HL Deb 18 December 1956 vol 200 cc1209-36

4.17 p.m.

EARL JOWITT rose to call attention to the urgent need for exploiting the natural resources of non-ferrous metals in this country; and to move for Papers. The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, after the controversial debates we have been having in the last few days, it is perhaps a relief to get to something which is completely non-controversial, which is completely non-controversial, which involves no sort of attack on the Government and which I raise in order that I may ventilate a subject which I think needs to be considered, has been neglected in the past by all Governments in this country, and I hope will be considered in the future. Before I say anything else, I hope I need not say that I have no sort of financial interest, either actual or prospective, in this matter, and I am afraid it will be very plan as I go along that I have no technical knowledge of it either.

I do not know whether we have in this House geologists or mining engineers — I know we have other engineers of great distinction but whether we have a mining engineer I am not sure. When we have a reformed House of Lords, if ever we do, I hope we shall have representatives of the sciences of metallurgy, mining engineering and all the rest of it. For the reasons I have indicated, I shall keep off all technicalities, because if I get on to technicalities I shall be completely out of my depth; but the broad principle which I want to raise is, I think, plain.

If we are going to get out of the difficulties in which we find ourselves to-day, it is obvious that we must exploit every asset which we have. It is no good just sitting back, and it is no good, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has just reminded us, thinking that we can cure all the ills to which we are subject by slapping on new taxes. Obviously we cannot. We have to exploit what assets we have still in this country is a considerable mineral reserve. The world is rapidly using up its available supplies of metal. Recently there has been the Palely Report in the United States of America, which has suggested that the American consumption of metal will be double its present figure by the year 1975, and already in the United states, by intensive research, they are making do with all sorts of minerals which heretofore they would have disregarded altogether. As I have said, I believe we have considerable reserves, but the trouble in this country is that we are not metal conscious— we never have been; we have never had to exploit these reserves in the past. I feel that at the present time we are falling between two stools. There are those who want to get some kind of a policy based largely on public enterprise; there are those who want to get some kind of a policy which stresses the importance of private enterprise. Between the two we are in danger of not getting any policy at all, and that is a fact to-day—we have not got a policy.

In The Times of November 28 last, Dr. M. G. Fleming, who is, I suppose, one of our greatest authorities on this matter, wrote: The assurance of future supplies requires long-term planning, energetic applied research, an active development in mechanical equipment and highly trained technologists.… He added: It should be said quite flatly that none of these requirements is adequately fulfilled in this country. Recently we had a debate on the shortage of technologists, about which we are all painfully aware. Steps are being taken by the Government to try to remedy that deficiency. Dr. Fleming goes on to say that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research had held a congress in November, 1954, and made a report, and in September, 1955, the institution of Mining and Metallurgy held an open symposium to discuss the whole question of mineral resources policy. The consensus of opinion at the last meeting was that an advisory panel should be formed to give guidance to the Government on short-term and long-term policy regarding mineral development and use, and, secondly, that adequate facilities for ore testing and mineral processing should be provided.

He continues in his article in The Times by saying that these reports have been received with general lassitude— which I think is quite true‖for three reasons: first, because we are not mineral conscious; secondly, because no recent Government, save in time of war, has had a mineral policy, and thirdly, because there is little co-ordination of effort, though I am bound to say, so far as this country is concerned to-day, that I suppose that that is largely true because there is precious little to co-ordinate in regard to non-ferrous metals. But Dr. Fleming points out that in the face of growing competition in increasingly scarce materials we have a long-term problem which is very likely shortly to tax the combined resources of Government, science and industry. He concludes by pointing out that the proper utilisation of our reserves of metal offers an immediate substantial reward in the increase of foreign currency and the alleviation of the sterling Commonwealth's balance of payment difficulties.

In 1946, Mr. Shinwell, who was then Minister of Fuel and Power, appointed what I shall refer to as the Westwood Committee, who made a Report on Mineral Development. Weir Report was made in 1949, and it is particularly interesting because Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, the present President of the Board of Trade— and the Board of Trade are in effect, I think, replying to this Motion — was a member of that Committee, and he therefore knows a great deal about it. The majority— indeed, all except Mr. Thorneycroft— put great emphasis on public enterprise, and Mr. Thorneycroft put his stress on private enterprise. I entirely decline to suggest that because we are confused between these two things we can any longer tolerate our having no policy at all. It is rather like the tethered donkey with the bundle of hay on one side and water on the other. He could not make up his mind which to go to and finally died of a combination of starvation and thirst. For goodness sake do not let us get so confused between the merits and the de-merits of these two concepts that we have no policy. Any policy is better than none.

The long-term policy which the majority favoured was that the Minister of Fuel and Power should set up a permanent organisation to take stock of minerals and development value. It was to collect all information; to have a mineral survey which was to include exploitation; to promote research, and to set up appropriate organisations to operate mineral projects. The Report points out that these objects would be achieved by a long-term policy. Paragraph 388 says: Clearly, the Government interest must be related closely to the merits of individual cases, and in practice this must mean an interest in the establishment of a technically sound prima facie case for exploration. The next paragraph says: We have come to the conclusion, therefore, that the Government must take an active part in the discovery, del imitation and assessment of new mineral occurrences when this cannot satisfactorily… be undertaken by private enterprise. The main object must be to obtain preliminary information which. when made available to private enterprise, would encourage exploration or the expansion of existing operations… Consequently, they reject what they describe as the short-term policy", that being a policy which left it to private enterprise and encouraged private enterprise by giving them appropriate inducements by way of financial concessions in one form or another.

