OPEN-CAST COAL MINING

HL Deb 14 November 1950 vol 169 cc249-70

2.45 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to the detrimental effect of open-cast coal mining; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it is agreed on all sides, and not least by His Majesty's Government, that open-cast coal mining is an unsatisfactory method of producing coal, and certainly does a great deal of harm to the community as a whole. What is the real reason for the despoiling of the country-side which is taking place in so many beauty spots? I suggest that the real reason is not far to seek: it is that, in spite of the mechanisation and re-organisation which has recently taken place in the mines, the National Coal Board have failed to produce sufficient deep-mine coal to maintain our exports. During the passage of the Bill to nationalise coal mint's we were told that the whole situation would change when the miners knew they were working for the State and not for private enterprise. I wonder how many people realise that absenteeism in the pits during 1949 was 12 per cent., compared with 6 per cent. in 1938, and that if this absenteeism were reduced even to the 1938 figure we should have an extra 12,000,000 tons of deep-mine coal—more than enough to do away with any question of open-cast coal mining. Can His Majesty's Government indicate what steps are being taken in the pits to reduce this absenteeism? I cannot help feeling that the National Coal Board have been long enough in the saddle to produce a better organisation and to devise some method which would appeal to the miners. I cannot believe that this problem is impossible of some solution if handled in the right manner.

I am sure your Lordships will agree that from the point of view of agriculture, open-cast coal mining raises some serious problems. The only argument that the Minister of Fuel and Power can put up is the argument of economic necessity. The Minister has stated in another place that the value of the coal won from open-cast coal sites is thirty times the value of the food lost, and that in these times of economic difficulty it is more important that we should win coal than produce food. I, on the contrary, would say that food is more important than coal. In any case, however, I propose this after-noon to challenge some of the figures put forward by the Minister of Fuel and Power.

I believe that last year some 12,250,000 tons of open-cast coal were produced, from 36 000 acres of land requisitioned for that purpose. This means a yield of approximately 340 tons of coal per acre. The National Coal Board selling price of this poor stuff is just over £2 per ton, and therefore the average yield in monetary value is about £700 worth of coal per acre.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL)

My Lords, I dislike interrupting the noble Lord, but coal is being excavated from only one-third of the land requisitioned.

LORD TEYNHAM

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation, but I do not think it alters the fact that the Minister has stated that some 340 tons of coal is being produced from each acre of land. What does the Minister say further about this point? He says that on the average the value of food lost is £23 per acre. I maintain that this figure is far from being correct, and is far too low. If we take food prices for this year, and consider the average yield from the whole of the United Kingdom over the last three years, what do we find? An acre of oats shows £20; barley, £22; wheat, £30; milk, £29; sugar beet, £57; potatoes, £76; vegetables, £100; and, if we take particular crops, fruit, £130; and hops, £285. I would point out that these are average figures from good, indifferent, and poor agricultural land. In the case of an area like western Worcestershire, which is now threatened by open-cast mining, the yield is a great deal higher.

In addition to the figures which I have mentioned, which clearly indicate that the Minister's average of £23 per acre is by no means correct, there is yet another factor to consider—the time factor before productivity is regained. I maintain that more than five years' agricultural output is lost when open-cast coal mining takes place. Restoration often takes much longer, and this alone would make the Minister's figure of £23 a year for five years, amounting to £115 in all, a very strange calculation. I think it creates a wrong impression in the minds of the public. I suggest that we look at what the Select Committee on Estimates have to say about these figures. In the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, 1948–49, on page xiv, paragraph 35, the Committee state: There was a wide diversity of evidence about the effect of open-cast working on the land, both in regard to the danger of subsidence and the possible loss of fertility. The National Farmers' Union suggested that the loss of fertility was permanent, but sufficient information on this point was lacking. The Report goes on to say, on page xv. paragraph 39 (c): Some loss of agricultural production and discouragement to farmers is entailed at a time when increased food production is of paramount importance, and there may be permanent loss of fertility of the soil. It is true, of course, that every effort is being made to restore the land for agricultural purposes, but many experts consider that a loss of fertility is permanent. In any case, natural water drainage is impaired and interfered with over wide areas, not only where the open-cast work is being carried out but also in adjacent areas; and this is bound to have a detrimental effect on agricultural land over a far wider area than that in which the operations are actually taking place.

