Commons Sitting of 1 February 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. John Rodgersasked the Minister of Health if he will inform all local authorities of the facilities available in the country for the rehabilitation of men and women suffering from tuberculosis, and the desirability of using these facilities to their full capacity.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): The attention of local health authorities has been drawn, most recently in July last, to the means available for this purpose, and I am sure they will share my view that they should assist in using these means to the full.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is the Minister aware that the British Legion village of Preston Hall in Kent today has 50 vacancies for ambulant ex-Service men, and will he again impress upon the local authorities their moral obligations in this matter?
    Mr. Marquand: I am sure that this exchange of question and answer will draw attention to the existence of these facilities.
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Health how many beds were available in England and Wales for tuberculosis patients on 1st January, 1949, 1950 and 1951, respectively; and how many patients were awaiting admission to the beds on those dates.
    Mr. Marquand: Comparable figures are not available for these three years, but hospital board returns at 31st December, 1949, for the first whole year of the Health Service, showed 28,450 beds in commission (including about 1,250 beds
    1044
    used in hospitals outside the Health Service) and a waiting list of 10,980. Figures at 1st January, 1951, are not yet ready.
    Dr. Broughton: While appreciating the progress that has been made, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will give his closest attention to this problem, and do his utmost to reduce the size of the waiting list of these patients, some of whom are infectious to other people?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, certainly. I was glad that I was able to give rather encouraging figures to the House last week, and I certainly intend to keep very close personal contact with this particular problem.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the Minister say when he proposes to take advantage of the beds available in Switzerland?
    Mr. Marquand: There is another Question on that matter on the Order Paper today.
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Health the number of tuberculosis patients in England and Wales awaiting admission to hospitals and sanatoria at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Marquand: The number at present on the waiting list, as provisionally ascertained, is approximately 10,400.
    Mr. Black: Are the numbers waiting and the period of waiting tending to increase or to decrease?
    Mr. Marquand: The figure is about 600 fewer than a year ago. This is the first decrease recorded since the war.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of those figures, does the Minister not think that an addition of 1,000 beds to the available beds to deal with tuberculosis would be a very desirable thing, and that it should not be allowed to drag on in the way in which it is now being allowed to drag on?
    Mr. Marquand: I have already told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have not yet had a complete report, but such information as I have does not indicate that anything like 1,000 beds would be available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with the relevant figure for Scotland given by his colleague the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Marquand: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want me to try to take the beds away from Scottish patients.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are already a number of sanatoria in Switzerland ready to talk on this matter and to take patients at a reasonable cost?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I have had two officials in Switzerland recently looking into the matter, and for certain technical reasons it has been decided to send out, tomorrow I think, a senior medical officer to amplify the report they have already rendered.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: How can the Minister say that the size of the waiting list is being reduced when he has already this afternoon, in reply to Question No. 1, given a figure of 10,000 for those waiting a year ago, whereas it is now 10,400?
    Mr. Marquand: I should like notice of that question. I think my figures do, in fact, show a reduction from 10,980 to 10,400. It may not be precisely 600, but it is very near to it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement as to the future of the tuberculosis clinic at 2, Effra Road, Brixton.
    Mr. Marquand: It is proposed to close these unsatisfactory premises as soon as possible and to transfer the work to St. Francis' Hospital, Dulwich.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As some of the patients of the now inadequately housed clinic in Brixton may have to pay up to 1s. 6d. for a rather complicated journey to Dulwich, will my right hon. Friend arrange to investigate the possibility of a new clinic in Brixton?
    Mr. Marquand: Very up-to-date and modern facilities are now being supplied in Dulwich, which are an enormous improvement on what was available before. I am assured that the distance is only about one mile, but I will certainly gladly look into the accuracy of that information.

    Kingston Victoria Hospital
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the continuance of the dispute as to the
    1046
    future of the Kingston Victoria Hospital, he will now arrange for an independent investigation into this matter.
    Mr. Marquand: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on the Adjournment debate on 30th January.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he did not deal specifically with this issue during that debate, and in view of the fact that this suggestion was put forward by the British Medical Association is it not entitled to serious consideration?
    Mr. Marquand: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the suggestion I made at the conclusion of that debate so that we can go into this matter very thoroughly.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does the Minister mean that his case is so bad that he is not prepared to submit it to independent investigation?

    Hearing Aids
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a shortage of bone conductor hearing aids in the North-West Region; and if he will take steps to improve the supply of these aids.
    Mr. Marquand: Bone-conduction aids are not yet supplied by the National Health Service in any part of the country, but will be as soon as possible.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that these hearing aids are not supplied causes great hardship, particularly to a lot of old people, and will he give what I am sure will be his sympathetic consideration to the need for going into the whole of this question again and trying to provide them as soon as possible?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I understand that very considerable research is being done by the Post Office, that it is still going on, and that there are prospects of some success.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the batteries for these aids are very expensive, costing something between £8 and £10 a year, and will he, through the Health Service, assist people to buy them?
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Health how many applications for hearing aids are outstanding in the boroughs of Wimbledon and Malden, respectively; and how long is the average period of waiting.
    Mr. Marquand: Information relating to these areas is not separately available.

    County Council Staffs, Durham (Union Membership)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has yet received a reply from the Durham County Council to their letter of 17th November, 1950, on the subject of that county council's intention to make trade union membership a condition of employment in the health services controlled by that council; and whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of any reply received by him.
    Mr. Marquand: I have received a reply a copy of which I am placing in the Library.

    Merit Awards
    Miss Hornsby-Smithasked the Minister of Health how many merit awards have been made under the National Health Act; and what is the total sum involved.
    Mr. Marquand: One thousand seven hundred and forty merit awards have been approved in England and Wales, representing an annual cost of approximately £1¼ million.

    Smallpox
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to hold a public inquiry into the origins of the recent smallpox outbreak; whether the original contact entered the United Kingdom from an area where smallpox was prevalent; and whether he was in possession of a vaccination certificate.
    Mr. Marquand: As the origin of the outbreak was immediately established, the need for such an inquiry does not arise. The answer to the second and third parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to pay a tribute to the medical officer of health and all the nurses and doctors who have worked
    1048
    unceasingly to contain this outbreak, to very great effect? Will he also take the earliest opportunity of making it clear that an outbreak affecting some 30 or 40 people among a population of a quarter of a million is one which should not cause this town or district to be isolated from the outside world because, at the moment, it has brought considerable disaster to local trade? Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything to combat that?
    Mr. Marquand: I certainly join the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying how greatly we appreciate the work which the doctors and all concerned in the matter have done in the course of this admittedly small outbreak.

    Sanatoria, Switzerland
    Miss Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health what number of beds are now available in Switzerland for English patients suffering from tuberculosis.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health if he can yet make a statement in respect to the proposal for sending tuberculosis sufferers to Switzerland for treatment under the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Hillasked the Minister of Health if he will make it possible for patients from England and Wales to have similar facilities to those to be provided by Scottish hospital authorities for sending their tubercular patients to Switzerland.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet found a way in which beds available in tuberculosis sanatoria in Switzerland can be utilised for patients waiting for accommodation in hospitals in this country.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockwayasked the Minister of Health if he can now announce what arrangements have been made for the use of sanatoria in Switzerland for people from England and Wales suffering from tuberculosis.
    Mr. Marquand: The possibility of using the available Swiss beds is being considered, but I cannot yet add to previous answers on this matter.
    Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain why it is possible for

    1049
    Scotland to have these facilities when the English have not got these facilities? Is it because the former Minister of Health decided that there would be no beds, and is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to carry on that policy to the detriment of the English?
    Mr. Marquand: I have said nothing at all in any way in contradiction of what my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said recently. She said that explorations were being made on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are being made on my behalf, also, in Switzerland at the present time.
    Mr. Dodds: Will my right hon. Friend explain the mystery of why it was possible, last week, to give Scotland this facility, when this week it is not possible to make a declaration with regard to England?
    Mr. Marquand: I wish my hon. Friend would read HANSARD. There was no declaration that facilities had been afforded or provided for Scotland. There was a declaration that it was under consideration, and that, in particular, discussions were going on with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Dr. Hill: In his consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a great deal of urgency, because one of the larger establishments, Montana Hall, is about to close?
    Mr. Marquand: I should certainly not like to give any impression that I did not regard the subject as important. Nevertheless, we must keep a sense of proportion about it. I told the House last week that since the start of the Health Service no fewer than 3,550 additional beds for the care of tuberculosis had been provided in England and Wales, and that a very considerable proportion of those had been provided in the last six months. What is available in Switzerland, though I have not so far had a full report, is only a very small fraction of what has been provided, even in recent months, in this country.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the position in Scotland is, and always has been, very much worse than that in England: and will he inform English Members that they
    1050
    cannot always get the best of both worlds?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the Minister make it quite clear that there are the same dilatory results in both countries, that no beds have been made available to patients from either country, and that the complacency shown in his last answer in face of a waiting list of many thousands is quite unjustified?
    Mr. Marquand: In this matter the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be a good judge of complacency.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I provided more beds than the right hon. Gentleman.
    Miss Ward: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mrs. Hill: Question No. 23, Sir.
    Mr. Marquand: Question No. 23 has already been answered with Question No. 8. Does the hon. Lady wish to put Question No. 24?
    Mrs. Hill: I could not hear the answer, Sir. There was a lot of hubbub going on and I wished to ask a supplementary.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady can ask a supplementary on Question No. 24.
    Mrs. Hill: Is the Minister aware that as far back as 16th November his predecessor said that a question of currency was involved in this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back to Question No. 8. The Minister is about to answer Question No. 24.
    Mrs. Hillasked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider the position of tuberculosis patients who have tried to help themselves by finding accommodation in Switzerland at their own expense and make some grant towards the cost of their treatment.
    Mr. Marquand: I have no power to make such grants.
    Mr. H. Hynd: How many of these tuberculosis patients would have been sent to Switzerland at the State's expense if the Opposition had been successful in their votes against the Health Service Bill?
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Treasury that

    1051
    they should give favourable consideration to this suggestion?
    Mr. Marquand: It is no good giving favourable consideration if there is no statutory power.
    Mrs. Hill: Is the Minister aware that before the National Health Service local authorities were able to give some aid to people who sought their help when suffering from this complaint? Would he further consider the matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the Minister give an answer to that question? Will he also accept the assurance that if it is necessary to afford precedence for legislation of this kind, we on this side of the House will be very glad to do it in preference to some of the legislation which the Government are now bringing forward?
    Mr. Marquand: Both those questions seem to me to be hypothetical.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We have had long enough on this Question.

    Hospital Accommodation
    Mr. P. Bartleyasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the shortage of hospital accommodation for chronic cases in Durham and Chester-le-Street areas; and what action he proposes to take to provide sufficient hospital accommodation for such cases.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir; but it is hoped to provide an additional 49 beds within a few months at two hospitals in these areas. Improved out-patient treatment will also help to promote recovery.
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the urgent need in Cardiff for hospital accommodation for old people who have no relatives to care for them; and whether be will make a statement.
    Mr. Marquand: I am not aware of special difficulties in Cardiff. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.
    Mr. E. Martin Smithasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the
    1052
    acute shortage of hospital beds in the Grantham, Sleaford and Lincoln areas; and what steps he proposes taking in the matter.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. The position will be relieved as St. George's Hospital, Lincoln, is brought into fuller use. Part of that hospital was reopened last year and the board propose to bring further sections of the hospital into operation as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman get on with this matter fairly quickly, as it was brought to the attention of his predecessor some time ago? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people who were injured nearly a year ago are still waiting to get into hospital?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, but good progress has been made, and this hospital will provide 356 additional beds very shortly.
    Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend state the extent to which the hospital service generally has expanded compared with the years before the war, and in making that statement demonstrate to the Opposition that considerable progress has been made?
    Mr. Marquand: All the Questions which have been asked relating to long waiting lists reveal the inadequacy of the system which we took over.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the Minister agree that we are 50,000 beds short of the figure which was provided during the war by myself and my colleagues?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question relates to Lincoln and not to the country as a whole.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Health (1) what immediate steps he proposes to take to increase the number of hospital beds available at the Cardiff Royal Infirmary and the Llandough Hospital;
    (2) whether, in view of the fact that there are 5,781 people waiting for 735 beds in the Cardiff Royal Infirmary and the Llandough Penarth Hospital, he can give an assurance that the extension of Llandough Hospital will not prejudice the building of the proposed new teaching hospital in Cardiff.
    Mr. Marquand: Work is in progress on a new maternity unit of 87 beds at the Royal Infirmary but no extension is at present contemplated at Llandough. This will not prejudice the proposals for a new teaching hospital.
    Mr. Thomas: Since the extension of Llandough is possibly less expensive than other proposals, would it interfere with the proposed new teaching hospital?
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir.

    Spectacles
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Health the average length of time taken for the supply of spectacles under the National Health Service Act from date of application to date of delivery.
    Mr. Marquand: An average figure is not available. With the exception of certain complicated lenses most glasses can now be supplied with very little delay.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the production of spectacles has been speeded up in recent months, the bottleneck now appears to be in the arrival of the form authorising the manufacturer to deliver to the applicant; and will he try to shake up his Department after the recent lax administration?
    Mr. Marquand: I am assured that the period between the date of the order for spectacles placed by the optician with the manufacturer and the date of delivery is now only about one week.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been waiting for two months?
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mr. Horace Graydon, Morecambe, has been waiting 21 months for his spectacles, that now he has got them they are no good because he has meantime become partially blind through cataract; and if he will make sure that Mr. Graydon now gets the appropriate spectacles quickly.
    Mr. Marquand: Mr. Graydon was supplied on 18th January with spectacles which, he states, are quite satisfactory.
    Sir I. Fraser: I am very glad of that, but will the Minister arrange some method for dealing with complaints of
    1054
    this kind so that people can get satisfaction quickly without the necessity for intervention by a Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. The spectacles, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, were of a very special kind—bifocal glasses with Crooks A.I. tints—but now that the back of the other problem—the supply of the general type of glasses—is obviously broken, there should be less delay in the supply of these special glasses.
    Mr. McAdden: Would the Minister give particular attention to this question of the long delay in delivery of spectacles, especially in view of the recent activities of his colleague the Minister of Food?

    Diphtheria Immunisation
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Minister of Health in what year the practice of immunisation against diphtheria became general; and how the notifications and deaths in the previous year compare with the latest year for which the statistics are available.
    Mr. Marquand: The diphtheria immunisation scheme sponsored by my Department began in 1941. Notifications and deaths in 1940 numbered respectively 46,281 and 2,480. In 1949 they were 1,881 and 84.
    Sir H. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to send a copy of his answer to the various anti-vaccination and anti-vivisection societies?

    Capital Works, Birmingham
    Mr. Bairdasked the Minister of Health what allocations of money have been made for capital developments to the various hospital management committees in the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board; and what is the average population served by each of these hospital management committees.
    Mr. Marquand: Capital works are the responsibility of the regional board and no allocations have been made to individual committees.

    Death, Urmston (Inquiry)
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Health if he has now received the report of the regional hospital board upon the circumstances preceding the death of Charles Walker who was found dying outside a lonely hut in Urmston meadows to which he had been returned after being

    1055
    refused admission to Park Hospital, Davyhulme, because he was not sufficiently ill, and to a welfare hostel at An-coats because he was too ill; and the steps taken by his Department to secure a more realistic liaison between the National Health Service and those responsible for the administration of National Assistance and the Vagrancy Acts.
    Mr. Marquand: Inquiries are not yet complete, but a preliminary report suggests that the failure was not one of liaison between services but of judgment on the part of certain officers. I will make a statement when I have a full report.
    Mr. Storey: Why has it taken so long to get the report? The West Manchester Hospital Committee held an inquiry on 30th December and issued a report to the public. Why does the right hon. Gentleman's Department take so long to get down to this very serious matter?
    Mr. Marquand: Because the question of possible failure of diagnosis obviously needs to be considered very carefully.

    Regulations (Corrigenda)
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the waste of paper and labour entailed in the dispatch of corrigenda to regulations issued by his Department relating to unimportant details; and if he will cause this practice to stop.
    Mr. Marquand: I am not aware that there is any such waste.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the following corrigendum was issued quite recently under the heading "Capital and Maintenance Works and Expenditure":
    "Page 2, paragraph 3 (iii), line 4, delete semi-colon after 'sterilising'"?
    Is he further aware that in the case of the Worthing Hospital Management Committee one copy of this corrigendum was sent to each member, numbering 24? If that happens all over the country is it not a fantastic waste of paper and labour?
    Mr. Marquand: I hope not. I expect that it is one of those matters where the lawyers insist on accuracy of punctuation.
    Sir John Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that these corrigenda have no statutory authority whatsoever?
    Mr. Marquand: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great appreciation of the population of the country of the National Health Service, and their impatience with this niggling kind of Question?

    Physiotherapists (Report)
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Minister of Health whether he will made a statement on the report which he has received from the Committee on the Supply and Demand, Training and Qualifications of Physiotherapists in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir; I am not yet ready to do so. I wish to study the Report more fully.
    Mr. Mikardo: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects his study to be completed?
    Mr. Marquand: It must at any rate take some weeks.

    Heroin
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Health what quantity of heroin was used in the United Kingdom in 1950, compared with 1938; and to what causes he ascribes the difference.
    Mr. Marquand: The quantity in 1938 was 46 kilos, and in 1949 it was 136 kilos. Figures are not yet available for 1950. Diamorphine is widely used in this country as an ingredient for cough-linctus. A rise in consumption can, therefore, be attributed in part to medicinal use under the National Health Service.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Minister satisfied that that increase is due to an increase in medicinal use?
    Mr. Marquand: I am only able to reply to that part of the Question which concerns me. Other questions would more properly be referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Franchise (Mental Disability)
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Health on what grounds he has decided to extend the franchise to certified lunatics.
    Mr. Marquand: The franchise has not been extended. The law is, and has been for many years, that, apart from idiots, a person suffering from any form of mental disability, if on the electoral register, is entitled to vote if he presents himself at the appropriate polling station and satisfies the presiding officer as to his capacity to do so.

    Voluntary Hospital Benefactors (Covenants)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Health if he will identify the powers by which he has instructed benefactors under covenant of voluntary hospitals to pay instalments to him; if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of his demand for such payment; and if he will refrain from enforcing such claims in the courts.
    Mr. Marquand: The powers are contained in Section 7 of the National Health Service Act, 1946. I will circulate a copy of the letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am advised that a person who executed a deed of covenant has himself no power to cancel it; and I hope, therefore, that action in the courts to enforce compliance will not become necessary.
    Sir J. Mellor: As this is grossly unfair, will the Minister introduce amending legislation to relieve benefactors of voluntary hospitals from any liability?
    Mr. Marquand: I should have thought that this gives the opportunity that hon. Members opposite and many on this side of the House think is desirable of associating voluntary effort with the work of the hospital service.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister recognise that these gifts were made to an individual hospital and were not made to any group that the Minister may select? Does he not realise that it is grossly unfair to have done what his Department have done?
    Mr. Marquand: The House of Commons discussed the National Health Service Bill very thoroughly and passed the Act in the form in which it now stands. It is my duty to administer it.
    Following is the letter:
    I have to communicate with you regarding the deed of covenant under which you convenanted on the to contribute the sum of £ for seven years
    1058
    to the above hospital. Under the provisions of the National Health Service Act, 1945, the sums formerly payable under such a deed ceased to be payable to the hospital concerned and became payable to the Minister of Health to be credited, with other hospital endowments, to the Hospital Endowments Fund, a fund set up under the Act. The income from the fund (including payments made under covenants) is distributed to regional hospital boards and hospital management committees to be used by them as they think fit on hospital services such as, for example, the provision of amenities for patients and staff, or for medical and other research, beyond the provision made by the State.
    In these circumstances, I have to ask that you will be good enough to arrange for payments under the deed entered into by you to be remitted annually to the Secretary, Ministry of Health, Whitehall, London, S.W.1, quoting the above reference number. Any payments which may have been made to the hospital since 5.7.1948 have already been credited to the fund. The remittances (whether made directly to this office or by means of a banker's order) should he made payable to the "Minister of Health Hospital Endowments Fund" and crossed "Bank of England."

    Patient (Hospital Fees)
    Brigadier Smythasked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider the case of Mr. F. W. Harris, 40, Uffington Road, West Norwood, who is now being taken to court by the hospital authorities for payment of fees amounting to £85 1s. in view of the fact that when advised by his doctor that his wife must have an immediate emergency operation, he took a semi-private bed for her in King's College Hospital as no public bed was available.
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. My information is that Mr. Harris asked his doctors to obtain a bed at King's College Hospital and accepted a bed in a semiprivate ward on being told that no bed in a general ward at that hospital was available. I have no power under the National Health Service Act to reimburse the cost of arrangements entered into privately.
    Brigadier Smyth: Should there not be some room for humanity and elasticity in the operation of the Health Service? Would the Minister realise the state of mind of my constituent who was told that his wife would die within an hour if she could not have an emergency operation? Would not any one of us have signed any form for any bed rather than let his wife die?
    Mr. Marquand: I must tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my information does not appear to coincide precisely with his. If he would like to come to see me about it, I will explain the position.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: If the inference in the Question was correct, that it was an immediate emergency, would the Minister say why a public free bed was not available in private accommodation, as the Act provides?
    Mr. Marquand: The situation was that a private bed was asked for, and because it was asked for specially at that particular hospital no application was made to the free bed roll. I am satisfied that the officer concerned had every reason to believe that it was a private bed at King's College Hospital which the gentleman concerned required for his wife.
    Mr. Poole: Would it not be far better to abolish private beds in hospitals altogether?
    Brigadier Smyth: Would the Minister realise that I have been most carefully into this case with the doctor and my constituent? The doctor assures me that he wanted to perform an emergency operation at the hospital. He rang up the hospital for any bed. They replied that there was no public bed, but that they could make available a semi-private bed. I am satisfied that those were the facts of the case.
    Mr. Marquand: I do not for a moment doubt that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made the best inquiries he could. He must accept that I did the same.

    General Practitioners
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Health what is the total number of general practitioners in practice at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Marquand: The number of general practitioners on the medical list in the National Health Service in England and Wales on 1st July, 1950, was 18,710. I have no information about those in private practice.

  COST OF LIVING (COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour how many meetings of the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee have taken place since 16th December; on what dates they were held; and if he has a further statement to make on the data upon which the Interim Cost-of-Living Index is based.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Nominations have now been received from the various organisations represented on the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee. The first meeting of the committee will take place on Wednesday, 7th February.
  Mr. Osborne: While we are grateful to the Minister for having started this Committee, may I ask if he will bear in mind that his predecessor promised to do this over a period of three years and that nothing has been done? Since millions of wages depend on this index, and since the workers do not feel that it reflects the true cost of living, will the Minister hasten matters?
  Mr. Bevan: The committee having I been appointed, it is now for them to do their work in their own way. This is a very complicated matter.

  DOCK LABOUR BOARD (CHAIRMANSHIP)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour why he did not reappoint Lord Ammon as chairman of the National Dock Labour Board for next year.
  Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on 12th December.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the usual procedure of consultation with the national joint council of the industry did not take place? Is he further aware, from the published statement of the noble Lord, that this old servant of the State has been left with the feeling that both the matter and the manner of his dismissal were highly derogatory to him?
  Mr. Bevan: About the first part of that supplementary question, I will make inquiries. As to the second part, it is really not usual to give explanations as to why persons in these positions are not re-appointed; indeed in some instances—not in this particular instance—it might be painful if they were given.
  Mr. Mikardo: Has my right hon. Friend noted that he is criticised by the Opposition equally for appointing Socialists to boards and for not appointing Socialists to boards?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow from the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to give the grounds for this non-appointment that he accepts as substantially true the reasons given by the noble Lord himself?
  Mr. Bevan: No. But it is not the custom of any Government to give the House of Commons explanations of this kind, which, in many circumstances, might be extremely embarrassing.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Kent
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to find jobs for the many men and women unemployed in areas of Kent owing to the shortage of tinplate in canning factories.
    Mr. Bevan: The normal machinery of the employment exchange service is available to any workers becoming redundant in the Kent canning factories if they register for employment, and the exchanges will give all possible help to them.
    Mr. Williams: Does not the Minister consider that it would be far better to stop exporting tinplate so that he would not have to take action? We have had a coal crisis through exporting coal; now we are having a tin crisis.
    Mr. Bevan: There would have been a very much smaller tin crisis in Great Britain if tin making plants had been built before the war.

    Elderly Workers (Earnings)
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the desirability of ensuring maximum production in the present emergency, he will investigate the extent to which it would be possible to employ a greater proportion of men who now cease work at 65 years of age, owing to the fact that they are not allowed to draw their full pension if they are in receipt of earnings over 20s. a week.
    Mr. Bevan: I am in consultation with both sides of industry on the means to extend the employment of elderly workers. While not accepting the hon. Member's suggestion about the effect of the earnings rule, one of the subjects on which the advice of industry is being sought is the effect of the present insurance arrangements generally on the attitude of employers and workers to employment beyond the ages of 60 and 65 for women and men respectively.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentlemen not aware that there has been a growing demand, for quite a long time, that this figure of 20s. should be altered, because it is keeping a lot of men from industry? Is he not aware that the demand comes from the men themselves who would otherwise go into industry?
    Mr. Bevan: As I have said, we are having an inquiry made now and I have already consulted the two sides of industry, as hon. Members may have seen in the Press.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman celebrate his new appointment by seeing that a better example is set by his own Department in employing those over 60?
    Mr. Bevan: We shall, of course, have to consider the whole range of employment here, because it is one of those instances where the conventions of society have to be adjusted to the realities of modern conditions.
    Mr. Angus Maude: Will the Minister do his utmost to bring both sides of the industry to a realisation of the urgency of this problem in view of the fact that this difficulty has persisted for a very

    1063
    long time and that it is felt neither side of the industry is whole-heartedly in favour of speeding up the matter?
    Mr. Bevan: I have already done so.

    Southend-on-Sea
    Mr. McAddenasked the Minister of Labour how many people were registered as unemployed in the county borough of Southend-on-Sea at the latest available date.
    Mr. Bevan: One thousand nine hundred and ninety-six at 15th January.
    Mr. McAdden: Is the Minister aware that many of the people whom he has mentioned, and many more whom he has not mentioned, will be added to the list of the unemployed of Southend-on-Sea unless and until he can prevail upon his colleague the Minister of Transport to provide means for taking people from Southend-on-Sea to London at a speed rather faster than that of the old pack mule?
    Mr. Bevan: The difficulty is seasonal, but there has been a very substantial improvement in the situation, as I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will realise and be pleased about. The number in 1939 was 6,370.
    Mr. McAdden: In view of the unsatisfactory and evasive nature of the reply, I give notice that it is my intention to raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Remploy Factory, Southampton
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled men are employed at the Southampton Remploy factory; how far it is possible to increase the number; and whether the number of occupations there may be increased.
    Mr. Bevan: Forty-one severely disabled persons are employed at the Southampton Remploy factory, which has a capacity of about 50 places. The factory is engaged in the manufacture of knitted goods, for which there is a steady and increasing demand. While that position lasts, I understand that Remploy Ltd. think it better not to change over to other lines of production.
    Dr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great shortage of jobs for disabled unemployed in Southampton, and that many of the disabled men are unsuited to the single type of work which is carried on in this factory?
    Mr. Bevan: I will make investigations.
    Mr. Ralph Morley: Is there any possibility of a second Remploy factory being established at Southampton?
    Mr. Bevan: I think it would be very difficult to add to the number at the moment, but I will certainly investigate the matter.

    Blacksmiths (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will grant postponement of National Service to blacksmiths in rural areas in the same way as he does to agricultural workers; and how many men he estimates would be affected by such a course.
    Mr. Bevan: It has been the practice to allow deferment of call-up to rural craftsmen, such as blacksmiths, in exceptional instances where the withdrawal of their services would seriously interfere with food production. In view of the manpower needs of the Services I am not in a position to extend the scope of these arrangements. I am unable to estimate the numbers involved.
    Mr. Macpherson: Would the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by "exceptional instances," in view of the fact that farmers depend very largely for the repair of their farm machinery on the services of blacksmiths?
    Mr. Bevan: I suppose that the instances would be in very remote districts where alternative sources would not be available; but, although farming is dependent on these arrangements there are other industries which also depend on definitions of this kind.

    Shipyards (Overtime)
    Mr. Loganasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 25,000 men of Merseyside engineering and shipbuilding unions refuse to work overtime until their wage increase is determined; and what steps he is taking to bring about a wage settlement.
    Mr. Oakshottasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement regarding the ban imposed on overtime working in shipyards on Merseyside and elsewhere; and if he will make every effort to see that a settlement is reached and overtime working resumed.
    Mr. J. R. Bevinsasked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take to remove the ban on overtime working in Merseyside shipyards.
    Mr. Bevan: Some difficulty has arisen in ship repairing establishments on Merseyside in regard to the local application of the recent National Wages Agreement for the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry. This agreement provides that any questions in regard to the interpretation or application of the agreement shall be dealt with through the recognised industry procedure, and it is clear, therefore, that there is adequate machinery for dealing with this difficulty without recourse to unconstitutional action. Meetings have taken place between the official parties concerned in the district, and if these local discussions are unable to resolve the difficulty, the matter should then be referred, under the agreed procedure, to the national machinery of the industry. The effect of the ban on overtime is not yet clear.
    Mr. Logan: Is the Minister aware that these negotiations have been prolonged for a long time, that the men have been very much dissatisfied, and that I am anxious to know whether he would intervene at the earliest opportunity? Would he meet both sides in Liverpool in order to bring about settlement and ease the crisis'?
    Mr. Bevan: I am watching the position, but it would not be wise for the Ministry of Labour to intervene in the place of the recognised machinery for negotiation.
    Mr. Oakshott: Has the Minister's attention been called to the reported statements of the leader of the movement on Merseyside, who is an avowed Communist, that this ban will continue whatever the emergency? In view of the gravity of the Prime Minister's statement on Monday, will he realise how important it is to get an immediate settlement, and to prevent a recurrence?
    Mr. Bevan: I should have thought that the statements made by this person would undoubtedly have affected his relationship with the men he is misleading.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Would the Minister take every step to impress on all sides the necessity of honouring agreements freely entered into as being the basis of all collective bargaining?
    Mr. Bevan: That is the reason why we are not prepared to intervene when the ordinary machinery of negotiation has yet to be used.
    Mr. Bevins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the merits or demerits of the men's case may be, this ban on overtime has been instigated by a small Communist minority which is not interested in the welfare of the men, but in the welfare of a foreign State?
    Mr. Bevan: It is not always wise to interpret these acts in that way. It exalts the influence of the Communists in a most extraordinary fashion—[An HON. MEMBER: "Whose side is the right hon. Gentleman on?"]—to suggest always that they are responsible.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how reminiscent his replies are of those made at the beginning of the London dock strike, which dragged on for a very long time and, in the end, had to be settled by the Ministry?
    Mr. Bevan: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the reminiscences of the hon. Member.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think these questions are helping to settle the dispute.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Mr. G. Williamsasked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to be able to announce the result of the consultations between the Festival of Britain office and the Railway Executive regarding train services in connection with the Festival.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to his previous

  1067
  answer to his Question on 17th October, 1950. British Railways are themselves announcing, from time to time, details of all arrangements in connection with the Festival of Britain.
  Mr. Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman do anything to hurry a decision up, because towns like Tunbridge Wells, and many seaside towns, will try to act as dormitories for London at the Festival, but do not yet know what extra late trains will be run?
  Mr. Ede: I will draw the attention of the railway authorities to the hon. Member's Question.
  Mr. Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether, before consideration is given to this matter, the recently made cuts in normal passenger services will be restored?

