HC Deb 23 October 1945 vol 414 cc1921-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

5.47 P.m.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling (Brighton)

I rise to bring before the House the ques- tion of the demobilisation of what are commonly called "Bevin boys." In effect, that means conscripts for the mines, and also a considerable number of optants. I had hoped that the Minister of Labour would have been able to be present to-night but I understand that he has gone abroad, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, will put before him the points I wish to raise. I am not trying to raise them in any political sense but merely for this reason, that I understand, and have understood for some time, that the Ministry of Labour have in mind making a definite statement about the position of these boys. Nothing, however, has been done yet and these boys remain where they are, not knowing what is to happen to them. They are not only constituents of mine, but also constituents of almost every Member. There are well over 20,000 actual conscripts, and nearly 30,000 optants, making a total not far short of 50,000 young men from the ages of 18 up to 22, and up to about 30 in the case of optants.

These people, who have been brought from every part of the country, have no mining background. They come from every class of the community, and although they may be 100 per cent. fit physically many of them are entirely un suitable for life in the mines. It seems a great pity that the name of the former Minister of Labour should stick to these boys. I believe that unless we pay more attention to their position and unless we realise that the attempt to see whether we could do something to get more people into the mines has on the whole turned out to be a failure. These young men will be wrecking their lives.

There is a possibility in years to come that they will be the first to be on the dole and will also be physically wrecked, because of that experiment, which has not been a great success. They are mostly young boys who have no real chance of voicing their grievances, and who feel that they are very much the forgotten men in this country. So far as I can see from a quick look at HANSARD, and what I heard myself, no reference whatever was made to these boys in yesterday's demobilisation Debate. Yet in a sense they are mixed up with the Forces. When it was originally decided to try out this experiment the conscripts were boys who, normally, would have been called into the Services. They were not given the option of not being called into the Services. Large numbers were in different Air and Army training corps when they were forced against their will into this calling.

Certainly, the country was then given the impression that these boys were, in a sense, doing the same thing as fellows called in to the Forces. They complained that they would not have the glamour of being in the Services. Time and time again they were told, and were given the impression, that what they were doing was just as much a war-time job as any job in the Fighting Services. The optants were told when they left the Forces to go into the mines that it would count for their group towards release. Now I am told that that is not to be the case. Yet in the case of the Royal Air Force I gather that such service is to be counted. That is all wrong. Decisions must be made on this matter which will cover all the Services. So much for the optants. What about the conscripts? We have been told—and it took some pressure to get the statement—that their service is now to be counted for group release as if they were in the Services. But which Service? Yesterday we heard about the Navy, Army and Air Force groups coming out at different times, and we were told that the reason was because of the size of the different groups. Here we have a new kind of Force. It is not sufficient answer to be told that they will come out in the same way as the Services, because they do not know which particular Service. Think of these young boys. They are the future men of this country, and we want to have good men in the years to come. They are thinking about their future.

Do not let us ever imagine that they intend to stay in the mines longer than necessary. I have been talking and travelling with them during the last month in Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland and South Wales, and I can say without exaggeration that I did not meet more than one per cent. who had any intention whatever of going on with mining. They said, "What training are we going to have for our future? Is experience as a haulier going to be of much use? Fellows in the Services may be trained as signallers or for any other of the innumerable jobs that have to be done there, but nothing is being done for us." These boys have been sent to the mines, and then have been practically told to go to the devil. Are there any education officers? Are there any welfare officers? Only two or three, and, in some places, none at all. Is anything being done in regard to vocational training? No. Men in the three Services are to-get gratuities. Are there to be gratuities for the Bevin boys when they come out of the mines? I believe I am right in saying that we have passed an Act whereby people entering war service must be given their old jobs back when they have finished with that service. That does not apply in the mines. I know several boys who have been invalided out, and whose jobs have not been kept open for them because there has been no compulsion on their employers, because the boys are not entitled to get back into their pre-service jobs.

