical period. There has recently been a conference of local authorities—Metropolitan, City, and borough councils—who came to a series of resolutions, which I received this morning, the last two of which are—

"That the retail distribution of coal in London should be co-ordinated by the Government; and

That the Board of Trade should themselves, or should empower the borough councils, after consultation with the Board, to advertise from time to time the reasonable price at which coal should be retailed by shopkeepers and trolley dealers."

If you could make known to the occupants of small tenements the local prices beyond which charges should not be allowed, you would enable them to protect themselves by purchasing from those persons who are willing to sell at that price, and the risk of famine in certain districts suggested by the right hon. Gentleman because, of the fixing of these prices would be eliminated by the fact that the small distributors themselves have to get their living in their own neighbourhood. So long as that is so, they will find some means or other to obtain coal at the best price they can, and to sell it to those who want it at a price which, I think, the Board of Trade, if they care to take these powers, could make effective. This Clause as suggested is not obligatory. The Board of Trade may take powers; they are not compelled to use them. If they find it impossible to put them into operation, then they will not do it; but why do they refuse even to have placed in their hands the powers which may promise some amelioration of the lot of the poor? I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not accept this Clause after all.

I wish to associate myself with the Clause which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras, because I think he appears to have made an honest attempt to meet the case of the poor people. The only thing to which I object in this Clause is that it only applies to the London area. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I should like to see it apply to the whole country. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does!"] I should like to see it apply to the rural districts all over the country, and if the right hon. Gentleman would be agreeable to that I would give him my whole-hearted support. I think it is a matter which requires the very serious attention of this House. At the present time we have a price of over 30s. a ton for coal in London, and we are only in midsummer, and no doubt in the near future we shall have the extravagant prices of last winter. I cannot myself see much difficulty about the distribution of this coal. If the borough councils take the matter in hand, their coal committees will be able to buy large quantities of coal and be able to arrange the distribution of these coals through the ordinary channels, the coal merchants. I should think that if you give the coal merchant a ticket to deliver coal at a certain price, and give him cash for it, there would be no difficulty whatever, and we should surmount the difficulty, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, that many of the coal hawkers have a good many bad debts. In these cases I suppose there would be no difficulty in opening offices where coal could be ordered and a ticket given and sent on to the coal merchant to deliver coals to the various purchasers, who, of course, would pay cash for them.

I was rather disappointed to hear the President of the Board of Trade say they had come to the conclusion that the only way to regulate the price of coal was at the pit-mouth. That may seem feasible, but it does not work out in practice. Last year, when the War broke out, we had immediately from the coal merchants a notice that the state of War suspended all contracts, but if we would only let them know what our requirements were, they would endeavour to carry out our orders to the best of their ability, though they could not be bound under the con tract to fulfil the contract and to supply us with the quantity stated therein. Coals went up 12s. a ton. The consumer who got the coal could not get it in the quantity that he wanted, and he was obliged to buy at a higher price on the market because he could not get delivery of the contracts he had made. This Pill is not going to refer to contracts already made. Therefore, instead of—

The hon. Member seems to be discussing the general principles of the Bill, and he must confine his remarks to the new Clause.

I was trying to show the effect this Bill would have on the price of coal that was going to be sold after this Bill is passed, and that this exclusion of the contracts already made would prevent 20 per cent, of the people who have not contracts from obtaining any coal at all, and if they wanted to get coal they would have to pay a higher price. To regulate the price of coal at the pit-mouth is not a matter that will affect the poorest people, and that is a matter that I am anxious should be dealt with because I want to secure that the poor people in the coming winter have coal at a reasonable price, and not at the unreasonable price they had to pay last year. Some hon. Members have said that many poor people have not facilities for storing coal, but I am afraid that in a great many cases they have the storage but they have not the money. I think we ought to endeavour to make such arrangements that the poor during the coming winter will not suffer the privations which they have undergone in the past because of the high price they had to pay for coal. I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras would alter his Clause so as to include borough councils all over the country in England and Wales I should be glad to support it, because I think that there are a great many places where there are a large number of poor in every town, and they are all affected very seriously by the high price of coal. We want that provision as much in the borough councils and the rural district councils as in London, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to include the borough councils and the rural district councils in his Clause.