  ANTI-COMMUNIST BOOKS
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the large numbers of subsidised books and pamphlets giving the Communist point of view, he will facilitate the production of cheap editions of books which give the other point of view.
  Mr. Ede: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir, my right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that any special facilities are required.
  Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman familiar with the book which is called "A History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)," which is described inside as a short course, is printed and published in Moscow, and is, I understand, a textbook of the workers of the Communist Party, and sells in this country for Is. 6d.? [An HON. MEMBER: "Has the noble Lord read it?"] Yes. Could we not encourage and facilitate the publication of books which put the other point of view, such as "The Coming Defeat of Communism" by James Burnham?
  Mr. Ede: I am not aware of the book that the noble Lord mentions, and I do not intend to waste my time reading it—even if he presented me with it. However, think that this matter is best left to private organisations, because I am quite
  1068
  certain that any State subsidised propaganda would be regarded with the very greatest suspicion.

  AGRICULTURE

    Volunteer Workers (Travel Concessions)
    Mr. Redmayneasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total cost of travel concessions made in 1950 in connection with volunteers for harvesting; and what number of persons benefited.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The cost of the travel concessions to volunteers attending volunteer agricultural camps in October and November, 1950, was £22,280; 14,149 persons qualified for the concessions and they did 26,952 weeks' work.
    Mr. Redmayne: Will the Minister say whether it is the principle of this scheme that voluntary labour is employed as near the source of work as possible?
    Mr. Williams: That is what we always try to achieve.

    Horses (Transport)
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to prevent the overloading and resultant suffering of horses on transport for slaughtering.
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied with the arrangements for the transport and accommodation of horses imported from Ireland for food purposes.
    Mr. T. Williams: The Departmental Committee on the Export and Slaughter of Horses recommended last year that certain additional measures should be taken to protect horses against suffering while being carried in rail and road vehicles. To give effect to these recommendations I propose to make an order under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950. Consultations have been taking place with the other Departments and organisations concerned, and I expect to be in a position to make the Order at a very early date.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Can the Minister say why there has been such a long delay, because he made an almost exactly similar announcement in reply to a Question in the middle of December?
    Mr. Williams: Because we have made what I thought was a wise decision to consult the various organisations concerned.
    Mr. Poole: I did not hear much of my right hon. Friend's reply. Is he satisfied that the penalties provided by the law are sufficiently high to act as a deterrent against things we see happening, not only to horses that are for export but to horses in transport between points in this country? If not, will he strengthen them?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, I think the penalties are sufficient if justices of the peace are not too lenient.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As this is concerned with diseases of animals can we assume that the Minister is covering the whole of the country?
    Mr. Williams: I think the Secretary of State for Scotland has some power in Scotland, but I would not be too sure about that.

    Fowl Pest
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture how many fowls and how many turkeys have been destroyed as the result of the recent outbreak of fowl pest; what is the cost of compensation to date; and why they were not used for food.
    Mr. T. Williams: From the beginning of last October to 27th January, about 140,000 fowls and 1,750 turkeys had been slaughtered as a result of outbreaks of fowl pest. Compensation amounts to about £172,000 for the fowls and £15,000 for the turkeys. It is probable that most of the birds that have been killed by direction of my Department were infected. To have permitted the carcases of those birds to have been disposed of for human consumption would have involved a grave risk of the spread of disease to other flocks.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that I am informed by poultry breeders that hundreds of birds were killed which were not infected? If they were killed, will he say why they were not used for human consumption?
    Mr. Williams: I answered the last part of the supplementary question in my original reply. This policy is adopted on the advice of my veterinary experts.
    Mr. John Hynd: Will not the Minister try one of these fowls on the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture how many fowl have been slaughtered in Worcestershire since 1st December, 1950, under direction of his Department's officers, as a result of the United States virus type of fowl pest; how many cases have been detected; and what is the total sum payable by his Department in compensation.
    Mr. T. Williams: So far, there has been one outbreak of the sub-acute type of fowl pest in Worcestershire. Fifty fowls were slaughtered, and the sum payable as compensation amounts to £219.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that this case involved the slaughter of very valuable pedigree poultry as the result of a blood test taken by his officer? Can he assure the House that the positive result of a blood test is an infallible means of establishing that the bird is infected and is a carrier of this mild form of disease?
    Mr. Williams: I assure the hon. Member, on the advice of my chief veterinary officer and veterinary staff, that this is the best possible method of dealing with outbreaks of fowl pest. I should deprecate any amateur, whether for political or other reasons, attempting to overrule this.
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Agriculture the extent to which fowl pest is prevalent in Cheshire; and what steps are being taken to stop the spread of this disease.
    Mr. T. Williams: Since 1st October there have been seven outbreaks of fowl pest in Cheshire, of which six were in January. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement printed in column 306 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 25th January.
    Air Commodore Harvey: How long will it be before claims are settled by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Williams: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. De la Bère: This should be greatly speeded up.

    Farms, Kent (Supervision Orders)
    Mr. Percy Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture how many supervision orders respecting farms in Kent are operating at the present time.
    Mr. T. Williams: Fifty-three supervision orders for husbandry and one for estate management.
    Mr. Wells: Can the Minister say how Kent compares with other counties?
    Mr. Williams: I cannot.
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture how many occupiers in Kent have been dispossessed of their farms because of bad husbandry or bad estate management since the Agricultural Act, 1947, became operative.
    Mr. T. Williams: Two occupiers have been dispossessed, both on the grounds of bad husbandry.

    County Committees (Report)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has yet received the report of the Ryan Committee, which inquired into the organisation of his Department in relation to the county agricultural executive committees; and when this will be published.
    Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I understand it is to be submitted in about three weeks' time. I will consider the question of publishing the report when I have had an opportunity of studying it.
    Mr. Hurd: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no doubt about allowing the House to be informed of the recommendation of the Ryan Committee, as the recommendation arose from criticism in this House?
    Mr. Williams: There can be some doubt.

    Grassland, Wiltshire (Derequisitioning)
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Agriculture what acreage of grassland in service use in Wiltshire, has, as a result of review by his Department and the War Office, been released for ploughing and cropping for this season.
    Mr. T. Williams: Following the review referred to by the hon. Member, approximately 5,000 acres of Service land in
    1072
    Wiltshire previously used for grazing will shortly become available for ploughing and cropping.
    Mc. Hollis: Is the Minister aware that that reply will be received with some gratification? Nevertheless, does he recollect a debate when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary admitted that Wiltshire was a very special case? Will the Minister continue to keep in mind our special needs?

    Sheep, Sussex (Attacks by Dogs)
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that loss to farmers and cruelty to animals have been caused by attacks upon sheep by dogs in Sussex recently; and if he will introduce legislation increasing the penalties upon owners of dogs who do not keep them under control, together with the conference of power upon the police to seize dogs that a court has ordered to be destroyed.
    Mr. T. Williams: In most districts, it is an offence for a dog not to be kept under control during the hours of darkness. The maximum penalty for contravention of this provision is that specified in the Diseases of Animals Act, namely, £50, with the alternative of imprisonment in certain circumstances. In addition, under the Dogs Acts a court may order a dangerous dog to be kept under proper control or destroyed, and the penalty for failure to comply with such an order is £1 a day. These penalties do not seem to me to be inadequate.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farming opinion in Sussex, and in the South of England generally, is deeply concerned not merely at the cruelty caused but at the loss of valuable meat and wool? Is he further aware that all representations made by various farming institutions in Sussex to various societies that purport to protect the interests of animals have failed to interest those societies in this matter? It is a very serious thing.
    Mr. Williams: I am greatly concerned at the number of sheep destroyed annually by dogs, but I am equally satisfied that merely to increase penalties would not achieve the result required.
    Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration opinion

    1073
    other than farming opinion and not allow himself to be stampeded into any undesirable action?
    Captain Duncan: Is the Minister aware that this does not merely apply to Sussex, but is of general application to England and Scotland?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question was confined to Sussex.

    Land Reclamation (Surrey and Sussex)
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that hundreds of acres of land, which had reverted to scrub or was derelict woodland, have recently been successfully bull-dozed for reversion to food prodution in the Weald of Surrey and West Sussex by various owners; and if, in view of the amount of such derelict land still remaining, he will call the attention of the agricultural executive committees to the matter.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir, I am fully alive to the fact that reclamation work has been carried out by owners or occupiers of scrub-land and derelict woodland during recent years in the interests of food production. The attention of county agricultural executive committees has already been called to the possibility of bringing this type of land into fuller production, and under the marginal production scheme a limited amount of financial assistance for this purpose is available to occupiers of farms.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the somewhat pontifical statements by leaders of agriculture about the productivity of British land, which applies, of course, to land actually in cultivation, it is a national scandal that within 60 miles of London there is more unoccupied land than there is near any other capital in Europe? Will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Williams: The noble Lord will be aware that on 23rd March, 1950, I announced that a scheme was being extended for allowances to be given to occupiers of farms containing areas of live scrub and woodland which could be readily converted into grassland and tillage.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would my right hon. Friend go so far as to support the destruction of coverts used for the preservation of foxes?

  INSHORE FISHING (GRANTS)
  Brigadier Thorpasked the Minister of Agriculture how he has defined a needy fisherman for the purposes of the Inshore Fishing Act, 1945; and what qualifications are laid down to obtain a grant.
  Mr. T. Williams: It is a statutory requirement that grants may be given towards the cost of inshore boats only in cases of need. It is, therefore, necessary to have regard to the assets of applicants in determining their eligibility for grants. In practice, no fisherman who is otherwise eligible has been refused a grant unless his available assets substantially exceed half the cost of the boat, or share in the boat, which he wishes to acquire; and where no grant is given, loans up to two-thirds of the cost are available in approved cases.
  Brigadier Thorp: Is the Minister aware that he has turned down the application of two of my constituents, one an ex-Service man without any money at all and the other, the brother, who is prepared to put in a certain amount of money to help the case, as required by the Ministry? Will he review this case?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. and gallant Member cares to send the case along, I will certainly look at it, but in making calculations of the assets of any person allowance is made for working capital and there is a liberal sum for contingencies.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is an allowance also made for the rise in costs since the passing of the Act in 1945?

  COURT-MARTIAL (NEWSPAPER COMMENTS)
  Sir G. Jeffreys(by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the "Daily Express" newspaper is proposing to take a public opinion poll on the merits of the unconfirmed finding

  1075
  and sentence recently passed by a court-martial in Korea on Private Fargie, and since this court will thereby be held in contempt what action he proposes to take.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Yes, Sir. I have given anxious consideration to this matter and cannot help thinking that the legal status of these proceedings has been misunderstood. Once a court of justice has concluded its proceedings and a final decision has been given, that decision is rightly open to public criticism and attack, but it is equally important that so long as a case is sub judice, nothing should be done which may directly or indirectly tend to influence those whose duty it is to reach a judicial conclusion upon it.
  As my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, stated recently in another place, a case tried by court-martial remains sub judice until confirmation is complete and any comment in the meantime is improper. Not only must the confirming authority be completely unfettered in arriving at its decision by any outside pressure, but it must be remembered that the confirming authority may send a case back to the court-martial itself for reconsideration of the finding and sentence or either of them.
  It follows that any attempt to organise public opinion in a manner calculated to influence either the confirming authority or the court is improper and may constitute both a contempt of court and, in certain circumstances, a public mischief. I am, therefore, considering what action should be taken in this particular case.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the harm which is being done through the publication of some Press comments on this and other courts-martial, and that both the discipline of the Service and the confidence of sentries in carrying out their orders are being undermined by the spread of these stories and the comments upon them? As a court-martial is an open court, would it not, in future, be advisable, before announcing or when announcing the findings of the court, to publish the charges in each case and a brief summary of the evidence given on which the findings have been arrived at?
  The Attorney-General: I shall give consideration to the second part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, I agree that this is a most serious matter. In certain foreign countries trials are commenced or even partly conducted by means of popular and ill-informed clamour, but in this country judicial trials are conducted by those who are appointed to try cases in accordance with the law and on the sworn evidence before them.
  Mr. Churchill: As I understand the position from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the confirmation of the court-martial sentence is an integral part of the sub judice proceedings of the trial, and all the free comment, which is perfectly legitimate after the sub judice phase, must be withheld until then.
  The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman has stated exactly the position as I conceive it to be. When the proceedings are concluded and a valid decision has been given and confirmed, then, as a judge once said, the court itself is on trial and proper comment may be made. Until that stage, any comments on its merits are wholly improper and undesirable.
  Mr. Bellenger: Although the House will accept completely the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the particular question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, is he not aware that there is a deep public concern at the legal interpretation or the legal implications of this trial, and that it may be necessary, later on, to take up the matter in this House?
  The Attorney-General: That is exactly the kind of comment which, I think, is very much to be deprecated at this stage. I have no doubt that such public feeling as may exist about this matter is based on inadequate information of the evidence before the court. It was, I think, only last Monday that we were considering, on the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill, whether it would be proper to give the right of appeal against sentences to the new Court of Appeal to be established in these matters, and it was, I think, the general consensus of opinion in this House that the court-martial itself was the most proper body to decide what, at

  1077
  the time and in the circumstances existing at the place of trial, was the just sentence to impose.
  Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. As I and other hon. Members have Questions down with b regard to this particular case, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the learned Attorney-General has told us, whether you think it is desirable that these Questions should be taken off the Order Paper?
  Mr. Speaker: I would like to look at the Questions, and then I would know exactly what they were. At the moment, I cannot answer that question off-hand.
  Mr. Paget: Can the learned Attorney-General tell us whether there is any precedent for proceedings against any person for contempt of a court-martial taking place outside this country, and whether there is indeed any power to bring such proceedings?
  The Attorney-General: I have no doubt that there is ample power to bring them. There are certainly precedents for persons taking proceedings for contempt of court in respect of a court-martial at common law, and special procedure is provided under Section 126 of the Army Act which does not in any way prejudice the right to proceed at common law for contempt of court. This is a British court of justice, and I have no doubt that the High Court will protect it against contempt.
  Mr. Somerset de Chair: Can the learned Attorney-General make it clear that, irrespective of this particular case, any private who carries out his duty on active service to the best of his ability will have—
  Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of this Question. This matter concerns the conduct of the "Daily Express" and nothing else.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the point of order made a moment or two ago by an hon. Gentleman opposite and your ruling thereon, Mr. Speaker, and now that the Attorney-General has declared that these proceedings are in fact sub judice, would not in fact any Question on the Order Paper on this matter be out of order?
  Mr. Speaker: I thought that was a hypothetical question. I should like to
  1078
  see the Questions first. I cannot say in advance.
  Earl Winterton: On a point of order. You and your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have constantly held that no questions can be asked about a case in an ordinary court of law which is the subject of appeal, and I understand that the Attorney-General has stated, with all the authority attaching to his office, that this particular case is in exactly the same position as that of a case which is going before the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. Speaker: I know the position perfectly well, but is it not reasonable that I should be allowed to see the Questions first. I do not know what they are about.
  Earl Winterton: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am in no way commenting on your Ruling, which would be a most impudent thing to do. I was asking you to give a Ruling on a matter of great importance—whether the two cases are not exactly the same in view of what the Attorney-General has just said, and whether this matter is not in the same position as a case that may go to' the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. Speaker: If a Question merely mentions the name Fargie and has nothing to do with the proceedings of the court-martial, it would be in order. I must ask that I be allowed to see the Questions and allowed to decide.
  Captain Ryder: In view of the important Ruling given by the Attorney-General, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the Admiralty have a right to quash court-martial proceedings at any time? Will he say, in these circumstances, at what precise moment the case ceases to be sub judice?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Member is asking me a hypothetical question, and I am always a little loath to answer a hypothetical question. But this, at least, is clear. There can be no doubt about it that until the decision and sentence of the court-martial has been confirmed the matter is unquestionably sub judice. I think that the case is really a fortiori to the one put by the noble Lord. There is at present no valid decision or sentence. That only arises when confirmation is given by the confirming authority. If there is a decision

  1079
  after that to quash a conviction made valid by the confirming authority, other considerations might arise; but they have not arisen so far. I prefer to confine myself to the categorical statement that, until confirmed, the proceedings are sub judice.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: I wish to raise the same question as that put by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and that is in regard to a court-martial held outside this country. Is it not a fact that any Army or Royal Air Force court-martial comes under the jurisdiction of the Judge Advocate General, and that it is therefore valid in whatever country it is held?
  Mr. Speaker: I really think that we are getting very wide of the subject. This Question deals with the conduct of the "Daily Express," and nothing else. We now appear to be discussing the whole question of courts-martial, which is a subject we discussed the other day.
  Mr. McAdden: If I understood the Attorney-General correctly, his criticism of the "Daily Express" was based on the fact that they ventured to comment on the case before the proceedings have been confirmed. May I ask whether he remembers the Linsell case? Did he issue any rebuke to the Press for their comments on that case, or was not his failure to rebuke them on that occasion a justification for the Press considering that they were entitled to comment upon this case?
  The Attorney-General: I was not asked any question about that matter at that time, but I did preface my reply today by the statement that I thought possibly there had been a misunderstanding about the legal status of court-martial proceedings which had not yet been confirmed.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: In view of the fact that court-martial proceedings are sub judice until after confirmation, may I ask whether every effort will be made to expedite the confirmation procedure in this case?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY—Completion of the Committee stage of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY—Motion to commit the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee; Committee stage of the Livestock Rearing Bill, which we hope to complete by about 8 o'clock. Afterwards, we shall ask the House to take the Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for the Navy, Army and Air, 1950–51. There are urgent reasons for us to ask the House to pass these Supplementary Estimates and a special Consolidated Fund Bill during the week after next in order to give authority for the issue of the money.
WEDNESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—Supply (2nd Allotted Day)—debate on Iron and Steel. Report stage of the Navy, Army and Air Supplementary Estimates, 1950–51.
THURSDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—Supply (3rd Allotted Day)—debate on the Meat Situation. Motion to approve the draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Mariners) Amendment Regulations.
FRIDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
The debates on Wednesday and Thursday will arise on Amendments to be tabled by the Opposition to the Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"
It may be convenient for me to inform the House that arrangements will be made for debates on foreign affairs and on defence to take place during the week after next.
Mr. Eden: Is it the intention of the Government to suspend the Rule on Monday? We hope that it will not be necessary to sit late; we are prepared to do our best to get the business through. If there is to be a suspension on Monday, I think it will be convenient to know that in advance.
Mr. Ede: I understand that conversations have taken place through the usual channels and it is hoped that a suspension of one hour will be sufficient to enable us

1081
to get the Bill through. I hope, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said on behalf of Members opposite, that there will be a reciprocal feeling on this side of the House.
Mr. Tom Brown: Can my right hon. Friend say when the legislation dealing with the pre-1924 compensation cases will be submitted?
Mr. Ede: I cannot make any announcement today.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: When is it proposed to lay the Order to give effect to the re-organisation of the Ministry of Health?
Mr. Ede: That matter is under consideration, but I cannot give a date at the moment.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask whether the Supplementary Estimates relating to the Armed Forces, which are to be taken next week, have any relation to the statement that was made by the Prime Minister on Monday? In other words, is the extra expenditure contained in the Supplementary Estimates necessitated to any extent by the new re-armament expenditure referred to in the Prime Minister's statement? May I also ask, in view of the fact that a decision has been taken about the casting of this country's vote at Lake Success and also about re-armament procedure, whether it would not be preferable to take the opinion of the House on both these matters next week rather than the week after?
Mr. Ede: There were some conversations last Thursday on when these two debates should take place. I think it was generally agreed that a fortnight after my right hon. Friend's statement would be an appropriate length of time for the House to give full consideration to the important matters involved. I understand that the Supplementary Estimates relate to money spent this year and not to moneys likely to be spent during the coming year.
Sir Herbert Williams: As we are being asked to get the Supplementary Estimates through in rather a hurry next Tuesday, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when they will be published.
Hon. Members: They have been published.
Mr. Ede: I am surprised that the hon. Member has not found them in the Vote Office, because I am sure that they are there.
Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the information he has given. I quite understand that Supplementary Estimates usually relate to money that has already been spent and not to money which is about to be spent; but it sometimes happens that money is spent, especially by the Service Departments, in advance or anticipation of Parliamentary consent, which was why I asked whether effect had already been given in any way to the Prime Minister's statement.
Mr. Eden: Is not this rather an important question? Can we have the position clarified? As I understand it, these Supplementary Estimates relate to decisions taken by the House at an earlier date and not to the Prime Minister's statement.
Mr. Ede: That is the information I have.

KOREA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I welcome the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the United States resolution on Korea passed on Tuesday by the Political Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
I said on 23rd January, in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that His Majesty's Government wished to explore every possibility of a negotiated settlement whilst fully recognising the facts of the situation in Korea and the nature of the Chinese intervention there. We did not believe, however, that the time had yet come to consider the adoption of further measures. It was for this reason that we could not have supported the United States resolution in its original form.
Paragraph 2 and paragraph 8 of the resolution in their unamended form were not acceptable to His Majesty's Government. Paragraph 2 noted that the Central People's Government of the

1083
People's Republic of China had rejected all United Nations proposals to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea. Paragraph 8 requested a Committee to consider additional measures to be employed to meet the aggression in Korea. It was the view of His Majesty's Government that it was not correct to say that the Chinese Government "had rejected" all United Nations proposals, and as regards paragraph 8 it was our view that it was premature to consider additional measures until the Good Offices Committee, established under paragraph 9 of the resolution, had reported.
After exchanges of view with the Commonwealth Governments and the United States and other Governments, these paragraphs were amended. Paragraph 2 was amended to read that the Chinese Government "had not accepted United Nations proposals" instead of "had rejected all United Nations proposals," and in the case of paragraph 8 an important addition was made. The effect of this addition was to defer consideration by the Assembly of further measures in the event of the Good Offices Committee reporting progress. Thus the essential principle is maintained that the United Nations will continue its efforts to arrange for a peaceful settlement and that there can be no question of the United Nations' proceeding to further measures until it has become apparent that those efforts have failed.
I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, copies of the resolution in its unamended and in its amended form.
I would especially call the attention of the House to the final paragraph in the Resolution which affirms that it continues to be the policy of the United Nations to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea and the achievement of U.N. objectives there by peaceful means and requests the President of the General Assembly to designate forthwith two persons who would meet with him at any suitable opportunity to use their good offices to this end. It seemed to us that the Resolution in its amended form offered the best hope in existing circumstances of obtaining a settlement by negotiation, and accordingly our representative was instructed to vote in favour of it.
1084
From the close and constant contact which we have maintained with many of the Governments supporting the Resolution, it is clear that they share our view of the importance and urgency of the task entrusted to the Good Offices Committee, and wish to see it begin its work as soon as the Resolution has been approved by the Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly.
The attitude of the United States Government as sponsor of the resolution is of particular importance. In this connection let me recall the statement made by the President of the United States on 25th January in Washington, when he is reported to have said:
"Let me stress again that the American resolution contains, as all our proposals have contained, a method of bringing about a ceasefire and opening the way for a peaceful settlement of outstanding issues."
In the light of that statement and as a result of the close contact which has been maintained between our two Governments we feel confident that the United States Government will give every assistance to the Good Offices Committee in its efforts to promote a peaceful solution.
The United Nations has pointed the way and shown the will for peace. China has much to gain by co-operation and much to lose by withholding it. It is my earnest hope that the Central People's Government of China will respond to any efforts which may be made by the Good Offices Committee to bring about a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement in the Far East.
Mr. Churchill: It is rather difficult to follow exactly in detail the full statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made without having the documents referred to paragraph by paragraph before us, and it is not very clear, from what we have heard, what the whole of this statement amounts to. But I presume we are right in assuming that the representatives of His Majesty's Government will vote with the United States on the resolution declaring China to be an aggressor in North Korea—[Interruption]—I am only asking. I would like to know—and that this agreement will be maintained, though after a great deal of discussion, with the United States on these cardinal issues? If that is so we are very glad indeed, and we are particularly relieved to feel that no breach between Great

1085
Britain and the United States, even though concerned with a tangle of words, would occur at such a grave juncture in our joint fortunes.
The Prime Minister: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that we have already voted in the Political Committee of the United Nations. The vote will then come up in the plenary meeting. I gather that the relation between them is rather like that of a Committee of the whole House in this place and the House sitting. I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman has read, I have no doubt he has, the very admirable speeches made by Sir Gladwyn Jebb at Lake Success, he will have seen very fully the meaning of these resolutions.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable uneasiness at the support given by the British Government even to the modified form of the resolution to which he has referred—
Mr. McAdden: Moscow and Eton.
Mr. Brockway: I cannot speak for the former, but I can speak for a very large part of the latter. Can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that the British representative will still act with those representatives in the United Nations, particularly with the representative of India, to bring this issue to a settlement?
The Prime Minister: We have throughout all these matters kept in close touch with India and with all our fellows in the Commonwealth, and we shall continue to do so.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In regard to the point made by the Prime Minister about the desire of His Majesty's Government to bring about an early conclusion of hostilities in Korea, and in view of what happened before, is the right hon. Gentleman in communication with the United States about the movement northward of United Nations Forces in Korea?
The Prime Minister: Yes. We are keeping in close touch with them on all these matters.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: While very much appreciating the emphasis which my right hon. Friend has laid upon those parts of the resolution which deal with
1086
negotiation and good offices rather than with condemnation and sanctions, might I ask him whether he will bear in mind that for large numbers at any rate, perhaps the majority, of our citizens the vote of this country in condemning as aggression, within the meaning of the United Nations Charter, what China did, does not carry their approval—
Hon. Members: Nonsense.
Mr. Silverman: —that in fact, in the opinion of great numbers of people the Chinese have done nothing there which this country would not have done in the same circumstances—
Hon. Members: Nonsense.
Mr. Silverman: —and that the real obstacle to a cessation of hostilities does not lie with the Chinese but elsewhere?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member is correct—and I do not know what his sources of information are—as to the very large number. I regret that there should be a large number of people who are unacquainted with the basis and the principles of the United Nations, which we are obliged to support.
Mr. Chetwynd: As so much will depend upon the work of the Good Offices Committee, can my right hon. Friend give any idea of its proposed composition?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Good Offices Committee consists of the President, M. Entezam, and two other persons selected by him.
Mr. Mikardo: Surely it is simple commonsense that the passage of this resolution at this time must make the task of the Good Offices Committee more difficult than it would otherwise have been. On these grounds alone, was it not an unwise thing to pass this resolution at this moment, and unwise for our Government to have supported it?
Mr. James Hudson: While regretting the fact that the Government have found it necessary to support this resolution regarding the branding of China, and while finding reassurance in the Prime Minister's promise that there will be close association with the United States in an effort to avoid hostilities, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government will continue to use their efforts for an immediate cease-fire, which was the

1087
subject of a special resolution to the United Nations and voted upon? Despite that vote, will the efforts to bring about a cease-fire be persisted in by our Government?
The Prime Minister: I think that if my hon. Friend will read the statement I have made, he will see that every endeavour is to be made by the Good Offices Committee to bring about cessation of hostilities. I think the words used in the statement were:
"a method of bringing about a cease fire and opening the way for a peaceful settlement of outstanding issues."
Therefore, the answer is "Yes."
Mr. Snow: In view of the fact that, apparently, the official policy of His Majesty's Opposition is to oppose the admission of the de facto Government of China to the Security Council, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that it is this Government's policy to encourage that admission?
The Prime Minister: As our position has been made perfectly clear on that important point, it is, perhaps, not helpful to have further questions on this rather delicate matter.
Mr. George Thomas: Would the Prime Minister say whether efforts will be made to secure the association of any Asian countries with this Good Office Committee in seeking a way out?
The Prime Minister: I always thought that Persia was an Asian country. M. Entezam of Persia is the President of the Good Offices Committee.
Squadron Leader Burden: Is it not obvious that the Government would bring much more pressure to bear to secure peace in Korea if, first of all, they could bring about peace in their own party?
Mr. S. Silverman: In view of my right hon. Friend's appeal to the principles of the United Nations Charter, will he confirm that under that Charter only a recognised State can commit aggression, and that, therefore, any study of the Charter required to clarify the principle might preferably be made in those quarters which, at one and the same time, refuse to recognise the Government of China and then condemn it as an aggressor within the meaning of the Charter?
The Prime Minister: I do not think it is much use going into the legal niceties today.
Following is text of the original United States Resolution tabled before the Political Committee:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

1. Noting that the Security Council because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in regard to Chinese Communist intervention in Korea.

2 Noting that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China has rejected all United Nations proposals to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea with a view to peaceful settlement and that its armed forces continue their invasion of Korea and their large scale attacks upon United Nations forces there.

3. Finds that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China by giving direct aid and assistance to those who were already committing aggression in Korea and by engaging in hostilities against United Nations forces there has itself engaged in aggression in Korea.

4. Calls upon the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China to cause its forces and nationals in Korea to cease hostilities against the United Nations forces and to withdraw from Korea.

5. Affirms the determination of the United Nations to continue its action in Korea to meet the aggression.

6 Calls upon all states and authorities to continue to lend every assistance to the United Nations action in Korea.

7 Calls upon all states and authorities to refrain from giving any assistance to the aggressors in Korea.

8. Requests a committee composed of the members of the Collective Measures Committee as a matter of urgency to consider additional measures to he employed to meet this aggression and to report thereon to the General Assembly.

9. Affirms that it continues to he the policy of the United Nations to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea and the achievement of United Nations objectives in Korea by peaceful means and requests the President of the General Assembly to designate forthwith two persons who would meet with him at any suitable opportunity to use their good offices to this end.

Text of United States Resolution on Chinese Intervention in Korea adopted in the First (Political) Committee of the General Assembly on 30th January, 1951:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

1. Noting that the Security Council because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in regard to Chinese Communist intervention in Korea.

1089

2. Noting that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China has not accepted United Nations proposals to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea with a view to peaceful settlement and that its armed forces continue their invasion of Korea and their large scale attacks upon United Nations forces there.

3. Finds that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China by giving direct aid and assistance to those who were already committing aggression in Korea and by engaging in hostilities against United Nations forces there has itself engaged in aggression in Korea.

4. Calls upon the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China to cause its forces and nationals in Korea to cease hostilities against the United Nations forces and to withdraw from Korea.

