MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER (Hansard, 19 February 1947)

§ Mr. Butcher
I do not think that at this time, even although the hour is getting 1332 late, we ought to pass the Supplementary Estimate presented by the Ministry of Fuel and Power without the most careful examination. For Members of the Committee may feel that, indeed, it is more than likely that that Ministry will be as wrong in their financial estimates, as they were in their estimates of the availability of fuel. I would therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary for information under certain of the heads shown in this Estimate.
The first, if I may take them alphabetically, concerns the question of travelling expenses. I really think that an extra sum of £25,000 for travelling expenses incurred by the representatives of the Ministry is something which requires most careful scrutiny by the Committee. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the reason for this increase. No longer have the representatives of the Ministry to go round and supervise the wicked capitalist coalowners. They only have to travel now to the Coal Board and to the mines owned by the Coal Board, unless, of course, this provision covers holiday jaunts to Himley Hall. Why is it essential that we should spend this additional £25,000 on travelling expenses, because there is no increase in salaries, and therefore there can be no increase in the number of officials to spend this extra amount in jaunting around the country? I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an explanation; it will probably be, that the Ministry's Estimates are vague and unreliable, and that they now find the original Estimates cannot be justified.
Under Subhead C, reference is made to publicity, instructional films and exhibitions. I cannot help feeling that the Minister of Fuel and Power has received a substantial amount of publicity lately, although it has not perhaps been the kind of publicity he would want. Nevertheless, the Ministry have received an adequate amount of publicity, and I must press the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how this money is being spent. He will remember that just a fortnight ago, before the Ministry landed us in the present economic crisis, I asked the Minister whether he proposed to continue to insert the advertisements in the newspapers that "We are on the highway to prosperity." The Minister said "Yes," which was, of course, a very satisfactory 1333 answer as far as it went, and I really felt that we were on our way to good things. Having told me that these advertisements were to continue, I have carefully examined the newspapers since that date, but have not been able to find one. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether these advertisements have been discontinued, and if so, whether there is to be any saving on the Estimate. Before leaving the question of advertisements I should like to ask whether it is proposed to advertise the thanks of the whole community to the miners for the admirable work they have done. Let us make it clear that any improvement in the coal position is not due to the Minister of Fuel and Power, but to the miners working in the mines. We now come to instructional films. I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary how these films are being made; whether he is taking advantage of the admirable film-making facilities connected with the Post Office, or whether he has found it necessary to go to the wicked capitalists.
Then we come to the question of exhibitions. It is very easy to think of the Minister of Fuel and Power in this connection. I feel that no one would want a more dreadful exhibition, but I am sure that is not what the word means in connection with these Estimates. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman what kind of exhibitions have been arranged, and what is their purpose. If they were organised for the purpose of saving fuel, it is very poor providence indeed which rests the whole of the saving of coal on a few exhibitions, the cost of which is covered by £20,000. We would like more explanation on this question of exhibitions before we pass this Supplementary Estimate.
11.45 p.m.
Passing over Subheads D and G, both of which, I think cover commendable expenditure, I come to Subhead H, the last line of which reads: Expenses in respect of consumers' councils appointed under Section 4 of the Act "— the Act being the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what kind of work can consumers' councils do for £1,000 in the period between now and the end of the financial year? How many trained staff can be placed at their disposal? This is not one council; it is 1334 at least two—I believe one for England and one for Scotland. There will perhaps be more than two, and the more councils there are, the less will be the sum available for each. I would ask him to turn to page 46 of the Supplementary Estimates, where he will see that the Ministry of Civil Aviation have a much better appreciation of the way to run—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We are not discussing civil aviation at the moment. The hon. Member must keep to the particular Vote under discussion.

§ Mr. Butcher
I am very grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, for your guidance. All I would say is that if we are to have these councils, adequate provision must be made for them. I say that to spend only £1,000 on consumers' councils is a complete and absolute waste of money.

