HC Deb 25 April 1955 vol 540 cc715-34

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

8.37 p.m.

Mr. William Paling (Dewsbury)

I wish to refer to a proposal by the National Coal Board to carry out opencast coal working at Dale Green Farm, Briestfield, near Dewsbury, and belonging to Mr. P. J. Walker. I have sought the Adjournment to discuss this case because, when Mr. Walker became aware of the fact that opencast working was to take place on his farm, I went along to see what was happening and why. Knowing the case and knowing the district that was to be subject to opencast working, I volunteered, after viewing, to take up the case of Mr. Walker and to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Fuel and Power.

I felt that an injustice was being done. Having seen the site and learned the facts, I was more than sure that there was an injustice. After the Order had been made that the Dale Green Farm was to be submitted to opencast working, I lodged an appeal with the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Agriculture against the Order and against action being taken. I asked if it would be possible to meet the two Ministers in order to discuss the difficulties and the problems arising out of this case. But presumably for a mere Member of Parliament to ask two Ministers to intervene in an appeal against opencast working is beyond what Ministers in this Government feel they can accept. Apparently they concluded that nothing could be done. After the discussion which I suppose took place, I was informed of that decision.

Mr. Walker saw me, and we asked for an appointment with the Ministry to discuss an appeal against the Order. This was granted. We did not meet the Minister, because it seems that the right hon. Gentleman cannot be approached by a mere Member of Parliament. I wish to emphasise that, because I think it is disgusting that when a Member of Parliament asks to meet Ministers he should be turned down and merely notified of the result of a discussion. When the appeal was put in and Mr. Walker and his solicitor came with me, we met the Parliamentary Secretary. Let me say immediately that it was a pleasure to meet him. At least he is a gentleman. The delegation met the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power and also the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

It is as a result of the discussion which followed that I am raising this matter tonight. I am very dissatisfied with the present state of affairs and the taking over of Dale Green Farm, particularly at this juncture, for the purposes of opencast mining. The farm is highly productive and well run. Mr. Walker maintains a pedigree Ayrshire herd with a milk production figure high above the county average and well above the national average for all cattle, recorded and non-recorded. In the opinion of local officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who, incidentally, have given Mr. Walker every encouragement in his farming operations, it would be impossible for the herd to be kept together if the proposed site is worked. The result would be the loss of the herd and the bringing to a standstill of the entire work of the farm.

I wish to stress the fact that part of Mr. Walker's land was taken for opencast working in 1947. About an acre was worked and eventually the land was filled in and handed back to the owner. My impression is that once a site had been opened up for opencast working and then, for some reason, handed back to the owner, that is the end of the matter. In 1947 it was arranged for this opening-up to take place.

In July, 1951, Mr. Walker received the first notice of intention to put down boreholes in respect of the present proposal. In August, 1952, the West Riding Land Commissioner of the Ministry of Agriculture wrote to Mr. Walker: I fully appreciate and understand your concern over this proposal and, from a purely agricultural point of view, I shall clearly recommend my Department do not give clearance for the working of the site. I would recommend that until you hear from me you should carry on farming operations as far as possible as if the proposal had never been raised. There is many an opencast site which has been proposed and has been abandoned or unduly delayed, so I think it my duty to warn you against any precipitate action. To this Mr. Walker made a spirited reply. He said: I can assure you I shall do nothing precipitate except to pray that disaster will overtake them and frustrate their knavish tricks. Mr. Walker was then kept in a state of uncertainty and suspense until 1953, when the Land Commissioner informed him: I am now pleased to be able to tell you that following prolonged representations from my Department the Coal Board do not propose to proceed further with this site. While there is coal under your lands and while opencast coal-getting is a Government policy, this Coal Board must always reserve the right to reconsider their decision. I can assure you, however, that if the proposal is resurrected you will be fully consulted as in the past and the case will be carefully considered. Meanwhile I sincerely hope that circumstances never arise which will necessitate the Coal Board reconsidering the working of coal on your farm. That, in itself, was sufficient to give Mr. Walker encouragement to proceed with the development of the farm and of his pedigree herd of cattle, which he did. But, in addition, there was another letter, which arrived in August, 1953, with Form DLA 129, addressed to Mr. Walker and signed on behalf of the Minister of Fuel and Power, which stated: The National Coal Board … have informed the Minister that they do not propose to do any more work under their present authorisation, which has therefore been revoked by the Minister. These two letters, to any individual, whether it be a farmer or anyone else, would lead him to come to the conclusion that the Coal Board, the Ministry of Works and everyone concerned in this question of opencast working had decided not to do anything more on that site, but to allow the farmer to continue with his operations and development. That is what Mr. Walker understood from the letters he received.