5. Affirms the determination of the United Nations to continue its action in Korea to meet the aggression.

6. Calls upon all states and authorities to continue to lend every assistance to the United Nations action in Korea.

7. Calls upon all states and authorities to refrain from giving any assistance to the aggressors in Korea.

8. Requests a committee composed of the members of the Collective Measures Committee as a matter of urgency to consider additional measures to be employed to meet this aggression and to report thereon to the General Assembly, it being understood that the Committee is authorised to defer its report if the Good Offices Committee referred to in the following paragraph reports satisfactory progress in its efforts.

9. Affirms that it continues to be the policy of the United Nations to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea and the achievement of United Nations objectives in Korea by peaceful means and requests the President of the General Assembly to designate forthwith two persons who would meet with him at any suitable opportunity to use their good offices to this end.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION
  Primary Schools (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Ashton: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates I shall call attention to the problem of overcrowding in the primary schools and the need to establish priorities in the educational service, and move a Resolution.

  Atlantic Pact (Royal Navy)
  Mr. Mulley: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates I shall call attention
  1090
  to the Royal Navy's contribution to Atlantic Pact defence, and move a Resolution.

  R.A.F. (Technical Personnel)
  Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates I shall draw attention to the need for improving the standard of technical personnel in the Royal Air Force, and move a Resolution.
  Territorial Army (Volunteers and Part-Time National Service Men)
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates I shall call attention to the serious shortage of volunteers and part-time National Service men in all branches of the Territorial Army, and move a Resolution.
  Chronic and Aged Sick (Accommodation)
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates I shall call attention to the problem of accommodation for the chronic and aged sick, and move a Resolution.
  Aircraft Industry (Raw Materials)
  Mr. John Grimston: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates I shall call attention to the shortage of raw materials in relation to the aircraft industry, and move a Resolution.
  Road Safety
  Mr. Janner: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates I shall call attention to the need for further measures to improve road safety, and move a Resolution.

  Royal Navy (State of Readiness)
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Carr.
  Mr. Fort: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to give notice of a Resolution on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr)?
  Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order for an hon. Member to give notice of a Resolution on behalf of anybody else.
  Mr. Fort: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates he will call attention to the present state of readiness of the Fleet, and move a Resolution.
  Mr. Albu: On a point of order. Would it be in order for me, Mr. Speaker, to give notice of a Resolution on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland).
  Mr. Speaker: No, the opportunity has gone.
  Mr. Poole: On a point of order. For general guidance, Sir, are we to take it that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) was nominated by the successful candidate in the Ballot and is not himself a candidate in the Ballot?
  Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) had been asked by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Robert Carr) to do so. That is a necessary part of the procedure.
  Mr. Poole: Is the hon. Member for Clitheroe a candidate in the Ballot?
  Mr. Speaker: I have no idea.

  Army Equipment
  Brigadier Thorp: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates I shall call attention to the present shortage of Army equipment with particular reference to armed and unarmed vehicles, anti-aircraft equipment and radar, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

COAL SHORTAGE
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Brendan Bracken: I beg to move, to leave out from "that" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House deplores the contrast between Ministerial promises of adequate supplies and stocks of coal and the present shortages, which have inflicted great hardships in the home and threaten widespread industrial dislocation and stoppages."
Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I should be in order in asking you if you would please convey to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) before he speaks that any reference he makes to absenteeism by miners will be taken as very bad taste by this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Bracken.
Mr. Bracken rose—
Mrs. Braddock: Further to my point of order—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: How can I hear a point of order when everybody is shouting?
Mrs. Braddock: I have not finished my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would inform the hon. Lady that any reference to what the right hon. Gentleman may say is not a point of order at all.
Mrs. Braddock: I was asking whether I would be in order in asking you, Mr. Speaker. I had not quite finished. We should consider it bad taste in view of his infrequent attendances in this House.
Mr. Bracken rose—
Hon. Members: Absentee.
Mr. Bracken: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are delighted to have the assistance of such a charming censor of taste. My attendance here is as good as anybody else's. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course, if these constant interruptions occur I cannot avoid doing so.
The Minister is here, I am told, to make a melancholy statement on the reduction of coal supplies which are vital to our industrial production. Many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will wish to discuss the Minister's statement, so I shall try to be as brief as I can. Unless the weather becomes milder, we are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the prospects of averting another fuel crisis "are all very gloomy." This is a crisis long foretold. [HON. MEMBERS: "By Old Moore?"] No, by Lord Hyndley. At the end of last April the Chairman of the National Coal Board declared:
"Either we get more coal or the whole basis of British life may be threatened. Things can't go on like this. I doubt if the country realises the gravity of the position."
I am quoting Lord Hyndley. Disregarding this grave warning, the Minister made a speech in this House on 12th July which abounded in optimism. If the Minister was complacent in July, he was reckless in the interview which he gave to the Press on 25th September when the risk of another coal crisis was apparent to all save the Minister. Here are some of his carefully prepared answers to the questions put to him. He was asked:
"Are we heading for another fuel crisis?"
The right hon. Gentleman answered:
"There is no reason to think so. Of course, full employment has greatly increased the home demand and coal distribution is more difficult if the winter is hard. But we have taken every measure required to ease the distribution problem and stocks will he tip to the standards that everyone has recognised as fully adequate."
In answer to another question about stocks the Minister said:
"We may not quite reach the 16.5 million tons by the end of October, but we shall before the winter starts."
The householder received this comforting assurance from the Minister:
"I hope and believe that there will be more coal from the mines for the house coal market during the winter months as well; and
1094
the householder can buy as much coke as he desires."
What a statement! Householders are desperately seeking coke. Where can they buy as much as they like? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he answers. I can assure him that if he tells the public he will create the largest queue in history. The Minister must read reports from the camps in the newspapers. There are many instances of shivering soldiers and airmen. The truth is that we are very short of coke, and the Minister misled the public when he suggested that anyone could buy as much coke as he desired.
The House should remember that these promises regarding coal and coke were made by the right hon. Gentleman on 25th September. On 20th November the Minister announced that it had become necessary to buy American coal. That was two months later. The only comment I shall make on the Minister's glowing promises is that they remind me of the statement of the Minister of Defence before the fuel crisis of 1947. He was then Minister of Fuel and Power. Said the right hon. Gentleman:
"Everyone knows there is going to be a serious fuel crisis save the Minister of Fuel."
The Minister of Defence has been right twice. Everyone does know that there is going to be a serious fuel crisis save the Ministers of Fuel and Power past and present.
Why does the Minister disregard warnings given him by the Coal Board? Let me remind him that in the September issue of the Coal Board's magazine, which contained a charming picture of the right hon. Gentleman having a good cup of tea, the first article contained these words:
"Has it dawned on you that the country is heading for another and more drastic coal crisis this winter?"
It had obviously not dawned on the Minister, but that was a statement made in the official journal of the Coal Board, and it merely reiterated what has been said by Lord Hyndley and his colleagues from time to time about the dangers of another coal crisis. While the Minister has been occupying himself in making optimistic speeches, let us hear the words of a more responsible man. Speaking at Manchester after the fuel crisis of 1947 the Prime Minister said:
"We have the power now to organise this great fuel industry as a national service. This shortage of stocks in winter must never happen again."

1095
Alas, neither the organisation nor the service has fulfilled the urgent needs of the nation.
Let us consider the consequences so far of this national service. Many homes are very cold. Many railway services are being drastically cut. If there is any truth in the statements that appeared in the newspapers today, the cut in the railway services is likely to impose immense hardships on the public. Supplies of electricity and gas are, of course, affected and a new black-out has been ordained in peacetime. In some areas, as hon. Members know, schools are closing for lack of heating.
If we had coal to exchange for meat there would be no need for an 8d ration of gristle. The dollars we are spending in importing American coal could have purchased timber for tens of thousands of houses. How many times have hon. Members in this House heard statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the previous Minister of Health declaring that they could not get timber from the United States because of the dollar shortage—or Canada either. Now we know that the Government can provide dollars to hide their own muddles.
For lack of supplies the National Coal Board has failed to fulfil important export contracts. I have read in the foreign newspapers accusations that the Board has defaulted. I do not believe that Lord Hyndley and his colleagues intentionally defaulted, but they have been unable to fulfil their obligations because of the scarcity of coal here, and we must accept that fact. Nevertheless, we are jeopardising old-established export markets. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman now Chancellor of the Exchequer has often told us of the great desirability of creating enough stocks at home and enough production here to provide for the needs of all our people and to add greatly to Britain's export earnings by selling coal, because coal is the most readily accepted of all British exports.
Now for this reason—the failure to export coal—which is understandable, the public here must be prepared to face higher prices. The Coal Board makes a substantial profit on its exports, and, of course, if those exports have to be consumed at home then, without doubt, more
1096
must be paid for coal. There are other reasons why the price of coal must go up soon. And the cost of living will rise again.
Now this remorseless rise in the cost of living is largely due to the mismanagement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Minister of Fuel and Power—I am referring to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who was responsible for devaluation. How can we put a stop to this perpetual rise in the cost of living? I should have thought that the Minister would have that very much in mind but, of course, he must now accept the fact that once again the price of coal must go up. These are some of the consequences of the failure of the national service promised us by the Prime Minister in his Manchester speech.
The Minister, in his agitated explanation of the running down of coal stocks, suggested that a little error of only one-half per cent. was made in calculating supplies. The Government, through Sir Stafford Cripps, promised this House that stocks would never be allowed to run down again. Why was that promise broken? The Minister has apparently no understanding of the reasons for creating stocks. Stocks are built up to meet emergencies. Owing to the failure of the Minister to maintain stocks almost every home in the country suffers. Industrial production may be gravely diminished. Employment is imperilled. Cold indeed is the comfort of the explanation of the Minister—"We only erred by a trifling percentage." What an excuse for a long series of muddles and miscalculations.
The truth is that the Minister, though otherwise he is a virtuous man, has gambled against the weather. Even Mr. Micawber, who was fond of taking risks, did not bet against nature. Ministers have promised us "an abundance of coal"—
Mr. Mellish: Tell us how to get it.
Mr. Bracken: The Minister who made that promise, the present Minister of Defence, ought to have thought that out before he made the promise. The Secretary of State for the Colonies bettered it. He assured us that the policy of the Government and theirs alone could give the nation the coal it needs. Where is it? Today, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise—and if they

1097
do not they will when the Minister finishes his speech—we are desperately short of coal—
Mr. Mellish: And miners.
Mr. Bracken: —and the policy of the Government can best be described by adapting some words of Sir Stafford Cripps which are well within the memory of the House, as drifting from expedient to expedient.
In the course of many debates the Opposition have stressed that the nationalisation of coal, be it wise or unwise, is no longer an issue between parties. Britain today needs coal not dogma. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go and get some."] But the organisation of the industry is an issue, and the Opposition have constantly pressed for reforms. Our doubts are shared by the forthright Chairman of the Yorkshire Miners' Union, Mr. Hall:
"You cannot run the pits from London … There is no more ridiculous fallacy than to believe that any industrial or political set-up in London can handle the tremendous perplexities of coal, and it is no use London telling us what to do in Yorkshire"—
An Hon. Member: Or Bournemouth either.
Mr. Bracken:
—"because nine times out of ten it is too silly for words and cannot be carried out."
Mr. Hall seems to have a lower respect for the Ministers opposite than even I have. I think that Mr. Hall's opinions are shared by many miners and managers. Unless there is a devolution of responsibility from London and the regional boards, there can be no real improvement in production. Each pit has it own problems. They can best be solved by a manager with authority who is in constant contact with all employed in the pit.
The National Coal Board has more than enough to do if it fulfils its responsibilities for research, development and financial control. It is obvious that the Board cannot handle the two cardinal problems of the coal industry, the first of which is, apparently, intractable absenteeism. I want to deal for a moment with the earlier preliminary interruption. Hon. Members on both sides know that I have never criticised the miners. [HON. MEMBERS: "oh."] No, never. On the contrary, I have said that those with experience of the hard and dirty life in the pit would be well qualified to express
1098
an opinion about the work done by miners. I may remind hon. Members opposite that many Ministers have strongly criticised the miners. Why did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) not complain, for instance, about the Minister of Works, who said the other day that the trouble in this country was that people were not doing enough work and that they ought to work another 20 per cent.? Before the hon. Lady wishes to rebuke Members on this side, she should start reproving the Ministers whom she occasionally supports.
Mrs. Braddock: I was referring to your absenteeism.
Mr. Bracken: The first of the two cardinal problems of the Coal Board is intractable absenteeism. May not some of this absenteeism be due to over-centralisation? One of the tests which sensible people apply to a badly managed business is the state of their relations with their workers; and if the workers do not get along with the bosses, there is, generally speaking, something wrong with the business.
The second most important task of the Coal Board—or, rather, of the country, because it is beyond the Board, and I believe that it can only be settled in the pit—is to provide recruits to take the place of unfit and ageing miners.
Mr. Fernyhough: Young Tories.
Mr. Bracken: I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this, but they will have to learn to take it. These problems of absenteeism and of finding recruits to replace the aged or the unfit cannot be solved in London, as any mining Member will support. I ask hon. Gentlemen who have worked in the pits and who represent the miners whether I am not right in saying that it is quite impossible to settle these problems in London, or, I say in passing, through the regional boards. I believe that a great deal of the misfortunes of the Coal Board have come from superseding the manager in the mine and the other people who could help him to get on with this task of coal production.
The men who know most about the coal industry have advised the Government that the only solution of under-production is the decentralisation of control.

1099
Without this, every cold winter will produce an inevitable coal crisis. An improvident Minister who neglects stocks must soon shamefacedly come to the Despatch Box and announce a long list of the cuts he has ordained. "Labour gets things done"! Will the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech tell us whether the Government have any plan for getting more coal, or do they rely simply on more and more cuts, upon merely spending money, or upon adding to the hardships of our long-suffering people?
One of the objects of the Amendment is to remind Ministers of the harm they have caused by their unfulfilled promises. I have read some of them to the House today, and I could quote many more. The Minister must think soon. Perhaps I might be allowed to remind him of a saying by his colleague the Minister of Labour:
"This island is almost made up of coal. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal."
We seem to have found one now.
Mr. Collick: What are the positive proposals of the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite for getting more coal?
Mr. Bracken: Change the Government.
4.38 p.m.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): In our last debate on coal before Christmas, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who is to speak tonight, said that the coal supplies and the coal industry were no longer a party matter. He said that they were essentially a national matter, that nationalisation was accepted on every hand, and that the only question was how to make it work.
I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) in what he said about decentralising the Coal Board. We discussed it very fully in December. He has not answered a single argument that I used. I would only quote to him, on what he said about superseding the manager in the mine, the words of Mr. Drummond, whom he will remember as the very able manager under private enterprise of the Ashington Colliery, in Northumberland. Mr. Drummond said:
1100
"To say that managers have less freedom today than they had under the old system is simply nonsense."
I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman about absenteeism. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite will not say things so offensive about a man who has played a great part in our coal industry and who is very highly respected.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: Is it offensive to suggest that this gentleman should be promoted to a seat on the National Coal Board?
Mr. Noel-Baker: I leave the House to judge of that. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman on absenteeism. I hope he will be good enough to read what I said in my speech in the debate in December, and he will see that since then no one has attempted to answer what I said. The general charge against the miners that less absenteeism would give a lot more coal simply breaks down. Seven per cent. of the 11.95 per cent. last year was due to sickness and illness, which was more than the pre-war rate when men went back to the pits before they were well One day a month makes 4.3 per cent. and who is going to blame the miners for one day a month? Yet we and the National Union of Mineworkers are constantly trying to get the pits and areas where absenteeism is too high to cut it down; we are engaged on that now. But the right hon. Gentleman does not help when he speaks about it as he did today.
Mr. Bracken: On the contrary, I went out of my way to say that I did not join in those criticisms. The most drastic criticism came from Lord Hyndley in his capacity as chairman of the Coal Board under the Minister. I have never attacked the miners for absenteeism, but I have read the speeches made by the Minister and by Lord Hyndley.
Mr. Noel-Baker: Again the House may judge of the implications of what the right hon. Gentleman said. When the right hon. Gentleman said we are not yet getting the coal we need he was only saying what I have said in every speech since last March. Of course we knew it was going to take years, many years, to reorganise the coal industry and, as the chairman of the Miners' Union said, to give the coal which the nation needs at the prices it ought to pay.

1101
Since the last debate I have tried to do what the right hon. Member for Southport suggested, to treat this as a national matter, but I must ask the House to reject the Amendment which his right hon. Friend has moved. I do not admit the charges which it implies. In September every word I said was justified. Today we are face to face with a critical situation. We have taken vigorous measures to meet it. With the co-operation of all sections of the community, which is being freely given, we have good prospects of avoiding the dislocation and the stoppages of which the Amendment speaks. Secondly, as the House will see when I have done, we are taking many measures to get more coal.
Why are we in a critical situation now? Why have we not got today the coal stocks for which we hoped? Let me give the House a brief but candid recapitulation of the facts. In the Economic Survey of 1950 we explained the main headings of the coal budget for the year. We estimated that deep-mined output would give 205 million to 210 million tons and opencast output a minimum of 13 million tons. The total supplies would be 218 million to 223 million tons. We estimated that inland consumption would be 199 million to 201 million tons, an increase of 4 to 6 million tons over the previous year. We intended to export all the coal we could when internal requirements had been met.
I shall deal with these various headings one by one. Until September there seemed every prospect that deep-mined output would reach or exceed the lower figure of 205 million tons. Manpower had been falling but the rate of increase in output per manshift was still steady, at 3.5 per cent. above the previous year, at which it had been running since 1946. The rate of increase fell from 3.5 per cent. to 2 per cent. in October and to 1 per cent. in November and when the year ended in the last three months we had lost 1 million tons.
Opencast began the year extremely well and in the first six months it looked as though we might beat the target. Then in July, August and September the rainfall was greater than in any year since 1869 when our weather authorities began to keep records. The opencast sites became a sea of mud and by October it was plain that even if the weather improved we should only get 12,500,000 tons instead of 13 million tons. In fact, the
1102
sites never recovered and by the end of the year we were between 800,000 tons and 900,000 tons down.
Mr. Bracken: Surely we knew all about that and the effect of the weather on opencast mining when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement to the Press on 25th September?
Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, but I did not know that the sites were going to be almost unworkable to the end of the year, nor did the right hon. Gentleman know and nor could anyone else.
There remains consumption. Of course, in calculating consumption, bad weather and a hard winter were factors that we took into account. That is largely why we left the margin of 4 million tons to 6 million tons in the increase of home consumption for which we budgeted. I confess that I thought the upper limit of that increase was all that it was necessary to allow. After all, in 1949 we had full employment, everyone was working and the productivity of industry had increased. As late as 24th November "The Times," in a leading article, said:
"so far this year the increase in consumption has been 5½ million tons and it is unlikely, therefore, to rise much above 6 million tons."
I do not remember any one in our debate in December suggesting that 201 million tons for inland consumption would not be enough. Indeed, I remember no criticism here or elsewhere of that upper limit which we set. When I told the House on 12th December that, while that figure might be exceeded, the excess would be very little, no hon. Member, as far as I remember, expressed dissent. But in December the consumption of coal reached a level we had never seen before, and when the final figures for the year came out it was not 201 million tons or a little over, but 202½ million tons, an unforeseen increase of 1,500,000 tons.
I think the House will see why the difficulties today are greater than they were when we discussed the situation last. The Motion urges that we ought to have made more adequate provision for our stocks. What did we do? We aimed at 16.5 million tons of winter stocks by 31st October. No one here suggested that was not enough. On 31st October we were 700,000 tons short of that target, that is, allowing for stocking by householders under the summer prices scheme. Before

1103
that date we took steps to cut our exports to ensure that at the end of December we should have stocks of 14 million tons, that is, the equivalent of 16,500,000 tons in October, allowing for the run down in between. And again, no one I can remember ever suggested that that was not enough.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we undertook to try to build up industrial stocks to a really adequate level of 4.5 weeks' consumption at the end of the year. In fact we reached 4.3 weeks' by mid-December and might easily have reached the target and the total end of December stock of 14 million tons if it were not for the developments in December which I have described.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: What about consumption?
Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, there was greatly increased consumption.
Ought we to have cut exports more and sooner? It is very easy to be wise after the event, but let the House remember how compelling were the reasons for our exports earlier in the year. Coal has played a major part in international trade. As the right hon. Gentleman has said—it is his phrase—it is our most liquid currency in international trade. Certainly it is that today. It is of great long-term interest that we should be able to export coal. It has been of even more vital importance in the short term of the last two years when our greatest national effort since 1945 has been to re-build our export to close the dollar gap. If we cast our minds back to the beginning of last year, how far away we then seemed from doing that. Would anyone have then said that these exports were other than vital?
We had just carried through devaluation. To increase our exports, we had to buy raw materials and essential foodstuffs from overseas. Most of the raw materials were in short supply, and it helped us enormously in our bilateral negotiations if we could offer the foreigners some coal. Both in 1949 and again in 1950 more than 10 million tons went to Western Europe.
Miss Irene Ward: Very bad coal.
Mr. Noel-Baker: That coal was a very real contribution to the economic recovery of Western Europe, which has prevented the advance of Communism to the Channel ports. If we took a risk on exports earlier in the year, we did it to serve the major purpose of British policy abroad. Of course, as the months went by and as we saw the trend of home consumption, and deep-mined and opencast production we cut the exports programme very heavily indeed. It was running in the first part of the year at more than 20 million tons. We postponed exports in July, again in October and again later. In the end our reductions totalled about three million tons. As I have said, those reductions would have given us the end-of-the-year stocks we wanted but for the developments in December, which I have referred to.
Of those developments by far the most important is the growth in home consumption. It is a thing that for most reasons all of us rejoice about. It comes from full employment, more production, and more gas and electricity in the people's homes.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Miss Ward: Oh, no.
Mr. Noel-Baker: There was more gas and electricity in the people's homes. But however welcome these results may be, the increase—and I ask everybody in every party to think about it—of seven and a half million tons in a single year presents a very formidable problem not only for this present winter, but for next winter and for the coming years. We know that British industry still uses only two units of power per man-hour against six in the United States. We must increase it. We have got re-armament coming with more shifts, more overtime and new and high-powered machine tools—an incalculable extra load. The fact of our re-armament dominates all our thinking about our future needs. We know what mounting war production can mean. With that before us, can any of us feel certain that the increase in 1951 will be less than the seven and a half million tons in 1950; that the year's consumption will certainly be less than 210 million tons, and if that is so, can we hope that the figure of 16.5 million tons as the end of October stock, which we have hitherto accepted, will in future really be enough?

1105
I am sure that these figures will show the House why I am quite as anxious about the next two years as I am about the next two months. Both now and in a longer future we must get more coal and we must save more coal. We must take the measures that will give us a higher output, and enable us to make better and more efficient use of the coal we have. These are urgent tasks, in which every section of the nation has a part to play.
Let me tell the House what we have done since the last debate to get more coal and save more coal this winter, and what we plan to do for the longer future. The House remembers the meeting I held with the Coal Board and the Miners' Union on 21st November at which I asked for Saturday working, and for other measures to increase output from the mines. The response was good. In November we had been getting 80,000 tons of coal a week less than in 1949. After my meeting, in spite of the fact that there were 22,000 fewer workers on the books, and that output before Christmas in 1949 was exceptionally high, the miners made good these 80,000 tons.
Then the Prime Minister had another meeting with the miners after Christmas. They promised to make further efforts and, in spite of a much heavier incidence of influenza, the output in the past two weeks has been 60,000 and 80,000 tons above last year. The Saturday working has been good, but in the last two weeks there has been something, which, if it lasts, is even better.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport will remember that in our last debate I said that the serious fall in the rate of increase in O.M.S. in October might have been due to various causes—disappointment with a wage award, the psychological effect of Creswell and Knockshinnoch, the fall in the total manpower in the mines. My own belief was and is that the last, the fall in manpower, was mad' the most important.
Already in September and October I had discussed manpower with the Board, and they took vigorous and successful measures to check the wastage. In November the Ministry of Labour joined with the Coal Board in a new campaign to get more miners for the pits. The Government stopped recruiting for the Armed Forces in the coalfields. The
1106
results are so far very encouraging, but I will say more about it later. Not only has last year's wastage been arrested, but in the 10 weeks from mid-November the numbers increased by 6,500 men. Some of these are ex-miners, and a few of the newcomers are already trained. In any case, manpower at the face is now going up again, and that I believe is beginning to effect the O.M.S. In any case in the last two weeks O.M.S. has been 1.25 tons, the highest ever recorded in this country and 4 per cent. above the level of this time last year.
It would be rash indeed to build any long-term hopes on the experience of two weeks, but for the moment it is a favourable sign. If this two weeks' trend holds good for a longer period and manpower continues to go up, as we intend that it should, it will make a substantial difference to our prospects in the next three months. I told the House in December that we proposed also to accelerate the clearance of sites for opencast production and within these next three months we hope to get some extra coal. As a result of what we have done, we have handed over to contractors about twice as many sites as in the corresponding period of last year. We hope to get an extra quarter of a million tons of coal. Whether we shall get it depends, of course, upon the weather. In any case the contractors and their workers have made gallant efforts in recent months, and I know they will do still more in the months ahead.
Imports from the United States are now arriving; 250,000 tons up to the end of January; 90,000 a week from now onwards unless storm and fog should intervene. The measures we took about bunkers and depots overseas are estimated to have saved us 38,500 tons of coal in the first month. I must express the gratitude of the Government and the country to the shipping industry and the proprietors of the depots overseas who helped to achieve this remarkable result. I also would express my personal and Departmental gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for the help he gave.
Our greatest immediate anxiety is about stocks for the power stations. We decided that the most serious single blow which could be struck at industry and the housewife would be the shutting down

1107
of power stations for want of coal. During the last eight weeks the power stations have used enormous quantities of coal. In one week electricity was 23 per cent. more than in the corresponding week a year ago; they sent out 23 per cent. more. Our stocks have fallen as a result; and as a result of the failure of opencast, about which I have spoken, we are about a million tons short of what we wanted.
So we gave to the power stations—and I am sure that the House will think we were right—overriding priority to get the coal they needed. But power stations use the same coal as industry and the only way we could give them more coal was by delivering less to industry than we planned. That is a matter of particular regret. The small deficiency at the end of December in the stocks for industry of which I have spoken, would not have mattered greatly, had we been able to keep up the planned deliveries from current output week by week. But to keep the power stations going we have had to deliver less to industry than we had originally planned. Unless we have prolonged harsh weather we hope that this under-delivery—this is a very conservative budget—will be roughly, varying a little with different grades, about 15 per cent. We have discussed with both sides of industry in the Emergency Committee of the National Production Advisory Council how this shortage can best be shared. We have agreed with the suggestion made by the Federation of British Industries, for whose co-operation I wish to express my gratitude, that while the cut remains about 15 per cent.—while it is not more—we should apply it equally to every section of the industry.
Of course there are arrangements for "rescue" operations for firms whose stocks are less than one week's consumption of coal, and coal will be held back from firms who have stocks for six weeks or more, and whose position, therefore, is quite safe. All these, and other details about the operation of the cut, will be set out in a statement which the Coal Board will circulate to every industrial consumer whom they supply. We agree with the F.B.I. in thinking that it is better to avoid priorities, or differential allocations, unless increased consumption or falling output make things worse.
1108
The F.B.I. suggested that we could ease the industrial problem, ease the burden on power stations and save more coal, if we could provide oil for the stand-by generating plants which many firms possess, and which in many cases today they are not using, or are not using fully. We made inquiries, and concluded that the F.B.I. were right in judging that these idle standby plants might provide perhaps 5 per cent. of the power which industry is now using. We took up the matter energetically with the oil companies. They have great difficulties about diesel oil in winter, but I still hope they may obtain some, at least, of the oil required; and that in consequence some, if not all, of the firms can use their stand-by plants to full capacity in the next three months. That would help us where we need help most—on power station coal.
After the power stations my next greatest anxiety has been about the household coal. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch spoke a good deal about hardship in the homes. I do not know if he used the phrase "broken promises," but he came very near to it.
Mr. Bracken: Yes, I did.
Mr. Noel-Baker: What did I promise? I promised to give an extra million tons to the house coal market to help the housewife, about whose difficulties I feel deeply. But in 1950 the housewife has had, not a million, but 1.6 million tons of coal more than she had in 1949.
Mr. Frederic Harris: But she cannot burn all of it.
Mr. Noel-Baker: She has had 50,000 tons more boiler fuel—
Sir Peter Macdonald: Slack and slate.
Mr. Noel-Baker: —and 600,000 tons more coke, a total addition of 2½ million tons of solid fuel—far more than she has had in any recent years. The promises have been very handsomely fulfilled.
Mr. F. Harris: Tell that to the housewife.
Mr. Noel-Baker: Consumption last autumn and this winter has been higher and if the weather is hard and output falls, it may well be difficult to keep

1109
the stocks of the merchants up where we want them. We have taken measures with the co-operation of the merchants to conserve stocks. We have made arrangements to switch supplies to places where special difficulties appear. We are getting coal from imports—an average, I hope, of 20,000 tons a week. We are getting coal from the gas works programme, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has asked the railways to cut down the number of passenger trains in order that the housewife may get the coal instead. In cases of real need or hardship the local fuel overseers have authority to help, and I know—and I am glad of it—that hon. Members are very vigilant in ensuring that this power is rightly used.
What else have we done to economise in coal? We have taken urgent measures to save it in Government Departments, in local authorities, in the Armed Forces, in the Ordnance Factories and elsewhere. We have stopped shop lighting and advertisements, a saving of 50,000 tons. We have asked shopkeepers—
Mr. Bracken: Is that 50,000 tons a week?
Mr. Noel-Baker: It is overall—no, for three months; I am sorry. We have asked shops, commerce and the general public to help by making every saving they can, especially in the use of electricity and gas. All sections of the Press have given us their generous and very public-spirited support.
Mr. Arthur Colegate: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he say what is being done about the sale of still further electrical apparatus of one kind and another?
Mr. Noel-Baker: Most of the electricity boards have stopped sales of fires completely, but private manufacturers and private shops are still selling. The Association of Manufacturers have joined with the boards—my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will speak of it tonight—in advising everybody in the country who belongs to their Association to use less electricity and gas. I would remind the hon. Member that by far the greater part of all the advertising of appliances which has been done, has been done by private firms—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Regarding that last matter to which the Minister has referred, is he aware that, at any rate until a few weeks ago, the North Thames Gas Board were advertising in London theatre programmes an incitement to purchase gas appliances?
Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, as the hon. Member knows, they are printed many weeks in advance.
Mr. F. Harris: Oh, tripe! They can be withdrawn.
Mr. Noel-Baker: That has been completely reversed. As I told the House in December, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has taken charge of this economy campaign and he is doing a splendid job. I think that his energy and imagination will reap their due reward. He will speak of his work at greater length tonight.
Mr. Bracken: Is it a fact that the various electricity boards, and perhaps the gas boards, have been allowing far too generous hire-purchase terms—terms which are far more generous than anything offered by private manufacturers?
Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend will give the details, but I can give a general assurance that that is not true. I would add that I believe that with reasonable care, particularly by the general public, one million tons of coal could be saved in the next three months in shops, offices and homes in the form mainly of electricity and gas. That one million tons might easily avert the difficulties which we fear.
I have not sought to minimise the dangers of the next two months. I have told the House in detail of the measures we have taken to increase production and to save our coal. What the outcome will be must depend, of course, in part, on factors over which we have no control. I have told the House that the danger is not for this winter only; it is for next winter and for later years as well. I gave the short answer in December. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch, has given it today.
We have got to get more coal and we have got to use the coal we get to more advantage. How can that be done, and done in time? In my view, there are three ways, and three only. First, by more open-

