COAL MIKES BILL.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19916, 1 May 1930, Page 11

COAL MIKES BILL.

DEBATE IN HOUSB OF LORDS. CONSERVATIVES' INTENTIONS STATED. (BBIfJSJI 9T7IOUL WJHSLEg 3 -' • (Beeeived April 80th, U p*-> RTJGBY, April 29. lof4 SanKey (Lord High Chancellor) move* is the Bo»«e of Lorda the .wj™ reading Of the Coal Mines Bill, whicn, be I&W, proposed:— (1) To regulate the production ana scle of coal. (?) To facilitate the organisation of the industry. (3) To reduce working hours. (4) To eptablisk, a, national Board for the indnatry, Lord Sankey, who was chairman 01 the Commission whicn reported on the eoaj situation Jn 19?«, said that he was persuaded that the Bill was a step in the right direction and would do something to 4i<spel the clond hanging over the great industry and to remove the Sense of bitterness which too long laid darkened, many of the miners homes. • ... „ l„prd Londonderry, who »» «»»» * coal owner, intimated on behalf o£ toe Conservative majority is the Kf 186 , that they would set refcet tee mn on the «««oml reading, ph* wbmM •»*£ vout to modify and amend its provisions and returr the Bill to the Bouse q| Commons in a less dangerous form. Ho contended that the coal Industry required t9 b« Ifift to itself wtthoat IB" terfer-enee to aontinue it| own matbeas of reorganisation. He declared that if the Liberals had pot gone back on their" ftwn principles, the Bill would not have reached the House of boras, it contained more bureaucratic control, sterilisation of enterprise, and reduced working hours, whop the industry was not paying, merely to fulfil a pledge lightly given at election time. It certainly was a dear Coal Bill. The only reason he did not advocate rejection was that thitj would produce more chaos and cqnfusiqn than 8» amendment. Lord Linlithgow said that it wae as bed a Bill as had ever been before Parliament, It was built fin rotten foundations and hi. did not gee, why it ehpuldsnot be reacted. He would have moved Us rejection if he thought that ijft Bamgay MaePonaJd WQWid dare to go to the country pa a poliey of dearcoal and lower miners' wages. There were many reasons, for the belief that the Bouse would ultimately have tp taki, the step leading tq the downfall ef the Government. He hoped that when the time, flame they would not hesitate to do their duty. Abereenway said that the Bill was framed 09 lines advocated by own. era representing two-thirds of the country •■ output, as well as by the miners, ftadmittedly entailed an advane* of a shilling or two shillings ia the priee of eeal. wMeh wag needed to put the tr »dfl right. He hoped that they Would reft' lisf- that the Bill was both necessary and statesmanUke, The Rebate was adjourned.

OVATION TO LORD SANKEY. NATIONALISATION FAVOUREO, LONBON, April %% The House qt Lords gave an ovation te the Lord Chancellor after bis first big speeeh in the House. He spok fer an hour without a note, He declared that he had not changed his mind and was still convineed that nationalisation was the eniy solution of Rritflin's di"lcHit}ei, but he sup? ported the Coa,! Mines Pill became he was a member of a minority govern* mjnt whjcb was net entitied to intreduee sueb a sweeping measure as nationalisation, fer which he believed there would be a majority in the near future, The right of the louse to re* jeet the Bijj was not disputed, but wisdom would prebabiy persuade mem> bers ast to throw it out witbeut sub= mitting an alternative. He believed that the House desired to act as a great advisory eeuneil to the nation.