§ Mr. Osborne
We are asked tonight to sanction an expenditure of £420,000 in addition to the £3,080.000 already voted. making in all £3,500,000. If this money is wisely spent, it will be the best money which this Government has ever spent. Unless this succeeds, the outlook for the country is bleak indeed. We are not looking at this matter in a critical way. We ought to realise that if this money is wasted, along with the other money which the House and the Committee have voted to the Ministry, the glory that was England will be past. Everything depends on this Ministry succeeding; all the other schemes of the Government are dependent on the success of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and unless this scheme succeeds, the rest of the Government's schemes must fail.
I would ask a question about the money that has been expended, especially under Subhead B. Additional expenditure of £25,000 is being asked for in respect of travelling expenses, making in all £200,000. How much of that money is being spent on train travel, and how much on cars? [Laughter.] It is extraordinary, with what ease and levity Socialist hon. Members are prepared to spend public money. If we are to pass this Supplementary Estimate, we are entitled to investigate how the money is being spent. I repeat, I want to know how much is being spent on road travel and how much on rail travel. I also want to know how many cars are being used. What is the 1335 allowance per mile for the use of those cars?

§ Mr. Watkins (Brecon and Radnor)
What is the size of the tyres?

§ Mr. Osborne
If I were to give an answer worthy of a foolish question, I should be ruled out of Order. I also want to know, what rank a Minister's servant has to hold before he is entitled to have a car, and how many cars have been purchased in the last 12 months. This £200,000 will allow various Government officials to go round the country investigating the work of mine managers. A colliery manager in Leicestershire told me that, even before the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was passed, no less than 27 officials, using these travelling expenses for the purpose, could come along and demand his attention, thus taking him away from his proper work of production and wasting his time. In those days, no less than 27 interfering busybodies from some Department or other could interfere with the work of mine managers, and I want to know whether that number has since been increased, and whether the Minister realises that, every time this money is used for the purpose of officials travelling unnecessarily to the pitheads in order to take the manager away from his job of production, it is hindering the chief aim of 'his Department.
I should like to see less money spent for such a purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "How would it reduce the coal output?"] I am asked in what way it would reduce the coal output, and I am quite prepared to answer that question. The hon Member knows that the main job of a colliery manager is to watch the machinery, hour by hour. If someone from the regional or London office comes down on a joy ride and takes him away from his primary job he cannot perform his proper functions. The time which he should be giving to his job is being fooled away by officials who travel down to his mine and pay for doing so out of this £200,000. Therefore, instead of this Committee voting more money for travelling expenses, it ought to look keenly into this expenditure and cut it down, and thus enable the man on the spot to get on with his job. Any practical miner knows that the point I am making is a very important and germane one.
The second point I wish to raise is in connection with Subhead C, "Other 1336 Administrative Expenses." We are asked to agree to a further Vote of £40,000, making £172,300 in all. On the next page under Subhead C it says: Additional provision required for—Publicity, including instructional films, exhibitions. etc., £20,000. I was asked to open one of these exhibitions, and, as we are asked to vote a further £20,000 in respect of them, I think Mr. Beaumont, that I am in Order in referring to them. That exhibition was held in Grimsby early in October last. I never saw a more futile exhibition in my life. I never saw such a piece of bad arrangement and such money and time wasted as on that occasion. I want to know how many such exhibitions were held in, say, January. Does the Department propose to continue holding these wholly futile exhibitions for which we are asked to subscribe the hard-earned money of the taxpayers? I protest against it. The only good thing that came out of the Department's exhibition in Grimsby was a free tea, the best free tea that Grimsby had seen since the war started. Instead of producing coal, the Department are producing tea. This sum of £20,000, to which we are asked to agree, was used for the purpose of putting in two great showrooms new apparatus for the use of fuel, apparatus which people may get in two years' time if they are lucky, and as for fuel, they will get that one knows not when. That exhibition, and all such exhibitions, in a period of stringency, must be a waste of time, and I protest against public money being spent on these exhibitions. For as long as I can remember—and I was brought up in a mining area—the miners have thought that they were carrying usually a boss upon their backs, a man who was usually depicted in cartoons as a big, fat fellow with a huge cigar sticking out of his mouth.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have allowed the hon. Member to digress, but he has now gone a good deal too far.