1111
cast production. We dislike opencast working, but it gives a quick return. The coal is specially suitable for the power stations, whose need is greatest. Electricity is expanding and all the farmers want it. We get opencast coal with a quarter of the manpower per ton required in the pits. We have, therefore, felt compelled to come to the following decision, which, in view of the strong feeling which opencast mining arouses in this House and elsewhere, I will read verbatim. It is this:
"In view of the country's increasing coal requirements both at home and for export, the Government have decided that, during the next five years at least, the aim must he to maintain a high rate of opencast production. The country's remaining accessible coal outcrops are, however, not unlimited in extent and for the most part have yet to be prospected. Moreover, the consequent interference with food production and the amenities of the countryside, which the Government much regret, must continue to he kept to a minimum. But with more intensive prospecting it is hoped that 50 million tons of opencast coal can he produced during the next five years. It is clear that fully this quantity—and more if possible—will be needed, unless the production of deep-mined coal exceeds all present expectations."
Miss Ward rose—
Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I had better finish reading the decision before I give way. It continues:
"In giving effect to this policy, the Government will continue to attach the highest importance to securing fully satisfactory standards of land restoration, so as to minimise the consequent loss of food production; everything practicable will be done still further to improve the technique of restoration and the Government hope to consult the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association about how this can best be done. Similarly, every practicable measure will continue to he taken to prevent damage to the amenities of the countryside."
Miss Ward: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had come to the end of his statement, otherwise I should not have tried to interrupt. I wanted to ask if this new statement repudiates the statement made in September that, after 1953, opencast coal mining would gradually be wound down.
Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes. It means that we have had to make a new decision that opencast coal working will be carried on at a high rate up to 1955 at least. I have explained this new decision to the National Farmers' Union and the Country
1112
Landowners' Association. It is only right for me to say that they made a vigorous protest against the hardship and loss to farmers and landowners which they felt that it would cause. But for them, as for the Government and the country, good restoration is really the key factor. We are taking that very seriously indeed and we intend to discuss with them and with the interests concerned how improvements in restoration can best be made.
The second way in which more coal can be got quickly is, in my belief, by more power-loaders at the face, where conditions allow. In every other industry the kind of work done by a power-loader is now done by a machine. The Coal Board have done well with Meco-Moores. They are installing this year substantial numbers of Samson Strippers. I hope that this form of capital investment will be expanded with all reasonable speed.
But, third, and much the most important, is manpower in the pits. I have said already that our present recruiting drive has added 6,500 to the numbers in the last few weeks. The strength is now 9,000 above what was expected, if the trend of last year's wastage had gone on. That is a very considerable achievement in so short a time. The recruiting drive will be continued, though no one can prudently predict with what results. The Coal Board have made a new wage settlement with the N.U.M. in which the lower-paid workers have got a substantial additional advance. They have agreed to negotiate a supplementary pensions scheme for the underground workers—a matter to which the Board and, still more, the miners attach great importance.
But, of course, these measures add to the costs of working which the Coal Board has to bear. In fact, with the Porter award in last September they add about 1s. 5d. a ton. And the Board's costs are rising in other ways. In 1949 they paid £942 for 1,000 yards of trailing cable. Today they pay £1,210—an increase of 28 per cent. In 1949 they paid 444s. for a standard of imported timber. Today they pay 591s.—an increase of 33 per cent. In 1949 they paid 16s. per foot for conveyor belts. Today they pay 27s.—an increase of 70 per cent. In all, their materials this year will cost them £13 million more. The Board will have to carry some loss on the imported coal, though I cannot yet say how much.
Sir Peter Macdonald: The right hon. Gentleman talks about loss on imported coal. He has not said anything about export coal. We are told that while imported coal is being unloaded at one part of a dock, at another part of the dock coal is being loaded for other parts of the world, such as the Argentine, at a lower rate. Is that true?
Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, it is true. A very small quantity of coal is being exported.
Sir P. Macdonald: How much?
Mr. Noel-Baker: About 100,000 tons a week. It is a very low rate. It is in fulfilment of contracts, and it is very much in the national interests that it should be done. To my great regret, the Coal Board will export less coal this year than they did last year. I cannot say how much, but it is certain that their earnings will be reduced.
For all these reasons, on representations made by the National Coal Board, the Government have approved an increase in the pithead price of coal of 4s. 2d. per ton, or 2½d. per cwt. The Government have agreed that this increase will operate from Monday next, except for house coal only, in which case the increase will begin a week later—on February 12th. This increase means a rise of 5 per cent. in the retail price, and an increase in the Interim Index of Retail Prices of one-fifth of one point.
Let the House compare this rise in price with what has happened in other things. In the last two years, the Board of Trade wholesale price index for coal has risen by less than 3 per cent., and, with this price increase, it will still be under 10 per cent. The price index for cement has risen in that period by more than 10 per cent., that for chemicals and oils by nearly 15 per cent., and that for rayon yarns by 30 per cent. The price index for other basic industrial materials has risen during these two years by 33 per cent. I am sure the House will agree that the Coal Board must be allowed to pay its way, and will approve this reasonable advance.
Mr. Arthur Colegate: What about the price of coke?
Mr. Noel-Baker: There will be an increase of 6s. 3d. per ton in the price of coke.
1114
What else have the Government done about manpower? I have often spoken of the very great importance of housing for miners, especially in places where coal production must expand. The Coal Board have asked us for 10,000 houses in the next two years. These houses will be built. Most of them will be built within the normal local authority programmes, but not fewer than 3,600 will be built by special measures, if need be; that is to say, by imported labour, special contracts and so on. They will be for miners. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member will find that the Coal Board does not evict people from their houses.
I am going on with what I was saying about increasing manpower. There has been a certain loss of miners, because men have enlisted in the Regular Forces of the Crown. The Services need these men, and, of course, they are doing a good job there, but, nevertheless, the importance of getting the coal we need for the defence programme and other things is so great that the Government have decided that ex-miners who have underground experience of at least six months, and who have joined the Forces on Regular engagements within the last two years, and who are ready to volunteer to return to coal mining in parts of the country where they are needed—that is to say, near their own homes—should be allowed to do so.
These men will be released specifically for work as coal miners, and they will be subject to recall to the Forces to complete their Regular engagement if they leave their employment in the mines. The details of the scheme are being worked out, but it will be brought into effect without delay. We hope that many of the miners in the Forces will respond to this appeal. As I have so often said before, in the Government's view, and, I am certain, in the view of Parliament as well, the most important national service they can render is in getting coal.
Mr. Osborne: How many of these volunteers will there be?
Mr. Noel-Baker: We do not know how many of the miners in the Services will volunteer, but there are some thousands.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: As a corollary to this scheme for recall from the Force to the mines, will my

1115
right hon. Friend say whether Class Z Reserve miners will be excluded from the call-up?
Mr. Noel-Baker: I was just going to speak about that, and this is what I have to say. No underground workers, and only a few surface workers, will be recalled for 15 days' training with the Army and the R.A.F. this summer. No one will be recalled unless he is required for work of particular importance to the Service for which he is qualified. The Services are willing to excuse any regular reservist from the call-up if he is certified to be a coal miner working underground.
There remains the question of foreign workers. In spite of all our other measures, we may need workers from abroad. The House knows that the Coal Board have been negotiating with the National Union of Mineworkers about this for several months. In their settlement in January, the leaders agreed that the union would
"use their best endeavours to secure the willing acceptance of foreign workers in every pit where there is at present a shortage of men."
That was accepted by the national executive, and specifically endorsed, with only one dissentient vote, in a national delegate conference of the union a little later. Its execution in the villages and lodges will require great tact, but it is being vigorously followed up.
I have dealt with the measures which we are taking to get more coal, both now and for the longer future. I could say much about our measures to promote the better use of coal, and the future may well depend upon our success in that regard. In my view, we need a national plan, not only for coal production but for saving coal. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that tonight. I have told the House quite frankly how the present difficulties arose. I have explained how we mean to meet them. We need a national effort in the spirit which, in the last few weeks, everybody has shown.
In conclusion, may I say this. Whenever I can, I go to visit the miners in their pit consultative committees, in their colliery canteens and down the mines. When I talk to the men who are winning the coal at the face, I always feel that they understand the true importance to
1116
the nation of the work they do. At this moment, the nation understands, perhaps as never before, how we depend on them. In every hour of danger, in pit accidents or in world wars, it is just the same. The miner is always the first man to volunteer. Today, every man and woman in the country can help to see the nation through, but the miners can help most of all, and I am very certain that they will not let the nation down.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Bowen: I am sure that everyone will join with the Minister in the very well-deserved tribute which he has paid to the miners of this country. We are all pleased to hear of the increase in output during the last few weeks, but I think that the House will agree with me when I say that the overall picture painted by the Minister must be a source of great anxiety to us all. So far as the difficulties of the next few months are concerned, the problem of coal output in relation to our national needs will remain a serious one, and this will continue for some years until the effect of the longterm programme of the National Coal Board is really felt.
I think there is general agreement on both sides of the House in regard to the "tail" of the Amendment which was moved by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), that is to say, the reference to the present shortages and to the fact that those shortages have inflicted great hardships on the nation as a whole, and that there may well be widespread industrial dislocations and stoppages. The rest of the Amendment, the basis of it, appears to direct attention not so much to the gravity of the situation as to the contrast—that is the word used—between the promises of Ministers and the actual performance. The whole emphasis of the Amendment is not so much on the gravity of the situation and the need for taking measures to meet it, as on pointing out the discrepancy between promise and performance.
The gravamen of the Amendment is, therefore, an attack upon the Minister. It is shooting at the Ministry in respect of their promises and their failure to fulfil them. In normal circumstances the Minister could not complain about that but, bearing in mind the relationship of the fuel problem to the problem of re-

1117
armament and the considerable economic and social difficulties associated with it, I should have thought that we would be better employed not in recriminations, whether deserved or undeserved, about whether Ministers' promises have been fulfilled, but rather in seeing whether we can put forward constructive and helpful suggestions as to how the difficulties can be overcome.
In saying that, I would respectfully remind the House that this subject matter was before the House in substance only some six weeks ago, namely, on 12th December. I hope that it will not seem presumptuous of me to suggest that the contributions made to that debate by persons intimately connected with the industry on both sides were extremely helpful. I think that the approach made to the problem on that occasion was much more healthy and helpful than the approach today, to judge by present indications.
Since 12th December, the position has, in one sense, become very much more grave. In another sense it has improved. It is very much more grave because of the continued bad weather. The position bears a sinister resemblance to that of 1947. If I am correctly informed, we commenced the year 1951 with some 4 million tons more in stocks than we had in January, 1947, but the demands made upon those stocks are very considerably greater than in 1947. The reserves held for industry and domestic users are substantially the same as then, namely, enough for a fortnight or three weeks. Added to that, we have to reckon the continued increase in consumption and again added to it we have the inevitable increase in demand due to the rearmament drive.
The position today therefore is certainly as serious as it was in 1947. We all know what followed on that occasion: a crisis of the first order, two million unemployed and a great deal of real harm to the industrial development of the country. While that is true of the position in 1947, it is equally true that our consumption throughout the calendar year 1950 more than kept pace with our production. We ended the year one million tons down over the previous year. I only mention that because in a moment I want to ask the question whether the measures which we are now taking and which have been taken during the last few weeks, might not have been taken earlier and
1118
have resulted in the present position being somewhat alleviated.
On the credit side, a wages agreement has been concluded. That fact was announced, if I remember rightly, on 12th January, and was brought about after the direct intervention of the Prime Minister. It should result in an improved spirit among the miners and should be reflected in greater production and a drop in the loss of manpower. The question which arises is whether that agreement could not have been concluded far sooner. It may well be that the gravity of the situation and the intervention of the Prime Minister helped to bring about the agreement.
Mr. Murray: I do not want to disagree with the hon. Member. In fact, I agree with what he has been saying, but is he not aware that the miners immediately had to make the decision that they would agree to go all out for increased production and to leave the question of wages and better conditions to a later stage?
Mr. Bowen: I agree with those observations, but I would respectfully point out that they tend to strengthen my point. What would be the position now if a greater effort had been made to produce the wages agreement in October? The fact remains that no wages agreement was concluded in October.
Another feature of the agreement is increased Saturday working. I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the miners for their great effort in that respect, but again the question arises whether the increased Saturday working could not have been brought about two or three months earlier. Take the supplementary pension schemes. If there had been an agreement or an announcement on that subject some months ago, might it not be reflected in an easier situation now, and particularly in the winter months which still lie ahead of us?
The Minister said that he felt fully justified in regard to what he said in September, that is to say, that we had no reason in September to expect that we would be in difficulties similar to those which we experienced in 1947. Whether he can be blamed or not for failure to anticipate those difficulties, one thing is quite clear. It is that the view which he and his Ministry took of the minimum stocks required for safety purposes was quite wrong. Whether he

1119
should be blamed is quite a different question. At that time, quite clearly we did not have sufficient stocks to provide a margin of safety, and I should have thought, with great respect to the Minister, that it would have been far better if he had made that perfectly clear.
There is not a shadow of doubt that there was a miscalculation. Whether it was something for which anybody can be blamed is a question with which I shall deal in a moment, but there was a miscalculation of the needs of the situation. It is true that up to the end of September production had shown, not a very high increase, but some increase compared with comparable months last year, and it might be said that up to September there was nothing to cause undue apprehension.
At the same time, during the summer months, we should have built up far greater stocks than we did, unless we were prepared to take a gamble on the weather. Increased domestic consumption is not a new feature. It may be that the increase has been more rapid than was anticipated, but bad weather and the increase in domestic and industrial consumption are all matters—particularly after the fuel crisis of 1947—which should have been very much in the mind of the Minister in deciding the safety level to build up to during the summer months.
By the end of September it was obvious that we were likely to be in great difficulty. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech on 12th December, indicated that the Ministry had realised by the end of September that they might well be in great difficulties. I respectfully suggest that those indications were present long before that, and that they were taking, to say the least of it, a very substantial chance that the weather would not be severe and on domestic and industrial consumption being kept down. The Parliamentary Secretary agreed that as from September it was clear that there was a real danger of another fuel crisis. What I feel unhappy about is whether during those months from October to December everything was done to avoid our present difficulties.
I feel that there should have been a greater sense of urgency. The country should have been warned of the dangers,
1120
and we should have got the response we are now getting at least a month, and probably two months, earlier. In the 1947 fuel crisis, once the miners realised the seriousness of the situation at the end of January there was a magnificent response. Their response during the last fortnight has been most praiseworthy, and I believe a legitimate point to put to the Minister is: Could not the wages agreement have been brought about two or three months earlier? Could not there have been an agreement on a supplementary pensions scheme months earlier?
Mr. Murray: The hon Member must remember that when the award came it was very disappointing and created more animosity in the industry than has ever been known.
Mr. Bowen: I respectfully agree. I do not remember the date—
Mr. Murray: October.
Mr. Bowen: My recollection is that the award was earlier, but I shall not stake my recollection of the facts against that of the hon. Member in that respect. Assuming it was October, we have had to wait until 12th January. Almost immediately after the Prime Minister intervened an agreement was concluded. If the situation was so serious, why was there not intervention much earlier? The same applies to the supplementary pensions scheme.
Reference has been made to absenteeism—something which has caused heated exchanges between the two sides of the House. The Minister has given us figures for absenteeism in the industry as a whole, but I should have liked the figure for absenteeism among coal-face workers. In raising the question of absenteeism, I must make it clear that I am not for one moment making any attack upon the persons involved, but the problem remains. I do not think anyone in the industry would suggest that those figures could not be reduced, and reduced substantially.
Mr. John McKay: How would the hon. Gentleman do it?
Mr. Bowen: That is a perfectly fair question, but first of all let us face the significance of absenteeism, because we do an injustice to our own judgment if we ignore the significance of voluntary

1121
absenteeism. I am informed—and I speak subject to correction—that the total absenteeism among coal-face workers is as high as 30 per cent. in many areas, of which something under half, but still a very high figure, is voluntary absenteeism. That is to say, voluntary absenteeism among coal-face workers amounts to some 10 to 15 per cent. If that is so—and again I speak subject to correction—it is suggested to me that that represents some 10 million tons of coal a year. Therefore, if a real reduction could be made in voluntary absenteeism it would go a long way towards solving our difficulties.
Mr. Moody: Could the hon. Gentleman give us an analysis of the reasons for voluntary absenteeism?
Mr. Bowen: I think that there are many reasons, but, as I say, I am not so much concerned with the reasons as with the possibility of reducing those figures. I think the reasons are partly Pay-As-You-Earn. That is one of the problems. Another reason is mid-week sport. Another reason is the fact that the average age of workers at the coal-face is continually increasing.
Mr. Slater: That is the main reason.
Mr. Bowen: In the last debate the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) told us that now the average age of men at the coal-face is 40.
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman is basing his case on the figure of 30 per cent. I think that is rather an exaggeration. Does he mean 30 per cent. over a period, or 30 per cent. covering only a day? The general figure is probably in the region of 10 or 12 per cent.
Mr. Bowen: I am not now dealing with absenteeism in the industry as a whole. I am dealing with absenteeism among workers at the coal-face—the workers who really matter in coal production. I am not suggesting that other workers in the industry do not matter, but the efforts of those who work at the coal-face obviously have the most direct reflection upon output.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to get the thing right, and I am most anxious to help him. For
1122
the first 12 weeks of this winter absenteeism at the coal-face, voluntary and involuntary together, has been 14.85 per cent. That is over-all. It is true that in some areas, in some pits, it goes up to 16, 17 and 18 per cent., which is much too high, and I have very strongly urged that they should try to get the figure down. That is the national average at the coal-face.
Mr. Bowen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting my figures, and I am particularly glad that the correction is in the right direction. The right hon. Gentleman has conceded the point in my argument in his last observation; that is to say, that voluntary absenteeism at the coal-face is much higher in many areas than it ought to be.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I gave the hon. Member the total figure. The figure for voluntary absenteeism is about 7 per cent.
Mr. Bowen: The Minister concedes that voluntary absenteeism, whatever the figure, is certainly too high in many areas. If voluntary absenteeism could by some means by substantially reduced it would make a very valuable contribution to a solution of our difficulties. I do not think anyone can suggest that that is not a perfectly legitimate point to make.
With regard to manpower as a whole, I have attempted to study the recruitment figures during the last few months and the sources of recruitment to the mines. The significant feature of it is that the overwhelming majority of new recruits to the mines come from the mining areas themselves. That is to say, if we are to maintain manpower in the mines it looks as if we have got to pin our hopes in the main on being able to recruit from the mining areas.
Mr. James Glanville: Miners breed miners.
Mr. Bowen: That is true. Wages play a part in attracting men and keeping them in the mines, but I believe that the main factor is the improvement of social conditions in the mining areas.
I welcome what the Minister said on 12th December concerning housing. He supplemented those observations today, but I ask myself whether something far more drastic could not have been done

1123
long ago with respect to providing priority for miners in relation to housing. If something had been done on those lines it would have stopped a lot of the wastage and we should have been able to attract into the pits what we need most of all—large numbers of young men.
There are several other matters on which I should like to comment. The Minister referred to the danger point with respect to the maintenance of coal supplies at power stations in order to avoid power cuts. I must remind the House that on 12th December the Parliamentary Secretary made this statement, interrupting the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville):
"The hon. Gentleman may say anything he likes, but the fact is that it is not shortage of coal that causes power cuts."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 1051.]
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by that, but it seems quite clear to me that there is a very distinct relationship between the danger of substantial cuts in electricity and the possibility or otherwise of continuing a high level supply of coal to the power stations. I fail to see the strength of his observation on that occasion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Perhaps I may repeat myself, because I may not have made myself clear. If it is suggested that there is no relationship between the ability of the power stations to maintain electricity supplies and the supply of coal to those power stations, it is certainly nonsense.
Let me concede this for a moment. I am not suggesting that power cuts may not be produced by many things other than shortage of coal. Of course they may, but one of the surest ways of producing a permanent power cut would be to cut off all supplies of coal to the power stations.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that if he does not put petrol into the tank of his car it will not go. What I said then was absolutely correct—that there had been no power cuts for lack of fuel. Because we do not want power cuts for lack of fuel, measures are being taken, as my right hon. Friend has explained. Power cuts to date have been due to generating incapacity.
Mr. Bowen: I do not think there is any conflict here between us. [Laughter.] With great respect, there is not. What the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is that power cuts in the past have not been due to shortage of coal. But he is certainly not maintaining that we may well have power cuts in the future because of shortage of coal, unless there is a proper allocation of supplies to the power stations.
While I am discussing the allocation of coal supplies, I should like to say that I was rather disappointed that the Minister did not deal with the possibility of cuts being made in supplies to industry. It appears to me that there is a great danger that substantial cuts may have to be made in supplies to certain industries in this country. If there is such a danger, as indeed I think there is, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary at a later stage will indicate the basis on which those cuts will be made, how a selection is to be made of particular industries, and how an attempt is to be made to alleviate the difficulties arising from that problem, should it arise.
The Minister referred to opencast coal, and his statement must be a source of disappointment to many of us who hold strong views on opencast mining. He then referred to the installation of more power loaders in the mines. One point on which I have never been able to satisfy myself is why the continued and increased mechanisation of the mines has not been reflected to a greater degree in the production figures in the mines. I can only express my own surprise in that matter without being able to provide any explanation, but one would have thought that with the very desirable and much overdue processes of mechanisation in the mines, there would have been a more significant and marked reflection in the figures of increased production. In that respect I welcome the steps which the Minister indicates are being taken to provide increased power loading.
As to manpower in the mines, I believe that one of the main problems is that of recognising the need to improve not only wages and the supplementary pensions scheme, but the whole amenities of those who live in mining communities, and indicating quite clearly that the miner is entitled to priority in those areas.

1125
There is another matter with which I wish to deal and that relates to the structure of the machinery controlling the industry. It has been said repeatedly in this House that if we are to get greater production, if we are to get a better and more co-operative spirit in the mines, we must have a far greater measure of decentralisation in the structure of the Coal Board itself. I believe that decentralisation would not only have an effect on the machine, from a purely administrative point of view, but that it would improve substantially the general atmosphere in the mines. The introduction of nationalisation undoubtedly produced for the time being, a far better spirit than we had had in the mines for many years.
There is a general belief that the National Coal Board is a remote and isolated body and that those on the spot are subject to far too much control and supervision from elsewhere. Whether that is right or not I do not know. I believe it is right, and it is certainly accepted by the miners. One is continually met with that comment from miners and I believe it is doing much to undermine the spirit which was engendered by nationalisation.
I apologise for keeping the House so long. It is partly due to interruptions from the other side. In conclusion, I welcome the steps which the Minister now proposes to take. I am disturbed that they were not taken very much earlier. I hope that we shall be able to overcome our difficulties during the next few months and that the steps taken will make the level of manpower and output in the industry such as will help to remove anxiety during the coming years.
6.2 p.m.
Reverend Llywelyn Williams: I must ask for the indulgence and sympathy of the House as I seek, for the first time and with very much diffidence, to address it. That diffidence is increased and heightened very much by the realisation that on this side of the House there sit many hon. Members who, both by their practical experience in coal getting and their active leadership in mining communities, are entitled to be regarded as experts.
Though I have the privilege of representing a predominantly mining con-
1126
stituency, so faithfully represented in this House for over 21 years by the late Mr. George Daggar, a miners' leader of the highest integrity and character, yet I myself have not been actively engaged in this industry. But I am proud to acknowledge the fact that I am of mining stock. I am the son of a former miner and my grandfather and great-grandfather commenced working underground at the fantastic ages of nine and eight years old respectively. Such a heritage makes it impossible for me ever to approach mining problems or mining difficulties except with the profoundest sympathy.
The right hon. Gentlemen whose names are attached to this Amendment would normally have had the effect of heightening and intensifying my diffidence still further, were it not for the fact that their claim is not especially associated with coal production, although I have been told—and indeed I did see some evidence of it this afternoon—that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), who proposed the Amendment, has the undoubted faculty of producing heat without coal.
The Amendment seems to concern itself with the disappointing disparity between the prophecies and expectations and the results as that disparity is revealed in the coal shortage in its domestic and industrial aspects and prospects. The acuteness of the situation is one of which we are all aware. I, for one, every day this week have been scraping and raking for a few lumps of coal amongst the agglomeration of slack and coal dust in order to light the morning fire. But in view of all the circumstances—and I think it is fair to say that we have had a very general picture of all the circumstances from the Minister this afternoon—I cannot see that this situation could in any way have been warded off.
It is suggested that we exported too much of this valuable commodity and that, as we must still continue to export in order to honour our contracts, we have been compelled to import coal from the United States of America. Surely there should be no need to emphasise the paramount importance of the export drive, particularly where coal is concerned. Risks have to be taken. The weather, always an unpredictable element in the

1127
British climate, has worked against us. This consideration should not be minimised, but I suggest that even this type of risk, dealing with the weather, was, in view of the urgency of our export trade, one that was justifiably taken.
More important than this, of course, was the unfortunate drop in manpower towards the middle of 1950. That drift away from the mines had to be stopped or the whole economy of our nation would have been jeopardised. Thanks to the appeals made, to the recruiting campaign and to the consultations between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board, which resulted in an increase of wages and the promise of pensions, that drift has been checked and, indeed, the tide is now slowly running the other way. Since November last we have 21,000 more face workers, and there has been a large increase in juvenile recruitment.
Of one thing let there be no doubt—there is a different spirit in the mining industry today. Last Saturday to quote from "The Times" of yesterday, 769 pits were working and over 306,000 tons of coal were mined. I suggest that this response deserves the very highest praise. I often think that the miners are more conscious of the nation's difficulties and problems than some sections of the nation are of the miners' problems and the miners' difficulties. For miners to tackle another shift on a Saturday is a magnificent example of responsible citizenship which should be more loudly acclaimed than it has been.
There may well be a very real danger in expecting too much from the miners. We may be spot-lighting their imperfections too much. We may be over-publicising their inability to come up to expectations. This is, I venture to suggest, bad psychology. This is, I respectfully suggest, what the Opposition are doing by bringing forward the Amendment. After all, it is only 14 or so Parliamentary days since we were debating coal before. Oft-recurring debates like this create a sense of resentment in the minds of those who are working in the most arduous and dangerous of occupations.
The Opposition may have brought forward this Amendment with the best intentions in the world, but let them remember
1128
that the most unswervingly loyal and staunch friends of this Government are in the mining areas. The Conservative Party will look in vain for support in those areas. The miners have bitter memories. I would sincerely wish for that bitterness to be assuaged and finally to be removed, for this is one nation, and we rise or fall together; but the repetitiveness of these debates, this tacit implication of dissatisfaction with the miners and with their contribution, is not likely to have the effect which is desired.
Only a fool would expect a complete transformation in a major industry in a period of four years. Will Lawther, on 29th December, 1946—and there is no one on the other side (and I am sure they would allow me to be controversial at least to this extent) who could possibly pit his experience and knowledge against Will Lawther's—a few days before the change-over on 1st January, 1947, used these words in the "Observer":
"It is, we all hope, the beginning of an era. It does not mean and cannot mean that we have solved all our problems. For 50 years we have been heading for the present crisis, and it may he as much as a decade"—
that means 10 years!
"before the coal industry has been transformed into a flourishing and prosperous one, with happy and well paid workers producing all the coal we need for the home and export markets. I would put the immediate outlook as critical, and the long-term outlook as hopeful."
That a transformation is slowly but surely taking place in the mining industry I am absolutely convinced. Mining is dirty, nerve-racking, dangerous and unhealthy. Mining towns suffer more from lack of amenities than most other populous areas. In the past, personal relationships were poisoned by hatred and suspicion, and bitterness pervaded the atmosphere. I believe that the atmossphere is now distinctly better. Management and workmen meet together in a different spirit; wages are more consonant with the type of work that involves mining coal; the Coal Board has undertaken a great 15-years scheme for the future which will remove many of the bogies of the past and anxieties of the present. Mining is, at last, coming into its own.
The coal shortage is acute, and its inconvenience and dangers are not to he minimised in any way, but, surely, such

1129
a state of affairs is not something to be used for party purposes. Let not the Opposition either openly or tacitly blame the miners. They are doing a grand job. Let it be remembered that they are proud and sensitive men. To defame the National Coal Board is not likely to help matters. In four years the National Coal Board has a record of which it need not be ashamed in view of the miserable past it inherited. Above all, let the Opposition not seek to fasten the blame on the shoulders of the Government—a Government which has done more to bring order out of chaos in the mining industry than any previous Government, and a Government which commands the respect, and has won the trust and affection, of the people in the mining areas.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. W. G. Bennett: I wish first of all to compliment the hon. Member for Abertillery (Reverend L. Williams) on a most successful maiden speech and it gives me great pleasure to do so. On all sides of the House we feel that he, like every Welshman who comes here, has settled down without any difficulty, and in the days to come his eloquence will, I am quite sure, he welcomed by his fellow Members.
I could never bring myself to enter into a coal debate without fear and trepidation and I intervene now only because there are many people concerned with the coal mining industry for whom one ought to have the courage to say a few words, namely, the people who have to use coal and who are, therefore, very much interested in the industry's problems. We hear on all sides that there is a lack of manpower in the industry. I want to be constructive today and show where there were weaknesses in the case put forward by the Minister. They can be quite clearly pointed out.
Why is it that at this time in Lanarkshire, when there was an application through the employment exchanges for 250 or 300 miners, there were as many as five miners applying for every post? Why is it that there are well over 1,000 or 2,000 miners in Lanarkshire at this moment unemployed and looking for work in the mines—and only too anxious to get work? What is wrong? Hon.
1130
Members can check these facts, and they will find that they are absolutely correct. Why is it that there are so many miners looking for work—as many as five for every possible job? There is going to be employment for roughly 250 men in a new mine at Chapelhall, Lanarkshire, and for those 250 jobs we have five times that number of men applying for them. There is no doubt that the men have the houses and they are the best type of miners in the country, men of the Clyde-side between 40 and 50 years of age who are looking for work.
What has happened is that the Government have decided to open new pits and have assumed that the human question will be solved without any difficulty. What has not been done is to ask the miners in the area whether they are prepared to transfer to Fife or Ayrshire or somewhere else. These men are out of work, but perhaps a son or daughter is working in a local factory. And let hon. Members remember that the Government have built special factories in these mining areas to give the women and other members of the family a job. The only men who will go to Fife or Ayrshire are young miners who want a house and wish to get married. The men who are already married, with children at school or with members of the family working in the district, are very often not keen to move elsewhere.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. Bennett) realise that there has been a very big influx of miners into Ayrshire and that this thing has been very successful?
Mr. Hamilton: And in Fife.
Mr. Bennett: Of course it has, but there are still five men looking for every one of 500 jobs and 1,500 men in Lanarkshire refusing them. Let us look at the facts which stare us in the face. The coal that could be produced in Lanarkshire would keep the railways running full time. Coal supplies to the railways have been cut by 3,500 tons a week, and they are to be cut by 6,500 tons. Yet the miner, who are unemployed in Lanarkshire could produce more than that quantity of coal week by week. That is the firs fact that I want the House to consider.