Almost all the boys coming out of the mines beg to be allowed to return to their old jobs. They are most anxious to have some kind of training. It might be said that they have every opportunity in taking courses and reading. But the boys say, "We are dog tired. We are not accustomed to this." Boys of 18 to 19 are being made to do jobs in the mines which were previously done by miners of 24 or 25, who had been trained for some time. In South Wales, I found them being sent down some of our worst mines, mines which the average miner would not go down. It would have been much more to the point to send these boys down the best mines wherever possible, but they have been sent anywhere where they have been needed. At one hostel, I met boys—this was in Doncaster—who had to walk one and a half miles to work to do a night shift from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. They took with them sandwiches, which they had to pay for themselves, and had four pints of water during the night. Their own sweat and the coal dust did not make those sandwiches particularly edible. Members might say that this is the ordinary life of the miner, so why should these boys not have to do the same? I do not say that they should not, but I say that if you are compelling young men to go into a job which miners go into voluntarily—[Hon. Members: "No."] Well, at present not every miner is allowing his son to go into the mines. At one place, where I saw 10 miners working, only two of their sons were going into the mines, whereas the eight others were Bevin boys who had been forced into the mines. If you are going to force them into the mines give them the same advantages and benefits as you are giving to the men you are sending into the Services.

What about their pay? These boys are not allowed lavish pay. They get about £3 10s. a week, whereas the waiters in this House get almost double that sum. The same applies to hostels. I saw and stayed in one where there should have been 400 boys, but where there were only 300. They were getting £3 10s. a week. Certain deductions amount to about 7s. 6d. and there is a further 30s. deducted for their hostel keep. That does not leave them with a very large income. In addition, these boys are given two leave passes a year, but they are only available between the months of April and September. I have seen some of these boys in Northumberland, who have come from my own area of Brighton. In two cases, boys wanted to go home to see their fathers on leave from the Front, in the months outside April and September, and they paid the full fares themselves. When some of us went into the Services, we were allowed Service rates. Why cannot these boys, if they are not allowed to go into the Services—many of them have been in the A.T.C. and other training corps—and are forced to go into mining, be treated in the same way. There seems no reason why they should not be.

Absenteeism is a growing trouble. I would like the House to picture these boys as having just left school with their careers and lives in front of them. Normally, up to a point, they would be kept by their families or, if they were in the Services, everything would be done for them. They would be trained, educated and an eye would be kept on them; but these boys are in hostels and, although the staff do their level best, these boys are wasting their time completely when not down the mine. They have nothing to do, and no one tries to find anything for them to do. It is true that they play billiards and ping-pong, and get reasonably good food, but the point is that now they have been told they will not be prosecuted for not going down the mines, and so they are gradually drifting away.

I met some of these boys, who told me, "We only go down the mines now twice a week, because that pays for our hostel keep." The rest of the time they waste hanging around doing nothing. Two other boys I met went down the mines very seldom, and when it came to a night-shift they did not go down at all. They were living in these hostels for young miners, and they went off digging potatoes for local farmers. Another boy went off as a taxi-driver. They are compelled by law to work in the mines, but when they get to the mines they are not compelled to go down them. They are hanging about, and if you can imagine anything worse than that for boys of 18, 21 and 22 I, personally, cannot. I think that they sometimes think they are forgotten by the Government, and are not being bothered about because there are only 40,000 to 50,000 of them.

Something should be done to save these young men. They are not trained, and they are going to come on to the labour market in a hopeless condition—work-shy and completely ignorant of a trade, many of them, though not all. There are large numbers of them who are more than willing to work, but they are becoming less in number, because they get less encouragement from the Government and feel completely forgotten. I cannot get the figures from the Minister on absenteeism in the last two or three months, but I do not need to have them, because one can see it all the time. The rumour has gone round that they are not going to be prosecuted for not going down the mines, and the majority of them are slowly but surely giving up any idea of work in the mines. I do not know what the solution is. In peace time it is an appalling think to think that any group of people in this country are being conscripted and forced into work which they do not want to do. What are the Government going to do about that?

