HC Deb 03 April 1947 vol 435 cc2301-11

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Baird (Wolverhampton, East)

I want to raise the question of the public relations of the Coal Board. I do this not because I have any general criticism to make of the publicity of the Board, but because I want some information about plans for the future. Perhaps I might divide what I have to say into two parts. First, I should like to know what the Board are doing to acquaint the public, and especially the miners, with the work of the Board; and secondly, and more important, I should like to know what machinery is being created to keep Parliament informed, and what opportunities are available for the House to discuss any directions of a general character which the Minister may give to the Coal Board.

I will deal first with the question of general publicity. Those of us who have any connection with the mining industry in our constituencies must realise that there is a new spirit abroad in the coalfields today. We know that the miners are taking a most intense interest in the workings of the Board, they want to know why this or that has been done or why this or that has not been done, and, therefore, it is essential for us to see that they are kept up to date with the day-to-day workings of the various Coal Board matters in their areas. Up to now the publicity of the Coal Board in my area at least has been bad. I will give three instances. At the time of the peak of the coal crisis some five or six weeks ago, the miners in the Cannock Chase area wanted to work on Sundays to help produce more coal. It may be that technically it was not a good plan to let them work on Sundays, but whether it was right or wrong, the way the West Regional Coal Board handled that request from the miners was tactically bad, and the publicity on putting the case over to the miners was deplorable.

There was another question about the West Midland region quite recently. When it came to appointing the various officials who were to organise the National Coal Board in the West regional area, one of those appointed was a retired local government officer with a pension of something between £600 and £800 a year. He was a man of well over 60, on retired pay, but he was appointed to a most responsible position in the West regional area. That man may have had certain abilities or qualifications which were necessary for the job, but there was a great outcry in the local Press and from the miners in the area. As far as I know no satisfactory reply was given by the Coal Board, to the natural worry of the miners of the area.

There is another point as an illustration of this lack of publicity. On 30th January I asked a Question in the House about the employment by the National Coal Board in the Midland area of private firms to survey underground coal. The reason I asked the Question was that the miners in my area came to me and said a private firm was being employed to survey underground coal and was paying more wages than did the Coal Board. It was causing dissatisfaction. Further, and more important, the miners, who as I have already said have a new spirit, were very keen to see the Coal Board working efficiently, and they told me that this private firm, which employed about half a dozen or a dozen men, had one underground foreman, a non-producer, with another clerical assistant at the pithead supervising the work of the men underground. They only had six or eight men producing underground for two non-producers. The miners naturally felt that this was a wastage of labour and came to me and asked me about it. Being their Member of Parliament I thought the best thing I could do was to put down a Question to the Minister. I was rather surprised to get the answer that it was not a matter for the Minister but for the Coal Board.

Here again was another example of the need for information, though I agree that the Minister can perhaps not deal with questions in that way. The miners wanted this information to keep their spirits up, it was necessary for us to give it to them if we were to keep up that fine spirit in the coalfields, yet we could not get an answer. I, therefore, want to know, when questions such as this arise in the future; whether there is any machinery whereby the miners themselves can get the information they require? I believe there is such machinery, but I believe also that enough publicity has not been given to the fact that there is machinery. Therefore, if the machinery exists, will the Under-Secretary give it more publicity? Secondly, if it does not exist, will he try to create such machinery?

I want to raise a more important point, however, in regard to public relations, and to ask what control the Minister envisages this House having over the working of the National Coal Board in the future. I know that my right hon. Friend appreciates the need for Parliamentary control. The relationship between the Minister and the Board is defined rather loosely in the Act, which says: The Minister may after consultation with the Board, give directions to the Board of a general character on matters appearing to affect the national interest. An Amendment was proposed in the Committee that the Minister should give those directions only after consultation with the Board. I am glad the Minister accepted that Amendment. Does the Minister consider that the House should have control over those directions? The Minister said during the Committee stage in regard to the closing of pits that if one pit were closed he did not think that the Minister should interfere with the National Coal Board, but if the Coal Board decided to close a series of pits and there were serious social implications, the Minister would have a duty to interfere.

If that is so, then this House must have some control over that interference. The relationship as defined in the Act between the Minister and the Coal Board is a good one. I think we all agree upon that. Where the Minister interferes, or gives general directions to the Coal Board, on a matter appearing to affect the national interest, we all agree, I think, that there should be Parliamentary control over those general directions. How can we make that control effective? I believe that that problem will become more important as this Parliament develops. We have nationalised only a few industries up to now. I hope very sincerely that we shall nationalise many more of our basic industries in the near future. The first method which has been suggested for making that control effective and which I believe hon. Gentlemen opposite want, is that of Question and answer. That is the method which I used three months ago. Looking at it now I think it is completely ineffective. One cannot possibly be asking Questions in the House every day about the intimate working of the Board. One reason is that it would cause embarrassment to officials who are, I believe, doing a good job. We must give them their head and let them get on with that job.