The Committee point out in paragraph 343 the difficulty in this situation. They refer to the fact that we are now concerned with lode mining. In the old days the surface metals were picked out as they were. They point out that with the uncertain nature of the mineral deposit, especially in lode mining— the type of mining which we have to do— the uncertainty of the life of the deposit, and the risk of violent fluctuations in market prices, the development period is particularly long and costly before profits can be earned. So they, the majority, reject any financial concessions; they say that they savour too much of a short-term policy, and they are in favour of a long-term policy. In paragraph 345 they say this, in particular, dealing with tax concessions: In some respects it would appear to be one of the easiest ways… of encouraging mineral development. The main argument used is nearly always the lack of incentive given by a high taxation rate in comparison with the risk factor… We have come to the conclusion that preferential tax concessions to encourage mineral development and production would not be the correct long-term remedy. It is all very well to reject these things if Her Majesty's Government are going to have a long-term remedy, but my case is that, if they are not going to have a long-term remedy, which may be the right thing, let them, for goodness' sake! consider what I am shortly going to say.

Concessions of this kind have been made in other countries with remarkable results. I have not studied the position of the United States of America; but they take the greatest care not to be caught short of any mineral, and therefore they are stockpiling. Recently, to get a particular mineral they wanted, they offered a flat subsidy of 100 per cent. over the market price, and I need hardly tell your Lordships that they got straight away the 7,500 tons they wanted.

LORD SALTER

My Lords, I think the noble and learned Earl would find that the United States Government have given important tax concessions of a kind which we have not got in this country.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord who knows a great deal about these matters, and I am pretty certain that that must be so. In Canada they have done it especially and generally. The Canadian Government are purchasing all the uranium which is won at such a generous price that the company in question is able to amortise all its costs in the short space of five years. So that, too, is going pretty well. In Australia, they want to encourage uranium mining and gold mining, and they have a scheme whereby no tax at all is exacted for five years. In Canada, one is tax-free for three years. I am not sure whether that applies to all minerals or only to precious metals.

I have studied the position in Ireland, and I have the facts here in a convenient form. Ireland has recently, by an Act of 1956, tried this experiment and has introduced, in respect of these nonferrous metals, a Bill under which new companies undertaking work are free of tax for four years and pay only half-tax for four years thereafter. That is a very generous concession. What has been the result? These are the facts reported in the Mining Journal: In consequence of this concession, six Canadian groups are now operating in Eire, three of which have subsidiary companies at work. They give them good Irish names, of course— St. Patrick's Copper Mines, the Mining Corporation of Ireland, Limited, and the Emerald Isle Mining Company, Limited. All are running on Canadian money, with Canadian skill and Canadian enterprise. I will give your Lordships only one illustration—what has happened at St. Patrick's. I read from the Mining Journal, having checked with the Irish Minister of industry and Commerce that this is correct: St. Patrick's Copper Mine took over control of the Avoca Mines a year ago. As a result of exploratory work it is satisfied that arrangements for commercial production can be made. Work is in progress on the construction of a 7.000 foot tunnel designed to open up the ore bodies for production. This tunnel is already over 1,000 feet long. Preparatory work for the installation of a concentrator is in hand and the construction of workshops and houses is under way. The company has already spent over £500,000 on operations at Avoca and estimates that it will require to spend a further £1,750,000 during the next year or so to bring the mine into production. About 250 men are now employed in the mine which expects to go into production towards the end of next year. I have seen reports on some of the other mines which are also very flourishing. That is a very remarkable result. Ireland has £2¼ million of capital invested, and has Canadian technicians and experts at work who are finding, or expect to find, copper.

Of course, we need not do that, and tax purists will say that should not be done by tax concessions of that kind, but that it may be done by special depletion allowances first given by Sir John Anderson (now the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley), in his Budget of 1945. Further concessions were given by Mr. Butler in 1952. The recent Royal Commission on Income Tax said that, even so, mining concerns were not being treated fairly, and that further concessions ought to be given to put them on a parity with other concerns. I myself feel that there may be an objection to spending our own capital on obviously hazardous enterprises. We have not a great deal to spare. No doubt that is the view taken by Mr. Thorneycroft, because in the last paragraph of the Report, in a dissenting note, he says: I conclude that it is possible to further mineral exploration and development in the United Kingdom by reducing the general level of taxation and the removal of the complex administrative barriers which at present hamper and restrict it. I would, however, advise any Government (particularly in existing economic circumstances) to think well before it ventures public funds in so hazardous and speculative a form of enterprise. If anyone thinks that we are likely to see a sharp reduction in the general level of taxation, his name is "Sunny Jim." I do not think that we shall get it in that way, so we have to consider what can be done in other ways.

I noticed, in the Symposium of 1956, to which I have referred, that the Chairman of the Cornish Mining Development Association said that his Association: had made herculean and most persistent efforts to awaken successive Governments and leading civil servants to the importance of developing Britain's own mineral resources, but he had to admit that they had met with very little success. As far as the intricacies of taxation were concerned, he was frankly out of his depth, but his Association's honorary auditors had gone very carefully into the recent recommendations of the Royal Commission on Taxation. They advised him that the incentives for home mineral development in the Commission's recommendations were practically nil. Personally, he did not think that those tax incentives ever would be forthcoming until the public had been made really mineral conscious. Three or four years ago his Association addressed a questionnaire to four of the great British mining houses asking why they were showing so little interest in mineral development in Britain. In every case the answer, with emphasis, was 'Taxation'. There are famous houses in this country — for instance, Consolidated Goldfields of South Africa, Limited, and John Taylor & Sons, who used to manage the gold mines in India which have now been nationalised. All are located here, but the concessions given in 1945 and 1952 have not proved to be sufficient. To use the legal phrase, Res ipsa loquitur.