Mr. Walker developed these operations in the spirit of the two letters he had received. I may be reminded that the latter part of the first letter said that the National Coal Board reserved the right to resume operations, but those with knowledge of letters from Ministries will recognise that as a usual addition in order that the Minister shall not be caught napping. It is a rigmarole which secures the Minister in case of sudden readjustment.

Mr. Walker read the letter, following as it did the letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, as meaning that the threat to his farm had been removed. If I had no other argument tonight except one based upon those two letters, following upon the fact that the Coal Board had already, in 1947, begun opencast working on the farm, I think the whole House would agree that Mr. Walker was justified in concluding that the Coal Board had no further use for his land for opencast working.

Therefore, Mr. Walker went ahead on the assumption that these letters meant what they said. He relied upon these official intimations, and went forward with improving his farm, incurring an expenditure of £4,000 on one item alone, the building of a new power-house. In February, 1954, approval was given by the Ministry of Agriculture to a grant to Mr. Walker under the marginal production scheme, and a letter on the subject was received by him as recently as 11th January, 1955. I would ask anyone interested in the matter to go and look at this marginal production farm before it is maltreated by the opencast people. It is as pretty a picture as any farm in the country. The farm has been made useful, and a pedigree herd of Ayrshire cattle is being bred upon it. Surely Mr. Walker had every ground for confidence in going forward with the schemes he had in mind.

However, in October, 1954, the West Riding Land Commissioner informed Mr. Walker that he had been instructed by his Department to permit the National Coal Board Opencast Executive to go ahead with the working of the site. A meeting followed between officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Mr. Walker, at which a plan of the proposed site was produced and figures were given of the estimated yield of coal. The area was shown as 39. 62 acres, and the quantity of coal recoverable as 24,966 tons. It is important to remember that at the time when these figures were quoted to Mr. Walker in October, 1954, the Coal Board was ready and anxious to enter on the site immediately.

Mr. Walker opposed the proposal on the ground, amongst others, that 24,996 tons of opencast coal of very poor quality could not be worth the loss of the herd of cattle and his farm. In January, 1955, he was told for the first time that the estimated recoverable quantity of coal had been raised to 40,000 tons. First of all, it was 24,000 tons and then, in a matter of months—because Mr. Walker is objecting to the entry to his farm for a second time—the figure is suddenly increased to 40,000 tons. We have never yet had any letter or any information to say how the figure of 40,000 tons was arrived at, except that it was to be obtained by new methods of production.

To me the whole thing seems a little fishy. I do not wonder at my constituent, Mr. Walker, feeling very disturbed that the Ministry should be so anxious to get hold of this land. I have a feeling that, because a farmer had the audacity, the temerity, to challenge the Coal Board about the entry to his land for a second time in order to use it for opencast purposes, "Big Brother" has stepped in and said "We will show him; instead of the 40 acres we will now use considerably more. We will drive him off absolutely." That is what that Order means at present. It means that he has to sell the whole of his herd, dismiss his staff and vacate his farm in order to meet the whims of the Coal Board, which has not been able to make up its mind until the lapse of six or seven years.

At my request, on 1st February, 1955, Mr. Walker was granted an interview with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I must say that we were received with great courtesy. I wish that the Minister himself could have shown such courtesy when, earlier on, I asked to interview both him and the Minister of Agriculture. We might have obviated this Adjournment debate. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that after putting down—and I want the House to note this—89 boreholes and two pits in 1951 and 1952, the National Coal Board estimated the yield to be: in situ, 35,708 tons; recoverable 24,996 tons. Those figures appear in the official form 22A, dated 23rd December, 1952, and were quoted to Mr. Walker as holding good in October, 1954, when the National Coal Board proposed entering the site.

Following Mr. Walker's objection to the proposal and without any further boreholes beyond the 89 being put down, and without even re-inspecting the site, the official estimates were increased as follows: in situ from 35,708 tons to 54,896 tons; and recoverable—without anyone having visited the site since the boreholes were put down—from 24,996 tons to 40,736 tons.

