Lords Sitting of 3 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford

EXECUTIONS IN HUNGARY
3.5 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information concerning a report that recently 150 young persons were executed in Hungary as alleged "counterrevolutionaries".]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, as your Lordships will appreciate, the conditions prevailing in Hungary make it extremely difficult to obtain any accurate information about reported acts of repression by the Hungarian authorities. Her Majesty's Government have noted this report with concern, but they are not in a position either to confirm or to deny it.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, and I realise the great difficulty which the Government have in discovering the truth. I wonder whether the noble Marquess would permit me to ask this further question. If there is no known improvement in the situation, will the Government consider drawing the attention of those concerned to the fact that such a situation, where the appointed representative of the United Nations is not permitted to enter Hungary, is hardly compatible with peaceful co-existence?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that if this report were true, it would be very disturbing. But is it not the fact that the Hungarian authorities have issued a most specific and point-blank denial of this? What are our relations with Hungary at the present moment from the point of view of ascertaining the facts?
746
Are they diplomatically represented here, and are we diplomatically represented there? Are we unable to obtain the facts?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it would be helpful if I referred to the report of Sir Leslie Munro. I quote his own words. He says:
"It is for the Hungarian authorities to allow the true facts to be known, and to afford facilities for their assertions to be verified by giving their assent to the visit to Budapest of the United Nations Representative"—
meaning himself. And that, of course, is the view of Her Majesty's Government.

ARCADING OF STREETS
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the advisability of the arcading of certain streets in London in order to lessen traffic congestion can be considered.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, highway authorities in the London area, as elsewhere, consider the possibilities of arcading when planning road improvements. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is always ready to look at any proposals they may make.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is it not the fact that some very large blocks of office buildings are going up in the City of London, and might it not be very much to the advantage of traffic generally if these buildings could be arcaded, instead of carrying out the idea, which the Minister of Transport spoke about recently, of walkways being carried on cantilevers, or in other ways, from the buildings adjoining the street? Could the question be considered? May I ask the noble Lord one other question? There are examples of arcaded streets to be found in Italy and Paris; and if he does not already know about them, can the Minister examine these at the same time as he is taking decisions on his other idea?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have already said that proposals for arcading can be considered whenever they come up. My noble friend realises, of course, that these schemes for development in various zones come from the appropriate highway authority which, in the case of most urban areas, is not my right honourable friend. It is perfectly obvious, I think, that arcading schemes can economically be worked only into now development, as the cost of working them into existing development is astronomical; but I am sure that the highway authorities up and down the country, and particularly in urban areas, will pay regard to what my noble friend has said.

TRANSPORT OF COAL
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to transport large quantities of coal by lorries; if so, which roads, and what class of road, it is intended to use; what are the reasons for this intention and whether this exceptional traffic is likely to damage the roads so used or likely further to complicate traffic congestion on roads already overcrowded.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, the means by which coal is transported are not determined by Her Majesty's Government but are left to the free choice of the consumer of coal or the agencies in the coal trade which serve him. This choice is no doubt largely influenced by changing economic factors, but in the year 1959 the proportion of coal carried by road was a little less than in the previous year.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether it is the fact that an announcement was made the other day that in the
748
north of England coal to the extent of 50,000 tons was to be carried by road and not by rail, as it has been hitherto?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords, that is a fact. It was an arrangement come to between the National Coal Board and the British Transport Commission and the users, by which up to that quantity of coal was transferred to the roads for a limited period because of lack of labour on the railways. It is just a short-term arrangement. Actually, about 25,000 tons a week are being moved. It is intended that the coal shall go back to the railways as soon as the railways can handle it.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord give the figures of the tonnage of coal carried by road in 1959?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in 1958 it was 34·7 million tons and in 1959 31·4 million tons. That excludes the local deliveries from merchants to houses.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does this not seem to be a matter of national policy for consideration by the Government? They have both a road problem and a rail problem. Would it not be better to divert as much as possible of this coal traffic to the railways?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I should not disagree with the noble Viscount in that expression. Coal is an eminently suitable thing for the railways.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
REQUISITIONED HOUSES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This short but important Bill is designed to make the necessary financial provision to enable the National Coal Board to finance its operations and improvements over the next six years. As your Lordships know, provision was made under the terms of the Coal Industry Legislation between 1946 and 1956 to enable the National Coal Board to borrow money for capital purposes, including the provision of working capital. This legislation, however, imposed a limit on the total sum which the Minister of Power might advance to the Board and, since 1951, a limit on the sum which might be advanced in any one year. As these limits now stand under the Coal Industry Act, 1956, the aggregate principal outstanding up to August 2, 1961, must not at any time exceed £650 million, nor must it, in any one financial year, exceed by more than £75 million, the highest aggregate sum outstanding in the preceding year, unless a higher limit is authorised by order in another place.