I believe that the effects upon the future productivity of the land are unforeseeable. Taking into account partial restoration in the later periods, I think probably the average loss of full food production is as much as eight years; and the total loss of farming output over this period might reasonably be assessed at £500 or more per acre, and certainly not the £115 per acre mentioned by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. When we compare this figure with the Minister's statement that the value of the coal won from open-cast coal sites is thirty times the value of the food lost, it would seem that the Minister has not taken into account all the relevant factors. I suggest that he should get down to a realistic and proper basis of comparison. In addition to all this, I feel it is true to say that since 1945 some £14,000,000 of the taxpayers' money has been lost on open-cast coal mining. Can the Minister indicate what is the position at the present moment? Are there audited accounts available to the public? I understand that accounts are not available, and so no one really knows what is the cost of open-cast coal mining.

Apart from all these questions of finance, surely it is tragic indeed that some of the most beautiful parts of the country should be despoiled by the effects of open-cast coal mining. What is the Minister of Town and Country Planning doing about it? Is he going to allow the Minister of Fuel and Power to bore for coal all over the country, wherever he wishes, regardless of proper planning and the scenic beauty of the countryside, which is one of the greatest attractions to our tourist traffic? Any of your Lordships who has seen the devastation in such areas as Northamptonshire and Leicestershire will fully understand what I mean by the word "devastation." What is happening in that very fine agricultural area in western Worcestershire? The Minister of Fuel and Power has apparently ridden roughshod over all the organisations in the county of Worcestershire, and has commenced boring for open-cast coal all over the place. I have here a list of some fifty organisations who are against this open-cast coal mining scheme, and whose views do not appear to have been given proper consideration by the Minister concerned. I believe it to be the fact that the Minister has been able to find only very little coal near the surface, and that only in tiny, thin seams. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply for His Majesty's Government will be able to announce that the scheme in Worcestershire has been abandoned.

I should also like to ask why a public inquiry into the Worcestershire scheme has been refused until boring is completed, which may take a year or even two years? I need hardly point out to your Lordships the effect on farming operations of this un-necessary delay. Farmers who have land threatened by open-cast mining are un-likely, and in fact unable, to plan forward food production. I would go as far as to say that the Worcestershire scheme, and the way in which it has been handled, appears to be one of the most disgraceful pieces of bureaucratic interference with the rights of the people that has ever come to light. I suggest that the Minister of Fuel and Power, instead of perpetuating this outrage on rural England, would be far better employed in improving the organisation of the National Coal Board so that more deep-mined coal could be produced.

His Majesty's Government have said that open-cast coal mining is only a temporary measure, and that the programme will fall off after 1953. We have heard all this before—at one time it was said that open-cast coal mining would end in 1949. Can the noble Viscount who is to reply indicate what is to be the future policy in regard to open-cast coal mining? Is it to become a permanent feature of our industrial economy, and a blot on the countryside? I maintain that food production is our most vital occupation at the present time. If war should come upon us, home-produced food will certainly be our first line of defence. Every effort should therefore be made to see that destructive operations of open-cast coal mining are rendered unnecessary at the earliest possible moment. I beg to move for Papers.

2.56 p.m.

LORD HAMPTON

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising a matter which has caused, and is causing, so much concern to so many people. I cannot resist this opportunity of calling your Lordships' attention once more to the position as it affects north-west Worcestershire. So far as I am aware—I may be wrong—this is the largest scheme of open-cast coal mining at present in operation by the Ministry. It is one which is causing deep concern not only throughout the whole county of Worcestershire, but much farther afield. The area in which experimental boring is now going on, stated roughly, is an extension of the Vale of Evesham, lying north of the Malvern Hills and west of the River Severn—your Lordships know the fertility of the Vale of Evesham and the beauty of that part of the country—and comprising amongst other places the Teme Valley, the Abberley Hills and the Wyre Forest. I suppose one must accept the fact that, in the opinion of the Ministry at least, a certain amount of open-cast coal mining is necessary at the present time, especially in view of the position in the deep coal mining industry. But surely the Ministry should realise that there are other, and possibly over-riding, considerations which should be taken into account. I submit that the fertility and scenic beauty of north-west Worcestershire should be considered as one of those overriding factors.