In reply to questions put to him, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the reassessment of yield had been made some time ago. If that was so, why were the new figures not revealed when we visited the Ministry, and why was it not explained to us that there had been an increase in the number of tons that could be produced on this site? If it is true that the re-assessment of yield had been made some time ago, the Ministry knew before we met the Minister.

The Parliamentary Secretary also said that the increase in estimated yield was accounted for by the improvements which had taken place in the methods of getting the coal, enabling the contractors to go to a greater depth. Of all the bunkum I have ever heard, that is it. The contractors had known for a year or two how to get down to a greater depth. If the contractors did not know at least two years ago, there was something very wrong with the contractors. If a few of the miners in this House had been consulted, they could have helped the Minister.

The suggestion that 40,736 tons is recoverable as against the first estimate of 24,996 tons is simply spitefulness against Mr. Walker for having challenged the Ministry. If the contractors knew their job at all, they would have known the amount of coal that was available at the time the 89 boreholes were sunk. But when we met the Minister we were not told anything about the 54,896 tons in situ or the 40,736 tons recoverable. We discussed the previous figure of 24,996 tons recoverable. Otherwise, we should have argued the point there and then.

With all due respect, I am afraid that the Minister had not given the Parliamentary Secretary all the information that was supposed to have been in his possession when we interviewed him. I feel annoyed about this whole business, first because I was denied the opportunity of meeting the two Ministers to discuss this matter, and also because this is the first time as a Member of Parliament that I have raised any question about opencast working. I raised this matter because I feel there is such an injustice. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was no intention of working a larger area, and went on to discuss the question of acreage and so on.

I submit that the whole question calls for the closest investigation. There is nothing satisfactory in this case at all. There is nothing satisfactory from the point of view, first, that in 1947 the Ministry entered this farm and, after working a certain proportion of it, apparently came to the conclusion that there was nothing to be got from it. Then 89 boreholes were sunk. It would be interesting to know why on a 40-acre site 89 boreholes had to be sunk to find whether there was any coal there or not. Either there was inefficiency and the Board did not know its job or, in most of the cases, the boreholes revealed that there was no coal. The best that any borehole showed was no more than about 11 inches of coal, or what might be called coal.

Having been on the site and seen the stuff produced, I am wondering how anyone has the audacity to call it coal. Local people have come to the conclusion that one must have some good coal in order to burn this coal. They say that it has the power to stop good coal burning and that if one wants to burn some of this coal a large quantity of good coal must be consumed.

I think this calls for an inquiry and the closest investigation. If it were found that the figures were increased only after Mr. Walker made his protest in October, 1954, the inference would be very grave indeed. It is sometimes said that a farmer would be well advised not to oppose the National Coal Board as he will only be worse off eventually. I have laughed at that in the past, but now I am wondering. Was the National Coal Board out to teach Mr. Walker a lesson for suggesting that the 24,996 tons of inferior coal was not worth getting? If the figures were increased before 1954, why were they not disclosed to Mr. Walker at the time when he was asked to give up possession of the land to the National Coal Board?

It was clear from what the Parliamentary Secretary said at the interview that the decision to work the site had been taken in October, 1954, and could not be altered. It will be noted that although Mr. Walker had been promised that he would be fully consulted if the proposals were resurrected, no such prior consultation took place. I want to impress that. Although Mr. Walker had been promised all manner of things, no prior consultation took place. Mr. Walker has asked for an independent inquiry into this and other matters affecting the proposal; his request has been refused. He has even been refused information on a number of questions bearing directly upon the proposal. Why is the information withheld? Why cannot the Coal Board or the Ministry give it? I may be able to supply the answer presently. There is supposed to be nothing secret about it.

Surely, everyone who is threatened with dispossession by a Government Department is entitled to the fullest explanation on all relevant matters. I do not think I have ever known a case in which there has been so much evidence of blundering and befuddlement, including misleading statements by a Government Department, to the prejudice of a farmer whose only fault is that he has the misfortune to own the land which the Department wishes to take from him. I have certainly never known a case which so clearly called for a full and independent inquiry.

As I have reminded the Ministry previously, these sites are the foothills to the Pennines. A number of sites are being worked for opencast mining. One of them, the Gibraltar site—the Ministry will not like to be reminded of this—was to produce a certain amount of coal, but did not produce it. In fact, the men who worked the job have said that the amount of coal produced on the site has not paid for the cost of the diesel oil which has been consumed.