These youths, in large numbers, have said to me, "We would rather be in the Forces than here. It is wrecking our lives, and we hate it like poison." They really do; you can see it in every hostel. Their argument, and I think it a reasonable one, is that under Class B there are numbers of miners serving in the Forces who have had two or three years training in the mines who would lie far better able to do the job than they can. Why do you not force them to come back? If you are going to have people under Class B who are vitally important to the country, it is no good saying in a lackadaisical way, "You ought to come back." If they are vitally needed, they should be made to come back. If you are going to need, as you do need, a large number of miners this winter, you will get far better work out of the men who know how to be miners if you get them back under Class B, and replace them by putting these boys in the Forces. These miners could be sent back, and the boys could be sent into the Services where they originally wanted to go.

This present absenteeism does not mean that you announce in the morning that you are going to be absent next day or next week; it merely means that you do not like the weather and you go back to bed again, and do not tell anyone about it. The very fact that these boys do not turn up for work, is completely upsetting the shifts and organisation of the pits for many hours, and means loss of a considerable amount of time. That is going to increase unless something can be done. I think it is up to the Government to do something fairly soon about it. I would beg of the Government if they do not feel they can make a statement on this matter to-day to realise that there are these reasons, and that they are felt by thousands of boys all over the country. If these boys had been properly treated they might have become young ambassadors for the mining industry.

Mr. Hale (Oldham)

When the hon. and gallant Member talks about soldiers who have been miners, how long does he suggest that those who have served in Burma should be directed to the mines? Why is it that he says that 90 per cent. of these lads who have been trained refuse to remain in the mines?

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

As to why 90 per cent. of them do not want to stay in the mines, I have given some suggestions as to what I think are the reasons. As to the other point, I would only ask that these Class B men should remain compulsorily in the mines so long as the Bevin boys would be compelled to stay in the mines if they take their place

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Blyton (Houghton-le-Spring)

I have listened with amazement to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I have just emerged out of the pit after 32 years as a lodge secretary. We had a certain number of Bevin boys at a particular colliery, and I think it would be very unfair to suggest that these lads should have gratuities when they have been paid the trade union rates of wages for their work. It has been said that these lads have been forced into the pit. I myself was forced into the pit, not by direction of the Ministry of Labour, but by force of economic circumstances. I went into the pit to try to augment the family income in the early days of 1913, when the coal industry was a very thriving industry. Are these Bevin boys who now desire to get out because they do not like the conditions to have privilege over others who went into the mines? There are some good Bevin boys, and there are some that are round pegs in square holes. It is surprising to me to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite arguing that absenteeism should increase, and making a statement which, in my opinion, might encourage that absenteeism.

When I heard the hon. and gallant Member talking about sandwiches and sweat, I recalled sweating without the sandwiches. I remember that I coal-hewed five days a week, and took 35s. home for a wife and two children as a result of the policy that was pursued in the coal industry by hon. Members opposite when they were in the Government, and dealing with the coalmining industry of this country. Mention has been made of water by the miner in the pit always has a glass of water by him, because water is the best thing to drink while in the pit. To talk about the miner drinking water is to try to convey something to this House which is a commonplace in the mining industry. I suggest that the fairest way of dealing with the Bevin boys problem is to apply the age plus service principle in the mines as in the Services.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested we should get these lads out of the pit. What is the use of the Minister of Fuel and Power urging an increase of output during the coming winter months, when the man-power in the pits has dropped from 713,000 in the last four months to 696,000? With lost man-power, we are asking the men to get more coal to tide us over this winter period, and then an hon. Member opposite suggests that we should worsen the position by releasing 40,000 to 50,000 haulage lads who are absolutely essential in the working of the coalmining industry. I suggest to the Minister of Fuel and Power that he will find that the men who have come out of the pit have done six years' service. The Essential Work Order in the mining industry was put into operation at the time of the capitulation of France in 1940. Men in the pit before that time were directed into the Army. These men have tasted a different life and have made up their minds, many of them, that they are not going back to the mining industry. Why should we force them back to release the Bevin boys? As a miner, and a lifelong one, who has emerged out of the pit to become a Member of Parliament for a mining constituency, I say quite frankly that the eyes of this country will be opened to those who do not want their sons to go into the pit. I suggest that the Minister of Fuel and Power should try to get our men to give us a greater output of coal, and not reduce the output by releasing Bevin boys on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but release them on an age plus length of service basis as in the Forces. If he does that I am sure that in the period that lies ahead he will be able to give to the people in the blitzed houses the coal they need this winter.