I would remind your Lordships that Sir Patrick Abercrombie, in his Report on The West Midlands Plan, 1945, placed the whole of this area in category A, in which no extractive industry, no heavy industry and no light industry should take place, nor should a good many other things, including I believe the erection of signposts. The conclusion was approved, I believe, by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. My noble friend has asked what the Minister is doing about this row. The Opposition to these open-cast coal mining proposals in north-west Worcestershire is intense and is growing month by month. As my noble friend mentioned, the campaign against them is supported by no less than nine county councils, fifty rural district councils and other national and local organisations, These have received short shrift so far from the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I would quote your Lordships one short passage from a communication forwarded to the Prime Minister from a public meeting assembled on a farm at Abberley, in the heart of this beautiful neighbourhood, where boring machinery had been placed in position. It reads: If you, Sir, knew how lovely these hills and valleys are. how fertile (their fields, and how much loved by the neighbouring towns-people, you could not for one moment consider such an appalling threat as open-cast mining … and much more in the same strain with which I need not weary your Lordships.

In the course of correspondence which passed recently between the Lord Lieutenant of the county and the Prime Minister, a memorandum was received from the Minister of Fuel and Power which seemed to point to the fact that he has not yet given sufficient consideration to this part of the country. He appears to ignore the natural beauty of the area, and also to ignore expert local advice on the fact that the coal is of low quality and in very thin seams. He ignores the undoubted danger to the already precarious water supply. The water supply in that neighbourhood, as I happen to know, has always been precarious and rather unpredictable. He also ignores what has been put to him very strongly, and that is the great damage which is likely to be caused to the roads in the area by the passage of the huge machines which are necessary for open-cast mining operations. Then again, there is the difficulty of the subsoil, particularly round about these hills. A great deal of money has been spent in recent years on bringing it up to its present state of fertility. I am told on very good authority that in other areas where open-cast mining has taken place, there is considerable danger of water pollution.

On the general question of this form of coal mining, I should like to make just a few comments in conclusion. I do not know whether this is of general application, but in the case of north-west Worcestershire we are told that it may be twelve months at least before the Minister makes his final decision. I suppose such delay is inevitable—boring takes a certain amount of time and apparently a great deal has to be done. But what sort of conditions does that impose upon the unfortunate farmer whose land lies under threat? It is true that in a comprehensive memorandum issued by the County Landowners' Association, showing the sequence of events and the rules to be followed, he is advised to continue his operations as if no threat existed. But what sort of a heart is he likely to have in his work? The very livelihood of a man whose family have farmed the same land for generations—and there are many in this area who are in this category— may be at stake. In that case, no financial compensation, however generous, can completely close the gap.

In a Supplement to the British Farmer of January of this year, there were some startling photographs of the scenic effect of open-cast mining. Unfortunately, we are getting all too familiar with such sights of utter desolation about the country. But what is of more immediate interest, as my noble friend pointed out, is the effects of restoration. I imagine that the Ministry are not too happy themselves about this. In a Memorandum which they issued in November, 1949- that is, I admit, a year ago, but I do not think much information has come forward since—they said: No final verdict on the permanent effect on fertility can be made for perhaps twenty-five years "— that is rather a vague way of dealing with a very important question— but there are no good reasons for fearing that it will be adverse." No doubt, recovery of the land depends to some extent upon the care with which the individual contractor does his job, but, more than all, it depends upon forces of nature with which at present we are unfamiliar. Opinions which I myself have heard range from ten years by the optimists to the pessimists' "Never." There seems to be a tendency in some places for areas which have been open-cast and then restored to show a good crop the first year and a curious falling off for subsequent seasons. Reasons for that may be, of course, due to subsidence, but at present we know nothing about it. The fact is that the effects of mining and restoration appear at present, for lack of definite long-term experience, to be something in the nature of a gamble, and, as my noble friend has pointed out, a gamble with vital food production.

The last point which I should like to emphasise is that only one crop of open-cast coal can be wrested from any one area, whereas the tonnage of food lost is the annual tonnage of the area multiplied by the number of years (at present an un-known quantity) needed for restoration to fertility. Finally, a question which I should like to ask His Majesty's Government is this: Can we be certain that this insidious alternative—or perhaps I should say, addition—to deep mining, will not continue until irreparable damage is done to large areas of food-producing country? It used to be said that "An Englishman's home is his castle." During the war years many a home became a heap of rubble. This open-cast mining is bidding fair to continue that dire process or, at best, to surround many a home with unsightly heaps of rubble accompanied, in too many cases, by appalling noise and by an all-pervading dust; and furthermore it means for the unfortunate occupiers of such land at least a partial deprivation of their means of livelihood and great anxiety for the future. I hope, therefore, that we may have an assurance from the noble Viscount who is to reply that a definite period has been set to these operations and that that period will be strictly adhered to.