I was at the site on Sunday. When we met the Minister at the site, I told him that the machines that had been used were lying on their sides. Several of them had been put into a working position but not in working order. The big bulldozer is still in the same position as we saw it months ago before we saw the Minister, and before it can be used again it must be lifted out from the quagmire and sent to the works for overhaul.

That site is near to the one which I am discussing tonight. On Sunday, after 15 days of drought, a veritable lake was to be found on it. In working the site, which is near to another that is being worked and close to others that are proposed, while the men were getting the 11 inches of coal the machine that was getting it suddenly vanished into an extinct working, so that only part of the machine remained peeping through the hole.

The Coal Board and the Ministry know that in the sites in the area there have been a number of workings from time to time over the past 100 years. Useful coal has been taken out, and dangers are attendant upon the use of new and up-to-date methods of production, even of opencast production, with huge machines. The Gibraltar site is a case in point where one of the big machines vanished completely, apart from the jib, which peeped out through the hole above.

In the site to which I am referring over perhaps 100 years there have been at least three opencast workings. These can be traced back on the north-east side, and I believe there are four on the east side. No wonder that the Coal Board has had to sink 89 boreholes to find out whether there is any coal left and, in addition to those boreholes, two pits.

I would also remind the Parliamentary Secretary that under this site there is a day hole working, not far below the level at which it is intended to take out coal by the opencast workings. Is the Ministry hoping for another Knock-shinnock? This could happen because of the proximity of the two seams of coal that are to be worked under the same site. We have already seen a machine falling through the surface at Gibraltar into old workings, and this could happen on Mr. Walker's land.

These are simple additions to the argument of Mr. Walker's case, namely, that the land was first worked in 1947 and then again a year or two later. Yet it is generally accepted in this country that after opencast working has been started and abandoned, the site is not entered a second time. I see the Parliamentary Secretary looking at me. That is accepted. He can ask farmers throughout the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks)

What is accepted is the statement that I made on the subject, which does not tally with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Paling

Generally, where opencast working has taken place on a site and has been abandoned, it is accepted amongst the agricultural community that the site is not entered again.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks indicated dissent.

Mr. Paling

Oh, yes. I can bring plenty of evidence to that effect from our farmers. The land was entered in 1947 and bored and bored. It was intimated, first through the Ministry of Agriculture and then through the Ministry of Works, that the farmer was free to develop his farm. Yet subsequently the Coal Board again demanded coal. All this was done in the words used so often by the Minister, that it was in the interests of the country.

Certainly it is in the interests of the country to produce coal, but not the stuff that is being produced up there. I see in some of the correspondence that the amount of coal is valued at about a quarter of a million pounds. Does that mean that it would cost this amount to get it out? Because that is much more likely than the estimated value of the stuff that is coming out.

These are points that I have been forced to drive home tonight because of the injustice of the case. Many opinions on the matter have been sought. Any farmer or other individual receiving the letters that Mr. Walker received would have come to the conclusion that Mr. Walker did, that the opencast project had been given up. Yet, after receiving the two letters, Mr. Walker was suddenly pounced upon and told that it was proposed to rip up his farm, which meant that he should dispose of his herd of pedigree cattle, and this was in spite of the fact that he had been allowed to spend £4,000 on new buildings.

A neighbouring farmer who had been subject to opencast workings for the miserable stuff which is being obtained from that area told me—he is prepared to substantiate it—that the compensation which he received represented only a quarter of the loss which he suffered by the opencast operations of the National Coal Board. I have had information today from farmers in the Yorkshire area to the effect that, apart from the compensation in no way recompensing them for the loss they sustained through opencast working—I think the Parliamentary Secretary knows what I am going to say—once opencast working has taken place so many people are concerned with the project that there is no satisfactory conclusion and the land is not put into the condition in which it ought to be put before it is left.

There are one hundred and one other snags in the area about which I am speaking. On Sunday afternoon I went round it. I saw a farm which had been the pride of a family, but there have been opencast workings on it, and the farmer, an old gentleman, heart-broken as he is by the mess which has been made of the farm, looks as if he will not live long enough to see farming a possibility on the site again.