1131
In the same county there are scores of small pits which are allowed to employ the maximum number of between 25 and 30 men. These small pits have been most successful, and they could double the number of their employees tomorrow without any difficulty. Just imagine what an astonishing amount of coal would be produced by the end of the month with 50 small pits multiplying their production. Reference is sometimes made to the pits that the National Coal Board have closed down. It is proposed to move men to other pits from these closed mines, but the miners refuse to go and are producing nothing. It is said that no one else will handle this proposition. I challenge the Minister and say that if he is prepared to allow these pits in Lanarkshire, which have been written off and closed, to go over to free enterprise, they will be opened in a very short time and will be producing coal.
Mr. Hamilton: I think the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. Bennett) is talking a lot of nonsense about the declining coalfield in Lanarkshire and the development of coalfields in Fife. The pits now closed down in Lanarkshire were pits working at a loss, and they would never be opened under private enterprise because they were running at a loss.
Mr. Bennett: Whenever one asks the House to face facts, some hon. Member opposite gets up and says one is talking nonsense. These pits have been written off. We know that they were not productive, in the financial sense, when run by the Coal Board, but that is not to say that they would not be financially sound today. Hon. Members opposite are always talking about the old days and the bad old times. I will give them something to think about. The Co-operative Society only operated a coal pit once in their history, but they were better off selling goods than digging coal, and they closed it down very quickly. People will not mine coal unless they get something out of it. There are men in Scotland today who are quite prepared to put money in the pits and risk it. They would not do that unless they thought they could get the men. We know that they will get the men, who are anxious to work in the area. These are facts.
Another point is that it seems to me useless for the Minister to wonder why
1132
consumption is going up regularly month after month in houses, on the railways and elsewhere. Why do not the Government face the undoubted fact that it is costing more to produce one unit of electricity and one therm of gas and costing more to run trains from London to Glasgow simply because suitable coal is not available?
Mr. Snow: On a point of order. May I draw attention to the fact that there is no responsible person on the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is no responsible person on the other side at all.
Mr. George Wigg: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) drew attention to the absence of any responsible speaker on the Front Bench opposite. There never is one there.
Mr. Bennett: I want to put these facts before the House. The man-power is there and the men want to work. If they were allowed to work, there is no question that we could get more coal. We might not get all the coal we want, but we could certainly increase production in Scotland without any difficulty if only manpower were handled in a more humane and thoughtful manner than that in which it has been handled up to now.
Again, we are now selling coal abroad for £4 a ton and importing it at £7 a ton, and surely there is something very wrong when we are going to charter 100 ships to bring coal from America and then send the same coal or its equivalent tonnage to South America, South Africa and elsewhere. I suggest that what the Board requires is a complete overhaul from top to bottom. If that is done, I do not think that there will be any difficulty then in solving our problems.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Snow: I shall not follow on the lines of the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett), some of whose arguments I frankly did not understand. May I say with reference to the point of order which

1133
I raised earlier, that I should not like to be thought discourteous to the hon. Gentleman the Opposition Whip, of whose union I was once a member, nor to the other elderly gentleman of great charm, the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Lieut.-Colonel Sir C. Headlam), whose function on the Opposition Front Bench I have never quite understood.
I do not think that anyone can be under the impression that this debate was secured by the Opposition other than for the purpose of attacking the Government and not in any way to help tackle the coal problem constructively. If one wants proof of that, one had only to listen to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), whose speech appeared to be a series of gibes at the Government. He reached an intellectual nadir this afternoon which must have surprised even his own back benchers. The ingenuous attitude of the Opposition in trying to differentiate between the Coal Board's responsibility and the miners' responsibility is not, I think, going to fool many people in the country. Those of us who go to our constituencies and address public meetings have all had the experience of the sort of backhanded attack made against the miners by supporters of hon. Members opposite, and the lip service paid to them when more responsible speakers of the party opposite address the public.
We know that what the Conservative Party really fear is the increase of the political influence of the miners through their union. Indeed, the Opposition Press comment, when the National Union of Mineworkers had an interview with the Prime Minister the other day, reminded me of the comment for which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was responsible, when he described the greatest philosopher in the East of his day as a "naked Fakir, daring to talk on terms of equality with a representative of the King Emperor." The whole essence of the hostility displayed towards the miner is that the miner has political influence, quite rightly, in this country.
There was a letter written to "The Times" some weeks ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster), who is not in his
1134
seat. As I am not going to make any controversial remarks about that letter, I do not think that I need apologise for referring to it in his absence. He claimed that the lack of decentralisation at pit level was a serious factor militating against the efficiency of the industry. I have in my constituency a small number of pits and quite a large number of miners.
I have tried to get to the bottom of this matter, and to find out if there is any justification in that statement that there is not sufficient local autonomy, because I think that is a matter which we ought carefuly to consider. I hope that the House will consider this whole problem constructively, and not just as a subject for the hustings. I have asked the various managers whether or not they consider that they have sufficient local authority. I cannot get an answer which embodies any general measure of agreement; on the contrary, it appears to differ very substantially from district to district.
I have come to the conclusion that there are some old pit managers, taken over from the private enterprise days, who find it very difficult to adjust themselves to modern conditions of full employment. They have been brought up in a hard school, and they find themselves in these days of full employment somewhat bewildered. Indeed, some of them—I emphasise the word "some"—I think resent joint consultation. Show me an allegedly frustrated pit manager and almost certainly you will be showing me a man who senses his own inability to lead his workers. They have been trained to drive them under the lash of mass unemployment, and one can understand that. I believe that many of them definitely sigh for the good old days of Tory rule, and that the reason they do so is because they are just not attuned to modern conditions of full employment.
The Minister, I know, will not resent some criticism which I shall make. There is some evidence that there is not sufficient local autonomy in settling wage contracts. If these can be "nailed," I think that we shall get to the bottom of the allegations on this question of autonomy. Pit managers must, in fact, be tree from a restrictive administration. I had a case brought to my attention recently of a new machine being introduced into a pit,

1135
which lay idle for weeks, because no settlement could be reached as between the miners and the Coal Board.
I do not want to stress this point, but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to consider if there is any means by which he can have his attention drawn to the state of affairs which I have described, where a new machine is introduced and lies idle for several weeks because no reconciliation between the competing claims of the Board and the miners has been reached. That is a state of affairs which we cannot afford to allow to go on. I am not imputing blame to either side, but I think that at some point the Ministry must intervene and prevent these long delays.
There are other pin pricks which take place. For instance, after the recent appeal to work on Saturday mornings, I received many complaints that supplementary disability pay for little amounts of 4s. 6d. and 5s. a week had been deducted because the men had worked overtime. That may be actuarily in order but it is psychologically pathetic and should never have arisen.
I want to say a word about the development of the coal pits. Again, in my constituency, it is known that part of the Cannock field is producing less and a survey has been undertaken for new pits and new seams. In the Armitage area bore holes had been sunk and a new pit will be established in that area. When I heard of that a year ago I went and asked for a timetable which would reconcile the running down of local pits with the building up of employment resulting from the new pits. A year later, I am informed that, whereas it was estimated that in five years time the new shaft would have been sunk and employment built up, this estimated new shaft cannot now be sunk under eight years. I do not understand what new factors have arisen since I obtained that technical advice through the Ministry.
This brings me to the question of winning more coal by developing better seams and sinking new shafts. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer this particular technical point, and if he is not able to do so now, perhaps he will do so by correspondence. According to the last Coal Board report for the year concerned, a total of 297 bore holes were
1136
sunk, of which no fewer than 263 were bore holes of less than 1,000 feet. The significance of that is that 1,000 feet is less than the average pit depth for the industry. I should also like to know, since the report does not give the information, what percentage of cores were recovered from the borings. I am given to understand that it may well be as little as only 50 per cent.
If that is so, is the Minister satisfied that his technical advisers are securing the introduction into the industry of the most up-to-date sub-surface equipment? I am no technician in this matter. I merely have to go on what I read and as I am advised, but I am told that in other countries, and not just for the coal-mining industry, the Schlumberger electrical technique is regarded as the most successful.
Mr. Robens: We are using it in this country.
Mr. Snow: I am very glad to hear it. But why do we have the situation that, of the 297 bore holes sunk, 263 are completed at less than a depth of 1,000 feet? If I might apply this question to the proposed Armitage pit—I know that it was by direct boring—it took a very long time, and there must be some reason why the whole timetable has been upset in a space of 12 months.
What are the difficulties? Is it the difficulty of capital investment? I am told that there is no technical collaboration between the Royal School of Mining and the industry. It seems curious that that should be so. It may be that the more conservative-minded technicians want a shot in the arm by the introduction of people from abroad with new ideas who may bring some light to bear on the technical problems with which we are confronted.
Reference has been made in a very able maiden speech to the bitter feelings and recollections in the industry. That is applicable both to pit managers and to the miners. The bitter recollections of the pit managers might be equated to their recollections of the easiness with which they secured their armies of workers in the past. My final point is this. I went down to a township in my division, Chase Town, to see an old gentleman who is suffering badly from pneumoconiosis, and I was horrified to find that

1137
this old gentleman was out of benefit for the disease. I cannot see any moral justification for any miner suffering from that disease, which he could only have got working in the pits, being out of benefit and subjected to the economic difficulties that follow such a deprivation.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With much that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) said on the technical aspects of the matter, so far as I understand them, I am not inclined to disagree, but I should like, before I pass to the main theme of what I wish to say, to tell him how much I, at any rate, resented his quite uncalled for sneer at the beginning of his speech against a right hon., senior and much respected Member of this House. I can assure him that, as far as many Members are concerned, that sneer did far more harm to the hon. Member than to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Sir C. Headlam).
All Members can start, I think, on the basis, that things have not gone as was expected four years ago, when literally, with flags flying and midnight celebrations on vesting day, right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their nominees took over the mining industry. I think we can start on the basis that the way in which things have worked out has been wholly different from the way that was expected by those who put forward this prototype of nationalisation.
If there be evidence needed, I should like to quote the words spoken by the Foreign Secretary, whose amazing recovery from his illness is a source of gratification to every Member. This is what he said in June, 1945, with all the weight of his authority in the party opposite behind him?
"With the commonsense organisation I would put into the mining industry—and with State ownership it could he done quickly—output would be improved and the price of coal to the consumer would he lowered."
That expectation has received a further blow by the tragic announcement of the right hon. Gentleman of a further increase in the price of coal, with all its infinite repercussions both on the cost of living and costs of production of British industry, and its competitive power in the markets of the world.
1138
We must start on the basis that something unexpected to hon. Members opposite has happened to this industry. I confess that I failed to find in the right hon. Gentleman's speech any real appreciation of the situation, or any real proposals to put it right. There were a certain number of excuses. There was that perennial excuse for Socialist mismanagement—the weather. There was no apparent appreciation of the fact that for four years right hon. Gentlemen opposite and their nominees have had control of the industry. There was no appreciation that its structure and appointments have been their work, and that if it has fallen down, as obviously it has from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it is a responsibility for which they must answer to the House—and in a special degree, because not only is this their creation, the hope, pride and darling of Socialist planning, but it is also an industry in respect of which the House of Commons has been denied an opportunity of proper supervision.
We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that, as he leaves the National Coal Board to run the industry without any interference, it would be quite intolerable for him to tell the House how it is doing it. But the Prime Minister, apparently not knowing that rule, was able recently to discuss with the miners' leaders, in the absence of the National Coal Board, the very matters that the House has been denied an opportunity of discussing on the grounds that it was the affair of the National Coal Board. I should have expected from the Minister something that went far deeper into what has gone wrong in the industry.
Mr. Harold Davies: It is completely untrue to say that information has not been placed at the disposal of the House and that the House is not able to interfere. Members are having more information now about the mining industry than ever before. Lord Hyndley is taking very great care to see that Members get satisfactory explanations of local difficulties in the mining industry.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will not endeavour to compete with the hon. Member in his apparently greater success in getting questions past the Table.
Mr. Davies: I put them politely.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But if the hon. Member is satisfied by Lord Hyndley's explanations, then he is very easily satisfied indeed.
There is one aspect of the state of affairs into which we have got as a result of the conduct of this industry upon which the House is entitled to a good deal further information, and that is the purchase of American coal. The right hon. Gentleman referred to certain quantities, but he did not tell us the price at which this coal has been purchased, nor the price at which it will be purchased; nor did he tell us the freight charges or how many precious dollars have had to be expended.
As this is a matter on which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted responsibility—I think his words were that he "instructed" the National Coal Board to proceed with the purchases—the least the House is entitled to demand is a statement of the price being paid for this coal and the amount of dollars that have been expended. It is impossible for us to estimate accurately the degree of disaster which this coal crisis has brought on this country unless we can be told what we have had to pay and in particular the amount of our immensely valuable dollar resources which we have been forced by the failure of the coal industry to divert to the purchase of coal. It is a very curious thing that after four years of nationalisation, the old tag about bringing coals to Newcastle has been demonstrated as the latest triumph of Socialist planning.
I desire to follow up a little of the right hon. Gentleman's statement in the concluding part of his speech, because there were several things that he said which interested me a great deal. I am glad to see him in his place, and he will correct me if I misunderstood what he had to say. He said that the sales of gas and electrical appliances were being reduced so far as the nationalised industries were concerned, and I think he went on to suggest that sales were now mainly on private account. I do not know how long that state of affairs has been in effect, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has studied with proper attention the second Report and Statement of Accounts of the British Electricity Authority for the year ending 31st March, 1950. It is stated on page 99 that in the year 1948–49
1140
the percentage of equipment sold on hire purchase was 10.2 per cent., with cash sales 89.8, the two items being in round figures £14 million and £1½ million. In 1949–50 the position had entirely changed, with 24.8 per cent. hire purchase sales against 75.2 per cent. of direct cash sales. The tendency by this nationalised industry has been to stimulate hire purchase, which it has done with remarkable success in the course of one year.
One of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne), on 29th January asked the right hon. Gentleman what he was doing about it. I quote the question and the reply. My hon. Friend asked the Minister
"if he will make a statement as to the directions he has given to the British Electricity Authority to cause them to observe the Government policy of limiting hire-purchase facilities in the same way as the banks have been directed."
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"I have given no direction to the British Electricity Authority regarding the limitation of hire-purchase facilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 70.]
We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought the co-operation of the banks to discourage hire purchase generally. Here, where it is much more important to discourage hire purchase of these appliances which consume fuel, the right hon. Gentleman, although it is within his power to give a direction under the Electricity Act, has, in fact, not bothered to exercise his powers. It is a little hard when the right hon. Gentleman comes to that Box and says that the hire-purchase arrangements are mainly by private firms, the implication being to put the blame against them when he has not exercised the power vested in him by Parliament in respect of the great nationalised monopolies.
Then the right hon. Gentleman says that advertising is to be used to discourage consumption. That is a very welcome change. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect an answer to a Parliamentary Question by one of my hon. Friends below the Gangway some time ago. He was asked whether he thought the display of pictures of power stations was designed or calculated to increase or diminish the consumption of electricity. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he said that he did not think it would have either effect. In other words,

1141
advertising on a highly expensive stale—how expensive he has never dared to tell the House of Commons—he has refused to do so—is being used to have no effect at all upon the consumption of electricity.
So far as the gas monopoly are concerned, they are not guilty of any such impartiality. I have in my hands programmes from two London theatres sent to me by a constituent who attended them in the last few weeks. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman when he was good enough to give way to me during his speech, they contain advertisements by the North Thames Gas Board. One entire page includes two tramcars originally designated "Triumph" and "Desire." With no apparent relevance to the tramcars, there appear these words underneath:
"Wherever they go the new gas cookers are a triumph. White, spotless, easy to use and clean, neat as a new pin—they transform the kitchen. Why not see them at the gas showrooms? A few pence a day buys one."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not."] Hon. Members should really direct their question to the Minister. If they had paid to the Minister's speech the attention which, because of his official capacity, it deserves, they would have appreciated that he indicated that he is now taking steps to use advertising on behalf of these monopolies to diminish the use of these appliances. It is a very material point to put to him that up to a few weeks ago, when, indeed, this fuel crisis was obvious to everyone except the right hon. Gentleman, these monopolies, which he controls, were acting in precisely a contrary sense.
Mr. Harold Davies rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's intervention on the last occasion—
Mr. Davies: On this occasion I should like—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's intervention on the last occasion really justifies me in trying the patience of the. House in giving way to him again.
Mr. Richard Adams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When I finish this paragraph. Apart from this being contrary to the policy expounded by the
1142
Government, it is a perfect example of a lavish waste of money.
Mr. Ellis Smith: What is the date on the programme?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Then there is a second advertisement in the other programme headed "Herr Papageno Therm." Underneath there are several lines in a language which I believe to be German, with an appended translation which reads:
"Oh, I'm a merry, happy Therm Known by all in every land…"
If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that that is designed to discourage the consumption of gas, then he is a merry, happy Minister.
Mr. R. Adams: I wanted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was implying that the effect of these advertisements would be to persuade the people to buy two cookers in the place of one?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, who has the ultimate responsibility, imagines that in the present phase of Socialist society, anybody is in a position to afford such an expense. But the hon. Gentleman—and I shall be happy to show him the advertisements if he so desires—must concede that if these advertisements had any purpose—and I am quite prepared to accept the argument from hon. Members opposite that these advertisements are inserted with no other purpose at all than the expenditure of public money—they are quite clearly intended to stimulate the sale of these appliances.
Mr. Harold Davies: Efficient appliances.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: And, of course, in many cases they stimulate the sale by hire purchase. Therefore, I will say to the right hon. Gentleman what I sought to say to him on other occasions, as he knows so well, that if he is now converted—as I am glad to gather from his speech that he is—to the desirability of using the publicity forces of the monopolies to discourage consumption, it is about time that he paid close attention to see that his subordinates are not taking precisely the opposite action.
There is one further point about the consumption of electricity being deliber-

1143
ately and unnecessarily stimulated by the British Electricity Authority. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are contracts in existence for the installation of electrical equipment, under which the consumer guarantees to consume not less than a certain quantity of electricity, and whether he consumes it or not he has to pay for it. What use is it the right hon. Gentleman going to the microphone, as he did the other night, to make an appeal to people to use less electricity, when his surbordinates, the British Electricity Authority, are denying these people the slightest incentive to economise in electricity?
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there is more electricity and gas in the homes of the people. There were sympathetic cheers from his supporters behind him. He did not think fit to point out that if coal is denied, alternative heating methods are needed. Nor did he point out that, according to the figures issued by his Own Department, the amount of house coal issued to the people of this country was 14 million tons less last year than it was in 1938. Before the right hon. Gentleman comforts himself too much over the increased gas and electricity in the homes of the people—only, so far as electricity is concerned, in the home of the people if somebody has not switched it off—before the right hon. Gentleman warms himself at that particular fire, he should recall the immense diminution of fuel when he has cut off something in the neighbourhood of 33½ per cent. of the consumption of coal in the homes of the people.
We all recognise that the two main features of the fall in coal output, which was 25 million tons less last year than it was in 1938, are the fact that there are fewer men in the pits and the fact that while the output per man-hour has gratifyingly risen the output per man-year is down, compared with what it was in 1939. It is the output per man-year which determines the total output of coal. After all the capital which has been put into the mines and sunk in new machinery, that fact is alarming. As regards the number of men, the right hon. Gentleman has been holding out to us for years the prospect of reinforcing the manpower in the mines with foreign labour. He made the statement today that he had received the consent of the National Union
1144
of Mineworkers for that purpose, and the House was glad to hear it. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is now being done about it? Two years ago, I know from my direct experience, Italian miners were available and willing to come to this country. Are they available now, and are they willing to come?
Mr. Robens Mr. Robens indicated assent.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps he could tell us what we are doing in this matter, and what the difficulties are in connection with it. Surely to goodness it is better to pay the foreigner to hack our coal than to pay him more to hack his own. I hope that we shall hear, now that the consent of the National Union of Mineworkers has at last been received, as a result, I understand, of the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, what steps are being taken. The right hon. Gentleman was a little less than fair with the House when he expressed his gratification at a small increase in the manpower in the mines in the last few weeks, because the total is still below what it was this time last year, when it was lower than it had been at the same time in the previous year.
Year after year, in the Economic Surveys which the Government present to this House, manpower targets for the mining industry have been proudly stated, but every time they have failed to be achieved. The Minister of Labour said at that Box that he had a scheme to secure the numbers required by direction, of labour, but it broke down, as direction of labour always breaks down on the job. Direction of labour and the ring fence failed. What has been done now to secure that these men are brought here quickly?
Finally, I ask the House to accept it from me that in anything I have said I do not direct my blame at anybody, but at the structure and high administration of this industry, which hon. Members will admit I have criticised for the last five and a half years. I am one of those people who believe, with the Duke of Wellington, that there are no bad troops but only bad officers. It is a question of morale that we have to face. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray), who I regret to say is not in his place at the moment but who interjected during an earlier speech, said

1145
that there was more ill feeling in the industry over the award last October than there had ever been in its history. I think many hon. Members recognise that there is much wrong with the moral atmosphere in the industry. I am not concerned to determine whose fault that was, but with the fact.
I came across a few lines from G. K. Chesterton which I think set out this feeling, which is somewhat incoherent, with considerable clarity and force. They are:

"They have given us into the hands of new unhappy lords,

Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.

They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright, dead, alien eyes;

They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

And the load of their loveless pity Is worse than the ancient wrongs."

Until the structure and the higher personnel of the industry are replaced by a more efficient structure and a new direction, I do not believe that the tinkerings of the right hon. Gentleman can give this country the coal that it needs and must have.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. James Glanville: It is only on rare occasions that I intervene in the proceedings of this House. I have sat and listened patiently to the whole of this debate. My only right to enter into the discussion is that for nearly 40 years I was an underground worker and that I am the only one of the kind who has spoken in the debate so far. I am astonished at the vast knowledge that is possessed by hon. Members opposite. I am astonished at the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), I remember that when I first came to the House he was Minister of Information, and that in the Caretaker Government he was First Lord of the Admiralty. I remember seeing a cartoon in a national newspaper which represented Nelson getting off his column and inviting the right hon. Gentleman to get on it. I am not in the least surprised that he was given the job of opening the debate on coal, having in mind the terrible mess that his right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), made on the last occasion.
There is not an industry in this country or in any other great country that has
1146
been so completely "commissioned," inquired into and investigated as the coal industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said that it is not this industry which we are analysing. What this debate is about is not coal; it is iron and steel and the whole of nationalisation. The Opposition could not get a day to discuss iron and steel, the Act on which is now on the Statute Book, and will be put into operation. I have between five and six thousand steelworkers in my constituency, and they sent me a telegram saying that the Act will be implemented. The telegram was read in this House.
What are we going to do about the coal industry? Everybody knows the plight it is in. Everybody knows the limitation in raising manpower for the industry and everybody knows that the mines are like the miners, getting old and decrepit. Let us go back a little. If anybody in the House can speak with authority about the mines, I can. I started in the "good old days" of Tory ownership and Tory domination at the "ripe old age" of 12, doing 10 hours a day underground for 1s. 3½d. a day. A representative of the Liberal Party said that miners should breed miners. That was what was believed in those days, and the economic conditions were such then that as soon as a lad was able to get his school leaving certificate at the age of 12, he was forced willy-nilly into the pit because of the economic state of the household.
The coal owners where I was born sank the pit shafts and built a few wooden huts around them and called them colliery houses. When the miners left the pit they had to leave their colliery houses. Houses? —dirty hovels they were. Since the Labour Party came into power, the miner gets a squarer deal than ever he did. But under the policy of full employment which the Government have pursued, miners are not so easily or cheaply obtained as they were 50 years ago. Since the ring-fence was lifted from the industry, the men have had the right to choose their own jobs. I know what hon and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have. They would have someone at the colliery with a whip in his hand to drive the men into the pits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] They did it before and they would do it tomorrow if they had the chance. I sincerely hope that the people of this coun-

1147
try will never allow a Tory Government to get back into power again.
Mr. Frederic Harris: Give them the opportunity to find out.
Brigadier Head: The hon Member opposite has never done anything dangerous in his life.
Mr. Glanville: Today we are short of manpower in the mines, and I want the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to take notice of a suggestion which I have. It is obvious that there is not sufficient manpower in the country to man the whole of industry when full employment is the order of the day. That is why when they were in power the Tories kept a pool of a couple of million unemployed in order to exploit the man on the job. [Interruption.] That is true. I suggest to the Minister that, in the absence of sufficient manpower, we must mechanise to the fullest possible extent. Mechanisation means capital expenditure. I suggest to the Minister and the Government that, until the pits are permanently and properly mechanised, all payments of compensation to the late coal owners should be suspended.
Mr. Harris: Take some machinery from the groundnut scheme.
Mr. Glanville: My suggestion is a practical, commonsense one, and I thought that it would bring the Tories to their feet. I have another practical suggestion to make to hon. Gentlemen opposite in order to improve the manpower position in the industry and in order to prove their loyalty to the country in time of emergency. Nobody need doubt that there is an emergency; full employment in this country will always create an emergency, because we are a small island, and when everybody is at work, the racketeers cannot get the better of anybody. When I say "racketeers" I mean the Tory employers and plunderers. I suggest that as honest patriotic citizens hon. Gentlemen opposite should make a united cooperative effort. Can we get any volunteers from them?
Mr. Harris: The hon. Member should ask his own side.
Mr. Glanville: The hon. Gentleman will make a splendid coal-getter. The boys of hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead
1148
of going to college, should come and be trained in the mining industry. Hon. Members must agree that in doing so they would be doing a job of national importance and would contribute to the national well-being, but they simply send their boys to the college up the road in order to educate them to be young snobs and they expect miners to breed miners to get the coal for them. I guarantee that if hon. Gentlemen opposite sent their boys into our districts, we would treat them kindly. We would open our workmen's clubs and hostels to them. We would give them all the help and accommodation they could possibly need. If in the last analysis they were failures, we would behave as gentlemen and not kick them in the posteriors.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), quoted a lot of figures and statistics. A. J. Cook, of the National Union of Mineworkers, who was a great friend of mine, once said "Figures cannot lie but liars can figure." I am not impressed by this mass of statistics. I am not impressed by any briefs prepared by the Tory Central Office for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, who tonight has once again proved his versatility. What I am concerned about is the well-being of this country. We on these benches are patriots. We want the country to survive, and we are prepared to pay our contribution to its survival. The men in the coal-fields are making their contribution by working an extra shift a day and an extra half day a week. Will anybody from the ranks of the Tories volunteer to do one shift a week?
In conclusion, let me say that the problems of the mining industry will not be solved in this House of Commons. The industry is far from dead, and the men working in it are amongst the finest on earth. I ought to know. They have to endure reading in the Press the carping criticisms and aspersions continually cast on them by hon. Members opposite who never did a day's work in their lives. I hope that hon. Members will offer some more constructive suggestions. In the meantime, the ranks are open. I dare say the Whips will take the names of any volunteers who come forward.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity and I hope it

1149
will be a long, long time before any more inquests are held on this industry. They are not necessary. The good feeling between the Board and the men in the coalfields was never better than it is now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Does anybody on the benches opposite know anything about the coalfields? Will they go into the pits and experience it? Only then can they speak with authority. Feeling was never better between the management, the Coal Board and the men. If they are allowed to get together around a table, as they are with the various committees available, consulting together, co-operating in the conduct of the industry, they will carry on and will justify their own existence. This criticising by a lot of people who have nothing else to do, is doing no good either to the country or to the mining industry. I sincerely hope that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have the wellbeing of the country at heart, they will try to make a more constructive contribution than continually decrying and vilifying a body of men who are second to none in the world.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Robert Carr: It is rather difficult to follow such an entertaining and tempting predecessor, but there are one or two points I must draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville). For example, he said there was nobody on these benches who had done a day's work in his life. I have not been down a mine, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to take his coat off with me tomorrow morning, go into a foundry and rake the dross and pour castings I shall be doing it long after he has put his coat on again.
Mr. Manuel: You are younger.
Mr. Carr: Yes, and I will take some weight for my years too. And we can find plenty of other hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who will do the same.
Mr. Glanville: I will accept the challenge of the hon. Member.
Mr. Carr: I am not a little bit afraid of him. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the challenge?"] The hon. Member said something about forcing people into the pits. I really must remind him
1150
who was the last person who forced people to work in the pits. Let him ask his right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions about the direction of labour. Then the hon. Member said something to the effect that figures cannot lie, but liars can figure. Having heard the speech of his right hon. Friend earlier this afternoon, I think he might just as well have addressed that remark to him as to my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
Then the hon. Member said that this debate should never have taken place, that the mining industry has been investigated over and over again, and that the miners were being attacked. I believe his hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Rev. L. Williams), who made such an able maiden speech shortly before, also said something about the miners being attacked. But really it is the hon. Members for Consett and Abertillery who are suffering under a misconception. We are not investigating the mining industry today, we are not attacking the miners; it is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are spending their time investigating the mining industry and boxing shadows about attacking miners. My right hon. Friend in opening this debate did not attack the miners. We are not doing so. What we are attacking and what we are investigating today is the Minister of Fuel and Power and his maladministration and his failure to plan. That is what we are attacking and investigating.
I want to devote my attention mainly to the long-term question of economy and efficiency in the use of our coal. It seems to me obvious that whatever we do now, whatever improvements we can make over a period, we have to plan for a stringency of supplies over the next few years. I was glad to hear the Minister agree about this. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman lay great stress on fuel economy. But where, I would ask him, is the overall plan, where is this fuel policy?
All we have had so far from this Government, and from its predecessor since 1945, are last-minute panic appeals. My hon. Friends have mentioned electricity, hire-purchase encouragement, and so forth. We have had one more last-minute panic appeal. Again today we have heard that the price of coal is to be increased. We are told that it is in order that the mines will not run at a loss. I hope there