3.8 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords. I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I do so for only a very few minutes. I think the House should give the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, great credit for having raised this question. It is not a Party question—it is a matter which affects everybody who lives in this country. In the early part of his speech my noble friend gave, I thought, some very impressive figures as to the comparative wealth which is created, and the wealth which is destroyed, by this particular process of mining. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who I understand is to reply, will deal with those figures—I certainly am not competent to give an authoritative opinion upon them. At best, it certainly looks as if the figures which have been given by the Minister do not represent the whole story; and that is an aspect to which I think the Government ought to give serious consideration.

There is the question of agriculture, which has been emphasised by both the speakers this afternoon. I understand that the official view is that the damage to agriculture is limited to five years. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, would say about that if he were free to speak quite as he would wish. There are others who talk about twenty-five years, and there are others—whom I think the noble Earl would call the pessi-mists—who say that the land will never be the same again. That is no doubt an exaggeration, but I think it is probable, from what I have seen, that from twenty to twenty-five years is not a great over- estimate. The whole of the top soil is removed and that has to be re-created. Then there is the actual loss on open-cast mining, to which Lord Teynham referred. That, I gather, is not included in the Minister's figure, and that is a debit which should be laid against the credits which he claims on the other side.

There is also the much more indefinable asset of amenity, and yet I believe that that is an important asset, and one which becomes more important with every year that passes. It has become a definite economic asset nowadays. There was a time when those who wished to see the beauties of nature and of history went to Greece and Italy and France. Now, year by year, they are coming more and more to England, and I cannot say that I think they are wrong; in our own quiet way we have a great deal to show. In that sense, the actual amenities of the countryside, apart from architectural beauties and so on, are of great importance to us. I was told a story the other day of an American who had come from the other side of the world. He happened to arrive in a little country village on a summer evening. A cricket match was taking place, and behind it there was a very old manor house and the tower of a church. He said: "This is what I have come so many thousand miles to see." If there had been an immense heap of open-cast coal in the background of that scene he would not have felt quite the same.

There is another matter which arises in this problem, which to me is the most worrying of all. It is of a rather wider character. What machinery is there at the present time to control roving Ministers, from doing exactly what they like? Your Lordships will perhaps remember that when we were discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill some years ago, this point was raised and strongly emphasised in your Lordships' House. A great control over the acts of individual citizens is now exercisable by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. He can stop them doing practically anything, good or bad, if he wishes. But, so far as I know, there is no control over his colleagues and their industries, and they are the only people who at the present time can do much harm on a large scale. The sort of activity in Worcestershire about which we have been told to-day is a good case in point. I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, what machinery there is for dealing with this aspect of the problem— whether there is an inter-departmental Committee at ministerial level. Does the Minister of Fuel and Power have to submit proposals of this kind to his ministerial colleagues, including the Minister of Town and Country Planning? And who has the final say in the matter? Can the Ministry of Town and Country Planning merely make a protest, and then remain dumb, or is there some further court of appeal to which they can go if there is a difference between Ministers? It seems to me vital that that should be so. We have had innumerable cases, from the electricity scheme on the South Bank downwards, in which a decision has been taken by an individual Minister and it appears that nobody can interfere with it. That seems to me to be a most dangerous situation for us to drift into.

I would therefore ask the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government to take the opportunity in this debate (which I think has been useful, though short) of making a definite statement as to the future policy of the Government, taking into account not merely the production of coal but also the assets, physical and psychological, that are involved. I would also ask whether the noble Viscount can say anything about the machinery which exists for deciding between the views of various Ministers, and for ascertaining the general Governmental view on these matters. If such machinery existed, I think it would be of great value, both to the House and to the country.

3.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I want to join with the noble Marquess in extending my gratitude to the noble Lord for raising this very important matter here this afternoon. I know that he has done it with much discomfort to himself, but I am pleased that he has made the effort to be here to-day. I am not going to measure the importance of the debate by its length. The noble Lords who have spoken have certainly put their case with clarity, and your Lordships' House is fully seized of the importance of this matter. I shall attempt to deal in my reply with the various points which have been raised. and to deal very fully with the whole principle involved in this matter.