The Bill which is now before your Lordships seeks to raise the overall limit to £700 million and provides for its further extension by Statutory Order to £750 million. At the same time it reduces the limit on borrowings in any one year from £75 million to £50 million. It is expected that the £700 million limit will be reached in the financial year 1961–62. The Bill thus seeks to provide the Board with the financial support necessary to the furtherance of its programme, whilst at the same time ensuring that Parliament has adequate opportunities to keep the Board's borrowings under fairly regular review.
My Lords, in considering this Bill we must seek to relate its provisions to recent developments in the coal industry and to the general proposals contained in the Board's Revised Plan for Coal. During the past three years the demand for coal has suffered a severe decline and coal consumption in this country last year was some 28 million
750
tons below the level of 1956. In addition, our export and bunker sales fell by 5½ million tons, making a total fall of over 33 million tons. In order to avoid heavy and widespread mining unemployment, the National Coal Board, with the full agreement of the Government, decided that there should be no immediate and drastic cut in coal production to match supply and demand. Instead it was the Board's policy to make a gradual reduction in its output and to accept a consequent increase in unsold stocks. The Board's holding now amounts to 33 million tons of coal and 5 million tons of coke, valued at about £135 million. The building up of this stock has caused the Board to draw much more heavily upon the Treasury for finance than had been envisaged in 1956, and this is one of the important contributory factors which has led to the need for the present Bill.
A large part of the stocks may remain in the Board's hands for a number of years, and there has been some concern expressed about the sufficiency of the allowance made by the Board in its Accounts for the loss of value sustained by coal when it is held in stock. This is a matter of importance and I should, if I may, like to spend a moment or two on this question.
As my right honourable friend the Minister of Power has explained in another place, the loss in calorific value of coal in stock is small. The National Coal Board considers that on average—and here I would stress that the figure I shall give is an average—the loss on this account is not more than 1 per cent. a year. The Board's opinion is consistent with the findings of research which was conducted before the war, and with the findings of the Minister of Power's Scientific Advisory Council. But, in addition to deterioration in calorific value, there are other factors of which account must be taken, such as the reduction in the coking properties of certain coals, and breakage. And of still greater significance is the cost of double handling and storage. These
factors and an allowance for contingencies are taken into account by the Board in valuing its stocks. The total costs allowed for, including a provision for interest, in the first year the coal is put on the ground amount to about £1 a ton.

751
The published accounts for the year 1958 showed that the stocks of coal and coke held at the end of that year had been valued at figures £17 million below the current value at the point of production. The accounts for the year 1959 are expected to show an allowance of £32 million.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the £32 million in addition to the £17 million?
LORD MILLS: The stocks were valued in 1958 at £17 million below the cost of production. The stocks were valued at £32 million in 1959, so it is not an addition. It is an amount in respect of the total stock. As I have said, my Lords, much of the National Coal Board's present stocks may be retained for some years, but I am glad to say that the Board now considers the period of abnormal stock building has come to an end. In fact, this year the Board hopes to make a modest beginning on the reduction of its stocks, and although it would be dangerous to make any prediction based upon the few weeks of the year that have passed, I can say that recent developments have not been discouraging.
In its Revised Plan for Coal, which was published in October, 1959, the Board reviewed its prospects and plans for the period 1960–65. On the demand side, after a detailed review of its markets, and after consultation with the British Transport Commission, the Iron and Steel Board, the gas and electricity industries, the Board considered that with exports of 10 million tons a year, the total demand for coal in 1965 should be in the range of 200 to 215 million tons a year.