If there were something worth while about this, and if justice were done as it should be done, I should not be arguing as I am doing tonight, but I must adopt this attitude in view of the way that Mr. Walker has been treated. In letters he was given the impression that he could spend money on the development of his farm. Yet, once he had done that, he was told that the farm was to be taken over and ripped up for the miserable stuff lying underneath it.

In this country we often boast that we believe in justice and that justice shall not only be done but shall appear to have been done. In this case justice does not even appear to have been done, and it certainly has not been done.

9.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks)

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) has put his points fully and persuasively and although he occasionally used some rather hard language, I do not feel any the worse for that. However, I feel sure that he will understand me when I say that, despite all that he has laid before the House, he has not been able to submit to me any point which is new. I think he knows full well the amount of consideration which this case had already received. I hope, therefore, that he will be equally forbearing with me if I am unable to lay before him any fresh arguments in reply to those which he put to me.

The case has been fully discussed and I have already had the benefit of hearing the advocacy of the hon. Gentleman in conference, which I appreciated. I was able to hear his constituent, Mr. Walker, and I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Walker is a first-class advocate in his own cause and that he put his case with the greatest clarity and force-fulness. I have also had the advantage of hearing the advocacy of Mr. Walker's legal adviser, who again went into the matter very fully and covered very much the same ground as did the hon. Gentleman tonight. Further, we have had the advantage—not me personally, but one of the senior officers of my Department—of hearing Mr. Walker's industrial adviser and he, too, presented the case to us very fully.

I feel sure that I will be excused when I say that we had some prior knowledge of the case, even before the hon. Gentleman raised it in the House, but none the less I am grateful to him for having covered the ground very fully this evening. He has put not so much the arguments on the particular case, as the argument against opencast coal mining altogether. None of us likes that. It is a desecration of the countryside, it is an interference, an interruption and a hardship to those who earn their living from the land, but, on the other hand, we have to consider the situation of the country at the present time.

We know that our exports of coal are curtailed. We know that we are having, for the first time in this country's history, to import substantial quantities of coal and that is very seriously affecting our currency position and our balance of payments. I have no doubt that the hon. Member listened to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his Budget speech, and heard him referring to the coal situation. We are suffering from restrictions upon the use of house coal.

The hon. Gentleman is very familiar indeed with the fact that, notwithstanding the agreement in the deep mine industry for a five-day week, the industry has, in order to try to overcome the shortage of coal, voluntarily agreed to a sixth shift. On top of that, there are any number of absolutely uneconomic pits being worked to get the necessary coal.

How can we, in the light of all those circumstances, face the possibility of giving up the coal that we can get by opencast mining which amounts to about 10 million or more tons a year? It is an absolutely essential contribution not only to our productivity but to our welfare from the point of view of economics and balance of payments.

I recognise to the full that all opencast coal mining involves hardship on the per- son whose land is taken. Often it involves it in an exceedingly serious and unhappy degree. The hon. Gentleman referred to another case which sounded to me as though it were one where very grievous hardship had been inflicted. Much as I appreciate the fact that all opencast coal mining is bound to create hardship, I cannot accept that this case is one which creates exceptional hardship over and above others. I must say that. I have said it to the hon. Gentleman in private and also in public. I have said it to his constituents.

It is not an instance where, over generations, farmland has been built up into first-class agricultural land. The hon. Gentleman himself described it as marginal land in receipt of marginal assistance. To a farmer—and I am one myself—one of the most distressing things in life is to see really first-class agricultural land pulled up for opencast coal mining.

Neither is this an instance—it has happened in many cases and probably will have to happen again in others—where the person whose land is taken is solely dependent for his livelihood upon the working of that land. Such instances very often border on tragedy, but here, happily, the hon. Gentleman's constituent is not dependent upon farming for his livelihood. I hope that he makes a profitable success in farming and is dependent upon it to that extent; but he is certainly not solely dependent upon it, for as we know he is an esteemed and important industrialist as well.

The hon. Member referred to the attractions of this site on this farm. One of the important features of farms are the farm buildings. The hon. Member said that a substantial outlay had recently been expended upon the erection of cowsheds. The buildings are not being touched, and only half the area of the farm is affected. Of a total acreage of about 83 acres, it is a comparatively small site which is being worked.

Mr. William Paling

Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, more room will be required for the overburden. The Ministry of Agriculture's advisers have come to the conclusion that it will be impossible to maintain my constituent's herd of pedigree cattle under the conditions laid down by the Minister.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

I will not argue with the hon. Gentleman whether or not, from the agricultural point of view, the herd can be maintained.