The fact is that since these concessions were given no new companies have started operations, and such operations as there are in this country are very small. There are two tin mines operating in Cornwall to-day. One is called South Crofty, the other is Geevor. They are both doing very well. I believe that there are one or two small lead mines still operating in Wales (I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth will be able to help me here) and that there has been some investigation of lead in Wales. Some exploration is going on in Anglesey and some in Scotland. But the whole lot, added together, amount to very little indeed. And here we have some of these people, who really do know what they are talking about when they speak of mining in this country, who could so easily embark on this but who are not doing it. Is it not well worth while trying to get these people to develop these reserves, which would be a great source of strength to us? I have said that I have no technical knowledge, but I have been told a certain amount about these matters in the last few days.

Let me take one illustration to start with— that of tin. Let me consider the position of tin. I have no doubt that there is great danger of the supply of tin giving out in the not far distant future. In Malaya, of course, tin mining has taken place in respect to alluvial tin, and I am given this dramatic figure: that one dredger in one day will recover as much tin as nature has deposited in a generation over the whole of Malaya. We all know—it is common knowledge— that there is great danger that the alluvial tin in Malaya will give out fairly soon. Professor Jones is one of the greatest living authorities on this matter, and I can quote him. He recently addressed a meeting of the Institution of Civil Engineers and he is reported as saying that: Surface supplies of tin are fast running out. Many Malayan resources would be exhausted in twenty years, and the bulk of Nigerian deposits within eight to twelve years. When surface deposits ran out supplies would have to come from underground lode-mining and the greatest concentration of lodes known are in Bolivia and Cornwall. The present price of tin metal is nearly £800 a ton. In the old days, in Cornwall, they worked, naturally enough, the easiest places. Frequently they did not go down to a considerable depth— sometimes they did, but frequently they did not. When the price of the mineral went down to under £100 a ton, they stopped work, not because of exhaustion of supplies but because, owing to the low price, working the tin was, for them, no longer profitable. Some authorities to whom I have spoken tell me that there is more tin still to be mined in Cornwall than has ever been taken out of it, but that greater depths have to be probed. What was taken out of it in the past yielded most fabulous profits to those concerned.

There are, I understand, six, areas in Cornwall, the first three in the Western part of Cornwall and the other three in the middle and East, where the prospects of tin-mining are very favourable. One of the first, which is in the Western part of Cornwall, is St. Agnes.

In the recent Report, Metalliferous Mining Region of S.W. England, published by the Stationery Office in 1956, the learned author says: At St. Agnes the lodes are parallel with the coast and though very rich tin deposits have been worked up to the coastline no cross cut has been driven beyond. It seems most unlikely chat the boundary of St. Agnes emanative centre coincides with the coast and probable that satisfactory results might be obtained from investigations seawards in this locality. Another area which the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, will know very well— that of Carn Brea— is referred to in the same work as "by far the most important." I have recently been reading a book by Mr. F. Lyde Caunter who, though he has no financial interest, has, like a good Cornishman, taken a life interest in this subject, and I have sent a copy of his book to Lord Mancroft. Mr. Caunter writes: I have lone been convinced that the economic production of in Cornwall can be substantially increased, and in time built up to between a quarter and a third of Great Britain's total consumption. This would be a very considerable contribution to the National economy. Not only would it be a dollar-saving device, but in case of war would ensure a considerable supply of metal for our tinplate industry. He then refers to what Major Brian Llewellyn wrote in 1946, in his Report on the Carn Brea area of Cornwall: His, estimate of the value of potential reserves of tin in this one area alone was no less than £50 million. His report was adopted by the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy and was not seriously challenged and since then the developments is the South Crofty Mine. the only one working in the Carn Brea area, have confirmed rather than otherwise the evidence of large reserves. At South Crofty, the output of tin for the year 1955 was the largest for that mine for the past fourteen years. The output for the first nine months of 1956 exceeded that for the corresponding period of 1955. The company is erecting additional plant to extend its output still further. Major Llewellyn writes: It may fairly be said that the Northern area has never been prospected in depth and it is obvious that large areas of excellent promise remain to be explored. So far as the other mine, Geevor, is concerned I have seen set out the dividend record—I think it appears on page 53 of the book. Lord Mancroft will see from it that the company is at present paying the handsome dividend of 45 per cent. Of course that is nothing to the dividends that used to be paid in Cornwall. There was a mine called the Tresavean mine which in the old days paid a dividend of 400 per cent. per annum for twenty-five consecutive years. Unfortunately that was before our time.

That is my case with regard to tin. I say that it is probable—and I think experts believe it— that there are very large reserves of tin. But, of course, it is a question of lode mining: it is speculative and hazardous. You may be unlucky; you may not strike a particular lode. Therefore it is a hazardous enterprise. But is this something which we can afford to leave there, in respect of which we can afford to do nothing at the present time? If we are to have a long-term policy, if the Government are going to open this out and demonstrate that tin is there, then one would have nothing to say against that. But if they say they are not going to do that, then surely they will do something to encourage private enterprise to take this up and demonstrate the potentialities. In present circumstances private enterprise will do nothing about it.