§ Mr. Osborne
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, for your correction, but may I respectfully point out that we are dealing with expenses, to which we are asked to agree, and that money could only be expended by officials employed by the Ministry.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I did not object to the hon. Member dealing with those points, which he has done already, and 1337 has repeated himself several times; but I cannot allow him to make general statements about conditions. He must seep to the Vote.

§ Mr. Osborne
I am grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont, and on the question of my repeating myself, surely if I have sinned in that way, I have sinned in very good company.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
There is no reason why the hon. Member should sin, even if others have done so.

§ Mr. Osborne
I would like to receive the information for which I have asked about exhibitions, because I saw one of these exhibitions at first hand, and I think I am entitled to ask questions about it. Finally, with regard to the sum of £1,000 for consumers councils, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) referred, surely if that sum is anything at all, it is a sheer farce. There is a sum of £1,000 for consumers' councils to carry on their work for a year. That cannot mean anything serious. The consumers cannot be represented, and cannot have their point of view represented, under such a small Vote. If the Ministry really mean the consumers to have a say in the industry, that amount of £1,000 is far too small. The miners for years have regarded as their ideal an industry run for the miners by the miners without any concept of the consumers at all. If this £1,000 is a mere camouflage to lull the general public into believing that the consumers' views are going to be taken into consideration, than I protest against it.

§ Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
I make no apology for intervening at this time. I deplore the time, and I deplore the opportunity which the Parliamentary Secretary has afforded us, because it is obvious that the very important decisions which are to be taken now, will have very little publicity. I am afraid that one of the objects of the Government in bringing up this important subject at this hour is, if possible, to try and get away with a great deal which is in these Estimates. May I point out as regards Subhead H, that this is the first time that the expenses of nationalisation have come before the Committee. In this there is the vast amount of £150,000 set out in a certain amount 1338 of detail; details we have been wanting to know, and which the country has been wanting to know. Yet this is the method in which the Minister of Fuel and Power presents it. I must say that it is very unfortunate that a matter like this should be brought up at this time, but, with respect, Major Milner, I do not propose to be limited except by the Rules of Order.
I want to ask, first, about the item for travelling expenses. The main outline has already been given, and I am not going to go over that again, but let us look at past records. I notice that the total amount which this makes is £200,000. On looking back I find that this amount before the war was not £200,000, it was not £100,000, it was not even £50,000. In 1938–1939 it was £28,000, and therefore there is an increase of about seven times.

§ The Chairman (Major Milner)
I would point out to the hon. Member that we are only discussing the additional £25,000 required.