I very heartily support the position which has been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras, because I find it deals with the whole of England, and not with London alone. There is one aspect of the situation which I think has been lost sight of this afternoon. I feel very sorry that the London County Council did not see their way clear to take steps to store coal in London to enable poor people to get it at a reasonable price, seeing that to-day in connection with one of their contracts for over 25,000 tons of coal the difference between the price of last year and to-day is over £14,000. There are a number of other contracts which the county council is making, and I am rather disappointed that they have not seen their way clear to take steps in the direction I have mentioned, so that the public might be able to purchase from them coal at a reasonable price. Another aspect of this question is in regard to trading in small quantities. It is a well-known fact that as far as that matter is concerned people are defrauded again and again out of their proper weight. I have had cases come within my own knowledge to be dealt with on the bench of magistrates where men have actually put a 7 lbs. weight on the back of their scales when people have been purchasing small quantities, and they have received their coal less this 7 lbs.

I am one of those who believe, perhaps wrongly, that it should not be outside the power of the Board of Trade to set up a standard in London to ensure that the public should receive coals at a reasonable price by an arrangement with the coal merchants and the mine owners of this country. One case the Board of Trade could help in is where coal is retailed at 30s. or 32s. a ton by purchasing a ton, poor people should not have to pay at the rate of 40s. per ton if they buy in smaller quantities. The whole matter is in the hands of the coal owners and the large merchants in London, and if they want to show their patriotism and demonstrate that they have some interest in the poor people of the country they have an opportunity of supplying London at a reasonable price, and the poor people should not be robbed and defrauded as they constantly are in the purchase of that commodity which they can afford to purchase only with great difficulty in the coldest weather. It strikes some of us that before this season is over all the money they can earn they will want for commodities to help to keep them warm. The Board of Trade with its wisdom and power and all the knowledge it has in hand from reports ought to be able to show the country that they will not tolerate this exploiting of coal and those commodities which the people need to keep them alive.

I am disappointed that the President of the Board of Trade has not been able to devise some machinery for dealing with this important question. I am persuaded, from my own experience in provincial towns, that unless there is some method of publishing fair prices, which the public may compare with the prices that are asked, or unless some maximum price is fixed, we shall have during the coming winter, not only in London but in provincial towns, cases of very severe and grave hardship. Merchants are human beings—they may be quite up to the average, but I do not think they are above the ordinary standard, and with the demand for coal probably in excess of the supply there will be a natural disposition to put up the price, especially when sold in small quantities. Very often in provincial towns you find that they have no large merchants who carry on a considerable trade, and the business is largely in the hands of small merchants, who have to buy from the large merchants. The larger merchants purchase from the collieries, and, consequently, you have the large purchaser and the sub-purchaser, and in other ways you have additional prices added to the commodities which the working men have to consume.

I do not think, if the facts are carefully considered, that this House can come to the conclusion that the price of coal sold in small quantities can be left entirely to be fixed by the law of supply and demand; neither can it be left to the honesty and commercial integrity of the coal merchants, whose pockets are so much affected. I think the President of the Board of Trade would be well-advised to take some further steps beyond those he has already taken to deal with the prices charged by merchants, as well as the prices charged at the pit-head. I have listened with very great interest to the lucid explanations of this Bill given by the President of the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in removing many of my own objections. Nevertheless, he has not convinced me that he has understood and realised all the facts of the case. The officials of the Board of Trade, no doubt, have taken very great care to consider how best to deal with great colliery companies, and the price of coal at the pit-head, but I do not think that they have realised how complicated and widespread are the ramifications of the business connected with the distribution of coal in this country, and unless some method is adopted by which, in provincial towns as well as in London, the maximum prices are duly advertised and fixed, the difficulty will not be remedied. This is a very serious matter, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give a little further consideration to the matter of checking prices not only at the pit-head, but at the various sources of transit by which they finally reach the consumers.

I think this really is a sex question. The consumers who are mostly interested in reducing the cost of coal in households are the women, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will look into the history of prices he will find that most of the reductions in all kinds of goods and commodities of every sort have been brought down to the present level by the action of the women. I think he ought to form a committee, containing among its members some of those philanthropic and benevolent ladies with whom he is so intimately acquainted, and take steps to form a committee of co-operative consumers of coal, most of the members of which should be women, and they might confer with the President of the Board of Trade and devise machinery which would bring about what we all desire in order to prevent distress during the coming winter.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