6.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling) has performed a public duty in bringing to light the conditions and the problems connected with the Bevin boys. Those of us who were in the last Parliament, to whatever party we belonged, will agree that there have been many arguments on the question of these young men being drafted into the mines. I am not in the least saying whether it is more valuable service to be in the Army, or to be in that most honourable profession, a very distinguished representative of which we have just heard, and whom we welcome in this House. He speaks with far more authority than I could ever do about the mines. These boys without exception were willing to fight, and if necessary die for their country.

Those of us who were serving in the House received a great many letters. Many of these lads had served in the cadet forces, had done pre-military training of some kind or another and were desirous of fighting for their country. Then down came the late Minister of Labour's order directing them into the mines. [An Hon. Member: "The Government's order."] That is so; I am not trying to make a party point. It was the Coalition Government's order. That created misery in the minds of these young lads. They went down the mines, and I think it is wrong to bring into this Debate a suggestion that anything wrong goes on in the mines. The mining industry must be made a magnificent industry. Why should it be considered a disgrace to go down the pit? The point I am trying to make is that these lads want to fight for their country. If they had been balloted into any other industry, they would have felt just at disappointed as they did when they were directed into the mines. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this point when he comes to reply: I do not like the method, of ballot by which some names come out, and because I do not like these lads having been prevented from fighting for their country, I ask him in all seriousness and in all sincerity, May we see fair play for these lads just as if they had fought for their country?

One point is that they are to have no medals. They will mix with their contemporaries and will have nothing to show what they did in the war. Then again there is the economic point. I am solidly against direction of labour. My right hon. Friend knows that I fought the late Minister on that I want to know whether these Bevin boys will have a period of leave following release, when they will be free to choose whatever work they would normally take, which is the privilege of the Serviceman when he is finally demobilised. Will they get their own jobs back? These are the main points. I am not trying to overstress the case. I am not trying to say that these boys have been treated most abominably. The whole country has had to go through a very difficult time, and every one of us has had to make sacrifices of a major nature. All I am interested in is to make absolutely sure that, wherever it is reasonable, these boys shall be treated as if they had served their country.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones (Bolton)

I speak in this Debate not as a miner but I have had some little to do with the Bevin boys. For 10 months I was chairman of an Essential Work Order Tribunal where some of the Bevin boys who objected to being directed to the mines had to appear. If there is anything in this country at the moment to which it is desirable that patriotism should be applied it is the mining industry. I know of no reason why the sons of those I who are not miners should not have their share of mining. I would that it had been possible to have Bevin boys 30, 40 or 50 years ago. They would have brought back from the mine knowledge which would have been disseminated to their relatives and friends, which would have been of tremendous value to those who, because of economic circumstances, have to work in the mines. These boys are directed to the mines on a very fair ballot principle, but I know of no better people for the mines. They have had a good schooling, and statistics will prove that their average weight and physique are far better than the average of the miners' sons from the valleys and the mining areas. They are the people who should shoulder their fair share of the things which were necessary to win the war, and, indeed, to win the peace.

I repeat that it would have been a good thing if we could have had some semblance of the Bevin boys 50 years ago. My advice to these youths would be that it is right in the interests of winning the war, and now primarily in the interests of winning the peace, that they should take their share of the things which some people have realised are very obnoxious things. It should not have been possible for a position to be reached in which people do not want to go back into the mining industry. Those people who allowed the industry so to degenerate that the mines are now in their present position are those who are now objecting to their sons doing something which they were quite willing that other people should do. Some of the young fellows whose lives have been spent in sheltered circumstances, and whose parents have to bear responsibility for the condition in which mining is today, are objecting to doing their share to bring about the prosperity of this country.