The second method is by way of Debate upon the annual report of the Board. I believe that is also ineffective. We might have a two-day or even a three-day Debate upon that report but we could not possibly discuss all the points that hon. Members would wish to raise. Another method, and I am not convinced that it is not among the best, is that the general directions which the Minister may wish to give to the Board should be subject to Parliamentary Debate. That was the method suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite and something can be said for it, although there are difficulties about it. At the moment we have only got the Bank of England and coal nationalised, and soon transport will be nationalised, but, as time goes on, we are going to nationalise more of the basic industries. Therefore, the Parliamentary time available in which to discuss these matters will become more and more limited. That being so I am not sure that that method should be adopted.

Although I am asking for information and not giving it, I would throw out the suggestion that this House might think around this subject to see if we could not have either a Select Committee or subcommittees of a Select Committee for each of the nationalised industries. We must think about this serious problem and evolve some way of getting effective Parliamentary control over these general directives. I believe that the best method would be by setting up Select Committees of this House with proper power to inquire into the working of the Boards, who would report back to this House at suitable times.

I will finish by saying that I have raised this question today, not because I want to embarrass the Minister in any way, but because I believe that, as time goes on, the important effect of nationalisation—the increased efficiency of the industries—will become more and more apparent to the general public. But unless we have some machinery whereby we can get these results, benefits and great improvements over to the general mass of the public, they will not have the effect that they should. Therefore, in the very near future, we must create an arrangement whereby we can publicise the working of the Boards, and discuss the matter on the floor of this House, or by a system of Select Committees elected by this House.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield)

I think that the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) for having raised this matter this afternoon. It is a matter of great principle, and one which cannot be effectively dealt with in the time at the disposal of the House on a day of Adjournment. Therefore, I suggest, that the Under-Secretary should consult the Leader of the House on the question of the relationship between public corporations and Parliament with a view to having a full day's Debate on it, possibly on one of the days devoted to Supply.

I want to deal briefly with one or two points raised by my hon. Friend as matters of principle. I have heard Ministers in this House, when legislation has been before it, or in Standing Committees, say, time and time again, that they, are taking powers to control these public corporations which will govern the nationalised industries, that the House will have the opportunity of questioning the Minister as to how those corporations are operating, and that every opportunity will be given to debate the matter. When the legislation is going through Parliament the Ministers say one thing, but, once it becomes the law of the land, they are very much inclined to shirk their responsibilities, and to shelter behind the Boards which they themselves have appointed. Time and time again, Questions have been asked, as were instanced by my hon. Friend, about the B.B.C., the London Transport, the civil aviation Corporations, and so on. Time and time again Ministers have said that these are matters for the responsible Boards. Sometimes they depart from that formula, and say, "By the courtesy of the Board I have been informed that," and then we get a partial answer.

The same applies to the Bank of England. The very first Question put down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the Bank of England was refused an answer by him, and thereby created a precedent. By a coincidence, on the very same day a Question was put to the Prime Minister regarding controversial broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the extent of controversial broadcasting was a matter for the B.B.C., and not for the House. I should have thought that the extent to which there should be controversial broadcasting was a matter with which this House was competent to deal, and one on which Members were entitled to receive information.

More recently, in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board, I put a Question concerning the employment of women conductors, and the dismissal of women conductors then taking place. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that that was the concern of the Board, and there was no reason why the Minister should interfere. At that time we were facing a manpower shortage in the country, and one would have thought it was a matter of national interest that women employed by one of the public corporations were being dismissed so that men could be employed. One would have thought that the House was competent to discuss that. Only yesterday, I put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation regarding members of the corporations who were employed in executive positions. I asked for the names of these gentlemen, and what they were receiving in remuneration in addition to what they were receiving from the boards. The Under-Secretary said that his noble Friend had no statutory right to obtain it from the public corporations. Here is a case of three corporations, subsidised by the State, where public credit is involved, and yet, in the case of the people who are appointed, the House is denied information on their remuneration. I quote these cases not for the purpose of obtaining any specific replies from the Under-Secretary who is to reply, but because they raise a matter of principle. In all these cases, the House has a right to receive information, but the Ministers refuse to impart it. It is important to realise that responsibility for asking these questions does not rest in the procedure of this House, but in the Ministers. The Clerks at the Table will accept Questions from Members to the extent to which Ministers deem themselves responsible to answer them. It is not the Table which decides whether the Questions will be accepted, but whether the Minister will answer them and take the responsibility. That has been established by a former Speaker in a Ruling given in this House.

I would ask that guidance is sought from the Cabinet so that there can be laid down a principle governing the responsibilities of Ministers, and Members can obtain information as to where responsibility rests and the extent to which they can put Questions and seek information. There is no doubt that Ministers have a responsibility for these boards, and that they should answer to Parliament for them. If they have that responsibility, then we have a right to demand that they give the necessary answers.

I agree that nationalisation cannot succeed unless we keep the workers and the people of the country fully informed. It cannot succeed if Ministers, once they become responsible for a nationalised industry, come to this House with their lips sealed. It is not possible to know how these corporations are succeeding, except through the public relation officers and through Ministers. The nation is a shareholder in the public corporations. Public credit is involved. We believe that the country has as much right to information as the shareholders have in the case of private enterprise, and at the moment they are not getting that information.