Next I should like to deal with tungsten. I am not going through a long list of these things, but there is ground for supposing that tungsten is to be found in this country in considerable quantities. It is found in this country in the form of wolfram. The tungsten, I suppose, is separated from the wolfram. A ton of wolfram will be worth £ 1,150, so a unit is worth about £ 11 10s. At Hemerdon, in Devonshire, there are large deposits, and it is also found at Carrock in Cumberland. Deposits put at 4 million tons are supposed to exist, and it is supposed that there are much larger quantities deeper down.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

My Lords, may I tell the noble and learned Earl that I was a director of the company at Hemerdon? We worked that mine for the Government, and it cost so much money that it was quite impossible to carry on.

EARL JOWITT

The Westwood Committee deal with that in their Report. The long and short of the matter was that during the war we dealt with these things quickly and had a rather hand-to-mouth policy. But the Committee say this in paragraph 259: It would seem to us, therefore, that Hemerdon presents a strong argument for the outlay of capital with the object of proving the extension in depth and value of the mineral deposit. Without this essential information it is useless to consider the possible economic importance of the plant when an ore supply of at the most, only 4–5 years' duration is at present proved. We have considered various schemes of exploration drawn up by the Hemerdon Management, and while the final method selected could only be arrived at after closer study, it is probable that a series of exploratory shafts and galleries would be most suitable. They recommend that nothing be done there until further exploratory work has been undertaken.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

My Lords, we did work there for three years for the Government and found it quite impossible to make any money.

EARL JOWITT

The actual figures are given here. I am not saying that it is necessary that the Government should do it. If they could encourage somebody to take it on, I am sure that the noble Earl would not mind. I know that he is not one of the people who are going to take it on, but I am sure that he would not mind anybody else trying.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

My Lords, I should be perfectly willing to take it on if there were any possibility of its paying.

EARL JOWITT

I come now to lead. I am not going into the details; the facts are given in the Westwood Report, which says that there are grounds to suppose that there are very considerable deposits of lead in various parts of the country — in Wales, in Scotland, in the Pennines and in other districts. The price of lead is much lower than the price of tin. Tin is nearly £ 800 a ton, while lead would not be much more than £ 114. Therefore it is necessary to find lead of a much richer ore than is the case with tin. I cannot guarantee that these minerals exist, but I am saying that a body of trained and expert people believe that they do exist and that, in our own interests, we ought to develop them, either by public enterprise or by making it possible for private enterprise to do so.

Finally, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, if he can, to answer a question about the potash position. There is no doubt at all that a large seam of potash was discovered near Scarborough, but it is about 4,000 feet deep; and the problem is whether it is possible to develop it economically. I believe that Imperial Chemical Industries sank a shaft, but I do not think they got the core— I am not sure that the shaft did not cave in, or that it proved to be not in the right place. In the end, I think they felt that it was not their primary business, and were no longer interested. I raised the matter with the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, when he was Minister of Materials, and, if I remember correctly, he told me that he was in negotiation with another company. I do not know what happened, and I should like to have our information brought up-to-date. It may well be that it is not a commercial possibility, but I feel that our lack of mineral consciousness made us just do nothing about it. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say.

LORD SALTER

My Lords, it is true that the first experiment made by I.C.I. did not give satisfactory results.

EARL JOWITT

I understood that. On the last occasion the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, told me that somebody else was going to experiment with it, and I should like to find out what has been done.

That, then, is my case. I claim that to-day we in this country have no mineral policy. I am not making a Party attack at all; this applies to my Government, too. I do not think we have ever had a mineral policy. I think that that is because we are not mineral conscious. It is probable that we have large reserves of tin and of some other minerals, but it is far from certain that the developments in any one of these places would prove to be a profitable enterprise. In short, it is a highly speculative enterprise. All that is certain is that the exploratory work will be expensive and that the explorer will find considerable difficulties — perhaps with regard to labour or to the multiplicity of owners or all sorts of other things which we naturally find.

If we are going to develop a mineral policy, we may have to get public enterprise to prove what is there, and then it will be easy to get private enterprise to come along and take an interest. If we want to get others interested, it may be that, with the present shortage of capital (and I am one of those who believe that almost every penny of capital available ought to go into atomic power stations), we must put up some proposition that will induce them to come in. My case is that at the present moment they are not coming in. They answer: "To compensate me for the great risk of losing money I expect rich rewards if I am successful. I won't 'play' unless I have some financial concessions by way of tax remission or something of that sort." It is not for me or for this House to discuss tax concessions— that would be entirely inappropriate; but if we want private enterprise to come in, we must make it possible for them to do so. We have great inning houses who, I have every reason to believe, would be willing to chance their arm and develop some of these possibilities, if we made it possible for them to do so. I am sure that the taxation purists will say that this is impossible; that we have never done such a thing before, and that we cannot do it now. I would say that the circumstances to-day are such that at all costs we must develop our resources, and if it is necessary that we do it in that way, we must do it. If we do not like that way of doing it, then by all means let us do it by public enterprise.