1151
was no intention in addition to restrict demand by rationing by the purse.
However, we are told that this evening the Parliamentary Secretary in winding up this debate will give us the overall fuel policy. If so we must all, on whatever side of the House we sit, welcome it. But why so late? Nationalisation, whatever else it was supposed to do or not to do, was supposed to give us one great advantage. It was supposed to provide the means for an overall policy. It was supposed to provide the means for better co-ordination between one branch and another branch.
The fact is that there is no overall plan for fuel economy and efficiency. There is no co-ordination, as we were led to believe there would be. We are getting the worst of both worlds. There has been no lead, for example, to industry as to how to divide its developments between the use of coal, gas, electricity and oil. A few years ago we had panic instructions to change over to oil but no sooner had many of us in industry got busy on that, than we had equally panic instructions to reverse and to go back to coal.
I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of coal economy, namely, the efficiency of steam raising in industry. There have been a number of investigations into this problem, and the results have been astonishing and alarming. Looked at in terms of the cost per 1,000 lb. of steam raised, it is not an exaggeration to say that the results vary from one firm to another by as much as something of the order of 3s. per 1,000 lb. of steam in the most efficient units to as much as 11s. in the least efficient.
If we could get some raising of the level of efficiency in this direction, there could be a saving in the use of coal of, perhaps, 20 million tons per year. That makes the 50,000 tons' saving by the last-minute cut in shop lighting look rather silly. I admit that that is not a short-term policy. It is a long-term policy, and because of that it is all the more important to get about it quickly. How can we go about it? There are, of course, minor measures such as better lagging, better maintenance of existing plant to keep it in better running order, and so forth. All those things could, and
1152
should, play their part. I admit quite freely that something has been done in these directions by the Fuel Efficiency Service run by the Ministry—much credit to what it has done; but it does not go far enough.
The urgent need is for new plant; for example, to get more firms, and not only the very large firms, to use the back pressure turbine method of raising steam. This has the double saving, not only of raising steam for heating and processing purposes more cheaply, but also of raising electricity for the firm in its own works and so relieving the pressure on the public undertakings.
These and other similar methods, however, mean capital expenditure. How are we to get that plan of capital expenditure underway? I ask that an appeal be made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this problem. If we are to get firms to implement proposals of that kind, they must be given incentives; they must be given some special initial allowance or other relief to encourage them to spend capital on these fuel-saving types of plant and processes. I ask the Minister of Fuel and Power to approach his right hon. Friend on this point. If that is a policy which we ought to consider for the industrial user, it is similarly one which we ought to apply to the domestic user. We all know that there are many modern types of boiler, and even ordinary open fire grates, which are much more economical than the older types.
If I buy a car for use in my business, I am entitled to claim depreciation for that car against Income Tax as expenses. If I can do that for my car, is it too much to ask that if I spend money in the national interest in installing a modern boiler or firegrate, I should also be able to claim depreciation of that equipment against my Income Tax? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider these points before his next Budget.
Mr. Harold Davies: Or a modern gas stove.
Mr. Carr: Or a modern gas stove. But the hon. Member entirely misconceives the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The point my hon. Friend was making was that these advertisements must be for a purpose. Was that purpose to encourage the use of more gas—
Mr. Davies: Efficient use.
Mr. Carr: —more electricity, or less? There are all the advertisements for hire-purchase and for the use of equipment for space heating by electricity, which is one of the most inefficient ways imaginable of using coal; yet those things can be obtained on hire-purchase agreements. They are encouraged, and that is wrong. That does not tie up with what the Minister said earlier.
Mr. Davies: The only point I wanted to make regarding the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was this: The advertising of efficient appliances is of much more value to the country than is the use of old and inefficient appliances. One firm—I.C.I.—have already spent over £5,000 on new appliances, which have given them a much more efficient use of fuel. People can cook more efficiently in a gas stove than with an open fire with an oven. The hon. Member might try that.
Mr. Carr: Does the hon. Member really think that advertisements in theatre programmes are designed for that type of user and that kind of purpose which he has mentioned?
Mr. Davies: Those people go to the theatres the same as everyone else.
Mr. Carr: I make a serious appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to develop, and to put all the power at their command behind, a long-term fuel policy to bring about more economic use of a commodity which, however much it may exist under the earth in this country, will be scarce above the earth for a number of years to come at least. I maintain as a charge against the Government that this long-term policy has not been put into effect as soon as it should have been. If it is true that our long-term difficulties are aggravated by these reasons, it is equally true that the cause of this immediate crisis and the debate today is, as I said earlier, the failure of short-term planning and administration by the Government in general and by the Minister of Fuel and Power in particular.
We have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said today. Well, the country will judge whether it is just another hard-luck story or whether it has a basis of fact. He has now come
1154
forward with plans for the future. We must welcome those plans if they will produce some result, but the time for this planning was long ago, and my charge against the right hon. Gentleman is that if those plans are good today, they were equally good and equally possible 12 months ago and even longer.
Mr. Manuel: Many years ago.
Mr. Carr: If this is planning, then it is using planning as a drunken man uses a lamp post, for support rather than for illumination.
Should we censure the Government today? Should we have this debate? I was interested in the point of view put forward, presumably on behalf of the Liberal Party by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). It seems to me that the Liberal Party is rather like a political hermaphrodite. It is difficult to know—I do not think it even knows itself—what is its political sex from day to day. It agreed with our criticisms, but said that we should not censure the Government.
This House has a duty to the people. We cannot come here and ask that all past mistakes should be forgiven by saying, "We are very sorry this has happened, but we are making all these plans for the future and all will be well now." Past mistakes cannot be glossed over and condoned in that way. This House has a duty to call those mistakes to order.
Mr. Harold Davies: Hear, hear.
Mr. Carr: Some time ago a merchant ship, a great new liner, left these shores on her maiden voyage and on her return trip, off the coast of South America, ran on to the rocks and was lost. There was a court of inquiry and as a result the captain and some of the officers of that ship were made to shoulder the responsibility and suffer a severe penalty. They suffered that penalty and shouldered that responsibility because the ship went on the rocks. No plan which they could have put forward to get the ship off the rocks would have taken that responsibility and penalty off their shoulders.
The Minister of Fuel and Power has run the coal ship of State on to the rocks, and the moral of the story is obvious. It is the duty—[Interruption.] Opinions may differ, but if—I am addressing these remarks mainly to the Liberal benches

1155
although at the moment, I fear, they are empty—if we believe that there is blame in the past, the House has a duty to bring this Vote of Censure on the Government. I am quite content to leave anybody who does not support that Vote of Censure to the judgment of their constituents and to the later judgment of the electorate at a General Election.
Mr. Murray: Before the hon. Member sits down, I should like him to answer this question. He threw out a challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) and my hon. Friend has already accepted that challenge. Will the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) tell the House when it is to be put into operation?
Mr. Manuel: And who will be the referee?
Mr. Carr: I shall willingly see the hon. Member for Consett at any time he likes to come and see me and we will discuss the matter.
Mr. Manuel: We only want to know the date.
Mr. Carr: Perhaps you can enlighten me, Mr. Speaker, as to whether we have a foundry on the premises. If so I would take off my coat now.
Mr. Manuel: We want to know the date.
Mr. Carr: We want to find the foundry. I do know how to rake the dross and pour metal. I have worked in a foundry in the past. I am quite prepared to do it again tomorrow morning, if you, Sir, or anyone likes to appoint the foundry at which we should do it.
7.41 p.m.
Miss Burton: The brief time I have at my disposal I wish to devote in part to the Amendment put down by the Opposition and the major part to what I hope will be a constructive suggestion for the National Coal Board. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), whether we agree with him or not, has tried to make constructive suggestions in this coal situation. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) is not in his place—he cannot sit there all the time and that is no criticism—but I
1156
think that from his speech it is obvious that Bournemouth is not conducive to a knowledge of the mining industry.
I think it a great mistake of some hon. Members of the Opposition to try to prey on what are very natural feelings of people who may be disappointed in this country. If one is a householder, short of coal or coke, it is quite obvious that one is very annoyed about it. Everyone is annoyed and looks for someone to belabour because of that disappointment. That is also very natural. If one can get coke or coal but it has gone up in price, that also is a very legitimate source of grievance.
Where I think the Opposition have gone wrong, as so frequently in the past, is that they state these facts and the newspapers which support them state the facts but give no reasons. What runs through many Opposition speeches and articles of newspapers which support them is, "Nationalisation has failed, look at the high price of coal." I am sorry, but that is dishonest and it is high time the country realised that the Opposition are not prepared to put the full facts before them.
On the benches opposite I can see two hon. Members who have a great knowledge of the mining industry and I should like to ask the Opposition if this is not true. One of the chief reasons why the price of coal has gone up since nationalisation is because the miners have advanced from 82nd in the list of industrial wage rates to where they are today. The Opposition have a perfect right to say that they do not agree with that use of the money. Is any hon. Member of the Opposition facing me now prepared to say that he does not agree with the increases in wages given to the miners since nationalisation? I shall give way if he will get up and say so.
Mr. Peter Roberts rose—
Miss Burton: Is this in answer to my question, may I ask?
Mr. Roberts: Of course it is. The amount by which the price of coal has gone up is not all due to the wages. It is the extra amount—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not the answer."] The hon. Lady has given way very kindly. The amount by which the price has gone up is now in the neighbourhood of 14s. or more, and the amount in wages

1157
represented in that is under 10s. I do not think there is any quarrel that the amount of wages increase is represented by 10s. but perhaps the hon. Lady will apply herself to the amount above that.
Miss Burton: I will, but the hon. Member should not think that I would make a statement without having all the facts. I can give a complete list of how the amount of the price of coal is made up. My statement was that by far the largest part goes in wages, holidays and pensions, and I asked if the Opposition objected. The hon. Member has given a long dissertation and avoided the point. Let us move on from that.
I know the Opposition hate talking about the good old days and if I went back to those, no one else would get a chance to speak tonight, but I shall say this. I worked in the Rhondda Valley in the '30's and we know that miners wages were 82nd in the list of industrial wage rates in 1938. We also know—any hon. Member opposite who has been in the Rhondda Valley or knows the Durham or Yorkshire coal fields will know as I do—that it was the women who said in the '30's, "My lads are not going down the pits." One could not get a woman to agree to her lad going down the pit. That is a statement of fact, it is not clap-trap, soap-box oratory, or politics. I see that the Opposition agree with me.
If we go on from there and come to the question of expense, since nationalisation we find that in 1947 the National Coal Board spent £19 million on capital equipment in the mines and, in 1948, £25 million. Before the war the British coal owners did not put their profits back into the industry. I ask hon. Members opposite if anyone objects to the costs of capital equipment which have gone into the pits since the war, which has sent up the cost of coal. I shall give way if I may have an answer to that specific question.
Colonel Clarke: I see no objection to capital costs, but I disagree with the statement that no money was put back between the wars. The sum of £110 million was put back between the wars, and that is no mean sum.
Miss Burton: I appreciate the knowledge of the hon. and gallant Member for
1158
East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) which is considerably greater than mine, but I would refer him to the Reid Report, published before 1945 and before the election, which spoke of the state of the capital equipment in the mines and I would refer him to the far-reaching report, "Plan for Coal," published by the N.C.B., which plans for much greater expenditure on capital equipment. When I have taken a political meeting anywhere and someone has got up and queried the price of coal, whether it was a Conservative with a brief from the Central Office or a well-meaning housewife not with a brief from the Central Office, but who had heard that brief from someone else, I never found one person anywhere of any political party who disagreed when it was explained to them that the price of coal had risen because men have now a decent wage and because capital equipment was being put into the mines. When we have a colliery disaster in this country there is not one bleat out of the Opposition or Opposition newspapers about the price of coal, but, once those disasters are in the past, this is all dug up again. It does no good to the country. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticise and to criticise constructively, but I did not hear one breath of constructive criticism from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, not one.
Mr. George Ward: It is my experience that machinery in every other industry tends to cheapen the product and not make it more expensive. The hon. Lady is saying that machinery in the coal mines makes the product more expensive. Will she please explain that?
Miss Burton: I certainly will. I do not know the extent of the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, and after this I wilt leave the Opposition and get on to more pleasant topics. No one imagines that one can transform an industry within a few years. The Opposition made an effort a couple of years ago—we very nearly fell for it but I am very glad that we did not—to push us into the position of defending the efficiency of a nationalised industry by the returns yielded financially in so short a time. We on this side of the House know, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member knows, that in another five or 10 years the machinery will have produced more coal with fewer miners working

1159
fewer hours, and at a cheaper price. We are prepared to stand by that.
I shall now move on to more pleasant subjects. I wish to put, through the Minister, to the National Coal Board what I think is a constructive suggestion. It is an incentive which I wish to be given not to the people whom we hope to attract into the mines but to the people already there. I marvel that any Member of the Opposition, if he has ever been in a mining valley, dares to get up and talk about putting up more houses for those valleys. Look at what they did not do before the war. We hope to get more houses in the future, and the Minister has given a figure this afternoon.
I have lived in the mining valleys, and I believe in the years to come it will be our job, as responsible citizens, to whatever party we belong, to see that these mining valleys and the villages in them have better shops, picture houses and decent theatres. I say that because without any offence to the people there, the mining valleys of this country are drab and dreary, and there are no incentives for people to earn good money and then go out and spend it there. I also say that having lived in them, I have not found them drab because of the spirit of the people in our mining valleys which is the most marvellous thing in this country.
I believe something could be done in the immediate future which would bring great comfort to the mining valleys and save fuel. I believe it would bring great comfort to the womenfolk of our miners. I want the National Coal Board to look at the homes of our miners. If one looks at the National Coal Board Report for 1948, one finds on page 81, paragraph 318, the details of the houses taken over on nationalisation. In that total, other than agricultural dwellings, freehold houses number 85,988 and leasehold houses 54,144. I am concerned with the total, 140,132.
I have lived with a miner's family in a miner's home in the Rhondda Valley and in other parts of the country. I was in Trealaw, which is a village just off the Rhondda valley two miles from Porth and near Tonypandy. The family I lived with, like so many other families in South Wales, was called Jones. I shall indict the Opposition, without developing the
1160
point, by telling them that Mr. Jones, the head of that family, was 42 years old; he had been out of work for 12 years. His two lads, aged 17 and 18, had never worked in their lives; they had propped up street corners in the Rhondda Valley since they left school. None of them got work until the war broke out.
We had a good house; it had one cold water tap in it. That is a good house. They have not all got that. The hon. Member need not smile, I am not making this remark jokingly—
Mr. Nabarro rose—
Miss Barton: No, I am not giving way. I am perfectly serious in saying that it was a good house because it had one cold water tap in it. It also had an outside lavatory. The house was quite well built. When I lived there I had to go to the clinic at the bottom for my bath. Because the caretaker there was the uncle of my landlady, I was able to get a bath there. There were no baths in Cairo Street. If one went up the valley and came to Cymmer, Abergwynfi and Blaengwynfi one found miners' houses which were not so lucky—they had not even a cold water tap in them; there was one tap out at the backs of the rows of terraced houses each of which served a whole row.
The work of the women who lived in them was never done. They were more lucky than the Joneses, they were not out of work. Hon. Members opposite cannot—and I do not blame them, for if one has not experienced it one cannot know what goes on in the world—realise the condition of the men coming home from the pits. We are lucky, and we have baths. These women had to go out to those taps, fill a bucket with water and carry it indoors and repeat that process often enough to fill a tin bath. Then the water had to be heated. That procedure had to be repeated for every member of the family. It was a job of work which was never done. In Coventry we have a pit called the Keresley Pit, and the present Mayor of Coventry, who has been an underground worker all his life, took me there during a night shift. When I returned I could not get the dirt off myself and out of my clothes: that was for one night only.
I should like the National Coal Board to spend about £50 on each of their

1161
140,000 houses by putting into them a modern range supplying cooking facilities and hot water. That is an amenity which we enjoy every day, but it is something these women have never had. If the Coal Board spent up to £30, where there is already gas cooking they could, for that sum of money, put in a modern grate to warm the house. By doing that we could save several hundreds of thousands of tons of coal a year, because I am advised these modern grates use between six and seven tons of coal a year. Miners receive concessionary coal. I have tried to work out an average but it is very difficult. One has to be married and have a house, and according to the number of one's dependents one gets so much coal. I am prepared to say that the average would not work out at a much higher figure than seven tons. No more than 18 tons of coal can go into one house however many people there are there. In County Durham, for example, any miner not taking his concessionary coal home is paid at pit head rates.
If modern grates were put in their houses not all that concessionary coal would be needed, and we should save the amount which is not required. In Ferry-hill, County Durham, about 50 houses have had new grates put in them. Some miners' wives in South Wales have said that if they had that improvement they could take their names off the housing list. Not all houses would require all these improvements. I wish to see the Coal Board make a drive in the next five years towards supplying the houses they own with modern ranges at a cost of £50 per house. It will give the miners and their families a satisfaction in their homes which they have never had before. It will save fuel and be a great fillip to the coal industry.
8.0 p.m.
Miss Irene Ward: I would first like to make it perfectly clear that I am not speaking from a Central Office brief. I make my own observations, and it may be that they will be no more palatable to my own party than to the party opposite.
Before the war our production was limited by our markets. Today, of course, the emphasis is different; our markets are limited by our production, and that really is the crux of the problem. On every occasion when he has made a
1162
speech on the coal situation, the Minister of Fuel and Power has referred, in very great detail, as an excuse for shortages, to the effects of full employment. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is a little more realistic and a little more honest, made a speech the other day in which he very rightly congratulated the miners on a "bull" week; and he asked, rather pathetically, why it was that we could not have a "bull" week every week. That is the problem to which I should like to hear the Minister of Fuel and Power address himself.
Mr. Robens: I made that speech in September. I did not say that we should have a "bull" week every week. I understand that is quite impossible. I did say, in the first week in September, that if we could have a "bull" week once a month we should build up stocks to the safety level.
Miss Ward: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, because I would not like to quote him incorrectly; but for the purposes of my argument, that is exactly the same. Perhaps he would explain to what he attributes the difficulties of having a "bull" week once a month. I realise, as well as everybody else in this House, that there is a very real problem with regard to wastage in the mines and with regard to recruitment to the mines, but the fact, however, does remain that if, as the hon. Gentleman said, we could have a "bull" week once a month we should be a long way on the road to solving the problem of lack of coal. Therefore, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman, when he winds up the debate, would explain to us what it is that stands in the way of our having a "bull" week.
From that I wish to turn to another point, and if I may, apologise to the House, because I want to be as quick as I can and therefore the various points I want to raise may not be in the Parliamentary form I should like. Everyone knows that in the running of efficient mines a great deal depends on contact between the mines manager and the men underground; and that contact should be maintained almost permanently.
The Minister of Fuel and Power referred to a statement made by Mr. Drummond, now in the north-west region. Mr. Drummond is a very admir-

1163
able man whom I have known since I was a child and I am delighted to know that he is doing such yeoman service to the industry he serves so well. He said, and I am sure rightly, that the mines manager is as free today as he was before. That may be so; I am always ready to accept a statement from Mr. Drummond. But the point is that the mines manager feels he has so much paper work to do, he has so many officials from the National Coal Board superimposed above him, that a great deal of his time has to be given to paper work, and he is no longer in such close and intimate contact with the men underground. That is the fault of the structure of this nationalised industry.
I noticed, with very great regret, that the other day the Minister of Fuel and Power stated that he did not think it necessary to have a mining engineer on the National Coal Board. He said, and quite rightly, that there is a wealth of experience in mining engineering in the regions. That is perfectly true. We have first-class mines managers and first-class mining engineers. We have first-class technical staffs, but the whole of that managerial and technical staff is frustrated under the present system. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that the mining engineers in the country have a proper channel of communication when the National Coal Board is run on Civil Service lines?
I was struck when the Minister of Fuel and Power announced—or so it emerged—that he had never even had a conversation with the former member of the Coal Mines Board who was a mining engineering expert. I thought that, if the right hon. Gentleman was really interested in problems of production, in spite of what I call the Civil Service channels of communication—through the Deputy-Chairman to the Chairman of the National Coal Board—he would have been at least sufficiently interested to have had conversations with Sir Eric Young, who was by common consent the most expert mining engineer in the country.
Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward) would take the trouble to read the debates on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act,
1164
she would find that one of the clamant demands from her hon. Friends was that the Minister should on no account interfere in the day-to-day running of the coalmining industry. Therefore, it would be quite improper for the Minister to discuss problems with individual members of the Board. Surely the channel should be through the Chairman.
Miss Ward: The hon. Gentleman is too ingenuous for words. How does he imagine anyone learns anything in this world unless they go and discuss it with the experts? I was not suggesting that the Minister of Fuel and Power should interfere with the day-to-day management of the coal industry. He is not capable of doing it, even if he wanted to, because he does not know anything about mining. All I thought was that it was a most extraordinary mistake, when the real problem of the industry is production, that the Minister, apparently, is not sufficiently interested to discuss the problem of production with a man who would be able to give him the necessary information. I make those remarks only in passing. In the regions there is a great sense of frustration among managerial and technical staffs because of the structure of the nationalised industry.
Another matter that I wish to raise is the question of the quality of coal. We have had very little discussion about that. I wish to read an extract from a conference at—
Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What has the quality of coal to do with the Amendment on the Order Paper?
Miss Ward: It has just as much to do with it as the speech of the Minister and the price of coal. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not want—
Mr. Hamilton: May we have a ruling on my point of order?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I certainly think the question of the quality of coal is within the purview of this debate.
Miss Ward: I realise that the hon. Gentleman opposite is not at all anxious to have this extract appearing on the pages of HANSARD. In April, 1950, the following report appeared in the Press. It was made by Mr. Stanley Walton-

1165
Brown, of Northumberland, who has been intimately connected with the pits all his life as a mines manager, and now he is the National President of the British Association of Colliery Managers. Here is the extract:
"Coal, so much of which was stone, and the cumbrous system of negotiation with the N.C.B., were two points criticised at the British Association of Colliery Management conference at Scarborough.
Mr. S. Walton-Brown, of Northumberland, the National President, said that almost 33 per cent. of the additional gross output obtained by the National Coal Board since nationalisation consisted of stone. Most of it had been paid for as coal."
Mr. Murray: Can the hon. Lady tell us which colliery he is working at now?
Miss Ward: He was the colliery manager at Seghill in Northumberland. Now he happens to be the President of the Colliery Managers' Association. He was a very fine colliery manager. This bears out exactly what I said earlier. Colliery managements realise that the quality of coal sold to the public today is not nearly as good as it was before nationalisation. I am extremely surprised that there have not been any prosecutions of the National Coal Board for providing as coal material which in fact is not coal.
Not very long ago I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he could state what the reduction in the calorific value of a ton of coal was today compared with before nationalisation. The Minister, who I am afraid does not really understand mining jargon, replied that the calorific value was the same today as it was then. My mind went back to my early days—
Mr. Hamilton: Too far back.
Miss Ward: It was a long way back, and I am proud of it. My mind flew back to that old conundrum which used to be posed—" Which is the heavier, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?" Of course, the point is that the ton of coal sold as a ton of coal today, as Mr. Walton-Brown rightly pointed out, is 33 per cent. stone. Therefore, the calorific value of a ton of coal, if I may interpret it in that sense, has been considerably reduced, and this is inflicting great problems on other industries—the fishing industry, the railways and the whole gamut of industrial production.
1166
I have listened carefully to a great many hon. Gentlemen saying a great deal about the high wages of the miners. As often happens with hon. Members opposite, they are so anxious to support their own Government that they are not always fully informed of all the facts. It is true that the men at the coalface have got good wages.
Mr. Manuel: Not all of them.
Miss Ward: But the datal men and particularly married men with families are hard put to it to meet the ever-increasing cost of living. If the Minister really wants to do a good service to the miners, as I assume he does, I am surprised that he does not inform the public that not all miners get high wages, and that in fact less than 50 per cent. do. That again, if I may say it without offence, leads me to a point I want to make about the quality of coal. In the old days there was a penalty for the filling of stone. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is still there."] Yes, the penalty is still there, but the point is that it no longer interests the miners working at the coalface.
Mr. Blyton: Who says that?
Miss Ward: Wages have been raised, and the penalties have not been raised. Therefore, the fact that the penalties bear no relation to wages—
Mr. P. Bartley: Might I remind the hon. Lady that over the period of 10, 15 or 20 years before the war, when wages were forced down to a very low level, there was no corresponding reduction in the penalties?
Miss Ward: That may be so, but the point is that if we want clean, good quality coal, which is just as important to the mining community as it is to all other industries, the Minister should concentrate some of his energies on trying to get it. I am trying to make a practical and constructive suggestion. I do not necessarily expect hon. Members opposite to agree. It worries me very much to come to coal debate after coal debate and never hear any proper discussion of this important technical matter. It has been suggested to me that if the penalties bore the same relationship to wages as they did in the old days, the quality of coal would be vastly improved.
Mr. Manuel: This is a most important matter. Few ordinary people grasp this point. Whereas before the war we were accustomed to the middlemen, and the ordinary coal merchants at the railway siding who bag the coal, picking it in addition to the cleansing it got at the pit, that no longer happens. Consequently, more stone goes to the householder now than before the war. The figures in the Minister's last Report show that per million tons extracted we are taking out more dirt now than we did before the war.
Miss Ward: That may be so. I understand that the mechanisation of the mines has caused the raising of more dirt with the coal. Therefore, I do not think that that argument is relevant. I should like to hear from the Minister a great deal more about how he considers, after consulting his experts, that the quality of coal can be improved. If I had my way I would have every coal merchant asking his Member of Parliament to lead deputations to the chairmen of the regional boards to complain about the quality of coal. Unfortunately, under nationalisation the merchants feel, as indeed do a great many other people, that if they protest too loudly to those in authority today, their supplies will be cut.
Mr. Hamilton: Nonsense.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot let that remark pass. I constantly see the representatives of the Coal Merchants' Federation and of the co-operatives who carry on the coal trade. They are represented in the consumers' councils, and they are able to say exactly what they like.
Miss Ward: I am delighted to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. All I can say is that when one gets down to the organisation in the regions, there is a fear among the coal merchants. I know enough about politics and the machinery of Government to know that if one makes a nuisance of oneself, one is not likely to get to the top.
Mr. Grey: Is there any real proof that that happens now?
Miss Ward: I have had representations from coal merchants who fear to make undue representations through the regional boards to the Minister. After all, ordinary people in the regions would
1168
not be consulting with the Minister. It is only the miners who get to the Prime Minister. The merchants have a real sense of fear that if they pressed too much and demanded too much from the National Coal Board, they might be the ones to have their supplies cut.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again. The distribution of household coal is carried on by the house coal emergency scheme which is manned by members of the coal merchants' trade. I assure her that what she says does not happen.
Miss Ward: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but, as it happens, the people with whom I was in touch are merchants who sell to industry.
I want to make one other comment on the quality of coal, because the Minister made a great point about the coal that had been exported. From my inquiries in Europe, I gather that the coal that has been exported has done no credit to the British coal trade, and, unless the quality can be improved, I fear that, when all our competitors in Europe get into full operation again, we shall find ourselves in very great difficulties in maintaining our markets. I would regret that very much, particularly as I come from the County of Northumberland, which has such a fine tradition of coal exporting.
There is one other point I wish to make. This is a very rough speech, I am afraid, and is badly put together, because I do not want to transgress on the time of the House. I noticed that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to the advantages of the Mecco-Moore power loader. I was very glad indeed to hear the tribute which the Minister paid to this power loader, but, of course, it has been developed under private enterprise, mainly by the Bolsover Colliery Company, stimulated, encouraged and inspired by Sir Eric Young. I am not going to enter into the details of the dispute, which do not interest me, but I wish to put certain things on record on my own responsibility.
When the Minister announced Sir Eric Young's resignation in the House, I felt that, considering that he and the National Coal Board had had the benefit for very many years of the services of the most expert mining engineer in the country—

1169
a man who has an American and European reputation of high standing—the least that he could have done was to have thanked Sir Eric Young for the services he had rendered. I would like to remind the Minister that Sir Eric has been knighted, after his successful work in America, by His Majesty the King for his services to the mining industry as a member of the Board. I dislike injustice and unfairness, and I like to see everybody paid the tribute that is their due. Therefore, I was determined, particularly after I had heard one of the Members of my own party make some observations on the subject, that if I were fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I would have those remarks placed on the record.
Finally, may I say I have lived in an industrial county all my life. My whole background has been that of heavy industry, and I have represented an industrial constituency in this House for 14 years. I know the shipyard workers, the miners, the engineers, the fishermen and the whole range of industrial workers very well indeed. I want to say that I think the Minister should regret that, in making these speeches on coal production, he does not sometimes refer to the problems of other industries and their difficulties in connection with the coal they need. The position of the fishing industry in my constituency is complicated very gravely by the bad quality of coal and its high cost. The railways are certainly affected by it, and the railwaymen feel that their wage claims are impeded because of the high cost of coal and the effect which it has on the railways.
All industry feels that the whole concentration of the Government is only on the problems of the mines, and not on the problems of industrial workers as a whole. So far as I and my party are concerned, we do everything possible to help to try to improve the national economy, so that all sections of the community shall have fair shares of what we can produce and as much social justice as is possible in these difficult and very imperfect times.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. Follick: I would not have intervened in this Debate, in which we have had so many contributions from experts in mining—men who have
1170
worked in the mines—who sit on this side of the House, but for the fact that there is a very important mining area in my division. I have been listening to the flood of gloom which has been coming from the other side, where hon. Members seem to rejoice only in gloom. I am going to give them some cheerful news. It is about time a little bit of cheerful news was given here in this House.
My division is in the area of the South Derbyshire and Leicestershire coalfield, and I have received a telegram which I will read to the House. It is as follows:
"Output man-shift South Derbyshire and Leicestershire coalfield as follows: Week ending 6th January, 40.46 cwt.; week ending 13th January, 40.42 cwt.; week ending 20th January, 41.16 cwt.; week ending 27th January, 41.36 cwt. Average for month, 40.84 cwt. Unparalleled in the industry at any time in any part of the world."
That shows that, at least in the West Derbyshire and Leicestershire coalfield, nationalisation has not failed. This is the solution of the problem. If this could be done in the whole country, we could put up output by 70 per cent., and we would have about 350 million tons of coal a year. Now, why does it not take place?
In our part of the country the miners have very good relations with the divisional board. Mr. Torrance, the area general manager, has consultations at every possible level. There is good understanding in the pits. That goes back some long time in the history of those pits, because those pits have always been small units where, even when there were directors and managing directors, there was a little bit more sympathy between the directors' families and the mine-workers. That was not so in the large units of the country which the managing directors and the directors were in London, and never went into their mines and never treated the miners as their workers.
Colonel Clarke: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman one question. Does he feel that that remark applies to one famous Midland colliery, Lord Fitzwilliam's? Because that was a very big colliery.
Mr. Follick: I cannot answer that question because I do not know anything about Lord Fitzwilliam. I do not want to talk about a lot of things I do not understand.

