“DEAR COAL BILL”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 960, 1 May 1930, Page 9

“DEAR COAL BILL”

DIVIDED OPINIONS IN HOUSE OF LORDS DEPRESSION IN INDUSTRY United P.A.—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, Wednesday. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Sankey, in the House of Lords today moved the second reading of the Coal Mines Bill. He said it proposed: (1) To regulate the production and sale of coal.

(2) To facilitate the organisation of the industry. (3) To reduce working hours. (4) To establish a national board for the industry. Lord Sankey, who was chairman of the Commission which reported on the

coalmining situation in 1926, said he was persuaded that the Bill was a step in the right direction. It would do something to dispel the cloud hanging over a greht industry and remove the sense of bitterness which for too

long had darkened many of the miner’s homes. The Marquis of Londonderry, who is a coalmine owner, intimated on behalf of the Conservative majority in the House that they would not reject the Bill on the second reading, but. would endeavour to modify and amend its provisions and return it to the House of Commons in a less dangerous form. CENSURE ON LIBERALS The speaker contended that the coal industry required to be left to itself, without interference, to continue its own methods of reorganisation. If the Liberals had not gone back on their own principles the Bill would not have reached the House of Lords. The measure entailed more bureaucratic control, sterilisation of enterprise and reduced working hours when the trade was not paying, merely to fulfil a pledge lightly and gaily given at the time of the general election. It certainly was a “dear coal biM.” The only reason he did not. advocate the rejection of the Bill, said the Marquis, was that it would produce more chaos and confusion than an amendment for its modification. The Marquis of Linlithgow said it was as bad a Bill as ever was before Parliament. It was built on rotten foundations. He did not see why it should not be rejected. GOVERNMENT UNSAFE The speaker said he would have moved the rejection of the measure if he had thought the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, would have dared to go to the country on a policy of dear coal and lower wages for miners. There were many reasons for the belief that the House ultimately would have to take a step which would lead to the downfall of the Government. He hoped when that time came they would not hesitate to do their duty. Lord Aberconway said the Bill was framed on the lines advocated by coalmine owners who represented twothirds of the country’s output as well as the miners. Admittedly it entailed an advance of Is to 2s in the price of coal, which was needed to put the trade right. He hoped they would realise that the Bill was both necessary and statesmanlike. The debate then adjourned.