Far be it from me to do anything which would despoil any of the countryside of this fine country of ours—although, let it be said, my Lords, the countryside is being despoiled and has been despoiled over the last 150 years, ever since the Industrial Revolution. I myself am a victim. I will not take second place to the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in respect of the beauty of Worcestershire. I come from a valley in South Wales which was one of the most delightful glens and valleys that could exist in any part of the world. I am told that some of the best trout fishing existed there. Its mountain scenery, its woodlands, and indeed the agricultural value of that valley, were such that it was almost priceless. When I go home at week-ends the first thing I see when I look out of my bedroom window are two huge coal tips, heaps which have been accumulating over a period of fifty years. They are still there, and they will be there for ever. I have not heard any question raised in your Lordships' House in relation to this spoliation which has been going on. In my view, it has unfortunately been inevitable in building up the industrial system upon which this country has depended.

Please do not think for a moment that I under-estimate the love there is for these beautiful spots. Worcestershire is a place which I visit frequently; Evesham Valley, and all those spots nearby, are very dear to me. So is the home of almost every noble Lord, and of everyone else in this country, dear to them: we hate the thought of any spoliation. But we cannot have the two things; this country could not have been kept as a purely agricultural country, maintaining a population of some 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 people, and still have played the part which it has played in the world without a considerable amount of the spoliation that has occurred. The problem of the past (and every noble Lord knows this) is that no attempt at all has been made to deal with this spoliation. Coal tips go up in any part of the country. It is the same with sand and gravel pits, china clay heaps and ironstone. In the course of the next few years some 100,000 acres of agricultural land, important as it is. will have to be treated in the same way in order to extract ironstone, sand and gravel. I thought it necessary that, before dealing with the matters which have been raised, I should put the points which I have submitted to your Lordships.

At the present time, at least in the minds of those who know what coal really means to this nation, it is beyond dispute that, if we had not had open-cast production, industry and domestic consumers would not have had all the coal they required and there would have been no coal for export. Consequently, every ton of coal that we can produce by any means is absolutely essential and, until the out-put from deep-mined pits has increased substantially, it is necessary to maintain the present production of open-cast coal to meet the growing needs. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was a little too critical of the National Coal Board. He has not given any credit at all for the increase in output with a falling man-power which has been brought about since the National Coal Board came into operation. Indeed, from 1945 to 1949 there has been an increase in output of no less than 28,000,000 tons of deep-mined coal. This year, as was stated by my noble friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, there is an increase of another 2,000,000 tons. Production per man of the miners who are employed in the pits of this, country has gone up from 246 tons in 1945 to 282 tons in 1949. But this increase is not sufficient, even with the open-cast coal. The demands for increased consumption have exceeded the output and, indeed, the demands for ex-port are such that we just cannot deal with them.

I hope it can now be seen that, without open-cast coal, our economic independence and our balance of trade would be in a very bad state. Coal has always been a factor in our export trade, and the 75,500,000 tons—I should like noble Lords to take note of that figure—of open-cast coal which has been produced in this country since 1942 has been of the greatest possible advantage to us. Between 1945 and 1949 we have exported 56,000,000 tons of coal, and we have received from open-cast mining 57,000,000 tons. Without this open-cast coal, we could not have obtained the export which has been valued at £126,000,000 in over-seas exchange and which has greatly assisted us in the negotiation of bilateral agreements with seventeen different countries.

The price of improving our world trading position is consequent upon an increased production of coal, which has always played such an important part in our external trade. The noble Lord asks: "Why cannot we get this coal from deep mines?" I want to tell your Lordships the reason. I think it is necessary, because the noble Marquess, and indeed each noble Lord who has spoken, has asked me if I could give him any answer as to when it will be possible to end open-cast coal production. I can see no expectation that open-cast mining can be-discontinued before the end of the current programme, and the current programme is to produce a total of 45,000,000 tons during the years 1950 to 1953. It is hoped and expected that production will then tail off rapidly in the next two years, and it will probably not be economical to produce open-cast coal beyond 1955.

Let me deal briefly with the question of deep mining. The National Coal Board, in their report for 1949, point out clearly that the difficulties of producing coal are increasing, and reconstructions has a time scale of up to ten years. Not-withstanding the increase in wages—and it has been very substantial—the improvements in amenities, the ladder plan for training, the new pits, the exemption of young men in the pits from military service and the attention to housing needs, there are still great difficulties in maintaining the mining man-power. In-deed, there are fewer men employed in the coal mines to-day than at any time since I commenced work, round about 1890. What surprised me when I read a recent report was the fact that the number of young men under twenty years of age now employed in deep-coal mining is about only one-third of the number who were employed in 1938, a reduction from nearly 77,000 men to 27,000 men, and of that number only about one-quarter, or just over 6,000 men, are working at the coal face.