§ Major Roberts
I am fully aware of that, Major Milner, and it is this further sum of £25,000 that I am questioning. It is because so little has been spent in the past, that I think we must have some explanation of the extra £25,000. A certain amount of time might have been saved if the Parliamentary Secretary had given some explanation in the first place. It is this £25,000 that is the final straw; and if it is necessary, it must be related to the output of coal. We appreciate that, but the question I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer is: Why is this £25,000 needed? The amount is seven times more than it was before the war, yet the total production of coal is less. It is fundamental and disturbing, and although hon. Members may feel that this is irrelevant, I would point out that if nationalisation is going to work, hon. Members must know that criticisms will pile up on overheads. This is the first example of it.
I pass on now to Subhead C, where there is an additional sum of £4.0,000 bringing the Estimate to £172,000. Looking back through the previous years I lind this figure was not £100,000, it was not £50,000; it was £3,000. This figure has increased from £3,000 to £172,000. I appreciate that a certain amount in salaries which have been switched over, 1339 but nothing like the whole amount could possibly be explained in that way. I think the Committee and the mining industry are entitled to know what this extra £40,000 is for. To my mind it is not defensible at all, and if we pass of complacently because the hour is late, as possibly the Parliamentary Secretary wishes, we shall set a precedent which will not be good, either for the Government or for the industry.
Under Subhead C, it has been pointed out already, publicity and instructional films are included—and also "et cetera." I want to know whether, in "et cetera" are included the various parties which the Minister has given. It produced a certain amount of despondency about the country when, at the time of crisis, the Ministry were holding parties, and if that is so I for one do not propose, without proper explanation, to pass this extra £40,000. I think that is an improper way to spend public money. Secondly, publicity—[Laughter.] This is not quite so fundamental a point, so perhaps the laughter is a little more relevant, but not, very much. How much of that goes to the public relations officers of the Ministry? I noticed the other day that a public relations officer of the Ministry was writing letters trying to defend his master. I do not think that that is a proper way of expending public money. In all nationalisation schemes, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary must appreciate, it would be very dangerous if the Government used for political purposes the money put into their hands. There is a possibility that we on this side of the Committee may be biased—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, I am afraid we are—but there is a tendency in the country to feel that the Government are using public money for political purposes, which I think is a bad precedent. The same point arises on instructional films, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deny that; it would be most helpful if he could. A film is going around, especially in the Northern areas, which has a definitely Leftist tendency, and I feel that public money should not be spent on sending round Leftist, almost Communist, films. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), with his white tie, apparently objects to that, but I think it is most unwarrantable. Do 1340 not let us start a political battle over the nationalised coal industry again—

§ Mr. McAllister (Rutherglen)
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to me, although I hesitate to refer to certain sartorial exhibitions on the other side, I agree with him that it would be most deplorable if public Departments were to use public money to advertise Ministers, but surely—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member seems now to be making a speech.

§ Major Roberts
I want to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that this extra expenditure does not seem to be justified, and unless he can justify it I think the Committee ought to be very careful about passing it.
Now I come to a far more fundamental subject, namely Subhead H. I believe that this Supplementary Estimate should have been brought in at a time when full discussion would have been easier, because here we are beginning to see the first workings of the nationalised machine which the Government have instituted in this respect. What I feel is, that though, admittedly, it may cost the whole of £150,000 to institute the machinery of nationalisation, the figure of £50,000 for the expenses in connection with what, I presume, is the arbitration is, I think, exceedingly high. I am glad to see a Law Officer here, and I hope we shall be able to be told the sum of money which was spent on lawyers' fees in this arbitration. It cost, I think, a great deal of time, and public money to the tune of £50,000 and that seems to me to be extremely excessive.
The next point is the question of the expenses in respect of district valuation boards. I do appreciate the reason for the £1,000. I imagine it would be very difficult for the Minister to set up consumers' councils before the end of the year. Indeed, that £1,000 may still be there at the end of the year. But on that analysis, what about the district valuation boards? Are they to be set up and to be functioning before the end of the year? It sems to me to be most unlikely. Is the £89,000 for money already spent? I very much doubt it. So far as I know, the names of those to be appointed to the district valuation boards have not yet been published. Indeed, we are waiting with a certain amount of interest to see who will be appointed to them. I cannot see that 1341 £89,000 being spent between now and the end of the year. I should like definite information on that. It seems to me to be a somewhat high figure.
The next question in connection with that figure of £89,000 is: are there going to be salaries paid? The way the Ministry have refused to let us know the salaries of their staffs has been deplorable. Yet here we have expenses of £89,000. Is not this the time. if Question time is not, for us to be told—we, who are passing these expenses—now this sum is made up, and what the salaries are, and the salaries of the chairmen of the district valuation boards and of the board members? That is a very pertinent question. It applies also to the central valuation, board. I think it is wrong for the Ministry to withhold from the Committee this information, for the Committee holds the final financial reins in its hands—or, at any rate, it does in theory: the reins seem to be slipping from us. People outside are interested, also. I hope we shall get some figures on that score. I put these points very sincerely. The criticisms on the political side are meant to be constructive. I do consider the full figures and facts should be given, and given willingly, by the Parliamentary Secretary.