I hope that the Government will refuse at this stage to release these boys. I have five children who have served in this war. They volunteered. They did not decide where they should go. If it was the submarine service, they went. If it was the Navy or Air Force they had to go—where they were directed. They had no option. They went in the interests of the country. They asked no credit for that, nor do I ask it for them; they are like millions of other people's sons. But there is every right, a moral and legal right, why these Bevin boys who are objecting should be kept where they are if mining is of the importance which it is indicated as being. Without coal, whatever this Government or the people do, what is our position? The Minister of Fuel and Power cannot get coal. Neither can the Cabinet nor the people who sit on these benches. It is only the men at the coal face who can get coal, and these people should have to take their fair share in enabling the wealth of the country to be used throughout the whole social structure.

I say to the Government as one of its supporters that they should stick fast to the existing ruling, at all events until such time as the mining industry can be brought to a position where there will be no need for anyone to be balloted into the mine, no need for anyone to be forced into mining through their economic position. Let it be an honoured profession, mechanised, providing decent wages and conditions, and then we shall have all we need of that most important commodity—coal. Without it we shall die.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

I do not think the House should be misled by the hon. Member who has just spoken and I do not think he meant his remarks to mislead the House. My hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling) and Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) stressed that what they were out for was fair play. They were not arguing in support of the immediate release of Bevin boys, or in support of an agitation which claimed that these boys had been particularly unfairly used. Far from that, they made it quite clear that all they were out for was fair play on release and fair play throughout for these boys. That is a different matter. They pressed the Minister to make a statement to reassure their minds and the minds of the House and the country that fair play would be meted out to these boys. I do not think it would be quite fair to associate those who raised this matter with the words used by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Jack Jones).

We are out for fair play. We are out to see that these boys are treated on the same terms as boys who have served in the Fighting Services. Nothing could do more harm to the mining industry than would be done if these boys were unfairly treated when they came out. The harm would be done to the industry far more than to the boys. I would like to stress that point more than anything else. I was born in a mining county—Ayrshire—and I have never lost my tremendous admiration for those who live in mining communities and work underground. We have to spread that knowledge. I do not believe that the experience of these boys will be lost on the country. If they come out feeling that they have been unfairly treated, they will not be too ready to help in the great work of spreading good news about the present and future of the coal mining industry, which is so vital not only to the welfare of those with whom they have been working, but to the country as a whole.

6.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

I listened with great interest to the statement of the case by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling). When I saw his Question I was impressed by the fairness of its wording and its obviously genuine desire to get information. I came along to the House this evening to give him and the House what I thought would be a reasoned reply. I am afraid that the way in which he has addressed the House has created the impression that the Bevin boys, as a rule, are not playing their part in the national effort. I am afraid that in concentrating his criticism upon what is obviously a very small minority he has given the impression that the Bevin boys are a liability in the mining industry. There was repeated later from the other side of the House the statement that the Bevin boys must have fair treatment. What is the assumption—that they are having unfair treatment? Is there that assumption? [An Hon. Member: "Yes."] The Bevin boys in the mining industry are getting parity of treatment with the rest of the boys in the industry. In the vast majority of cases they are getting preferential treatment.

I was rather impressed with the last speaker's remarks about his concern for the men in the mining industry. I come to this problem not without some knowledge and I wish that concern had been shown many years ago, when as a boy of 13, I went down the pit to work for 9s. a week and had to walk four miles to my work and four miles home from work. It seems to me that this concern for the Bevin boy is a bit belated. The Bevin boy is suffering as a consequence of the House of Commons not doing its duty to the mining industry years and years ago. I am sorry to introduce this feeling into the matter, but this Bevin boy affair becomes a matter for politics in this country. We have to look at the very serious position in the mining industry, and we have to treat these boys fairly and with respect. There has been too much flippancy in the treatment of Bevin boys in the mining industry.