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell)

I have only a few minutes in which to reply if I am to abide by the timetable which has been given to me. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Baird) said that he wished to raise two issues, the question of publicity by the National Coal Board and the wider issue of parliamentary control over the National Coal Board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) confined himself wholly to the second question, perhaps I might be permitted to deal with that first, as to some extent it also affects what one says on the former issue.

This matter of Parliamentary control over statutory bodies is one of vital principle, and, as my hon. Friends will appreciate, it goes far beyond the scope of my own Department. It is a matter which was raised during the passage of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill and other nationalisation measures. Frankly one is faced with three alternatives. You can have a system like that of the Post Office in which the Minister is the executive head of the organisation, in which case he must, I think, take full responsibility for everything that happens in the organisation; secondly, you can have a case like the London Passenger Transport Board where the Minister has no powers, not even the powers of appointment to the Board; or, thirdly you can have something between the two. Most of the nationalisation measures which have been or are going through Parliament during this period are based on the third of those three possibilities; that is to say, the Minister has certain powers in relation to the nationalised undertakings, but these powers of the Minister are restricted. They are restricted in the case of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act to certain specific spheres such as capital development, research, safety, health and welfare, and the issuing of general directions.

I think it is right that that should be so. I do not believe you can have a successful board of this kind, which is, when all is said and done, a very large commercial organisation, operating efficiently if anything it does is liable to be raised in Parliament at a moment's notice. I do not know whether my hon. Friends have had experience of the Civil Service. I yield to no one in my regard for the qualities of civil servants, but there can in my view be not the slightest doubt that such deficiencies in the way of initiative, imagination and speed as those from which they are often alleged to suffer largely derive from the fact that they are always operating with the possibility of a Parliamentary Question or a Member's letter before them.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

So Is private enterprise.

Mr. Gaitskell

Not nearly to the same extent, because the Minister will not take responsibility in those cases, but he must take responsibility for everything that is, done within his own Department. Therefore, I am quite clear that it is right that the Minister's power should be restricted in this way and that he should not he continually interfering; but if his power is restricted he cannot be expected to take responsibility for everything that happens. Responsibility and power must go together, and that is the reason why this particular form of organisation seems to be the right one.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton made certain suggestions. He will not expect me to continent on the proposal that there should be a Select Committee, which is a very much wider issue. It is an interesting idea. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield when he speaks about Ministers sheltering behind boards. Why should the Minister and how can the Minister be expected to answer for things for which he is not responsible. But as regards general directions, there we are of course in a different field. There the Minister is responsible, and I do not doubt that he would take that responsibility and answer for any general directions in the House. As regards publicity for those directions, hon. Members will probably be aware that there is provision in, I think, Section 54 of the Coal Act whereby the Annual Report of the Coal Board must include reference to any directions made by the Minister unless he specifically declares that it is contrary to the national interest to do so.

Obviously there would be an opportunity for raising these matters in a discussion on the National Coal Board's, annual report. I think one can also say that it is very unlikely that, if the Minister were to make a general direction which affected a very large number of people in this country, and was obviously a matter of first class public policy, it could he kept quiet. I am certain that someone would put down a Question. But I say that if the Minister has done something then clearly he is answerable for that.

Mr. Baird

The Minister is responsible for any direction given, but can the House suggest that the Minister should give directions?

Mr. Gaitskell

The House can suggest anything to the Minister and my personal opinion is that he would give reasons why he would or would not make a direction. But of course it must be a general direction. My hon. Friend spoke of the employment of surveyors and, while I am not prepared to go into the details of that individual case or of the other individual cases which he mentioned, I would be prepared to tell him why I do not think it would be right for the Minister to give a general direction to the Coal Board saying that they must always employ their own people and not employ outsiders. I have not the time to go into that, but if I had, I think that I could explain just why it would be undesirable to do so.

As to the consultative machinery to which my hon. Friend referred, that is a very important matter. The National Coal Board in association with the various organisations concerned has set up what I believe to be an excellent form of consultative machinery. At the top there is the National Consultative Council with very wide terms of reference. If I had time I could tell my hon. Friend what the terms are precisely. Underneath the National Coal Consultative Council will be the divisional, area, and colliery consultative councils and one can say that virtually anything concerning the operating of an undertaking and the interests of those employed in it could be raised at the meetings of these councils. They are in the process of being set up now. I feel, and I think that both sides feel, that here they have something which may become a model for consultative machinery in this country. That is apart from the ordinary consultative machinery for dealing with wages and disputes of that kind. I am satisfied myself that so far as publicity goes, in the wide sense of the term, the National Coal Board are also making very good progress. I would refer, for example, to the new magazine they are producing which I think will be an excellent publication.

I would say in conclusion "Give the Coal Board a chance." We do not want to start digging up and looking at the roots of a tree which we have recently planted. It would not be good for the tree. They have a tremendous job before them and an enormous amount depends-upon them and we should leave them to get on with the job.