§ Mr. Peake
My three hon. Friends behind me have covered the ground with considerable assiduity, and there is little left to which to direct my remarks. But I think we ought to be told a little more about the sum of £50,000 under Subhead H—expenses in connection with the nationalisation of the coal industry. This £50,000 is in connection with the determination under Section to of the Act of the aggregate amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the coal industry. I imagine that the £50,000 was for the expenses of the arbitration tribunal which sat in London in June and July of last year under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Greene. My impression is that they sat for three weeks, but as the meetings were in secret, it is not easy for an ordinary member of the public to estimate the length of the trial. But hon. Members opposite are interested in this question of trials and lawyers' fees, and I should be very disappointed if the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) went to bed io-night with her curiosity unsatis- 1342 fied as to the names of the counsel employed during this great trial, and the amount of the fees.

§ Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough)
Is it in Order for the rt. hon. Gentleman to refer to the hon. Lady going to bed?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell)
May I deal with the questions about Subhead "H" straight away? It raises technical points and issues on which rt. hon. and hon. Members want serious answers. The £50,000 is in respect of the expenses of the arbitration tribunal whicn settled the global sum of compensation. I would remind the rt. hon. Gentleman that we are under an obligation not merely to pay our own counsel's fees, but also a reasonable part of those of the other party. This is an estimate of the amount we shall have to pay this year.

§ Mr. Peake
Before the Parliamentary Secretary passes from that point, is he not going to tell the Committee the names of the counsel engaged, or the amount received in fees, as was done last night by the Solicitor-General in dealing with the Nuremberg trials?

§ Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)
It seems to have got under their skins somewhat.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The names were published in the Press at the time. Why ask me for this information? Furthermore, there was nothing secret about it. The district valuation boards have not been set up, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts) pointed out, but under Section 15 of the Act, we are obliged to meet the cost of registration. I am pointing out that under Section 15, we are obliged to pay reasonable costs of that registration, and some of that expenditure may fall due during this current year.
Additional travelling expenses consist of two items. There are additional expenses because we are doing more prospecting for opencast mining, and I would point out that opencast mining did not take place before the war, so that comparisons on that account are really of no use. The other part of the travelling expenses is for mining inspectors who do not, as some hon. Members have suggested, harass the managers. They go down the mines to look after the safety of the workers, which is far from harassing the managers.

§ Mr. Osborne
Is this in addition to the 27 officials of one kind and another, who have power to go to the mines on one pretext or another, and take the manager from his primary job?

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The question we are discussing is the extra travelling expenses. The extra travelling expenses here are in respect of opencast mining prospecting, and the additional travelling of mining inspectors recently returned from the Forces. I do not think that the hon. Member is in order in referring to anything else. As regards publicity that item is entirely concerned with, recruitment for the mines, and I imagine that even hon. Members opposite will agree that it is desirable that we try to recruit for the mines. We take the view that this recruiting campaign which we have carried out, has been markedly successful. We have, during the past year, recruited some 75,000 men for the pits.
As to the details of the films, well these films are primarily designed to arouse interest in a mining career. We have shown some of them in the House, and I believe that hon. Members appreciated them. Certainly the public do. Regarding exhibitions, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is, of course, a specialist in exhibitions—

§ Mr. Osborne
Never give a gibe unless you can take one.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
We are not, as a matter of fact, concerned with the exhibitions in this Estimate. They are not those dealing with fuel efficiency and economy to which the hon. Member referred. They again, were recruiting exhibitions; and I may say, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall, that we have held 38 of these exhibitions, and they have been attended sometimes by 5,000 and sometimes by 60,000 people.