I do not expect for a moment that I shall get a favourable reply from the noble Lord to-day. I am well aware that the country is not mineral conscious, and that it will take a good deal of education to make it so; but I hope that this debate will be a little step along the line of educating the country. I am only sorry that somebody who knows the facts much better than I do has not raised this subject. I believe that a considerable source of wealth lies in the ground and that, in view of our difficulties, we are unwise to leave it lying in the ground any longer without making some attempt to prove what is there and whether it is profitable to develop it. It is for those reasons that I move this Motion— which I need hardly say, I shall not press to a Division: it is moved simply in order that we may have some statement from the Government as to whether they think that these resources, if they are there— and I cannot say for certain that they are —should be investigated and, if possible, exploited; and, if they think it desirable, what steps they contemplate to make it possible. If we go, on as we are, doing to-day, these resources will not be developed in the lifetime of anybody here at present. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

5 0 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, my name is down on the list of speakers to follow my noble and learned friend, but, having listened to his speech, I realise that he has covered the whole of the ground. and I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I entirely agree with everything that he has said in relation to this question of non-ferrous metals. It is said of us, as a great industrial nation, that while we may be mineral-minded up to a point, we are not metal-minded like the United States and Canada. The result is that we have not made use of the base metals which we have to the extent that we should, and are therefore importing from other countries some of the metals which could be produced in this country. In going through the list, I was surprised to find that non-ferrous metals rank third in the cost of our imports. No less than £ 230 million was spent last year in importing non-ferrous metals alone; and, in addition, scrap cost us something like another £ 30 million. From that angle alone, it seems strange that, if there are metals in the earth of this country— and T think there are— we Should not work them.

I am not a metal man, but I have had some experience in coal. I well remember in the 'nineties the inrush of Cornish on miners into South Wales; indeed, the Cornish tin mines were almost depleted of miners, for the reason, I suppose, that it was uneconomic to work those mines when compared with the cost of importing tin from other countries. The same can be said of lead and zinc. Arid it is not only the base metals that we have to think of at the present time. During the last fifty years there has been a complete revolution, entirely as a result of the work of the scientists, metallurgists arid engineers. Instead of having some six or seven base metals which we talked about and used before the turn of the century, we now have something between thirty and forty different kinds of metal in regard to which we require to keep abreast of other nations in the production of modern things. We have nuclear power, with uranium—there is no uranium in this country, so far as I know; we have the jet engine, and things of that kind.

I know that the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research is doing a substantial amount of work, but I wonder whether something more could not be done in connection with research and geological surveys in this country. I read in the last Report that something like 800 boreholes, to a total of something like 300,000 feet, were made by the Geological Survey during last year. It is true that in a half dozen instances we were told where those boreholes were made, but I would suggest that the places to concentrate upon are those places where we know the metals are to be found. Again, I saw in the Report that fifty major researches were reported. But that is all that was said. No idea was given as to whether the research was in the material, or for obtaining the material. I think we should have much more information about what is being done in this matter. We just cannot afford to spend something like £250 to £260 million a year on the importation of non-ferrous metals if this country has some of those metals lying dormant in the earth. I know that in the early days the metal workings, as in the case of coal, were haphazard and showed a lack of planning. In my own district of South Wales there must be millions of tons of coal left in the earth which is quite unworkable, solely because of the haphazard way in which it was developed and the neglect of planning.

Not only are we not metal-minded in this country, but we are not scrap-minded. One seldom sees anyone going round picking up scrap. There must be in this country an enormous amount of scrap of these metals which could be used, instead of our sending to America and other countries to bring scrap here. We do not seem to take the slightest interest in whether there is any scrap collection. I strongly support the remarks of my noble and learned friend. He has done a great service in raising this matter this afternoon, and I hope that the Government will do something to bring about a change in this situation.

5.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble and learned Earl who introduced this interesting discussion. The part of the world from which I happen to come has been closely associated for 2,000 years with tin mines. I was a little distressed to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, say that we have never been mineral conscious. I do not think that is quite fair; I believe that until within the last eighty years we have been very mineral conscious indeed. After all, it was the Cornish mining engineers who developed the South African minefields. In fact, Cornishmen went all over the world, and it is largely due to their courage and their extraordinary know ledge— they could almost smell these minerals— that these great mining fields were developed. Since then, as the noble Earl has told us, there has been the sad picture of mine after mine shutting down. The value of minerals dropped in an incredible way. Between fifty and sixty years ago tin went down to a very low figure indeed, and the mines were forced to close. They were forced to shut up partly because the price was low, and partly because in those days they did not realise that any profit in the mine must be ploughed back if that mine was to have any period of life. That was not understood until fairly recently, so I do not think you can blame them if they made that mistake a hundred years ago.

The position is, of course, as the noble Lord has said: there is no encouragement whatever on the part of the Government for carrying out this risky undertaking. I am not quite so optimistic as the noble Earl about the resources in Cornwall, but there are undoubtedly resources. The lodes— I saw a good many of them when I was young— are narrow, rich and badly faulted, and the mines are very wet. They are extremely costly to work, and anybody who undertakes the working of them requires to be satisfied that, at any rate for the first few years, he will not be subject to an unfair burden of taxation during the risky period of development. I feel that a certain amount could be done, but I am nothing like so optimistic as many people. The reason why I think the matter is so important is that this country has always held a good position in the mining markets of the world. We have to train our miners, and if we have no metal mines in our own country, where on earth are we to train the young men to go overseas to develop these great fields? It is essential that we should try to have a few good metal mines in this country, in order that we may be able to train our young people. We want to encourage them, because this question of mining engineers to go overseas is an important one.

