HOUSE OF LORDS

Hokitika Guardian, 1 May 1930, Page 5

HOUSE OF LORDS

ON COAL BILL,

(Official Wireless.)

RUGBY, April 29. Lord Sanlcey (Lord Chancellor) moved in the House df Lords the second reading of the Coal Mines Bill, He said, he proposed firstly to regulate the production and sale of coal; secondly to facilitate the organisation of the coal industry; thirdly to reduce the working hours; and fourthly to establish a National Board for the industry.

Lord Sankey, who was Chairman of the Commission which reported on the coal situation in the year 1926, said that he was persuaded that this Bill was a step in the right direction, and it would do something to dispel the cloud that was hanging over this great indutsry, and to remove the sense of bitterness which too long had darkened many of the miners’ homes.

The Marquis of Londonderry, who is himself a coal mine owner intimated on behalf of the Conservative Party’s majority in the House of Lords, that they would not reject the Bill on the second reading, but said that they would endeavour to modify and amend its provisions, and then return the Bill to the House of Commons in a less dangerous form He contended that the coal industry required to be lelft to itself, without anv interference to continue its own methods of re-organisation."

LONDON, April 29

In his speech on the Coal Bill, Lord Londonderry in the House of Lords said that if the Liberals had not gone hack on their own principles the Coal Bill would not have reached the House of Lords. It contained more bureaucratic control, and meant a sterilisation of enterprise. It reduced the, working hours when trade was not paying merely to fulfil the pledge that was lightly given at election time. The only reason that he did not advocate its rejection was that this would produce more chaos and confusion than would the Billamendment.

Lord Linlifhgow said that it wn« as had a Bill as had ever been before Parliament. It was built on rotten foundateions. He did not see wlv it should not be rejected. He would have moved its rejection if he thought that Mr MacDonald would dare to go to' the country on a policy of dear coal and lower miners’ wages. There were many reasons for the belief, he said, that the House of Lords could ultimately have to take a step leading to the downfall df the Government. He hoped when that time came, that they would not hesitate to do their duty. Lord Aberconwav said that the Coal Bill was framed on the lines that were advocated hv coal owners representing two thirds of the countrv’s coal output, ns well as lines advocated hv the miners. It admittedly entailed an advance of from one shilling to two shillings a ton in the coal price, which was what was needed to put the trade right. He hoped that they would realise that the Bill was both a necessary and a statesmanlike one. The debate was adjourned,