§ Mr. Osborne
Am I not in Order in asking a question on a point such as is set out here, on expenses; and am I not entitled to a proper answer given civilly, instead of in such a sneering manner?

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)
The hon. Member is entitled to ask questions, and in the course of his speech he did ask questions. The nature of the reply is determined by the Minister who is speaking.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
I assure the hon. Member that no discourtesy to him was intended. As regards the consumers' councils, I would always be prepared to answer the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), who raises important points courtebusly at the last minute. Northern Ireland administers the petrol rationing and other control schemes on our behalf. The cost of living has gone up, and the cost-of-living bonus involves extra payments. It is only a little more. In addition to that, there are certain other payments connected with establishment charges where in fact we have made a payment in their favour.

§ Sir W. Darling
A sum of 50,000for recruiting?

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Recruiting in Northern Ireland is done by the Minister of Labour. and not by us. The item for consumers' councils, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall pointed out, of course covers expenditure only to the end of this financial year. It is unlikely, I think, that that sum will be exceeded in that time.

§ Mr. Peake
The hon. Gentleman's reply in one respect completely failed to satisfy hon. Members on this side of the Committee. We asked for information as to details of the £50,000 spent on the arbitration tribunal: he has declined to give us any particulars of any sort or kind. I must warn him that although we will not prolong this Debate tonight, when the matter comes before us on the Report stage, we shall expect an answer to these questions.

§ Mr. Butcher
I hope hon. Members opposite will not complain about being kept here late at night. After all, they voted for the privilege of being here at this time of night; I voted against it. But I want to say that I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the courteous manner in which he has replied to certain questions addressed to him. I am bound to say that the answers we have received from the Parliamentary Secretary have been unsatisfactory, particularly in relation to exhibitions. He has told us that these films and exhibitions are designed to aid recruitment. I desire to ask in what areas these exhibitions have taken place, and whether any of these posters, films and exhibitions have been directed to displaced persons, and others, in an attempt to bring in foreign workers to supplement 1345 the miners in this country. I must press him on this question of the determination of the aggregate amount. It has been clearly pointed out that these figures must be produced at a later stage. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting next to the Solicitor-General. If the Parliamentary Secretary had had a little more experience of the kind of information which is desired on these matters, he would have done well to have taken as a pattern the extreme courtesy of the Solicitor-General, last night, in giving us full information on other Estimates in a most charming manner.

§ Mr. Tiffany
I am pleased to note in these Estimates an item for £20,000 for testing and research in mines and quarries. I hope that as a result of this extra expenditure we shall be able to out down to some extent the wastage of manpower in the mines due to accidents. As a result of this research, I hope we shall be able to go ahead and do more than was done in the past in this direction, and that now the mines belong to the country, we shall be able to take out a lot of the equipment which is insecure, obsolete and inefficient I hope that research will be carried out, particularly in the electrical direction, and that it will be of great benefit in the saving of lives. I am pleased to see this Supplementary Estimate put down, and I sincerely hope it will result in the saving Of life.

§ Mr. Osborne
I am very sorry indeed to keep you, Mr. Beaumont, but I make no apology to the night-shift of the Socialist Party, who will, no doubt, get overtime for their work. May I have an answer to the two questions I put to the Parliamentary Secretary on the extra money we are voting for travelling expenses?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member is now repeating what he said in his previous speech.

§ Mr. Osborne
I am merely asking for an answer to my question. Surely I am entitled—

Hon. Members
Order.

§ Mr. Osborne
No, I will not be in Order.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member may say he will not be in Order, but as far as the Chair is concerned, it will try to keep him in Order.

§ Mr. Osborne
It was not the Chair which called me to Order, but the aspiring chairmen whom I will not obey. Am I not entitled—?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to an answer. He may ask a question, and he must then wait for an answer.

§ Mr. Osborne
May I take it, then, that if the Parliamentary Secretary refuses to give an answer, it is something which he does not wish to disclose?