The manufacture of mining machinery is, of coarse, a big industry. In the old days, when all the engineers were English —or, I should say, Cornish— they used to encourage mines overseas to send back large orders for machines to be manufactured in Cornwall. At the present time, these great mines are being developed by Canadians and Americans, and the English engineers are nothing like so common as they were. If we are going to keep up the export of mining machinery we must have some sources in this country where this type of machine can be tried out and developed.

It seems to me that, apart from this matter of supplies—and I am not so optimistic as the noble Viscount—the education and encouragement of young men to go overseas on mining propositions is vital. As your Lordships know, we have two or three important mining schools. There is the Royal School of Mines in South Kensington and the Camborne School of Mines in Cornwall. Both of these are important assets to the country and both of them are training young men to go out on these important jobs. The Government have been more far-seeing in some ways, because they have encouraged quite a lot of work on the examination of extraction problems of some of these complex ores. This question of extraction metallurgy is an important matter, and the Royal School of Mines has quite an important department examining these difficult problems. I hope therefore, that when the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government he will give us some encouragement to believe that something will be done to try to strengthen the metal mining industry in this country. I do not want to see a great central body set up, which I am certain would cost a large amount of money, to examine these different propositions. I think it would be wasted. If we were to have a reasonable system of taxation we should, as the noble Earl said in his interesting speech, encourage some of the great mining companies to undertake examination of these Cornish propositions; and perhaps— as I sincerely hope—they would be successful and, instead of two mines in Cornwall at the present moment, we might have at least half a dozen.

5.17 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble and learned Earl for enabling us to have this unusual and interesting debate this afternoon. I thank him sincerely. I thank him also for not using the usual cliché that "it is one or two years since we had an opportunity of dealing with this matter." I cannot remember this matter being debated in your Lordships' House before, certainly in the fifteen years during which I have had the honour to be a Member. That, I am afraid, makes the noble Earl's first point. If we have not debated the matter for fifteen years, we can hardly earl ourselves a metal-minded nation, and certainly not a metal-minded House or Parliament. So we must give the noble and learned Earl full marks for the first hit which he aimed at us. I am grateful to him, therefore, for giving us the opportun4 of putting this right. I am also grateful to him personally for having done me the kindness of telling me in advance of some of the points he was going to mention, and of giving me the opportunity of reading Mr. Caunter's book, The Future of Metalliferous Mining in Great Britain. I am sorry to say that before this I was woefully ignorant— indeed, I do not think I know a great deal more about it now, although I ought to, because I know Cornwall well. I spend all my holidays there, and I know both St. Agnes and Geevor well. I know Malaya as well, and I have watched metal being mined and smelted in Penang. They have there, I think, the greatest tin smelting works in the world.

I think the noble Earl was a bit rash when he said that he did not know whether there was an expert in the House. There is always bound to be an expert in this House. He suddenly found the noble Earl, Lord Morley speaking about the Hemerdon company, The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, is also an expert on Cornish china clay, and I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, is a mining engineer—perhaps it is as well for us that he is not in his place to-day.

The question which the noble and learned Earl put to us is this: do we neglect our non-ferrous industry, and should any Government, in particular this Government, show more interest, or should the taxpayer give more support? We have to admit readily that the industry now plays a much smaller part in this country than it formerly played. World, and indeed home, consumption has greatly expanded. At the same time, our home production, as the noble and learned Earl has conclusively shown, has fallen away. It is now only a fraction of what it was, and only a fraction of our consumption and our needs. Whether we can increase that production, given the best possible facilities and the removal of all obstructions, is a matter, I am afraid, for the experts. The evidence available to me tends to agree more with the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, than with that of the noble and learned Earl, but we will not argue about that. How much more could be produced from Cornwall in particular, and from the country in general, is at the moment a little academic. Certainly it would require a great deal of extra working and work, and a lot of money.

What is the reason for this decline? The first reason, I think, is obviously the exhaustion of the rich and the easily extractable deposits, so that we are left now largely with the poorer and more difficult ones. The second reason is the competition and the increasing exploitation of richer resources overseas. Again, I think the noble and learned Earl was a little pessimistic. I have heard tell also that some of the mines in Malaya will run out in twenty years, but some mines are "an unconscionable time a'dying." I believe that there are also large untapped resources in the world of which at the moment we know only a little. Undoubtedly, it is desirable to encourage our home supply, provided that this can be done at competitive prices.

The noble and learned Earl accused the Government— and he was fair enough and kind enough to accuse, in retrospect, his own Government— of having no metal policy at all. Our policy is perfectly clear. It is that we must have a maximum supply from the most economic source, wherever that source may be. I think that that policy at the moment must be right, because it is essential to maintain and improve the competitive strength of our economy. I say that with some confidence, because I know, as your Lordships know full well also, that it is fortunate that the large proportion of our requirements are available to us in the Commonwealth and from the sterling area. We have now to ask ourselves this question: is it in the general national interest to give this particular industry exceptional, and perhaps even artificial, help which may be economically unsound and unbusinesslike? The situation, of course, might be quite different— I readily admit that— if our supplies did not come from the Commonwealth or the sterling area. There is always the question of the war-time problem. There again, I think that home production, even at best, would make only a very small impact on our demands. The strategic consequences of this fact are obvious, particularly in respect of shipping priorities, which would have to be granted in any case.