There is, of course, no certainty about a forecast of this kind being fulfilled, but despite the inevitable margin of error we are entitled to draw a measure of reassurance from the estimate which has been made. It is very understandable that the sharp fall in coal consumption since 1956 should have aroused acute anxiety, particularly among those with bitter personal experiences of the industry between the wars. But the current estimates show that there is no reason to think of the recent rate of fall continuing.
752
Of the decline of 33 million tons, 6 million tons were due to the exceptionally warm weather in 1959, compared with 1956, and 5½ million tons represent a fall in exports and bunkers, which have been at a very low level. A further 6 million tons represent the increase in use of oil at power stations. The results to date of the negotiations to alter in favour of coal the original contracts for converting certain power stations to oil-firing are that the use of oil at power stations will be considerably reduced compared with the original plan—by the equivalent of some 1¾ million tons of coal in this year and by nearly 4 million tons of coal in 1965.
Furthermore, over the greater part of the period 1956–59, the effects of the growth in oil consumption and improvements in fuel efficiency were not being offset by increasing industrial activity. For some time now, industrial activity has been growing, and the effects on the coal market are beginning to become apparent. With an expanding economy there will certainly be a substantial increase in the use of coal by power stations and coke ovens between now and 1965. In addition, there are quite favourable prospects for the expansion of the Board's export trade. Expansion of these three markets should more than offset the falls to be expected in other sectors, and should suffice to ensure that demand in 1965 will at least reach the lower end of the Board's estimated range and thus be higher than it is at present.
In order that the industry can meet the expected demand for coal in 1965 at prices which will enable it to compete effectively, the Board's Revised Plan provides for the expenditure of £511 million over the next six years. This compares with the investment in the industry of about £610 million in the six years 1954 to 1959. As a result of this investment, the Board expects that by 1965 about 80 per cent. of its output will be coming from new and reconstructed collieries and that there will be a marked increase in productivity.
Since 1957, output per man-shift has improved from 25 cwt. to 28 cwt., and the growth in productivity will continue, so that by 1965 the Board hope to get 30 or 31 cwt. of coal per man-shift worked. There will also be a continuation of the fall in manpower. This has

753
declined from the spring, 1957, figure of 706,000 to 625,000 to-day. In 1965 the Board expect to employ about 600,000 men. The anticipated further fall is comparatively small and in the light of the normal wastage of between 50,000–60,000 men a year should not prove a heavy burden. It does not follow, however, that there will not be pockets of unemployment following colliery closures in areas which are likely to be unattractive to other industries. Your Lordships will be familiar with the efforts the Government are making to guide industries to areas of unemployment or potential unemployment, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Power is in close touch with the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade about this matter.
The Revised Plan for Coal constitutes the best estimate that can be made for the future of this important and basic industry. It provides the justification for the important measure your Lordships are asked to consider this afternoon. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mills.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I very much regret that in the absence of our entire first team you must suffer the inadequacies of a member of the Strollers' Eleven. Of my noble friends who usually on this side of the House go in to bat at the coal face, Lord Hall is, unfortunately, in hospital, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor is assisting in the nursing of his sick wife, and Lord Lawson is fulfilling a public engagement in Durham. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept that I am speaking this afternoon not from effrontery but from necessity, and certainly not in the interests of finding another way of usefully using my leisure, because I realise that the task before me, to fill the gap which has been so unfortunately created, is quite a hopeless one.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for his very lucid exposition of the Bill, for the extremely just manner in which he has presented the position of the coal industry at the present time, and above all for the comforting things which he has been able to tell us. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill,
754
though we deplore its necessity. We accept the need for the Coal Board to extend its borrowing powers, but we cannot acquit the Government of a heavy responsibility for the present situation, and we regret that they have not so far sufficiently answered the unfair attacks which have been made on the Coal Board and on the miners by doctrinaire critics of nationalisation.
It cannot, in our view, be too strongly emphasised that this Bill merely provides a loan which will have to be repaid with interest, and that the rate of interest is precisely the same as that which the Government have agreed shall be paid on the loan to Colville's, a private undertaking. It is in no sense of the word a subsidy—in fact the Coal Board has never been subsidised. It can, indeed, be argued that the boot is on the other foot and that the coal industry has subsidised the nation in quite a number of important particulars; for example, by bearing the £60 million losses on imported coal, by sales to industry at less than market prices, and through years of controlled prices on a sellers' market which prevented the accretion of reserves which would otherwise have accumulated. The coal industry has also subsidised the nation by bearing the enormous cost of its orderly contraction, without which 50,000 miners would have been unemployed and a huge bill would have been presented to the nation in unemployment pay and assistance grants.