5.0 P.M.

I can hardly expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept this proposal, because he definitely refused a similar proposal in Committee. Nevertheless, the importance of this question has not been diminished by the lapse of time, and I am perfectly certain that public opinion outside agrees that the only way by which a satisfactory arrangement can be made in London is by fixing a London maximum price. In the first place, this is a different Clause to that which was suggested in Committee, because I have profited by the observations which were made on those occasions, and I now suggest that the authority which shall have full discretion to regulate the price shall be the Board of Trade. I am suggesting simply that the Board of Trade should have put into its hands by means of this Bill the very power which the right hon. Gentleman has said he is going to exercise for the purpose of obtaining the very object we all have in view. According to his statement on the Second Reading, the scheme that is in his mind with regard to the supply of coal in London is first of all that the price at the pit-head should be limited to 4s. above the price of 1913, and, secondly, that there should be added to that price the freight, over which the Government, of course, have absolute control now that they have the control of the railways and the cost of distribution by the merchants in London, which is going to be regulated by certain agreements to which he has referred. I must say that I think we have some slight ground for complaint that the right hon. Gentleman in foreshadowing these agreements has not told us precisely what they are. I know, as a matter of fact, although he may have agreed with the Coal Merchants' Association, that there are a large number of coal merchants in London who are in no way bound by that agreement, and, although it is probable all the coal merchants will be at any rate induced, if not enforced, to observe the agreement which has been made by the leading coal merchants, they will certainly be under no binding obligation to do so. I think the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House now what real authority he will have over the non-signing merchants of London, and also, especially, over the hawkers, of whom we have been speaking. I submit, if the power which I suggest in this Clause were given to the Board of Trade, that it would place him in a position of authority, and that he would be able to enforce the observance of these agreements by every coal merchant in London. I do not know why he refuses to have this power thrust upon him. I am certain that it would be of the greatest value. I do not believe, as the Clause is now drafted, that it is open to any of the objections which the right hon. Gentleman had to the fixing of prices, because it will only be used by him when it is necessary and as a last resort. I have, therefore, no hesitation in asking the House to agree to this Clause, and particularly in begging the right hon. Gentleman to make some public announcement which will enable the public to know what are the terms which, in his mind, are going to secure the price of coal when delivered in London.

After what I said on the Second Reading, and after the discussion we had on this proposal in Committee, I do not feel that it is necessary for me to add much now on the Report stage. My right hon. Friend has cut out of his proposal the limitation of 15s. which appeared in the original proposal, and he has substituted the Board of Trade. I am sure he will not think me ungrateful when I say that we do not specially desire to have extra duties thrust on the Board of Trade. Our duties are already very wide and responsible, and the duty which is suggested in this new Clause is not only one which I do not desire, but is one which I believe would in itself prove to be harmful rather than helpful.. The London maximum price of coal is not any one price at all; it may be a great number of prices. It must depend upon the distance from the railway depots, from the coalfields, and upon a number of other considerations, including carriage and distribution. Moreover, any attempt to fix the London maximum prices of coal would necessitate our going into a very large number of distinctions, both as to quality and condition alike, and that is in itself a thing which the Board of Trade, without, I am sure, showing itself unduly modest, must decline.

My right hon. Friend asked what arrangements have been made that are going to help London in the coming season. In the first place, I hope that this Bill will do something towards helping to keep down the price of house coal at the pithead. That is something. You certainly cannot have a low priced coal distributed to London householders if the price at the pit-head is abnormally high. That, after all, is the dominating factor, and whatever arrangements may be made at later stages there is no doubt that a real shortage of coal in Great Britain would lead to high prices at the pit-head, and that no matter how many authorities you drag in—the Board of Trade, the local authorities, the co-operative societies, and any other authorities you please—would involve you in a very high price to the consumer in London. Having laid that basis which, as I said in Committee, is not a watertight and economic basis, but which I believe to be a good working basis, the next stage is the adding of the expenses which come from the cost of carriage. I do not anticipate that railway rates are going up during the coming autumn season; at all events, so far as we have control of railway rates we shall prevent them going up.

Let me remind the House that house coal comes into London mainly by rail. Gas coal comes largely by sea, but house coal comes mainly by rail, and to that extent I think we shall have greater security than in the past. Then comes the distribution of coal by the merchants in London, who take the coal from the depots, and pass it by way of carts or wagons to the consumers. That must vary with practically every district in London. The district varies, the position of the dep6t varies, and the railway rates to those depots vary, so that to fix any one maximum price would be impossible. When I say "impossible," I do not mean politically, but actually and arithmetically impossible, unless you give an undue advantage to those who live in and around the depot districts over those who live a great distance from them. My right hon. Friend asked what arrangements we have made with the coal merchants. The arrangements will, I believe, cover something like 200 firms. Having given us a chance of examining the out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the distribution of coal, they have undertaken that the amount which they will charge in the coming season will not give them an added profit above that which they got in pre-war time, and as that must vary with the individual district, it is of course impossible to name any one flat figure at which coal will be vended all over London. I propose, as long as we are satisfied that undertaking is abided by, to publish the names of those merchants who have entered into it, and I would recommend consumers in London that they would be well advised to give their orders to those who have entered into this arrangement with the Board of Trade.