The noble and learned Earl asks: what are the Government going to do about it? What should be this Government's role in this particular problem? The noble and learned Earl and other noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned the Geological Survey and Museum. That, of course, plays the principal Government part. It provides, in addition to its annual surveys, the basic information on all aspects of British geology, particularly those of service to the economic prosperity and development of the country. The noble and learned Earl mentioned their Report on the Metalliferous Mining Region of South-West England. This last publication provided light week-end reading for me, and I recommend it most cordially to your Lordships who have a light week-end ahead. It provides an extraordinarily detailed and useful amount of information. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, paid tribute to this organisation. I should like to join him in saying that they do wonderful work, most of which is unknown to the man in the street. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, asked if they could not give reports on more boreholes in Cornwall. I will certainly look at that and bring it to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House who is responsible for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

If your Lordships go through these publications of the Geological Survey, you will note that their work is basic, but further steps in mineral development must be governed at each step by the prospect of economic return. Perhaps only one in a hundred prospects such as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and I have been talking about will lead to anything. That, we maintain, is a matter for commercial judgment and not for a Government Department. We honestly think that nationalisation or any other extreme form of Government interference would not of itself turn an uneconomic project into an economic operation. I seem to have heard those words before, and they seem to be as true now of this particular industry as they ever have been. The noble and learned Earl fairly suggests that private enterprise should be given its full chance. I certainly should not argue that private enterprise is falling down on its job—far from it. The mining companies continue to be very active indeed in exploring, both here and, incidentally, abroad. The Government do not pretend to have more technical skill and "know-how" than those who are experts in it.

I was glad to hear the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, quote from a passage in the Westwood Report the observations of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was then, seven years ago, only a Back Bencher. I should like to give his words. Mr. Peter Thorneycroft said: I would, however, advise any Government— to think well before it ventures public funds upon so hazardous and speculative a form of enterprise. There used to be a song when I was a child: "Don't go down the mine, daddy!" That seems to be, in polite language, what Mr. Thorneycroft was then advising the Government to do. His advice in his present capacity is still the same. I think most of us would be happy to think that what we said seven years ago, on the other side of the House, should be so well worth while repeating in another capacity to-day.

EARL JOWITT

I hope the noble Lord will not answer me on the basis that I have advocated or asked for public enterprise in this matter. I have merely said that if you eliminate public enterprise, for reasons which I can well understand, and which Mr. Thorneycroft gave, then you are left with private enterprise. Then what I say is: make it possible for private enterprise to do the job. Then I shall be perfectly content.

LORD MANCROFT

I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. I take his point, which I think is perfectly fair. He and I have agreed that this is not a good field for the intervention of public enterprise: the risk is too great and the technical knowledge is not with Government Departments. This would be a bad ground for Government intervention. Very well then. What assistance do we give to private enterprise to encourage them?

The noble and learned Earl mentions taxation. That, of course, is all-important. I think he rather suggested— and those of his way of thinking agree — that further support would have been forthcoming under a less onerous or less "prejudiced" taxation system. In point of fact, as f think the noble and learned Earl suggested, very fairly some useful concessions have already been made. There was the 1945 Act which allowed expenditure on exploration, developments, shaft-sinking and the like to be written off for taxation purposes over the life of the mine. The Westwood Committee considered that the lack of such pro vision was a major financial handicap. There have been other changes since then. Allowances have been given for plant and machinery used for exploration and for expenditure on abortive exploration outside the source being worked. That was in 1952. In addition, when the initial allowance was restored by Mr. Butler, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1953, mining works—that is, pit shafts, buildings, roads and so on—were giver, the exceptionally favourable rate of 40 per cent.

I come now to the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income. In their Final Report, which was issued last year, they considered the whole of this question. The Commission recommended that a depletion allowance should he given in respect of the cost of acquisition of mineral rights or areas. On the other hand, they did not favour any of the schemes for special depletion allowances such as operate in Canada and elsewhere. These are not, of course, allowances for expenditure actually incurred, but simply a method of taxing mining concerns at lower rates than other industries. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is examining the Royal Commission recommendation that an allowance should be given in respect of the cost of acquisition of mineral rights. He will take into account the views expressed in this debate. I think the noble and learned Earl used the expression res ipsa loquitur. I may give him the answer, if my Latin is good enough, Res Cancellario locuturaest— in other words, I will bring the point to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

My Lords, should there still be some further concessions? Is there ground for even a complete "holiday" from taxation? Certain protagonists in the battle have suggested that though I do not think the noble and learned Earl went so far. We are all agreed, I think ("Sunny Jim" was quoted in support), that taxation generally is too high. Some people want us to have a general "holiday" for the mining industry. Why stop there? What about the rival claims of shipping, agriculture or, indeed, the export trade as a whole? My Lords, I am not convinced that the mining industry merits a special privilege of that sort, and I must reject that idea as a whole. Of course, what we want, as the noble and learned Earl has said, is to attempt first to create the economic conditions for a general reduction of the whole burden of taxation. Nobody agrees with that more heartily than I, but I think we have done a considerable amount to help in this respect. We will look again at this particular point and see that all that possibly could be done has, in fact, been done.