But here I should like to express most grateful thanks to the Government, and particularly to the noble Lord the Minister, for having agreed with the Coal Board and for the way the contraction in this industry has been carried out. That contraction has presented the Coal Board with a very heavy financial bill which has not come to the taxpayers. But there has been this remarkable difference. In the early 1930's the decline in coal consumption was not so very much larger than that of which the noble Lord has just spoken, but in those days the unemployment among miners was 150,000, while a great many of them were on short time, as well as on very low wages. To-day, I believe, in a position of almost similar difficulty the unemployment figure has been some 6,000. It is very much to the credit of the Government and all concerned that this job

755
has been done in this civilised way. I feel that that does need saying, because so many people, who either do not know the facts or will not admit the facts, are nevertheless ready to pick up any stick they can lay their hands on to beat this industry with.
Not only are these points material to a fair assessment of the Coal Board's financial results, but it is vitally important that they should be clearly stated by the Government in the interests of the miners. Their morale, naturally, is seriously affected by the present rundown. Boy recruitment has stopped—indeed, who would send a boy into an industry which is suffering the decline through which the coal industry is now going? The miners' feelings are still further depressed by unjust accusations and what I regard as the Government's timid failure to give both them and the Board the credit which is their due. We need these men, and we shall need them and their sons for many years to come; and we want them in good heart. I hope that the noble Lord will do, and will continue to do, whatever lies in his power to deal with this aspect of the matter, because it is important.
The Government must be much more honest than they have been so far in acknowledging the fact that they have in large measure created the present difficulties. For the first eleven post-war years, as has been pointed out, and as we all know, every ton of coal was needed for our recovery and expansion; indeed, our present prosperity is based on, and could not have existed without, the expansion which took place in those years. Miners were exhorted to secure as much as possible, exhorted to raise every ton, and they responded by increasing production from 181 million tons to some 210 million tons. Over the same period, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the consumption increased from 186 million tons to 218 million tons, the difference being made up by imports which are now, in some ways happily, ended, very largely due, I believe, to the successful efforts of the noble Lord in that matter.
Then came this dramatic change in consumption, and, as the noble Lord has said, this drop in the last three years of 27 million tons, plus the 6 million tons decline in exports—a total of 33
756
million tons. Miners who for years have been pilloried for not producing enough, and whose alleged absenteeism was always front-page news in the newspapers, now find themselves criticised by the same people in the same newspapers for, as it were, producing too much coal. No wonder that these men, who spend themselves with every breath they draw and every blow they strike, should be sick with apprehension about the future of their industry!
I must say that I honestly regard the Government as the real culprits, first and foremost because of the artificiallycontrived—that is putting it mildly—trade recession in 1958, with its cutback in steel production, its decline in other industrial productions; the consequent fall in the demand for coal; the consequent fall also in the traffic carried by the railways, which again meant a decrease in coal consumption, in addition of course to the alternative use of oil in diesel engines. Then, there were the instructions given to the Electricity Authority to change from coal to oil. I know that in those days those instructions were given in order to help to conserve coal, and it was thought better to switch over to oil. But only now, after long discussions and considerable delays, has this movement been put into reverse; and, as we have heard to-day, these changes will mean a consumption of 1▓ million more tons of coal this year and of 4 million tons more in 1965. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will tell us how many power stations will be thus affected, and whether the figure of 4 million tons which he mentioned as the extra consumption resulting from transfer back to coal in the power stations by 1965 is the limit, or whether that process will continue, because that is extremely important.
Then, there are these experiments with liquid methane gas. To me it seems incredible that, with our vast investments in the coal industry, our only indigenous mineral source of power, we should allow, let alone encourage, alternative sources of gas supply wholly dependent on imports and requiring considerable capital outlay on ships and other plant. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will tell us and the mining industry that at least this incredible nonsense is not to be allowed to develop any further.