Mr. Paling

As an agriculturist, the hon. Gentleman should.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

Perhaps I might have some practical suggestions to make in another capacity, but this evening I must leave that side of the matter and deal with the coal aspect.

The point I was seeking to make was in reply to the hon. Gentleman who has been arguing, with that persuasiveness for which he is famous, that it was a beautiful site, a lovely farm, and that, presumably, not only new and expensive buildings but attractive buildings had been erected. The buildings themselves are not being demolished, as so often has to happen when agricultural land and buildings are taken for opencast coal mining. When the property is restored and the hon. Gentleman's constituent resumes his farming operations, his buildings will still be there. That is some consideration over and above that which happens in many of these cases. Furthermore, the period estimated for the removal of the coal is much shorter than in a great many similar cases.

The House will recall that I am dealing with the question at the moment with individual hardship. It is estimated to take only a period of 16 months for the removal of the coal and the restoration of the land for farming purposes; whereas the hon. Gentleman, with his wide experience of opencast coal mining in Yorkshire, will doubtless be familiar with many sites which have taken a very great deal longer than that to deal with.

I turn to some of the particular aspects which the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening. He referred to the first proposals which were made, and he was quite right in saying that in May, 1952, it was estimated by the National Coal Board that the site would yield about 25,000 tons of coal. He was also right in saying that in April, 1953, the decision to extract the coal was suspended. It was revived in July, 1954, and under the new proposals the estimate for the removal of the coal was increased to about 40,000 tons.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I express a flat difference of opinion with him concerning the recollection of the meeting to which he referred. He made considerable play of the fact that at that meeting no reference was made by me to the circumstance that there was then an increase in the estimate of coal to be removed to 40,000 tons.

My own recollection was in direct conflict with the hon. Gentleman, because I was quite sure I had argued that point with him at the time, and I have taken the opportunity of obtaining my file, which shows the memorandum of that interview which, I freely admit to the hon. Gentleman, is not an agreed memorandum at all, but it is a recollection of my official who was with me, which I saw immediately afterwards and confirmed in writing.

The House will bear with me if I read the first sentence of the note, which says that Mr. Crowther, Mr. Walker's legal adviser referred to the Minister's letter of 14th January and inquired why it was the National Coal Board estimated that the site contained 40,000 tons of coal in the absence of further prospecting, whereas in 1952 the estimate was only 25,000 tons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that, according to the recollection of myself and of my advisers, who were with me at the time, that correctly records what took place.

Mr. Paling

I do not recollect that point, but I will accept the hon. Gentleman's word. I wish to know why it is that we have not heard why that figure has been arrived at.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

I am coming to that. I am looking forward to doing so, but I wish to clear up the other point. The note goes on to say that I said: There might be a margin of error either way and the possibility that the site contained more than 40,000 tons of coal could not be ruled out. I think therefore that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we discussed the higher figure at the interview to which he has referred. I agree that he has had a great many interviews on this subject and it is difficult to keep them separate in one's mind. I was fortunate in having a written memorandum made immediately after the meetings to which I could refer.

The hon. Gentleman has made some singularly rude remarks about the quality of the coal. It is coal which you and I, Mr. Speaker, and others in the southern part of the country would welcome having at any time. The coal in the Green Lane seam is of good quality—

Mr. Paling

I am prepared to let the South of England have it at any time.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

Then need we go on with the debate? If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to let us have it at any time—

Mr. Paling

Yes, the Green Lane coal.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

The ash content is low and the calorific value of 11,000 B.T.U's is satisfactory.

Mr. Paling

No.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

The hon. Gentleman may say, "No," but he comes from Yorkshire and is accustomed to having coal of good quality. This is coal that we should be glad to have in the South of England.

Mr. Paling

I have taken my information from people who are having to use it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman finds that there are better coals in his area which happily he is able to retain for the people in Yorkshire. But if he would let us have some of the better coal as well, we should be grateful for that also.

The hon. Gentleman said that his constituent had never been given any explanation for the additional amount of coal. I certainly tried to give an explanation of it at the meeting to which he has referred. It may be that I was unsuccessful in making the point clear. But his constituent has now received a further letter dealing with the point at greater length, and written on 18th April by my right hon. Friend's private secretary as I was indisposed at the time.