I have been talking hitherto largely about tin, because that, I think, was the principal metal which we had in mind. But, of course, these points that I have made about taxation apply equally to the other metals we have discussed this afternoon— for instance, lead and zinc, which some noble Lords have mentioned. There again, our output is small compared with our consumption. There are only about five mines in production, and there is investigation and development on five or six more sites. Dumps on some past workings are, I understand, being treated by modern process to extract the remaining metal content, and we are watching these developments with interest. It is no good pretending that this is a major industry.

Several noble Lords mentioned tungsten. I do not think any mine operates primarily for the production of tungsten ores. Domestic deposits in this country are very small, and they are generally operated only in war time. The Westwood Committee discussed the case of the larger deposit containing low-grade tungsten ore and also a little tin at Hemerdon, near Plymouth, which the noble Earl. Lord Morley, knows about. As the House now knows, fresh attempts have been made to overcome the existing technical difficulties. I am told that a new process has been developed and the venture now looks a good deal more attractive commercially. The Board of Trade are now negotiating the disposal of the assets to a commercial operator. We shall watch its future with interest.

I turn now to potash, which the noble and learned Earl referred to. I understand that I.C.I. and Fison's (who, I understand. were the other firm) have devoted a great deal of activity to their investigations on deposits near Whitby in Yorkshire. The noble and learned Earl referred to that. They have both now reluctantly decided to abandon their experiments. Over £ 500,000 has been spent in testing the possibilities in this deposit, and I think that if two firms of that size and business and commercial intelligence have to abandon it after spending that sum, it serves only to reinforce the point which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade made in the Westwood Report. The economic problem might possibly be more favourable in the future, I am told, in which case further investigation might be carried out; but at the moment I am afraid that the project has been abandoned.

This brings out a rather interesting point: it has been abandoned, but it is not a wasting asset. All these mineral deposits are not wasting assets; they are merely lying fallow because the economic situation dictates a more favourable state of affairs overseas, in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. If the forebodings of the noble Earl concerning the world's supply prove true, and if his optimistic guess that the amount that is lying under our soil also comes true, still no great harm is done in allowing them to lie fallow. It may then be necessary to open up much greater development and to adopt another policy, but at the moment I do not think that the case is wholly proved.

Naturally, we should like to see an expansion of the domestic non-ferrous mining industry if it could be achieved on a competitive basis. I have mentioned the helpful taxation concessions which have been already granted. I have mentioned the further concession which has been recommended by the Royal Commission and which is under consideration by the Chancellor— a consideration which will be more in the forefront as the result of the debate in your Lordships' House. But I am not wholly convinced. I must confess, that more favourable taxation concessions on any wide or far-reaching ground could be granted; not even from the evidence which I have studied in the last few days, nor, I am afraid, from the eloquence and the advocacy of the noble and learned Earl.

We have all emphasised that this is a highly speculative trade. It is one which we on this side of the House feel is quite inappropriate for Government intrusion. "Nuts on the ground" were, in all conscience, expensive enough to the taxpayer; I am afraid that metal under it might prove even more expensive. On the other hand, if other steps could be shown to be desirable in the interests of expanding home production, Her Majesty's Government would naturally consider them most sympathetically, provided the expansion is on a competitive basis. It is a truism to say that our national prosperity depends greatly on the efficiency of our engineering production. I think it would be foolish to base our non-ferrous metals policy, with which, of course, it is closely linked, on any other principle than that of obtaining these metals from the places, whether at home or abroad, where they can be produced more cheaply and efficiently than anywhere else, even under our own ground.

My Lords, without wishing to appear in any way unsympathetic to an oldestablished—nearly two thousand years now—and a once major industry, I think that Her Majesty's Government's policy is both sensible and right. But if circumstances should change, there is no reason why we should not change our out look, as no harm is done in waiting. At the moment, I feel, though I must express some sympathy with the point of view that the noble and learned Earl has put forward, that, on the whole, and thinking in terms of the interests of the general economy of the country, the Government's present policy is right.

5.37 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the trouble that he has taken to answer me in this debate, though I must confess that I am disappointed with the reply that he has made. He thinks that the Government policy is right. I wish he had conveyed to me what the Government's policy was. My whole grievance was—and still is— that they have no policy at all. He asks "Why should we give tax concessions to the mines which we do not give to shipping companies?" But why should America do that? Why should Canada do it? Why should Australia do it? Why should Ireland do it? When he sees what staggering effects the Irish concessions have had, and how Ireland and the tax officials are going to benefit the fact that they are developing a new and large industry in Ireland, it seems to me that there is no reason whatsoever for taking the attitude which he has taken. However, there it is: that is the attitude which the Government take.

The only crumb of comfort that I can take to myself is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to read what we have said in this debate. I certainly hope that he does. I certainly hope that he will consider what has been done in Ireland. Of course, the Government are right to get their minerals and metals in the cheapest market. The point of introducing private enterprise into this matter is that they would not venture their money unless they thought that they would be able to produce cheaply. If you gave them tax concessions, and they were able to produce cheaply, they would cone in only if they thought they could produce it more cheaply than other sources of supply. If that was not so, it would be foolish of them to consider the matter at all.

My Lords, as I have said, I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is the first time in seventeen years that we have had a debate on this sort of topic. I hope I have got the door open, just a fraction, and that if I, or somebody else, continues to raise the subject, we shall get the door so far open that at last we may be able to get a foot inside; and then, perhaps, when the situation becomes even more critical and difficult than it is today, somebody will say, "It is about time, notwithstanding all the previous answers, that we began to develop our own resources in our own country." My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord and to noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.