Let me deal with one or two points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman beyond the gangway. He raised the point about having no medals. Why should a miner have medals more than a gun-maker? If we are to give medals, we must give them to the whole civilian population, and, not least, to the house wives of Britain. I do not think that that is really a tenable proposition, and we cannot treat the Bevin boys differently from the rest of the community.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

Surely, there is a difference. A great many miners volunteered and went into the Forces and got medals. These boys wanted to go into the Forces, but were not allowed to, and so did not have a chance to get a medal.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that there were thousands of boys in the mining industry who wanted to fight and get medals, and we would not let them go. I do not think that the talk about medals gets to the root of the problem at all, and if that were all there was in it I think the Bevin boys would laugh. [Hon. Members: "That is only a small point."] I can only deal with one thing at a time, and I am trying to be quite fair to the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have raised these points; I would like to give them the answer as we see it.

Let me take the suggestion that the ballot was wrong. I think that that suggestion really ought not to be made from that side of the House. It was decided upon by the full House of Commons—by a Coalition Government. It was equitable and fair to everybody, and it means that boys who, by nature and upbringing, have to go and do a dirty job, a job that they do not like, are taken into a strange social community, and find the atmosphere completely alien to them. It is regrettable that any social atmosphere in Britain should be so distasteful to any section of the community as to produce this result. As a final indication of our desire to meet any justifiable complaints from Bevin boys, the Minister of Fuel and Power yesterday met a deputation of them. He has given them certain undertakings and certain guarantees to investigate their legitimate complaints, to improve their hostels, to give them better facilities, to locate them in hostels nearer to pits and to try to improve their travelling time and welfare amenities. But here is the significant thing; the Government are doing more for the Bevin boy than it does for the ordinary boy in the industry.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

May I interrupt? I do not mean to make a point out of it, but, surely, the words just used by the Parliamentary Secretary do record the fact that there were grievances of such a nature that a deputation had to see the Minister of Fuel and Power. I am not rising to underline the fact that there was a deputation, but I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be fair. The difficulties were obviously of such a grave nature that the Minister himself had to receive a deputation.

Mr. Ness Edwards

What the hon. Gentleman fails to realise is that, in ordinary circumstances, the Minister would only receive representatives from organised workers in the industry, and the Bevin boys are part of that organisation, but in order that there should be no suspicion that there was any bias against them, the Minister received them, and discussed with them what they regarded as grievances. The Minister went one step further. If there is any possibility of removing the things they complain of, even if it would mean improving their position compared with other men in the industry, the Minister is prepared to see what can be done.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

The hon. Gentleman has just said that, normally, the Minister would only meet representatives of the industry. Are these boys allowed, or entitled, to belong to a miners' union?

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech said he had been speaking with these Bevin boys. I am really astonished that he is asking a question about such an obvious, well-known fact. The answer is that the Bevin boys are not only encouraged, but that special steps are taken to link them up with the industry, and to present their grievances as accurately as possible.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

Do they become members of a union?

Mr. Ness Edwards

They do become members—one Bevin boy is a member of the Yorkshire Miners' Union, and is in this House with the money subscribed by the Miners' Federation, so I think the complete answer is that Bevin boys are encouraged to be members of the union, and to play a full part in the union. In one of the hostels, they have even representation on the Miners' lodge committee, so that, on that point, there can be no doubt at all. They are fully welcomed into the miners' organisation.

Now I come to one or two points raised in the opening stage of the Debate. To say, in this House, that Bevin boys' lives are being wrecked is, in my view, putting the matter far too high. Their lives are no more being wrecked than those of any other boys who were taken from their homes and sent into foreign parts, as were our Armed Forces. There is the same interruption of careers. That is all it is, and I should say that fighting in Burma might be adequately compared with the Bevin boys' experiences in the pit. I do not think any impression ought to be created that because a Bevin boy, or a young man, in this country goes into the mining industry to play his part in getting the coal, upon which the success of our war effort depended, he is wrecking his life.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

I did not say that.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The hon. and gallant Gentleman says he did not say that, but I took it down. He said that all this scheme is doing is to wreck boys' lives.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

I definitely gave the impression, I am sure, that their lives are being wrecked because there is so much absenteeism, and nothing is being done about it. They are left hanging around, and they have none of the educational facilities available to young men in the Services.