757
Finally, there is the virtually unrestricted expansion in the use of fuel oil. I fully appreciate the reasons for using the output of fuel oil from our own refineries. But why import fuel oil when we have 36 million tons of undistributed coal stocks—stocks that in the first year, as we have been told this afternoon, have already cost the Coal Board £32 million in depreciation and other costs, and which will cost £7 million every year they remain unused? As the noble Lord told us, it may be some years before they are used up. Sixty per cent. of the fuel oil we are using is imported. Other European countries with difficulties in regard to coal have stopped the import of foreign fuel oil. I should like to know why we should not do the same. It is not merely a question of assisting our coal industry, it also means assisting our balance of payments. I am not talking about fuel oil that is refined here; I am talking about imports of foreign fuel oil. I think that these questions build up to a heavy indictment against the Government. They are questions to which I think answers must be provided—answers which, when they are provided, will, I hope, indicate a change of policy.
I understand that some £50 million out of the sum which this Bill proposes to provide for the Coal Board is needed to finance these stocks. If that is so, that means another £2 million a year in interest for which the miners have to work and pay—because, of course, it does come out of their work. I understand also that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Power estimates consumption in this year at 196 million tons and production at 195 million tons—a drop of I million tons in the stocks. That is a drop in the ocean. According to many people—I shall be glad to have the noble Lord's reassurance on this point—even this drop in the stocks of I million tons or so is in doubt unless the Government take some of the steps that I have suggested.
Then there is the Coal Board's estimate that in 1965 they will need to produce between 200 million and 215 million tons of coal to meet the expected demand. The noble Lord has told us this afternoon (I did not take down his words, but they were something like this) that there is no reason to expect that the demand will not reach at least the
758
lower figure of 200 million tons. But the question is: why must there be such a wide margin of 15 million tons—which means the work of some 40,000 miners—in the target to be achieved by 1965? Why cannot the Government fix a definite target and guarantee it? Surely it is not so difficult. We shall be dealing only with deep-mined coal, because by that time opencast production will virtually have ceased, except for some special qualities and areas. We know that in five years' time more than 200 pits will have been closed, and we know that output per man-shift is increasing by some 5 per cent. a year. Indeed, we have been told that it is expected that, by 1965, it will reach some 30 to 31 cwt. per man.
Again, we know that by 1965 80 per cent. of our coal will be coming from reconstructed or new pits, and will be produced under the most efficient conditions. We know, too, that these improvements will be wrought at a cost of more than £500 million in capital expenditure, of which the Coal Board is going to find four-fifths from its own resources. In other words, we know the facts necessary for the computation of output in 1965 to within, say, 1 million tons. All that is needed, therefore, is for the Government to decide the figure of our requirements; and that, too, allowing for anticipated industrial expansion and improved fuel efficiency, can be precisely assessed. The only thing necessary for any final adjustment—for the agreeing, as it were—of these two figures in 1965 is a decision to regulate fuel oil imports according to the requirements, if that should prove to be necessary.
I think we must agree that it is intolerable that, for lack of such a decision, the Coal Board must estimate five years' hence to within 40,000 miners the size of the labour force that we shall require, or to within 40 pits the number that will have to be closed down. Surely, that is a situation that ought not to be tolerated. Because if it is, then the Government are jeopardising the future of one of our greatest assets. It is sensible to suspend opencast mining because the sites are still there if we want them. It is not sensible to risk closing pits before they are exhausted, because once they are closed they become unworkable and the miners go elsewhere. We should never get them back, or be able to reopen those pits if we wanted

759
them again, as may well be the case. We say to the Government, "You are giving generous help to the shareholders in the steel and the cotton industries. You are willing to take big financial risks with the British aircraft industry. It is your duty to be just as imaginative and generous with British coal in which we are all shareholders."
This is not a debate in regard to the rival merits or principles of nationalisation and private enterprise; it is really a debate on a Bill which is going to settle, perhaps, the future of our greatest industry. It is going to settle the future of some of the finest working men in this country, men who, in my view, in real terms, are the finest blood and guts in the country. For two centuries our mines and our miners have buttressed the nation in peace and war. They have never let us down. And we on this side of your Lordships' House ask you now to give this great industry the chance of a new lease of life, the chance to achieve standards of efficiency and prosperity never attained before and a chance to do something which will benefit us all.