I should like to know how the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—I did not hear a single suggestion from him—would help to man the pits of this country. How would he do it? After all, it must still be recognised that coal mining is a dangerous, dirty, unpleasant and unattractive job. leaving its scars on the men who are employed in the industry and on the countryside. We had experience during the last war of directing men into the pits. We had the men in the pits, but we did not obtain from some of them all the work we thought we ought to get. One of the great problems facing the nation at the present time is the question of getting men into the pits to do this job which is so absolutely essential. The introduction of what may be regarded as the all mechanised pit it not assisting in bringing in the young men for the training which they require to become mine-minded instead of machine-minded. Some time ago, I said I should like to give your Lordships the benefit of my experience in relation to that matter. I am afraid I cannot do it to-day.

Two of the noble Lords who spoke referred to the quality of open-cast coal. I think I had better put my reply in this form: that coal is good if it suits its purpose; and, indeed, open-cast coal is suited for its purpose. When I looked into the figures I was surprised to find that it is used mainly for industrial purposes and for electricity generation. Something like 77 per cent. of the total production of open-cast coal is used for industry, electricity stations, gas and railways; about 10 per cent. is exported, and something like 13 per cent. is used for domestic purposes. Of course, it must be said that most users of this coal would prefer good deep-mined coal. I will not go into the various advantages, such as calorific or volatile value, but when people refer to the condition of open-cast coal it is interesting to note that complaints about it from users for domestic purposes are not more proportionately than the number which are made against deep-mined coal. That is true both of home consumption and of exports. As regards costs, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, mentioned that a loss of some £14,000,000 had taken place during, or since, 1945. I am not going to question his figures. If they are correct he will not hear from me; if they are incorrect I will certainly let him know whether the figure is above or below the one he has mentioned. I can say that the losses for the last three years have been tapering down, until this year the loss is about 3d. a ton, and we are hoping for the future that open-cast mining will pay its way. This coal is being produced at something less than the cost of deep-mined coal.

My Lords, I think that the case for open-cast coal is unanswerable, for it is at the present time an essential to our economy. At the same time, however, it would be absurd to deny that there are many objections to it, and your Lordships' House has to balance the national advantages against the disadvantages. I think the objections have been very fairly put this afternoon. They consist mainly of the taking away of good agricultural land, the disturbance to farming, the nuisance to householders near the open-cast workings and the spoiling of the beauty of the countryside. But these objections apply not only to those places where open-cast coal is being worked at the present time; they apply also to any colliery village or, indeed, any township where there are steel works. There we also have to put up with most of these difficulties. These disadvantages are all to be greatly regretted. His Majesty's Government regret deeply that open-cast mining has to take place.

The position, however, must be put in its proper perspective. As the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, rightly said, the amount of land requisitioned to date amounts to about 58,000 acres, of which about 53,000 acres is farm land; and of this area it should be emphasised that 16,000 acres have already been restored for farming. I am not going to argue that when all this land is restored it is as good as it was before being broken up. It is impossible for anyone to say that that is so after the three, four or five years. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess upon this matter. But the acreage of land which is taken is small in proportion to the total acreage of land in this country which is being used for agricultural purposes—or, shall I call it, arable land, grassland and rough pasture, which is about 45,000,000 acres. Indeed, the 58,000 acres is just about one acre to every 1,200 acres. That is the situation so far as the amount of land is concerned. Your Lordships will see that the proportion of land taken is very small as compared with the whole, and of course there is always a danger of some exaggeration, which I do hope I shall avoid this afternoon.

Much depends, of course, upon the question of restoration. I think it can be said that at no time in the history of this country, or, shall I say, of any country in the world, was as much care and thought given to the question of restoration as is the case in this country at the present time. Every attempt is being made to restore the land. Some of this open-cast coal goes down to a depth of something like 120 feet, and when the contractors have put back the soil they hand the land over to the county agricultural committee. It is the duty of the county agricultural committee to decide many points. I am not suggesting that they always get the amount of subsoil, or, indeed, the amount of topsoil, which they feel they ought to get; but it is left to the county agricultural committee to decide when this land is fit to be handed back to farming. I am not going into the question of costs in relation to the values of agricultural land. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, gave quite a series of figures. Of course, whether it is arable, dairy or fruit land, the value of the land depends upon its production; it varies in relation to what is being produced. Whatever these values are, particularly in respect of the amount of farm land taken (and I know that they are varying values), they are obviously of little consolation to the farmer whose land is requisitioned. That is fully realised, and every effort is now being made, not only to mitigate the hardships of farmers but also to restore the land afterwards for agricultural use.