Will that apply to places outside of London as well?

That which I have done in London can be equally done by the local authorities in their own districts. If it is suggested that the Board of Trade is to embark on the same arrangement in all the areas of Great Britain, I must reply that we have not a staff large enough to do it, but the local authorities can equally make these arrangements for themselves.

Will you press the local authorities to do so?

I have no power to press them; I can only recommend them. I would suggest that the House should not pile on to the Board of Trade duties which should be performed by other authorities. The local authorities are much more closely in touch with the facts than we can be at Whitehall, and they ought to look after the interests of those who live in their areas. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be comparatively satisfied with the statement which I have made, and that we may now proceed with the Bill.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his expression "pre-war profits" means the profits in 1913?

Yes, in 1913–14, which, I think, is the best period to take—that is to say, the autumn, winter, and summer previous to the outbreak of the War.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sale" ["coal at the pit's mouth shall not be sold or offered for sale"], to add the words "directly or indirectly."

The purpose of inserting these words is to make it quite certain that it will not be too easy to evade the object which we have in this Bill. Without the words "directly or indirectly," some dodge might be resorted to by persons who wished to evade what we desire to get at. Therefore, if any case came into Court, I think that it would be of assistance to the judge to inquire whether there had been any sales "directly or indirectly." A sale indirectly to a second person would naturally lead to an evasion of the Bill, and it is in order to strengthen the hands of the Court that we wish to insert the words "directly or indirectly."

I understand that this Amendment is not to be moved, in view of the fact that the President has an Amendment lower down attempting to meet the views expressed in this Amendment. That being the case, we propose to wait until the Amendment is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "services," to add the words "or as to the sums charged for the use or provision of trucks."

I move this Amendment in order to make sure that the provision which we inserted in the Bill at the request of one of my hon. Friends should also come under our purview.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "export" ["This Act shall not apply to any sale of coal for export"], to insert the words "other than coal sold to the Admiralty or any other Government Department, or purchased by them on behalf of the Governments of any country which is or may be fighting in alliance with the United Kingdom during the present War."

On the Committee stage of the Bill I raised the question of the Allies of this country obtaining coal under the provisions of this Bill, and my right hon. Friend in effect asked me to withdraw my Amendment, inasmuch as the Government of this country and our Allies would substantially obtain that which my Amendment seeks to accomplish. My right hon. Friend during the Committee stage was quite clear that the Government of this country would be entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill when buying coal. I was rather doubtful about that view which he expressed, and I took the opinion of a legal Gentleman in the House, who assures me that my right hon. Friend has not been correctly informed about the matter. Then the discussion reached what I may call a private stage, and I cannot, of course, without the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, deal with that. But, passing from it, let me say I am asking the House to accept an Amendment, the object of which is to enable the Government of this country to have the benefit of the provisions of this Act, and not only our Government, but also our Allies. The proposal is that they should likewise receive coal at the increase of 4s. per ton on the pre-war prices. It seems a most remarkable proceeding on the part of the Government that it should refuse to insert into this Bill words which would give it the same advantage as is conferred on consumers and householders. Why, I ask, should not the Government of this country obtain coal from the collieries at 4s. increase over the prices of 1913–14?

What has happened in practice has been this. The Admiralty, under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act, are entitled to requisition coal, and have done so, from the collieries. They have no power whatever to fix the price which is to be paid for any portion of coal that they may take from any colliery. But the Admiralty have met the colliery owners, and, by agreement, have arranged prices which they suggest are reasonable, but which I think are wholly unreasonable. Take the district of Yorkshire as an example. The Admiralty, in Yorkshire, are represented by very able men, who buy coal extremely well. Nevertheless, at a certain period of this year, they were paying for coal for Admiralty purposes from 10s. to 12s. a ton above the prices prevailing in 1913–14. Owing to the operations of the Export Committee, the price of coal had fallen very considerably in South Yorkshire, but, notwithstanding that, the Admiralty go into the market like ordinary consumers for their supplies, and also for supplies for any of our Allies who require coal, and they have been paying these high prices. In Wales an arrangement has been arrived at between the Admiralty and the coal owners of Glamorganshire, under which the Admiralty get their coal at the price of 25s. per ton, and if they had the provisions of this Bill applied to them they would clearly be entitled to receive that coal at a price very considerably less. Seeing that 1s. per ton represents an enormous charge on the general taxpayer of this country, and bearing in mind that we have no idea how long this War is going to last I cannot understand why the Government should not avail themselves of this opportunity, and why, too, our Allies should not also have the advantages of this Bill.