It states clearly in that letter that the reason why the requisitioned area was increased was so as to make available more space for the dumping of additional soil to be removed. The reason why the amount of coal which can be extracted was increased was because the site is in the shape of a horseshoe, the centre of which is a small hill. In 1952, the National Coal Board proposed to excavate only the outside of the horseshoe, but since then the reduction in the cost of removing the overburden has made it economical to excavate the centre as well.

The hon. Gentleman recalls that at the interview I referred to going deeper. What he recalls is my attempt to explain that what had been the cause of being able to extract a greater quantity of coal was the development in the technique of removing the overburden to a greater depth than hitherto. That is the cause for the increase in the quantity of coal which can now profitably be extracted.

I do not want to detain the House longer than is essential, but there are some remarks which I must make to clear up the position about the documents to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He did not refer to all of those to which I want to refer. I shall take them quite shortly. There are two sets. First, the earlier set of documents refers to the prospecting for coal. The hon. Member knows that upon any number of sites throughout the West Riding of Yorkshire prospecting has taken place in regard to opencast coal mining, in order to discover what coal there is, at what depth, and in what quantity and qualities. In a great many cases, although prospecting has taken place working has not been proceeded with, because it was not considered to be economically worth while.

On 7th July, 1951, the authorisation to prospect—which is called D.L.A. 155—was served upon the hon. Member's constituent. On 2nd January, 1952, a further D.L.A. 155 was served, for a supplementary prospecting. On 27th August, 1953, D.L.A. 129 was served. That is the revocation of the two earlier D.L.A. authorisations. All those deal with prospecting and have nothing to do with coal-getting at all. It is in respect of those that the hon. Gentleman's constituent was subsequently paid compensation of £42.

Mr. Paling

I submit that there is nothing to say that D.L.A. 129 refers to the two previous letters. The way in which the letter is written could be made to meet almost any situation.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect. The D.L.A. 129, a copy of which I have here, makes it quite clear. It says: I have to refer to the Notice under Defence Regulation No. 50 … and inform you that the National Coal Board, who were authorised by the Ministry of Fuel and Power to do certain work on the land referred to above, have informed the Minister that they do not propose to do any more work under their present authorisation. Only authorisations for prospecting had been served, and the form could not conceivably have referred to anything else. I cannot accept that a constituent of the intelligence which I know his client has—because I have met him—could seriously have been misled by a matter of that sort.

Mr. Paling

It is very misleading to the layman.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

The second series of documents to which I want to refer contains the letter of 16th April, 1953, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That was the letter from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, at Leeds, and the hon. Gentleman sufficiently fully quoted it. This was the letter which notified Mr. Walker that the Coal Board did not propose to proceed any further with this site. It went on to say: While there is coal under your land the Board must always reserve the right to reconsider their decision. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim that his constituent was under any misapprehension as to the meaning of that letter. He replied to it on the following day. He said: As you will readily understand, your news is a considerable relief to my wife and myself and everybody concerned with the farm. That I do understand and I fully accept. Then he continued: I note the Coal Board may change their reminds in the future, but I hope if they do that they will come to a decision more quickly, as the inordinate delay which has occurred has been quite inexcusable and would not be tolerated in a private business. Your help in this matter has been much appreciated. Whatever one's views about the delay may be, there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's constituent realised at that time that the matter might well be reviewed. He was fully aware of the whole of the circumstances. In point of fact, it was reopened, for the reasons which I have already mentioned, namely, the changed coal situation, and the discovery of more economic methods for the removal of the additional overburden, which resulted in the ability to acquire greater quantities of coal from this site.

The hon. Member has again referred to the suggestion that this matter might be inquired into by some form of public inquiry. But Parliament has laid the responsibility for decisions in this matter upon the Minister. It is not open to the Minister to derogate that responsibility to an inquisitor of some sort at a public inquiry. The matter has been gone into, as the House will appreciate from what has been said, with the greatest detail on both sides.

The hon. Gentleman's constituent will be best served if he will allow the work to proceed without further delay. It is not the nationalised industry or the Ministry which has been holding things up for many months now, but the arguments of the hon. Gentleman's constituent himself. If he will let the work begin without further delay or argument, advantage may be taken of the season. The contractors estimate that they can get through the work within the 16 months if they start immediately, and not lose for the hon. Gentleman's constituent a second agricultural season.

Mr. Paling rose—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a second speech on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Ten o'clock.