1171
Amongst the people responsible for this tremendous output—never before equalled in the mines—I think the President of the South Derbyshire Coal Board, Mr. Harry Wileman, who is now in America, and Mr. George Taylor, the Secretary, and Mr. Herbert Buck, the divisional labour officer should be congratulated on this great effort that our mines have made.
If the result I have indicated can be achieved in one area of the country it should be possible to wipe out the horrible tradition of hardship that is still bitterly felt by the miners in the other parts of the country. If we can do that, then we shall put up our output, and if we increase our output, as has been done in South Derbyshire and Leicestershire, we shall solve the whole of the national problem. I do beg the Minister to look into this matter to find out if the same sort of treatment cannot be spread amongst the miners all over the country, in such a way as to bring more happiness to the men in the mines, and so to encourage increased production, as has been attained in South Derbyshire and Leicestershire.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Frederic Harris: I shall detain the House only a few moments because I know that there are many other hon. Members who want an opportunity to take part in the debate; and besides, by the time this stage of a debate is reached many of the points one had wanted to make have usually been taken up by previous speakers. I shall not endeavour to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) tonight, because normally I follow him in debates on the groundnut scheme in East Africa, about which he may possibly know more.
Having listened to every speech in this debate, I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), made constructive suggestions which, I am sure, are worthy of serious consideration by the Minister himself. I do feel that this problem has to be tackled on a business basis. All this soap-box talk here today about the miners is no good. That is not going to get them anywhere. It is not going to get the country anywhere. The whole point is how to get out of the difficulties in which we are placed. We have been exhorting the
1172
miners to produce more, and we have been trying to do everything we can to increase production—by mechanisation in the mines, and so on.
We come to the other side of the picture, a study of how to economise in the use of fuel, and to the study of the question of steam raising. My hon. Friend quoted some very important figures. I think many hon. Members agreed at the time, they were very worthy of consideration. It is true that in industry in particular, we have a variation of between 3s. and 11s. per 1,000 lbs. in the raising of steam, and many industries, we know, have called in steam engineers, and taken advantage of the services that are available to study this question and to try to put improvements into force. They are doing so, not only to save fuel, but also from the point of view of economy, which has now become such a stringent factor in business. I ask the Minister to see that that aspect of consumption is studied most carefully.
Turning to another side of the picture, I should like to refer to the point touched upon for the first time in this debate by the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward). That is the question of the quality of the coal itself. She concentrated more on coke, but I should like to comment on coal. A short time ago Croydon Council, of which I am a member, had a very heated discussion arising from the feelings of members about the quality of coal delivered in Croydon. I have copies of correspondence on this subject, sent by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).
Here is a situation which is surely unique. We all pay a tremendous amount of money for inspectors engaged by various authorities, particularly in connection with the food industry. They take samples in shops all day to decide whether someone has been defrauded on 1 per cent. of sugar or a fraction of something else. They are like policemen who want to secure a certain number of prosecutions. They delight in coming before the authorities to say that they should endeavour to prosecute this or that firm. It costs a lot of money to take those firms to court and very often the case is laughed out of court. We have to bear the cost of that type of nonsense

1173
throughout the country, under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and other food regulations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Surely they are necessary."]
The are very necessary and I am not decrying them, but why do we not get the same kind of consideration with regard to the quality of coal, and the same facilities to prosecute? Alderman Regan, who up to a few months ago was a leading figure in the Labour Party and who has now seen the light and come over to the other side, said at a meeting of Croydon Council a short time ago that 80 per cent. of the coal he tried to burn was sub-standard. This is generally known, and particularly by the housewife who has to keep the economy of the house going with a quality of coal which is deplorable.
The Coal Board is being utterly and completely dishonest in charging the same price right through for certain grades of coal. How can they get away with the fact that they put a certain price on what is supposed to be good coal and then the consumer receives dust, rubbish and stone and is charged that same price? An ordinary private enterprise firm would be taken to court and prosecuted, but the monopoly of a nationalised industry allows that to happen.
I think the people of this country are accepting this type of thing far too easily. I cannot understand why they are letting the Government get away with it. If the Government would choose to put themselves before the country at a General Election they would find that the country does not support them in the policy pursued by the Coal Board. I should like to see some public organisation prosecute the Coal Board for defrauding the public as they do. To charge the top price for some of the rubbish that they sell is sheer dishonesty. I hope that this can be investigated more fully. What would happen if a publican sold beer which had been watered down or a milkman diluted his milk? He would be taken to court very quickly indeed.
Mrs. Jean Mann: Can the hon. Member tell me what happens when the vegetable man sells us brussels sprouts and turnips, of which half are rotten?
Mr. Harris: The answer is to go to an alternative. We cannot do so for coal.
Mr. Murray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under private enterprise the best seams of coal in this country were worked out, and that the National Coal Board has spent thousands of pounds in various cleaning operations in order to send out clean coal to the people?
Mr. Harris: The point of the hon. Gentleman's interjection is not the point which I am trying to make. I fully understand that under mechanisation the general quality of coal has to go down and that we are certain to have some rubbish. I have my own opinion about targets and trying to get a certain figure of tonnage which must bring rubbish with it, so that the Minister can come to this House and talk about it.
I am saying that the Coal Board charge the same price for good coal as they do for rubbish, and I think that it is time that someone took them to court and showed up the exploitation which is going on at the present time, particularly so when the Minister has today announced a further drastic increase in the price of coal, not only to the public but also to industry, which is going to have very serious results. I impress upon the Coal Board that this question of quality should have serious attention paid to it at the present time.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), is not in his place. I have looked closely at the Amendment which he and his right hon. Friends have on the Order Paper, and it brings very much to my mind the boys who follow the race horses. The Amendment accuses my right hon. Friend of failing to forecast accurately the output of coal That, I find, is the grievance of some of the "Daily Herald" readers against Templegate and others, who fail to give an accurate result of the races.
The mining industry is the most difficult industry in the world about which to make forecasts. In Scotland alone, owing to what took place in the days of private enterprise, I know of one pit where the shaft collapsed and of another where a fire occurred both during the past year. That would upset the best calculations of any Minister. Then there occur such things as happened at Cresswell and Knockstennock which dislocate production.

1175
The Minister made reference to opencast workings being flooded. In Scotland, we have considerable areas of opencast workings. In my own constituency, we have eight seams which have been exploited. There are 40 seams which come up to the surface and eight are within reach of opencast workings. During a long period of last year, those workings were flooded, and it was imposible to produce the amount of coal expected from those operations.
Hon. Members are in the habit of thinking of the coal mining industry as they do of an engineering works. The engineer goes into the engineering shop and goes to his lathe in the same place day after day, month after month and year after year. Every day a miner goes down the pit he finds that he has to work six feet further away from the shaft. We have heard a great deal about mechanisation. It is true that the men at the coalface are producing more than ever before. What is wrong is the fact that it is now necessary to employ so many more men underground on transporting the coal. That is the cause for the higher prices of coal.
Let us look at the number of collieries in operation today compared with 1924. We had 2,762 collieries in operation in 1924, but by 1929 there were 489 collieries out of production, which meant manpower reduced from 1½ million to 955,000. As late as 1935 private ownership could not employ all our manpower. There were approximately 400,000 miners either fully or temporarily unemployed, 39,000 of them being in Scotland.
Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member has referred to 400,000 miners being wholly or partly unemployed. Will he give us the year for that figure?
Mr. Pryde: The date is 31st May, 1935, and the hon. Member will find the figure in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the Library.
Reference has been made to Lanarkshire. I wish to make it clear that the National Coal Board has done such a good job in Scotland that no miner needs to be unemployed. Both in Fife and Midlothian houses have been built quicker than anywhere else in the country by Messrs. Cruden and the Scottish Special Housing Association. It is a fact that we have miners returning because
1176
we have not been able to build up the social amenities at the same rate as the houses. But we shall do it in time. We have had houses in old colliery villages like Smeaton and Poltonhall swept away and something like 2,500 new houses, built by the local authority in the shortest possible time, to take their place.
Members opposite have no cause to censure the Government in this regard. They criticise us for not getting the fruits from the mining industry, but is it not true that in 1917 the wage rates in Scotland were raised for the first time since the beginning of the 1914–18 war? The basic rate never rose above 10s. a day. This House suddenly issued an edict in 1921 that the coal industry would be decontrolled, and wages in Scotland dropped to 8s. 6d. It has been said that we cannot get coal in the House of Commons, but the House of Commons can make things most unpleasant for the mining industry. This House has inflicted more trouble on the people in the mining industry than any other agency. In 1926 the best of our men were driven from industry. That marks the day of the decline on the economy of this country. That is when the whole structure of British economy was undermined.
I would say to hon. Members opposite and particularly to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr)—do not shout for a General Election. Do not try to get into power, because the Tory Party cannot govern this country. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville). I like a debate on coal in this House, because it puts 2,000 on to our majorities in the mining areas. The hon. Member for Mitcham said that the National Coal Board had no overall policy. He has not read the "Plan for Coal." Under that plan the Coal Board intends to spend £500 million to reconstruct an industry ruined by private enterprise.
I shall conclude with a demand. The men of Scotland have still 2s. less than the average wage for Britain. We have never worked a five-day week. In Scotland our men work the 11-day fortnight. While they have six days' pay for five days' work and 12 days' holidays with pay, they voluntarily give up their Saturdays in order to come to the rescue of the country. I trust that the Minister will convey to the National Coal Board the

1177
fact that our men in Scotland have given more to the industry and more loyalty to this Government than any other section of the community.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Redmayne: The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks because I want to speak on what was mentioned by the Minister as being his greatest anxiety—the supply of coal to the power stations. He said that was his first anxiety, and that his next was the supply of household coal. Indeed, the supply of coal to power stations may well be his first anxiety, because the demand for electricity since 1938 has increased by something like 125 per cent., which is far and away more than the increase in any other particular section.
In December the Minister said that in one week the supply of electricity was forced up by yet another 23 per cent. of current. In our last debate on coal, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that coal consumption in the power stations was as good as coal used directly in industry. That was a straightforward remark, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is not really as accurate as it sounds. If the figures for electricity consumption are compared with those of 1938, it will be found that the actual increase in coal used for electricity is 18 million tons. Working out the figures for domestic consumption, it will be seen that the domestic user has increased the coal used for electricity by about 7 million tons of the 18 million, and, in addition, farms and offices have taken a share of 1½ million of the 18 million increase.
It will be seen, therefore, that it is not fair to say that industry has accounted for that enormous increase. Industry has taken only about half of it—about 9 million tons. There is here a problem which I think has been wholly neglected in the approach to this matter of coal production. It means th4t the domestic users' interest in coal today is divided as to two-thirds burnt as coal and one-third burnt in the form of electricity, whereas before the war the domestic consumer burned seven times as much coal as he used in electricity. That change is of great importance. It is partly voluntary, and as such it is desirable, but it has to some
1178
extent been forced on the domestic consumer since the war by the shortage of coal. The result has undoubtedly been a most wasteful use of electricity for space heating.
Like other hon. Members I have been worrying about this subject, and I have had some correspondence about it with the B.E.A. because, in my opinion—and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about a scheme of this sort—warning of power cuts should be given by maroon, something everybody hears. The maroon should be set off after short-wave messages from power stations to police stations. Without wishing to implicate any official of the B.E.A., I would say that I was told that the system could not be adopted for technical reasons, and because of adverse public reaction. I think that if we gave warning by maroon, it would be of definite advantage to manufacturers in regard to production. This is a time of crisis, and when the maroons went off they would be a signal to all users of electricity to switch something off. The Minister may agree that that would have a far greater effect upon the use of electricity and the consumption of coal than publicity campaigns without some such forcible way of bringing the matter home to the public.
I took this matter a little further and I wrote some more letters about it. I was told that the use of maroons was not possible and that there is an alternative. It is possible that the Parliamentary Secretary will announce that alternative in a few minutes. I do not know. I was told that it was proposed to use short-wave transmitters for giving warnings of power cuts and that consumers would warn others by telephone, "with snowball effect." That is the wording of the letter. To my mind, this snowball effect is a kindly and considerate way of still keeping the wool over the public's eyes. We want something a good deal more forcible, and I expect no more success for this particular snowball than there is for the other snowball in warmer places.
I believe that it is the duty of the Minister to bring home to the public by the best possible available means that they have the greatest interest in economising electricity for the saving of coal and that they have very nearly a 50 per cent. share in the increase in coal used for electricity since 1938. It has not been

1179
brought home to them and it is the Minister's duty to do so. If it were possible to increase the domestic ration of coal, even in this grave crisis, I believe it would be quite possible that extravagant space heating by electricity would come down. We might then be playing with something like five million tons of coal which are now being wasted through bad management. It seems a peculiar thing to suggest an increase in the domestic ration at this stage, but it might well be an investment to save, on balance, two or three million tons a year.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: We have had an interesting debate today, which, curiously enough, except—forgive my saying so—for a considerable portion of the speech of the Minister of Fuel and Power, has covered somewhat different ground from that of 12th December. I do not know whether many hon. Members recall that debate, which took place such a very short time ago, or to what they were committed by the terms of the Amendment which they eventually carried to our original Motion. It will be remembered that we asked for a full and impartial inquiry, and one portion at all events of the Amendment carried rejected that request on the ground that the granting of it would divert the Board and the industry from its urgent task of providing adequate supplies of coal for the country. The implication of that was that if they did not have the inquiry and would provide adequate supplies of coal their energies were not diverted, they for the needs of the country. That is what hon. Members thought only two months ago.
The other thing which was noticeable about that debate was the speech made by the Minister and the trouble he took during that speech to explain by what a tiny margin they had made mistakes and the industry had failed to achieve its target and by what a tiny margin consumption had exceeded the estimates that he had made. I think he will agree that on more than one occasion he emphasised that the margin was of the order of a half of 1 per cent. I shall have occasion later on in my speech to refer to that. All I can say is that, in the light of experience, it shows how dismally the industry failed, because of the
1180
appalling results that we now see facing us, as a result of such a tiny short-fall which it should have been possible to make up.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) made what I thought was one of the best speeches—and at the same time the greatest speech in support of our thesis—on either side of the House today. He gave figures showing how greatly the output had improved in South Derbyshire, and he said that if a similar increase in output had taken place in other parts of the country, we should have got an additional 70 million tons of coal and all our problems would have been solved. Precisely; and it was our accusation on 12th December, and it is still more our accusation tonight, that it should have been possible for the National Coal Board and the industry to get better results. If they had got better results even by the small margin about which the right hon. Gentleman talked we should not be in our present mess.
The right hon. Gentleman gave some very interesting figures, some of which were published in the papers this morning, showing the tiny margin between success and failure and the appalling consequences to the country of the failure, which are quite disproportionate to the extent by which we failed to achieve our target. The papers this morning published the news that widespread cancellation of trains would take place over the next few days. Anyone reading that, and appreciating the vast disorganisation that will ensue to travellers all over the country, would assume that this would save quite an appreciable amount of coal. What is the saving that is to be made? According to the Press, a derisory 10,000 tons a week. To save that we shall disorganise the habits and cause hardship to thousands of passengers.
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive my saying so, the other thing in which he erred previously was the way in which he presented the picture to the public on two or three occasions. He did so tonight again and I shall deal with that, but I should like particularly to call his attention to what happened about shipping. The right hon. Gentleman gave two answers in this House, one a written, the other an oral answer. He said in November:

1181
"With due regard for the essential needs of shipping, they are reducing the coal supplies for bunkers, and for bunker depots overseas."
And in reply to a written Question later that month he said:
"I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that discussions with the shipping industry and the overseas bunker proprietors are now taking place, in order that this reduction may be made without any dislocation of shipping services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th and 27th November, 1950; Vol. 481, cc. 40 and 116.]
Quite clearly from that the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression—I assume he intended to do so—to anyone hearing those answers or reading them, that the reduction in bunker supplies was a comparatively small matter and was to be done without any dislocation of shipping?
What has been the result? The result of this cutting down of bunker supplies in the first place was an enormous increase in the cost of bunkers. To take one or two instances from many I have with me, the price of bunkers at Gibraltar was 111s. a ton on 1st October, at 30th January it had risen to 165s. a ton. At Port Said it rose from 125s. to 193s. a ton and at Oran it rose from 107s. to 165s. a ton. Those are typical cases selected at random. And all for what? This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman gave the figure of savings. Hundreds of thousands of tons? No, 38,000 tons a month. Yet we have that enormous increase of bunkers and the great dislocation which ensued.
The right hon. Gentleman announced suddenly in the autumn that we would import something over one million tons of coal. Before that announcement was made the shipping situation was just about on a balance. It was approaching a difficulty because of the demands for Korea and for stockpiling, but then there was just about a balance between supply and demand for ships. Suddenly, without any warning, the Minister announced that the British Government were in the market for about one million tons.
The net result of that was that the whole of the shipping freight market was thrown into disorder. It is quite true that as a result of negotiations between the Ministry of Transport and the ship-owners, arrangements were made to find the ships to bring the coal in, but at a
1182
cost—and what a cost to the country. In the first place, it caused freights to rise all over the world—again, to our great disadvantage, because it increased the costs of our imports. It caused foreign freights to rise higher than British freights, so that the foreigner got a greater advantage than the British. It reduced very materially the invisible income of this country which had been provided by our shipping, and, most important of all, it dislocated and deprived our export trade of a great number of ships that would otherwise have carried exports abroad—ships chartered by the liner companies, for example, for motor cars for Australia; and it stopped very important imports which we should otherwise have got.
I do not know whether the House realises that as a result we lost 600,000 tons of iron ore at a time when we need iron ore and supplies of scrap are becoming increasingly difficult to find. We lost 600,000 tons after Christmas, and are losing it today, I am informed, at the rate of 200,000 tons a month. That is a wholly disproportionate cost to the country as far as shipping is concerned for the relatively small amount of coal involved. I have quoted those instances only to illustrate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to minimise the effect of the trouble.
The other point arising from the last debate is this. We asked for an impartial inquiry. We had a debate some little time ago on the whole question of Parliamentary control over these nationalised corporations. Surely, the last two debates showed overwhelmingly that the House is at a great disadvantage under present conditions in discussing these corporations. We have not got the information. In putting forward our case, we are bound to rely to some extent on hearsay; and equally—I think, badly from the national point of view—the Government are tempted always to come to the defence of the corporations. The net result is that at the end of the debate there is a general feeling of frustration all round.
Mr. Glanville: Not all round.
Mr. Hudson: In addition, under present circumstances and under the present set-up, there is no real possibility of the consumer getting a say. Indeed, I have a pamphlet written by the Fabian

1183
Society, who have come round to the view that it is essential that some new form of inquiry, preferably something like a Select Committee, should be set up with power to investigate these matters. Anyone who has been a Member, or who has read the accounts, of the Public Accounts Committee, knows that—
Mr. Glanville: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hudson: No. Anyone who has read the accounts of the Public Accounts Committee knows that hon. Members who are on that Committee act in an impartial and non-party manner, and are thus able to question witnesses more satisfactorily than either party can do across the Floor of the House.
As far as domestic consumers are concerned, this pamphlet to which I have referred reaches the conclusion that the domestic consumers' council are a useless body as far as getting any redress is concerned.
Mr. Glanville: I should like to ask the right hon. Member—
Mr. Hudson: I am sorry, I have very little time. The Fabian Society, which is not, obviously, a supporter of ours, says:
"It is hardly surprising that these reports"—
that is, the Annual Reports—
"should be limp arid platitudinous documents, which do little more than apologise for the inability of the Council to do anything for the consumer in the present circumstances."
That is a very formidable indictment—
Mr. Glanville rose—
Mr. Hudson: —and I suggest that there is a strong case for setting up some form of permanent inquiry of an impartial nature which should carry on in a similar way to the Public Accounts Committee.
I turn to the speech of the Minister. The first point he made was that it was only in September, and, more especially in December, that the Government realised how serious the situation was becoming and really started to take action. What I should like to ask him is whether that is really true, because our information is that representations were made in the summer about the inadequacy
1184
of the stocks of coal that were being built up, actually in the beginning of July. It was in the summer that the Minister of Food made a speech in Denmark about the importation of coal. A responsible Minister would not make a speech like that unless the question had been discussed, or unless he had heard it raised.
We have in addition the record of the F.B.I. that early in July they made representations to the Minister about the inadequacy of stocks of coal, and not until 11th September was a meeting held to discuss the matter. So, when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement in the autumn and said that he was going to get 16,500,000 tons stocks by the end of October, he must have realised that there was considerable doubt in the minds of his advisers as to whether that would be feasible or not.
The Minister went on to deal with the extra coal that had been got over the last few weeks as a result of the additional efforts made by the miners. It is clear that there has been—and everyone welcomes it—additional output of coal, but when he said that the increase of 60,000 tons a week was mainly due to Saturday working he was guilty at all events of failing to disclose to the House certain material facts. Anyone who reads the figures can see that the total increase due to Saturday working was on the average 150,000 tons a week and not 60,000 tons.
Therefore, if the total for the week only went up by an average of 60,000 tons, as is in fact the case, it is quite clear that during the other days of the week there must have been a reduction in output compared with the corresponding weeks of the previous year. It is true there was a great deal of influenza and that involuntary absenteeism figures went up as a consequence, but by the figures published by his own Department the right hon. Gentleman will see that voluntary absenteeism went up by more than 40 per cent., from 5.1 per cent. to 6.98 per cent., and his own officials would admit that some portion at least of the 150,000 tons due to working Saturday shifts was offset by a reduction caused by absenteeism on one of the other days.
Another point on which the right hon. Gentleman gave definitely a mistaken view to the public was on the question of domestic consumption of coal. He said

1185
that the British housewives had already had 1.6 million tons of coal more this year than last year and reminded the House that he had promised to provide one million tons more and had more than fulfilled his promise. I pass over the doubt I entertain whether there are a great number of housewives in the country who will believe they have had 1.6 million tons this year more than last, but in fact the right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like.
This undoubtedly is the explanation. He talked about having provided 1.6 million tons more to the housewives this calendar year, but the promise he made to the housewife was that he would provide one million tons more in the coal year running from April to April and asked the housewife to buy more coal this summer to stock up against requirements in the early part of next year. He has taken that amount of coal and applied it to this calendar year, whereas of course there are still four months of the coal year still to run.
Mr. Noel-Baker rose—
Mr. Hudson: I wish first to finish my sentence. In addition there were, it is fair to point out, a large number of housewives who, when they applied for that extra coal this summer in order to stock up, were unable to get it.
Mr. Noel-Baker: They got the extra 1.6 million tons after April, in other words in this coal year.
Mr. Hudson: Yes, but the question is how much are they going to get during the remaining four months of the coal year? It is not very much good to say, because we cannot tell what the final result will be, whether the Minister's promise has been carried out or not, until 29th April. That is merely another example of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman quotes figures.
If the House doubts that, I will give another example, taken from the Minister's figures. The Minister talked about the future of opencast coal. He was at pains to say what will happen over the next year or two, when consumption increases still further, unless he can secure a large increase in deep mined coal. He said that he intended to help the situation by arranging over the next five years an output of 50 million tons of opencast coal.
1186
That is not an increase over present supplies, because over the last three years opencast coal supplies have been running at the rate of 12½ million tons a year. If they are to average only 10 million tons per year over the next five years, it will not do much towards closing the gap.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I said 50 million tons, or more if possible. The programme announced for from now until 1955 was 38 million tons, so that the figure I have now stated is an increase of 12 million tons, and we hope it will be more.
Mr. Hudson: I will leave the point to the House to decide, but no one can deny that 50 million tons is an average of 10 million tons per year compared with 12½ million tons per year over the last three years.
There is only one point I should like to ask on the question of opencast coal. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the increased price or the increased compensation. It is clear that if there is a considerable margin today between the cost of opencast coal and its sale price, it is clear that if the price of coal generally is increased by 4s. 2d. per ton there will be a still bigger margin. That should go towards paying increased compensation to those whose land is affected.
I have left the most important part of the Minister's speech to the last. That is the announcement, which I am sure stunned the House, and which I am sure will stun the country when they realise it tomorrow, of the rise in the cost of coal of 4s. 2d. per ton. The right hon. Gentleman tried to comfort people by explaining how much other articles had risen in price in the last two years. All I can say is that the only reflection that occurred to me was how much the country is suffering from having this present Government. Since the National Coal Board took over the cost of coal has gone up by an average of about 9s. 2d, per ton so that an increase of 4s. 2d. is very nearly an increase of 50 per cent, over the rise which has taken place over the last four years.
The right hon. Gentleman—again I apologise for rubbing this point home—asked the House and the country to believe that this rise of 4s. 2d. a ton represented, if I heard him aright, one-fifth of a point in the index. One-fifth of a

1187
point! It is the worst turn in the spiral of inflation that has occurred over the last two years. What does it represent, 4s. 2d. a ton pithead price? It means an increase in the cost of coal to the railways. It means an increase in the cost of coal to industry. It means, to take an example, an increase of 10s. in the cost of steel. It is an increase in the cost of the raw material fuel for every single one of our industries. It is a spiral that goes steadily up.
The housewife will be hit twice over. She will have to pay 4s. 2d. a ton pithead price, plus whatever are the intermediate charges. In addition, there cannot be an increase of this order without putting up the cost of electricity and gas. Electricity went up last year although the cost of the fuel concerned went down. Now the cost of coal to the electricity industry is going up by 4s. Therefore the housewife will be hit, not only by the increase in the cost of coal for the grate, but by the increase in the cost of gas and electricity. Coal enters into the cost of every single item which she buys. It is the worst type of inflation, because it is inflation at the bottom with a steadily mounting effect as the spiral grows; and to announce this in the very week when the Chancellor of the Exchequer started his new savings scheme is the height of irony and shows how hopelessly bad is the liaison between the different Departments.
In the whole of this debate we heard no explanation from the Government side of the discrepancy between Government promises, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), referred, and the miserable results which the Minister of Fuel and Power chronicled today The Government bears full responsibility. In debate after debate we on this side of the House put forward advice and criticism, both destructive and constructive. In debate after debate the whole of that has been rejected by the Government. The Government themselves created what one of their own newspapers which support them, not a Conservative paper, described as that organisational Frankenstein monster which is rapidly taking possession of its Parliamentary master. That is how it is described in a Left Wing paper. We suggested alterations in which be believe to try to make it work better.
1188
It is working badly. It has dissipated most of the good will which existed when the National Coal Board took over.
That is evidenced by the men concerned who are not happy, judging by the steady wastage. The technicians are not happy, judging by the resignations of men; not men like Sir Charles Reid or Sir Eric Young, but younger men in every branch. Does anybody think that a young man who spent all the early years of his life in a career, chucks up that career when he has family responsibilities, unless he has very sound reasons for desiring no longer to serve the National Coal Board? And do not forget that under private enterprise these technicians have a chance of going elsewhere and finding a job with another firm, but under nationalisation their only chance is to find an entirely new career. I do not believe there is anyone in the country, except the Government and perhaps the members of the National Coal Board themselves, who feel that the present set-up is the correct one. We believe it should be fundamentally altered. It has brought the country into its present position. The Socialist Government are entirely responsible and we should have no hesitation in voting for this Amendment.
9.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): During this debate, most hon. Members who have spoken have asked, that when I replied generally to the debate, I should reply to the points which they had raised. Obviously that is impossible, but I hope to cover most of the points. Before I do that, I should like to say a few words about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). The right hon. Gentleman made a series of allegations towards the end of his speech, all of which I refute. I hope during my remarks to prove the case against them.
For example, he talked about the good will that there was on nationalisation. There was no good will when the industry was nationalised. In fact, it was very much the reverse. It is one of our problems today that, because of the lack of good will, we had so much difficulty in the mining industry. He referred to the railway cuts which would mean a saving of 10,000 tons of coal a week. He referred to that 10,000 tons a week as a

1189
derisory figure. In point of fact, 10,000 tons a week of railway coal, which is suitable for the domestic market, is equal to 1 cwt. of coal a week for 200,000 domestic consumers, and I do not regard that as a very small matter.
He said that we had saved 38,000 tons by cutting bunkers and, as a result, there was a great increase in bunker prices throughout the world. He referred to the fact that when the announcement about the importation of coal was made, shipping freights rose all over the world. It seems to me that that is a condemnation of private enterprise. It shows the way in which private enterprise is ready to exploit a situation at any time when it presents itself.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: What I said, and what is the fact, is that foreign ship-owners introduced very much higher freight rates than the British rates which were kept down in accordance with an agreement with the Ministry of Transport.
Mr. Robens: I repeat that what the right hon. Gentleman said shows that private enterprise was exploiting this situation. I say that that is really a condemnation of private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman finished with this time-honoured line that the price of coal had increased considerably since nationalisation. He said that the price had increased by 9s. 2d. a ton. At the same time he ought also to have told the House and the country that, since nationalisation, the National Coal Board had incurred expenses to the tune of £100 million on better wages and conditions for the miners, and that if in fact money had not been spent in that direction, the man-power position in the industry today would have been completely hopeless. That shows that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in power and dealing with this industry, apparently they would not have increased the price of coal; they would not have given greater benefits to the miners; and the point is that we should have had a fuel crisis years ago, and British productivity would not have reached the height at which it is now.
Other hon. Members will expect me to say something about their speeches, but before I do that, I think that the House, and especially those hon. Members who had the opportunity of listening to the
1190
hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. L. Williams), will join with me in congratulating him upon a very good-humoured, delightful, well-delivered maiden speech. We shall look forward to listening to him on many future occasions.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), speaking on behalf of his party, asked a number of questions, and was concerned about the building up of stocks in the summer months. Why, he asked, were not stocks built up in the summer months? Quite clearly—and I have said something like this before in the House—the first demand upon coal production must be for industry and the public utilities providing the power for industry. The supply for the domestic market is already too low, and consequently we cannot expect to save any coal in that direction.
Therefore, the only way in which we could save more coal to build up stocks was to take it from the export market. What, in fact, happened? Exports were constantly under review throughout the summer and were reduced from time to time by the insistence of the Government, having regard to the vital need to keep exports as high as possible. How can it be said that the Government took no action in the summer, as some hon. Members have suggested, when the position is shown quite clearly in the Trade Accounts and in the Monthly Digest of Statistics?
From May to July, we reduced our average weekly cargo exports by between 15,000 tons and 20,000 tons below the average level of the preceding four months. During August and September, there was a still further decline, and in October and November exports were brought down by 70,000 tons a week below the July level to about 220,000 tons a week. Since then they have been further reduced to 100,000 tons per week.
Mr. Bowen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What was the production from Saturday working during the summer months, and, assuming that we had got anything like the production from Saturday working that we are getting now, how would that have affected the position?
Mr. Robens: I shall be dealing with that; I am not escaping anything, and I shall certainly come to it.