Mr. Ness Edwards

That was a bit of make-weight thrown in. I am coming to those points; I have them here. We shall see how much substance there is in that allegation. In every Bevin boys' hostel in this country there is a welfare organisation; there is a welfare officer. The manager of the hostel is, in effect, the welfare officer for his hostel. That is mainly his job. Associated with each of these hostels in a miners' institute. In a case I know of in South Wales, all the facilities of the mining community are made available to these boys within a stone's throw of their hostel. To say that they are just allowed to run wild is, I think, not paying them a compliment. I have met many of them in the hostels and I have attended their debates and discussions, their meetings, their plays, and their dances, and I want to say that the standard of their conduct is as high as, if not higher than, that of any other section of the community in this country. Their behaviour, on the whole, is first-class. There is nothing to complain about in their general behaviour

The position—I am sorry to be speaking at such length—is that there are three categories. There are the Bevin boys—so-called the ballotees—there are the optants, and there are the volunteers—50,000 men, altogether, in the mining industry. If the scheme is scrapped, and all these men are pulled out, what will be the effect upon the life of the community this winter? The next point the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised was that men in Class B should be brought out. So far, we have had 2,000 men back to the pits since demobilisation began, but even if we had in Class B all the men we wanted, all the men planned to be got out, we should not be able to replace the Bevin boys because of the normal wastage of man-power in the mining industry. We cannot afford to lose a single man in the industry this winter. The position is really serious, and I would ask hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House not to make the task this winter more difficult than it is, because so much depends upon it. The comfort of our people, the rehabilitation of our industry, the reconversion of our industry, the success of our economy, all depend on us getting an increase in the supply of coal. To let anyone go away at this stage would be to make the position worse than it is. There are one or two other small points. The first is with regard to the date of release.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

The date of release is not a small point.

Mr. Ness Edwards

After yesterday's Debate one would have thought that the general impression was that there would be a general levelling-up with regard to the date of release in each of the three Services. It is not challenged that the principle of release applying to the Armed Forces should apply to the Bevin boys. That is regarded, I take it, as being equitable and fair. In order that it should be clear and easily understood, what is in mind is that the date of demobilisation of the Bevin boys shall be the date on which they would have been demobilised had they been in the Army. That, I imagine, is not only fair, but is giving them almost favoured treatment.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

That is what they want to know.

Mr. Ness Edwards

The next point is in regard to rights of reinstatement. Rights of reinstatement only apply to men in the Armed Forces, and to no one else. If it is to be given to the Bevin boys, it must be given to the optants, to the volunteers, and to every man who has been directed to employment in this country during the war.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

Surely it could be given to the optants who were in the Forces beforehand?

Mr. Ness Edwards

If they were in the Forces and came out under Class B, and they went back to their employment—

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

But—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The hon. Member must allow the Minister to get on with his speech.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I am stating the fact. A man goes out in the class W (T) reserve, and goes as a nominated worker to his old employment, if his old employment is still available. He is, in fact, reinstated. If we are to have the Reinstatement Act applied to everybody, the House should have thought of that before.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)

If my hon. Friend looks up the report of the Debate he will find that the Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, said he was going to make special arrangements for these boys to be reinstated in civil employment.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I have no knowledge of that, and I have looked through the papers carefully. I recollect no assurance of that sort ever having been given by the right hon. Gentleman. Let us see to what the Bevin boys are entitled. When they are demobilised they are entitled to training, to further education grants and to the benefits of the interrupted apprenticeship scheme. Those are the rights they have—rights that are not available in the same way to the ordinary industrial worker. Those rights are there, and those they will get. This matter is the subject of very close investigation, and, if I may say so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question has held up the Minister's statement. We were asked in the question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to make a statement until he had placed these considerations before the House. I do not know if he wants me to read the letter.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

It was in a Question put last week.

Mr. Ness Edwards

Yes, and in a letter which followed it. As far as the Government are concerned, they want to give to the Bevin boys every fair treatment that can be given to them. The vast majority of them have played a very great part in winning this war. A small minority of them have not been playing the game. I want to appeal to all the Bevin boys, to the optants and to the volunteers, to see us through this winter and through all these difficulties, because upon their efforts will depend the success of our turnover from war to peace production.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.