There it no doubt at all that in the early days of open-casting there were occasions when local interests, and in fact the farmers themselves, had cause for complaint, particularly in respect of not receiving due warning, either for prospecting or for actual requisitioning. But the position now is quite different. I want to reply to the point raised by the noble Marquess, as to whether this matter is left entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The answer is that it is not. The Ministries of Agriculture. Town and Country Planning, Works and other interested Departments, are in close consultation with the local authorities, and also with some of the voluntary organisations, such as the Society for the Preservation of Rural England. They are doing all they can to create conditions which will obviate complaints such as have been received in the past. During the year there are regular meetings between the Regional Open-Cast Director and the Land Commissioner, at which advance information of developments is given and the intention to prospect any area is agreed upon. This information is then conveyed to the county agricultural executive committee, who inform the farmer.

Reference has been made by Lord Hampton to a memorandum issued by the Country Landowners' Association which is, I think, very helpful, both to land-owners and to farmers, and the Ministry of Agriculture, I know, is very grateful to the Country Landowners' Association for what they have done in regard to this question. There has also been an improvement in dealing with the question of compensation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, before the noble Viscount proceeds further, may I intervene for a moment? I do not think that he quite answered the question which I pat to him. Perhaps it is rather a difficult question to answer. He said—and I am sure it is so—that there is constant consultation between the various Departments concerned in this matter and, equally, with the amenity societies, and so on. But who has the last word? If a private individual wishes to do something, he will almost certainly have to get planning permission from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. My contention was that another Government Department do lot have to do that. Therefore the whole of the planning of England, whatever the development which affects it may be—whether it is open-cast coal mining or something else—is vitiated by this unfortunate gap in the Act. I want to know who finally decides whether or not there shall be open-cast mining if there is a difference of opinion.

VISCOUNT HALL

Should there be disagreement among the Ministers concerned, there is only one body which can decide, and that body, of course, is the Cabinet. I am not suggesting that there have been such questions with inspect to open-cast mining, but in cases where the Services have been interested in the keeping or requisitioning of land, if there is disagreement with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Town and Country Planning it is the Cabinet who have to decide. The Cabinet have to take the decision in relation to such matters. I have no doubt that if the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Town and Country Planning should deem it necessary to take to the Cabinet such a case as that which has been mentioned—that of Worcestershire—it would be the Cabinet which would have to decide that matter. That. I think, is the normal course which is adopted in relation to such problems.

I should like to say that we are always considering new methods, and at the present time a technical advisory committee of the Ministry of Agriculture is studying the whole problem of restoration. Generalisation as to the results is very difficult. What is clear, however, is that soil replacement, agricultural treatment and farm management must all contribute to bring about the best results. Neglect of any one of these factors would reduce productivity below the standards of the best restorations. That improvement has been made was brought out in a speech made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture on July 14, when he said in another place that the procedure at the present time is, on the whole, proving successful in restoring land to the most economic use. Of course, the ideal would be to restore the land to its pre-excavated condition, but this cannot be fully achieved until final drainage has been carried out. Nevertheless, in some cases, it is admitted by the farming Press that here and there some of the poorer agricultural land has benefited by the process of restoration which has been adopted.

Questions have been put to me concerning Worcestershire. I know that there has been very much criticism on this point, and I fully appreciate how undesirable it is to interfere unduly with land in this delightful county. Of course, no definite decision has been taken that open-cast coal will be worked in this area. In the first place, there must be evidence that coal can be found. That is why boring is taking place, because it is on the edge of a known coal field. However, following a meeting which was held on September 22 in the Shire Hall, Worcester, the experts have agreed that there are fair prospects of finding some hundreds of thousands of tons of coal, and that a boring programme is not a waste of time. It should be made clear that, when boring has taken place, only one site out of every three prospected is worked for coal. I am not dealing with Worcestershire only when I say that; I am taking the country as a whole. It is only one site out of every three that arc bored which is worked by open-cast mining.