THE EASTER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I inform the House that the House will adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, April 14, and reassemble on Tuesday, April 26.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.52 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, this is a short Bill and a simple one, and not, I think, in any way controversial; but it does give an opportunity for the House to consider the situation of the coal industry, and I want to say a little about the impact that the recent events in the industry have made on the country, and the reactions to it. I feel that there has been a great deal of exaggerated and unfounded criticism of the policy that the Coal Board have pursued.
I am no believer in the principle of nationalisation, but I believe that we have all got to the stage where we recognise that the National Coal Board is an
760
important part of the country's economy and that it is to the interest of all of us to look objectively at the questions surrounding it, and with the intention of constructive rather than destructive criticism. I feel that a lot of what I have read and heard has been the wrong kind of criticism. We have reached the position which has brought about this Bill by a very quick change. It was only some three years ago that the country as a whole was demanding more coal. There was still the aftermath of the war shortage. And in only three years, owing not to the policy of Her Majesty's Government (on that I would not agree with the noble Lord opposite) but to movements in world events and supply and demand affecting a whole series of commodities in different countries, we have reached the position where there is a surplus of coal. Three years is not a very long time to consider in relation to the kind of capital investment which has been, is being and must be made in the coal industry.
It is not very easy, either, when a changing trend in consumption is seen, to forecast how long that will last. I believe the future will show that the policy of the National Coal Board to continue the stocking of coal has been the right policy. Not only is there the social impact of employment on the miners in the districts in which they live but there are also, as one sees in other industries, certain commercial aspects which make it, at times, convenient and wise to build up a stock of a standard product which it is believed will later be saleable—this, again, as against the cost of stocking and unstocking and of borrowing money with which to finance that. I do not think that any of us who have been engaged in other businesses would believe that it is always a mistake to hold a large stock in a period of declining consumption. I speak without any knowledge at all of the interior working of the coal industry, either before or after nationalisation, but I make that comment rather from the point of view of one seeing things from what one would imagine to be the outlook of those responsible for the industry compared with what would be the outlook of those responsible for other forms of industrial production.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, there is another very important

761
point. It would have been quite wrong for the National Coal Board to stop production suddenly and drastically. As I have said, I am no believer in the principle of nationalisation, but I believe it is true that if there is any virtue in such a principle it is that the shareholders of a national industry—that is to say, all the people of this country—would prefer that the miners should continue to be employed and that the rundown should be gradual, rather than that economies should be made. In every big business there is always a difficulty of judgment as between the necessity of economic operation and the very proper expediency of consideration for those who work in the business. It is never a very easy decision to make and it must be a much more difficult decision for those responsible for a big nationalised industry of this kind.
I feel, however, that, careful as have been the arrangements for the gradual closing of pits, the giving of notices and the reduction of employment which has come about automatically by allowing wastage to go on without any replacement, there is going to be one result which is likely to create difficulty: that is, that by that very process the number of young men who can come into the industry is going to be reduced.
I believe that one should take the wide view that as conditions change throughout history, one industry, as time goes by, must be replaced by another; and we cannot assume that a total labour force, whether in coal, agriculture, steel or whatever it may be, can continue for ever. I. rather feel that those who talk of the necessity of what is called a "fuel policy"—which, in fact means persuading people to use a fuel they do not find convenient—are making a mistake in over-stressing that point. I think it is more practical and to the point to accept the necessity of change in relation to manpower in an industry such as coal and to believe that the change in the use of fuels is permanent, but, at the same time, to make careful provision for the people who work in the industry.
That is more particularly necessary in the case of the coal industry because of the fact that the men who work in collieries live very largely in communities of their own, and the closing of a pit, or a group of pits, has an effect which is felt by a lot of people living together, in
762
contrast to the closing of, say, a shipyard or a factory where the men involved may live scattered about everywhere and there are more opportunities for them to get work of a similar or perhaps different kind.