What is the reason why the Government Departments do not desire to come under this Bill? They would get their coal cheaper under it than they could do by voluntary arrangement. To say that a voluntary arrangement is better than statutory power seems to me to be an argument so futile that I am at a loss to understand the attitude of the Government in the matter. I should not have let this point go through on the Committee stage unless I had had some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that this Amendment, in principle, was going to be accepted. I have not the Report of the Debate before me at the moment, but the effect of my right hon. Friend's speech was that what the Amendment sought to achieve was practically carried out by the Bill itself. I cannot make a speech in reply on the Report stage. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say in answer to my argument, but I do want to put this point to him. We are spending £3,000,000 on the War, and, owing to our gross waste and want of efficiency, we are throwing money away on all sides. Our Allies the French are only spending half the amount which we in this country are paying out to-day. Here is a chance of saving money, and the Government reply is, "No, let the money go." I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty in Yorkshire alone have been paying prices 10s. or 12s. above those which prevailed in the year 1913–14, and I remind him, too that they are also paying in Wales prices considerably in excess of what they would have to pay under the provisions of this Bill. I then ask him to accept the Amendment. I do not say that the phraseology is very good. I do not think it is. But it will be possible, if my right hon. Friend accepts the principle, to alter the wording in another place. I am sure the principle is sound, and I am equally sure that the Bill ought to apply to our Allies.

Look at the position of our Allies. The greater part of the French coal-fields are in the hands of the enemy, and they have to rely practically on us to-day. In Belgium the mines are also in the hands of the enemy. In peace time France draws what supplies she requires above her own production from Belgium, Germany, and this country. Belgium and Germany are closed to her, and half of her own coal mines are in the hands of the enemy. It does seem to me, when we are fighting shoulder to shoulder with our Allies, when we bear in mind the great sacrifices they have made, when we remember that their mines are destroyed, it is only right that we should give them the opportunity of obtaining the coal they require at the lowest possible prices, and we should give them the full benefit of the powers we are going to take for ourselves. The same argument applies, more or less, to Italy, not with regard to mines, but she is a poor country, and to call upon her to pay 2s., 3s., or 4s. more per ton must make a very material difference to her when she has to use large quantities of coal in the manufacture of munitions. In these circumstances I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I regret that on the Committee stage of this Bill I was not in possession of full information as to the decision of the Admiralty, as I might have been, and I spoke on the assumption that the information I had received represented its final decision. To-day I can only repeat what is their decision, for, naturally, I am not in control of the purchase of coal supplies by the Admiralty, nor am I able substantially to control the Contract Department of that body. My hon. Friend knows a good deal about the method of buying, both in Yorkshire and South Wales, and I dare say he could, if he liked, give much information as to the way in which the Admiralty have been making purchases since the War broke out. I have not that knowledge, and I can only give the House the latest information I have as to the view of the Admiralty. They consider their business arrangements are such as not to make it advisable for them to come under this Bill. They have to make arrangements in South Wales and other parts of the country with which I am not conversant. I can only speak in what I may call a secondhand capacity as to the policy adopted by the Contract Department of the Admiralty. I have always been informed that that Contract Department was most efficient, although those with whom they have dealings may differ in their views as to its business capacity. On the whole the purchasing capacity of the Admiralty—its ability—has not been one of the least conspicuous features of the Admiralty since the War broke out. If the Admiralty decide that they do not wish to come under this Bill, I fear I have no other course open to me than to say that the interpretation of the Bill which I gave on the Committee stage is not one which the Admiralty has any desire to apply to themselves. They would rather be free to make arrangements in their own way and under their own conditions than take advantage of the Bill as now drafted.

My hon. Friend says we ought to give the full benefit of the Bill to our Allies. I agree with him, and the arrangement which I announced on the Committee stage will be adhered to, namely, that when the British Government is buying coal for itself, it will also buy coals on the same terms and under the same conditions for the French Government. Further, when it is requested to do so, it will buy coal also for the Italian and Russian Governments. Up to the present the Russian and Italian Governments are quite well satisfied to go on with the contracts which they have at present running, and naturally they are not going to take advantage of our prices until their own good contracts have expired. When they do expire the Admiralty will be prepared to make purchases on their behalf on exactly the same conditions and terms as it is making them on behalf of the Government. I regret that I have no power to accept the proposal made by my hon. Friend. What may have been the inner business organisation reasons which have actuated the Admiralty I cannot explain to the House, but if my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty were here—