There is no necessary relationship between fields in which boreholes are put down and fields which might eventually be designated as covering workable coal. The first problem is to find the coal, though even if the Ministry found some 500,000 tons of coal, and if it were decided that owing to an emergency this coal must be worked—and it would take a grave emergency to cause the Government to decide to dig up farms in Worcestershire— it is unlikely that more than 100 acres will actually have to be dug up. May I make it clear again to your Lordships that the prospecting operations do no harm to farming, and expert opinion confirms that no danger to water supplies need be feared? As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has pointed out, it may well take a year or more to complete the exploration and to work out the results. That is why twelve months or more are required before a final decision is reached. In the meantime, the people of Worcestershire can be assured that no working proposals will be put in hand until all interests —I repeat, all interests—have had an opportunity of giving their views in the light of full knowledge of what coal could be won. and what would be the cost of interruption of agricultural output in that area.

In conclusion, may I say that I think it should be remembered that it was force of circumstances which decided the wartime Government to introduce open-cast coal working? It played a very important part in our economy during the war, and since then it has made a great contribution to our recovery. We shall welcome the day when it can be discontinued, but that day is not yet. In addition to this contribution, it is paying its way, and we trust that the loss in food production and natural beauty is temporary and relatively low. We welcome every suggestion, from whatever quarter it may be made, as to how to bring about quicker and better restoration, and I trust that as a result of this debate the position of His Majesty's Government in relation to this matter has been made clear.

3.50 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate but for one thing which fell from the lips of the noble Viscount. In the course of his remarks he suggested that your Lordships, collectively and individually, had perhaps not in the past shown great care for the amenities of the countryside. It happened that, while the noble Viscount was speaking, there entered the House a noble Lord whose father, to my knowledge, put aside great gain in order to preserve the amenities of his own countryside and that of his neighbours. I am sure that if he makes careful inquiry the noble Viscount will find that the great proprietors of this country have not been entirely greedy and unmindful of all amenity. I should be very sorry, and I am sure the noble Viscount would be very sorry, if after this Government went out of office it was said that they had found England a garden and left it a back garden.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I make a statement on the point just made by the noble Lord? Of course, I did not want to imply that there had not been good landlords and progressive industrialists in this country. There is a place which I treasure very much within two miles of my own home where, at his own expense, the first Lord Aberdare converted a coal tip into a veritable forest and garden. It is true that he was a land owner and had certain royalties, but, so far as I can remember, he was the only land owner in South Wales who attempted to do such a thing. I know a number of men in this country who spent considerable amounts of money during the period to which I referred in endeavouring to restore areas of land. But that does not belie the fact that hundreds of thousands of acres of good agricultural land have been despoiled and can never be restored, whereas, if greater care had been taken in earlier days, they would not have been lost to the country. The Government are anxious to see to the restoration of the land after open-cast coal mining, and I hope that this restoration will extend to some of the other "take-outs" of the ground for industrial purposes, so that it will not be said, either of this Government or any other—though I do not wish to make a general charge against anyone else—that they have de-spoiled the land by taking everything out and putting nothing in.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I am glad to have given the noble Viscount a chance of correcting my mistaken impression.

3.53 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount has said about Worcestershire. I think he said that in any case only about 100 acres would be worked? Can he confirm that?

VISCOUNT HALL

That is so.

LORD TEYNHAM

I thank the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, insists on the economic necessity of working open-cast coal mines. I understand his point, but I tried to make it clear in my speech that open-cast coal mining was not the way to deal with the economic problem. I still maintain that if efficiency in the pits could be increased, and absenteeism reduced, there would be no need for open-cast coal mining. It was not very encouraging to be told that 45,000,000 tons of coal were to be taken out between 1950 and 1953, tailing off in that year, though the noble Viscount did say there would be no need for further extension after that. The noble Viscount also mentioned the question of how to man the pits. I would rather put it the other way round: How can we stop men leaving the pits, and also reduce absenteeism? Perhaps that can be done by the National Coal Board being good employers and by their having an intensive decentralisation of control, so that they are not too far removed from the men themselves. I feel that we shall not have efficient production in the mines until such decentralisation takes place—then, perhaps, we could do away with open-cast coal mining. But in view of the assurance the noble Viscount has given to-day, that open-cast coal mining will cease by 1953, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at five minutes before four o'clock.