1191
Then the hon. Gentleman wanted to know something about absenteeism, and he had the impression that absenteeism at the face was about 30 per cent. I thought we had cleared that up fairly well, but the facts are that in 1949 absenteeism at the face was 14.94, of which 7.83 per cent. was involuntary. In 1950, the figure was 14.51 per cent., of which 7.71 per cent. was involuntary, which is a very slight reduction in the two years. It is true that in the last few weeks there has been an increase in both voluntary and involuntary absenteeism, very largely due to the influenza epidemic.
I think I should interpose at this stage to say that a man may be classed as voluntarily absent when, for one reason or another, it was impossible for him to get to the pit. Therefore, when we look at the involuntary figures we are, in fact, seeing a number which is very largely made up of absences which are backed by medical certificates. Very many men, not feeling particularly well, will stay off a day and rest, and then go back to work again without bothering about a medical certificate, and very often they may be classed as voluntary absentees when, in point of fact, their absence was involuntary. Therefore, I think that there is no case for laying a great deal of blame on the face worker because his absenteeism is higher than the average absenteeism over-all.
The hon. Gentleman was anxious to know why mechanisation had not had a bigger effect on production; but, of course, mechanisation has had a big effect on production. It is interesting to look at the figures. In the eight years from 1928 to 1936 there was an increase of 32 per cent. in pit mechanisation, and it gave a 15 per cent. increase in output per manshift. In the three years 1946 to 1949 there was a 6 per cent. increase in mechanisation and a 9 per cent. increase in output per manshift. That clearly shows that there was harder work clone by the face workers or that there was better management, or both.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was interested in the cost of American coal freights and one or two other matters. Quite clearly, it would be quite contrary to public interest—[Interruption.] Would it not? Is there any businessman in this
1192
House who, when engaged in commercial negotiations, would tell the world the prices he was paying when he had to buy? I say quite clearly that it is contrary to the public interest, whilst commercial negotiations are still proceeding, to give these figures, but I will say that when the operation of importing coal has been completed, information as to the prices paid and the cost in both sterling and dollars will be made available. In regard to freights, obviously anyone who would care to take the trouble to look through the daily freight register would be able to see from the charges that the majority of the ships have been chartered, as that shows, at round about 65s.
Mr. Bracken: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman one moment? He must really recognise that the prices he has referred to have been published in the American newspapers. People know the cost of the freights. They know the cost, and the Minister ought to tell the House.
Mr. Robens: I am not prepared to accept from the right hon. Gentleman that merely because American newspapers have printed some figures I should accept those and announce them to the House.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this rather important issue, would he be good enough to explain how the disparity between American and British prices, as to which there is no dispute, is to be dealt with from the point of view of the consumer? Is the surplus to be passed on to the particular consumers who have the American coal, or is it to be borne by the Coal Board or the taxpayers?
Mr. Robens: No, Sir, it will be averaged, and averaged over all. It will not apply to the particular consumers of the American coal coming in.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All consumers will bear it?
Mr. Robens: Yes. The hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. Bennett) was concerned with the question of unemployed miners in Lanarkshire. I am under the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) dealt with that matter, and

1193
indicated the exhaustion of pits, and the fact that joint consultation takes place on all closures today, as distinct from what happened in the days when pits were closed down and men thrown out of work without any consideration at all.
Another hon. Member referred to fuel efficiency and fuel policy. I shall say something about that tonight, but tomorrow there is a Motion on that matter, and perhaps it would be better if I dealt at greater length on it when we come to deal with that Motion.
I agree that I have not been able to deal with all the matters that have been raised, but as I have at least picked out a good number, and the main points, let me turn now to the real business of the House tonight, and that is the Amendment. What does it do? It
"… deplores the contrast between Ministerial promises of adequate supplies … and present shortages. …"
That is the issue before the House. In point of fact, I am unable to recall any occasion, nor has any evidence of it been produced today, when a Minister has in fact stated that adequate supplies of coal would come over-night, or indeed within a few years. If I had time I should like to refer hon. Gentlemen opposite to speeches made on the Second Reading of the Bill by the then Minister of Fuel and Power, who made it perfectly clear. He said:
"But these purposes cannot be achieved unless on the basis of a long-term plan. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 702.]
No evidence has been produced that any Minister has said that this job of producing adequate supplies for the country would be anything but a long job.
After all, what does "adequate" mean? Surely it means "fully sufficient," and on that interpretation a simple arithmetical calculation shows quite clearly that adequate supplies, in the sense of fully sufficient supplies, cannot be obtained for several years yet. The domestic market is receiving at the moment about 30 million tons, while the pre-war domestic consumption was about 45 million tons. Even allowing for the greater use of gas and electricity for cooking and heating and the greater efficiency of fuel appliances now going into thousands of houses, at a most conservative estimate of the full domestic fuel
1194
requirements it will take several million more tons than the present supply to satisfy the need. The demands of industry, of power stations and gas works still go on rising, from 96 million tons in 1948 to 104 million tons in 1950, an increase of 8 million tons in two years, and these requirements are rising rapidly.
Demands from importing countries are nowhere near satisfied. Allowing for these increases for maintaining our exports at the 1949 level, and for replenishing our stocks, it would be true to say that we should require next year a total coal production approaching 235 million tons before we could say we were having an adequate supply. But we have to remember also that in our present coal production we are including something like 12 million tons a year of opencast. We have had in the past eight years up to the end of 1950, an opencast output of about 78 million tons. At the current level the opencast output is about six per cent. of the deep-mined output.
Inevitably, the time will come when opencast will have to be made up by deep-mined production, and I am certain there is nobody in this House who will be so bold as to say that a six per cent. increase on the present production of deep-mined coal can be accomplished in 1951. Indeed, we shall do well if we manage that by the end of 1952. So before we could say we had a really adequate supply of deep-mined coal we should have to eliminate opencast and have to produce next year nearly 235 million tons from the mines alone. This figure of nearly 235 million tons compares with last year's output of deep-mined coal of 204 million tons. Knowing that, it is just absurd to suggest that any Labour Ministers promised to produce adequate supplies like a conjuror producing a rabbit out of a hat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought that would appeal to some hon. Members opposite. That is why I put it in.
The amount represented by adequate supplies rises year by year and indeed it must in conditions of full employment and ever-increasing productivity in general industry. In fact, we are using more coal internally in this country than ever before in our history. In 1938, with unemployment standing at 1,870,000 people despite the armament drive which was then proceeding—
Mr. Churchill: One million eight hundred thousand unemployed?
Mr. Robens: Despite that fact, 224 million tons represented adequate supplies, and that included 46 million tons for export and bunkers. But in 1950, when we used 219 million tons, only five million tons less than the amount of 1938—just a little over one week's production—with only 17 million tons of coal for export as compared with 46 million tons, we were many million tons short of producing adequate quantities. Of course, the fact is that the policy which the Government have steadily pursued since 1945, and which has ensured full employment and a much improved standard of living for the mass of people of this country, has been so eminently successful that the total coal produced in 1938, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, while adequate for that year, would have been totally inadequate for 1951.
I do not want to be too controversial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I only mention these things to show the complete fallaciousness of the Amendment which hon. Gentlemen opposite have moved. I say that it will take several years before the country, under conditions of full employment, will be able to produce in the mines a full sufficiency of coal for all our needs. It seems to me, therefore, that this House and the country are entitled to know whether, indeed, under a Labour administration, we are making slow or quick progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly; the country;s entitled to know whether, under a Labour administration, we are making slow or quick progress towards the objective of fully-sufficient coal.
Let us examine it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let us see what one of the most eminent mining engineers in the country had to say about future production possibilities. In 1945, the Reid Report was published, and Sir Charles Reid said that the task of reconstructing the industry was bound to take many years to complete. As recently as 1949, when Sir Charles Reid gave the Cadman Memorial Lecture on the Reconstruction of the British Mining Industry, he said that it should be possible to get an output per manshift at the face of 3.7 tons by 1965. He then said that the task of
1196
reconstructing the British mining industry was an immense one which would take years to near achievement. Again, he said that it would be wrong to suggest that the industry could quicken the pace of reconstruction and rationalisation to reach a figure of higher productivity at an earlier date; indeed, it might be said that the suggested output per manshift of 30 cwt. over-all, in 1965, was optimistic.
How have we progressed in the direction foreshadowed by Sir Charles Reid? In 1945, the output per manshift at the face was 2.7 tons. Year by year, this has steadily risen to 3.11 tons in 1950. So in five years we have gone more than one-third of the way towards the goal which Sir Charles Reid, with his great knowledge of the industry, regarded as a 20-year journey. I say that the industry can be justly proud of that achievement. Increased mechanisation and rapidly improving relations in the industry will, I hope, speed up that progress still more. Even so, it is clear that some years lie ahead before deep-mining production is such that all restriction of supplies can come to an end.
What have we to do? I think that the battle of coal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]—I thought we were discussing a serious matter. Members opposite have had much to say in the debate, and they have been asking what the Government are doing. I am now telling them; so why not listen? The battle of coal is a two-pronged affair. On one side, we shall do all we can to increase production, and on the other side we must do a good deal more about fuel efficiency. The Ministry have done an enormous amount of work in connection with fuel efficiency. I have a number of interesting specific cases, but time does not permit me to give them to the House.
By and large, as a result of the mobile units we have had on the roads during the last 12 months, experience has shown that with a really scientific approach something like a fuel saving of 22 per cent. can be obtained. I hope that industrialists generally will take up this campaign for fuel efficiency on which one hon. Member opposite has had a good many useful things to say during the debate. We can, in this and other ways, conserve our most precious raw material. But the great drive for production goes on, and it must go on. My right hon. Friend has

1197
indicated the various ways in which this is being done. Therefore, I do not propose to reiterate what he has said.
When we have had all our conferences at every level, and when we have said all that we have to say about coal in this House and elsewhere, it still remains, and it always will remain, a truism that coal is won at the point of the pick. Whether that pick is attached to a pickshaft or to a machine, there must be a man behind it. Without him, all the verbiage and all the mechanisation in the world will not produce an ounce of coal. Like all human
beings, I suppose, the miner has his faults, but his loyalty, courage and steadfastness have never been in doubt. In these last years he has got a square deal for the first time in his life. I back the miner. I pin my faith on him, and I hope that the House will do the same by its vote tonight.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 289.

Division No. 21.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Hobson, C. R.

Adams, Richard

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Holman, P.

Albu, A. H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Houghton, Douglas

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hoy, J.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Deer, G.

Hubbard, T.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Delargy, H. J.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)

Awbery, S. S.

Diamond, J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Ayles, W. H.

Dodds, N. N.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Bacon, Miss A.

Donnelly, D.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Baird, J.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Balfour, A.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Dye, S.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Bartley, P.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Edelman, M.

Janner, B.

Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Jay, D. P. T.

Benson, G.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Beswick, F.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Jeger, Dr S. W (St. Pancras, S.)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Jenkins, R. H.

Bing, G. H. C.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Blackburn, A. R.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Blenkinsop, A.

Ewart, R.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Blyton, W. R.

Fernyhough, E.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Boardman, H.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Booth, A.

Finch, H. J.

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Bottomley, A. G

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Keenan, W.

Bowden, H. W.

Follick, M

Kenyon, C.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Foot, M. M.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Forman, J. C.

King, H. M.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Kinley, J.

Brooks, T. J (Normanton)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

Lee, F. (Newton)

Brown, George (Belper)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gibson, C. W.

Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)

Burke, W. A

Gilzean, A.

Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)

Burton, Miss E.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Gooch, E G

Lindgren, G. S.

Callaghan, James

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Carmichael, James

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Logan, D. G.

Castle, Mrs B. A

Grenfell, D. R.

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Champion, A. J.

Grey, C. F.

McAllister, G.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

MacColl, J. E.

Clunie, J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

McGhee, H. G.

Cocks, F. S.

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

McGovern, J.

Coldrick, W.

Gunter, R. J.

McInnes, J.

Collick, P.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mack, J. D.

Collindridge, F.

Hale, J. (Rochdale)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Cook, T. F.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)

Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

McLeavy, F.

Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

Hamilton, W. W.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Peckham)

Hannan, W.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Cove, W. G.

Hardman, D. R.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hardy, E. A.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Crawley, A.

Hargreaves, A.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Crosland, C. A. R

Harrison, J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Crossman, R. H. S

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Manuel, A. C.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hayman, F. H.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Daines, P.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Herbison, Miss M.

Mellish, R. J

Darling, G. (Hillsboro')

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Messer, F

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Reeves, J.

Thurtle, Ernest

Mikardo, Ian

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Timmons, J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Moeran, E. W.

Rhodes, H.

Tomney, F.

Monslow, W.

Richards, R.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Moody, A. S.

Robens, A.

Ungoed-Thomas, A. L

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Robsrts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Morley, R.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Viant, S. P.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Wallace, H. W.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Mort, O. L.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Weitzman, D.

Moyle, A.

Royle, C.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Mulley, F. W

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Murray, J. D.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

West, D. G.

Natty, W.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E)

Neal, H.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

O'Brien, T.

Simmons, C. J.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Oldfield, W. H

Slater, J.

Wigg, George

Oliver, G. H

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Orbach, M.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Wilkes, L.

Padley, W. E.

Snow, J. W.

Wilkins, W. A.

Paget, R. T.

Sorensen, R. W.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Steels, T.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Pannell, T. C.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Pargiter, G. A

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Williams, Ronald (W'gan)

Parker, J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Paton, J.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Pearson, A.

Stross, Dr. B.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)

Peart, T. F

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Pools, Cecil

Sylvester, G. O.

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Porter, G.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Wise, Major F. J.

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Proctor, W. T.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Wyatt, W. L.

Pryde, D. J.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Yates, V. F.

Pursey, Commander H

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Rankin, J.

Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)

Rees, Mrs. D.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Sparks.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Channon, H.

Foster, J. G

Alport, C. J. M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Clarke, Brig. T. H (Portsmouth, W.)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M

Arbuthnot, John

Clyde, J. L.

Gage, C. H.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Colegate, A.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollck)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Astor, Hon. M.

Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

Gammans, L. D

Baker, P.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Baldock J. M.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Gates, Maj. E. E

Baldwin, A. E

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Glyn, Sir R.

Banks, Col. C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Baxter, A. B.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Gridley, Sir A.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Bell, R. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Crouch, R. F.

Harden, J. R. E.

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

Crowder, Capt. John F E (Finchley)

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Cundiff, F. W.

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

Birch, Nigel

Cuthbert, W. N.

Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Bishop, F. P.

Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Black, C. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hay, John

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Boothby, R.

de Chair, S.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Bossom, A. C

De la Bère, R.

Heald, L. F.

Bower, N.

Deedes, W. F.

Heath, E. R.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Digby, S. Wingfield

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Donner, P. W

Higgs, J. M. C.

Braine, B.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J.G

Drayson, G. B

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Duncan, Capt. J. A L

Hirst, Geoffrey

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Dunglass, Lord

Hollis, M. C

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Duthie, W. S

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Eccles, D. M.

Hope, Lord J.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

Eden, Rt. Hon. A

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Butcher, H. W.

Erroll, F. J.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Fisher, Nigel

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Carson, Hon. E.

Fort, R

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lswisham, N.)

1200

1201

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Maude, J. C. (Exeter)

Snadden, W. McN.

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

Maudling, R.

Soames, Capt. C.

Hurd, A. R.

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Mellor, Sir J

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Hyde, H. M.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. R (N. Fylde)

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

Stevens, G. P.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Jennings, R.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

Nabarro, G.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Nicholls, H.

Storey, S.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Nicholson, G.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Kaberry, D.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Studholme, H. G

Keeling, E. H.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Summers, G. S.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Sutcliffe, H.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Nutting, Anthony

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Oakshott H. D.

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Odey, G. W.

Teeling, William

Langford-Holt, J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Teevan, L. T.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Leather, E. H. C.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Lindsay, Martin

Osborne, C.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

Linstead, H. N.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Llewellyn, D.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Tilney, John

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Pickthorn, K.

Touche, G. C.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Turner, H. F. L

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Prescott, Stanley

Turton, R. H.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Price, H. V (Lewisham, W.)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Vane, W. M. F.

Low, A. R. W.

Profumo, J. D.

Vaughan-Morgan, J K.

Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)

Raikes, H. V

Vosper, D. F.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Rayner, Brigadier R

Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Redmayne, M.

Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

McAdden, S. J.

Renton, D. L. M.

Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Ward, Miss I (Tynemourh)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Watkinson, H.

McKibbin, A.

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

Webbe, Sir H. (London)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Roper, Sir H.

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Maclean, F. H. R.

Ropner, Col. L.

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Russell, R. S.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon. E.)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Wills, G.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Scott, Donald

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Wood, Hon. R.

Marples, A. E.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

York, C.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.

Main Question again proposed.
It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Committee Tomorrow.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved:
"That the Order, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Downham Market, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

DEMOLITION ORDER, EAST HAM
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Braine: As the House is aware, compulsory purchase powers have been used on an ever widening scale in recent years. That such powers should exist to enable Government and local authorities to meet the essential needs of the community no reasonable person would dispute, but, clearly, those using such powers are under a moral obligation to do so scrupulously and with the utmost restraint. If

1203
freedom is to have any kind of meaning at all in this country, then it should be the duty of those entrusted with government, whether it be at the centre or locally, to maintain a fair balance between the essential needs of the community and the rights of the individual.
It is my purpose tonight to bring to the attention of the House and to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, a case where compulsory powers have been exercised in doubtful fashion, and as a consequence, have inflicted hardship upon certain of the persons affected. The Essex county borough of East Ham sustained heavy damage during the war, being badly blitzed. Today it is in need of new houses. For some time the local council have been acquiring the necessary land, using their powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts, but in the case I have in mind they have had recourse to their powers under the Housing Act, 1936.
As hon. Members are aware, where properties are acquired under the Town and Country Planning procedure some compensation is payable, but under the Housing Act, 1936, where a local authority is satisfied that properties are unfit for habitation and by reason of their disrepair and sanitary defects are dangerous to the health of the inhabitants in the area, they can make a clearance order, acquire the property compulsorily, and no compensation other than site value is given. Since the object of the Act was to facilitate the clearing of slums, that procedure was fair enough, but it was not intended to include fit houses, and in any event, special provision is made in Section 40 of that Act for compensation at market value to be paid where a house is included in a clearance area by reason of its disrepair or sanitary defects but is not injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area.
On 25th April last year the East Ham Council declared two roads in East Ham, Mountfield Road and Telham Road, to be within a clearance area. Among the properties affected was Number 18, Mountfield Road. This was a semidetached house. It was bought in 1946 by a Mr. Ginn, a young ex-Service man, a bus conductor by trade. He bought it for the sum of £550. At the time of the
1204
purchase the house was structurally sound but was in need of certain repairs. I have here the search certificate which was issued at the time and which revealed no outstanding notices except that the property was subject to an interim development order, which means that its use is restricted to that of a dwelling-house.
What is more, I have attached to the search certificate a letter from the town clerk which states categorically that:
"All charges have been paid and there are no sanitary or other notices outstanding."
On the strength of that Mr. Ginn asked the building society for an advance of £400 and he was given this on the security of the property. Subsequently he spent a total of £117 on repairs, and today the property is sound and habitable and, what is more, it is a home.
At the invitation of certain people in East Ham I inspected the property myself. I found it spotlessly clean, in an excellent condition, glistening with new paint, the windows much larger than I had expected, the whole place airy. It was a home. The late Minister of Health who claimed a reputation for wiping floors would not have found anything to do in Number 18, Mountfield Road. Nevertheless, despite its condition, the East Ham Council served a notice upon Mr. Ginn, as upon all the other owners concerned, that his property was unfit for human habitation and that it was in a clearance area. I have the notice here. It states in what respects the house was considered injurious to health. I wish the House could see the happy, cheerful—at least, not so cheerful these days—and healthy family occupying this house. However, it was alleged that there was rising and penetrative dampness, that the staircase was too steep, that there was no bathroom, and that the existence of a single storey back addition caused lack of light and air.
On 13th July a public inquiry was held in order to hear objections, and I am advised that in the case of Mr. Ginn's property the fact was brought out that he had carried out extensive repairs which had eliminated the dampness completely. As regards the other defects which I have mentioned, no evidence was produced that the stairway—which I myself had mounted—was dangerous; the lack of a bath is common not only to many proper-

1205
ties in East Ham but to many fit properties elsewhere in the country; and the existence of a single storey back addition hardly enters into the argument because I understand that the former Minister of Health recommended that similar structures be permitted in the case of new, terrace-type houses.
I am advised, too, that evidence was given at that public inquiry that certain of the other properties in the area were defective but it was not proved—this is the point I want to make—that all the buildings in the clearance area were, by reason of their defects, injurious to the health of the inhabitants. Nor was it proved, as the Act itself requires, that the most effective methods of dealing with these properties was by the demolition of all the buildings concerned. In November, Mr. Ginn learnt that he was to lose his home, the Minister having confirmed the order.
I should like the House to consider the effect of this upon the man concerned. In accordance with Section 42 of the Act, he will receive compensation of about £90, plus whatever he gets for the site—a relatively small sum. That is calculated upon a basis of his outlay on repairs—£117—less three years' rateable value. By the simple device of scheduling his property as being unfit to live in and dangerous to the health of the inhabitants of the area—which is nonsense—the East Ham Council have acquired this property "on the cheap." What is more important, this inoffensive citizen, whose only crime is that he wants to own his own house, is to lose his home and a large part of his savings.
It is true that the East Ham Council have a statutory obligation to re-house him, but, in addition to the rent which he will have to pay, he is saddled with the repayments of principal and interest on his mortgage for the next 17 years. It is monstrous that the State should have power to inflict such hardship upon a man. If this is the law, then it should be changed. I know perfectly well, however, that if I were to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do that, you would very quickly intervene Mr. Speaker. But I do not think it is necessary to do that. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will explore the possibilities of seeing what justice can be done for this man within the limits, of the existing law.
Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
Mr. Braine: Notwithstanding that the late Minister of Health confirmed the order upon the evidence which was presented to him, will the Parliamentary Secretary look at this matter again to see, first, whether the East Ham Council did not stretch their powers quite improperly—that is, their powers under the Housing Act, 1936—to include 18, Mountfield Road, and whether he should not remedy the matter by arranging with the new Minister for the order to be revoked on the ground that the late Minister was wrongly advised by the local authority.
Second, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider whether the order to demolish such buildings should have been made at all? After all, this is a time of acute housing shortage. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary recalls a speech by the Paymaster-General in another place on 21st June last, in which, speaking officially for the Government, he said:
"Housing authorities are advised that while there is a shortage of houses they should not embark on the demolition of existing properties unless these constitute an immediate danger to life and limb or to the health of the occupants."
Those are very wise and necessary words, but they do not seem to have percolated down to the East Ham Borough Council.
If, on the other hand, it is decided that the order must be proceeded with, then I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the case of 18, Mountfield Road, could be excluded from the order, or, alternatively, that the owner should be compensated upon the basis of market value, as is provided in Section 40 of the Act as modified by town and country planning procedure since the war.
I hope I have not taken too much of the time of the House. This is an important matter and one vital principle, which affects a far larger number of people than Mr. Ginn. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I know that he is possessed of a generous heart and kindly disposition and I hope that I have not appealed to him in vain.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. DainesThis case, of course, is one that received very wide publicity in the national Press, and in the 10 minutes that I can take I shall

1207
try to outline—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ten minutes?"] Yes, that is by agreement with the Minister—to outline the facts of the case, so that they can be clearly judged. Quite obviously, the facts have not been given.
This house was bought by Mr. Ginn in April, 1946, for £550. The rateable value of the house was £9 and the sum of £400 was advanced by the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society.
Major Hicks-Beach: is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member to say that he is speaking for 10 minutes by agreement with the Minister?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order.
Mr. Daines: The point is quite obvious. I was challenged below the Gangway and it is an obviously sensible arrangement I have come to, because this case arises in a borough which I have the honour to represent. The sum advanced was £400—
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order. Is it in order to have a pre-arranged time-table which will leave the Minister only 10 minutes to reply?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know nothing about the arrangements made.
Mr. Danies: If hon. Members of the Opposition want to indulge in dirty tactics, it will not prevent me from making my case. The point is that Mr. Ginn, who has our deepest sympathy, is the victim, not of a bureaucratic borough council, but of bad advisers when he purchased the property. He said—and here I am quoting him verbatim from the "News of the World"—in an interview on 5th November:
"Obviously the house was thoroughly in spected before I was given a mortgage"
and he went on to say:
"The house was inspected by a building society surveyor inspector and we were told that it was a good investment"
I have inspected the house from the outside and I am also fully aware of the nature of the district. There was no damp course in the house when it was purchased. The whole of the area, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) must know quite well, was ripe
1208
for demolition not only in 1946 but even before the war hit it.
Mr. Braine: Then the town clerk should have been sacked.
Mr. Daines: One cannot re-develop an area leaving one house in isolation. When I inspected the property last Friday, there was a distinct damp mark in the surrounding houses. This type of property has been ripe for development for some time. Responsibility rests on the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society for making the advance to this man and giving to him what was a strong certificate of value.
I find a point of some singular interest that the solicitors who acted for the vendors were Messrs. Edwards, Son and Noice, who I think are also known to the hon. Member and whose leading partner, Colonel Edwards, is the Chairman of the regional Conservative organisation. The hon. Member for Billericay used words like "monstrous," but surely he knows quite well that East Ham Borough Council are only carrying out the provisions of the Housing Act, 1936, which was passed by a Conservative House of Commons under the initiative of a Conservative Government. If it is monstrous, obviously the responsbility lies there.
The figures are that the site value will fetch £75, and on the public statement of Mr. Ginn, as far as maintenance is concerned, there will be a figure of £117 which will stand a slight reduction and give him a total of £180. It has already been stated that the local authority will do all they can within the terms of the law. But the local authority cannot go beyond the law. It is prepared to move him at the council's expense and place him in a council house. I am prepared to admit that the burden Mr. Ginn will face with this increase of 4s. or 5s. on the rent and the cost of settling him in his new home, plus the payments on the mortgage to the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, may place upon him a burden impossible to carry. But the responsibility is on the building society for making an advance on this doubtful valuation. The person responsible more than anyone is the surveyor who valued the property, in my opinion upon an entirely false and misleading basis, and misled Mr. Ginn.
There is also the other case of Mr. S, where the agent—and I am not certain

1209
that it was not the same agent—went to this man who had been living with his parents for many years and obtained an eviction order from the court upon the death of the parents. The agent offered the man the house at £600. He tried to get a loan from the Woolwich Equitable Building Society, and they rightly turned it down. The man had another mortgage offered to him by the estate agent, and when the whole case was exposed in the council chamber, the agent got the wind up to such an extent that he offered to resume the tenancy.
I have every sympathy, as has the borough council, with Mr. Ginn, but we are powerless in this case because of the re-development of the area. In my constituency, as well as in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, there is a deliberate racket by unscrupulous landlords and land agents to get tenants who are living in properties which are ripe for development to purchase the houses—I say under false pretences. We are doing all we can to protect them by statements in the council chamber and by all the forms of publicity we can use. I ask the House to recognise the facts. We can only do what is within the law. We can do no more than that. This case has not been put forward with a desire to help Mr. Ginn, who has already placed his case in the hands of his own Member of Parliament, but because of political animosity, and is more concerned with making party capital than with helping Mr. Ginn.
10.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I hope that hon. Members opposite will at least give me the courtesy which I and my hon. Friends gave to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) who opened the debate. We did not intervene or interject, although we disagreed with him. Therefore, I think the correct thing is that, if a statement has been made—and made, I believe, in all good faith—a reply should be given.
The hon. Member who raised this subject said that we ought to explore everything possible in order to do justice to this man. Well, that is being done. The man concerned saw his Member of Parliament, who happens to be my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport;
1210
and my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Member of Parliament for that division, is trying, in the light of the circumstances, to see that this man does get justice.
The injustice appears to me, on the evidence I have from the Minister's inspector who inspected the property, to be the fault of those who led the man to think he should buy the house. It is evidence which leads me to think that someone advanced money on the house in excess of its market value. Generally, the ordinary individual, when he secures a mortgage from a building society, believes that that mortgage is given on the basis of what the particular house will fetch in the market.
Mr. H. Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman not attach any importance to the fact that on the date of the purchase the clerk to the borough council said that there was no order on the property at all, and the man made the purchase on that?
Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member is a surveyor; he has doubtless inspected more houses than I have ever seen, and he knows that a purchase is made on the strength of certain statutory documents; but they are not a certificate of structural value.
Mr. H. Nicholls: The value was affected, and at a time when the Parliamentary Secretary is accusing a building society of having misled the purchaser.
Mr. Lindgren: That is a matter for someone else to decide; the matter is in the hands of the Member of Parliament for the division. My right hon. Friend is taking up the case, as we all do when a constituent feels that he or she has a grievance. I must say that I do not think that the hon. Member who raised this matter tonight meant what he said when he stated that East Ham County Borough Council had used its powers in a doubtful fashion. I refute that most strongly. East Ham County Borough Council or, for that matter, any other borough council in the country, if they use their powers as they think right. are doing what is expected of them. But they have also to satisfy the Minister. If there are objections, these powers have to be shown to have been correctly used.

1211
In this particular case, the council asked for a compulsory purchase order. There were local objections and the Minister, because of those objections, arranged for a public local inquiry to be conducted by one of his inspectors. That inquiry was held, and in the light of the evidence, and of his inspector's report, the Minister was satisfied that the borough council was right in regard to the fulfilling of the conditions of the Act, including properties brought to the special notice of the inspector. The Minister was satisfied that his duty was to confirm the order. That the Minister did.
Reference was made to the fact that properties should not be destroyed in the present circumstances even though they may not be as good as they ought to be. East Ham is one of those many boroughs which has built up its area right up to the limit. They have used every available space. If I might say so, as an outsider, they have used some space which ought not to have been used and which should have been left as open space. But they have done it in an effort to meet the housing requirements. Having completely built up their area, their only possible way of providing for the persons on their lists who require accommodation is to re-develop the area at a higher density by the provision of flats, together with maisonettes, villas, and the rest.
It is true—I do not want to play on it—that the 1936 Act is a Conservative Act of Parliament. As a member of a local authority and a member of the U.D.C. Association, I pressed the Government for the 1936 Act. In the light of that time and in a period of Conservative Government, it was a good Act. Wherever
1212
you put a large clearance area, there will always be some hardship for someone or greater comparative hardship for one person than another. One can never get over this.
Mr. Braine: What about Section 40?
Mr. Lindgren: Section 40 and Section 42 both apply. The Minister, in the light of the inspection of this property, declares it insanitary and unfit for human habitation, but if it was reasonably maintained, allows for special payment under Section 42. That is what the Act of Parliament allows for and one cannot operate an Act of Parliament such as this one, on the basis of a poor widow who is going to suffer some particular hardship.
Mr. Braine: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to be very fair, but surely Section 40 makes provision, where a house is not injurious to health, for compensation to be assessed at market value?
Mr. Lindgren: No, only under Section 42 can an additional payment be made where a house which it is decided is unsanitary, is in fact in a reasonable standard of maintenance.
Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson rose—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.