That is why I myself welcome the Local Employment Bill which is now going through I believe that that has the great virtue of flexibility and needs only determination by Her Majesty's Government to bring it about. But I feel quite sure from what I know of conditions, certainly in the North of England, that it is not going to be easy to do that, with all the best will in the world. I would add one more appeal to Her Majesty's Government to continue thinking very hard on these problems, because they are not easy to solve. I feel, as perhaps, as an outsider, one might feel, a little apprehensive about the results of the research policy of the National Coal Board. We have known for some time that the consumption of fuel in any apparatus which makes smoke is on the way out. It means automatically that a lot of prepared fuels have to be used, and I have thought for a long time that it was wrong to insist on smokeless zones, smokeless areas, until there was a lot more manufactured fuel that could be burnt.
I have a feeling—without, I must admit, knowing too much about it—that the Coal Board have not been as sufficiently active, or possibly have not been as successful, in developing methods of processing coal so that it could be saleable, as they should have been, and I hope that their progress will be more rapid than it has been. It seems to me a natural process of thought that if you find your product unsaleable, and people do not want to buy it, you should immediately turn your mind to whatever means are economic for converting your product to something that people do want; and that sort of commercial necessity, I think, is the kind of thing that we want to see the Coal Board exercise when they are making their policy statements. I am not saying, of course, that they have neglected research, but I think it is not an unfair comment that one would have hoped to see more results from that by now.
I do not believe that we can ever put the clock back in things of this kind. I do not think it is right, as the noble

763
Lord has just said, that the Government should predict the amount of coal available and then decide from that the amount of coal to be used. I do not think in these days it is fair, either to domestic users who prefer one fuel or another, or to industrial users who have to exercise the greatest economy in manufacturing processes to compete at home and abroad, if they are not allowed the fuel which is to them the most economical.
My mind goes back to some years ago when there was a Committee on fuel and power policy in which I was involved. That was at the time of a very great shortage of coal and of electricity and gas. The first thing we began to think of in that Committee was what were the objects of the work of such a Committee, and what were we going to recommend the Government to do, and with what object in mind. We then said we thought that the object of fuel and power policy should be that every consumer, industrial, domestic and other, should be able to get the kind of fuel that he found most useful and efficient for his purpose, provided he was willing to pay the cost of that fuel. I felt at the time that that was the right policy in a time of shortage; and, on further reflection, I have always thought it was the right policy at a time of fuel surplus.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt him? He has mentioned the Committee of which he was the distinguished Chairman. He may recall that there were two important recommendations made by his Committee: namely, the setting up of a joint planning board and of a tariff advisory committee. Action has not been taken on either of those recommendations, which would have been of great importance and value, I think, to the coal industry.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am glad to be reminded of that. It is some time since I have read that Report. That is perfectly true, and I think that those steps would have been of some use. I want to make the point, however, that that principle, the best supply for the purpose, still persists; and if that is so, I believe it to be wrong to talk and to think on the lines of preventing people from using oil, as it may be, or gas or
764
electricity, whichever it is, whether it derives from coal or not. I believe the best thing to do to make the best use we can of our fuel resources is to try by any means to convert them into products which have other and perhaps more efficient ways of being used.
There are many developments going on in technical processes these days. I am not in touch with the coal processing techniques that are growing up, but we can always look forward to advances similar to those made in the past, and I hope very much that we shall see something of that sort before too long. None of us wants to see the coal industry dwindling away altogether, certainly not those of us who live amongst it and who appreciate the qualities of the men who work in it, as the noble Lord opposite has said. But we must face the fact that an industry, whether large or small, can exist only if it is on a sound economic basis, and I think that to bolster up the use of coal by artificial means will in the long run be ineffective.
4.6 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to-day, but I was tempted to say a few words in support of Her Majesty's Government by the rather, if I may say so, Luddite speech of the noble Lord opposite. In this country we live by our wits, and in order to succeed in that we have to be flexible the whole time. And much as we may like to stick to the old, I am afraid it is just impossible for us to maintain our position in the world unless we are willing to adopt the new and discard the old when such a change is necessary.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Luddite destroyed machines. We have been approving a policy which will spend more than £500 million on bringing the coal industry up to the most efficient pitch ever, and we on this side of the House fully approve and support that policy. There is no Luddite mentality in that.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, undoubtedly the money that has gone into the coal mines will be money well spent, because it has gone into the pits where the seams are the best and the production can be the largest; and in a contracting industry it is necessary to

765
exploit the coal in the best possible way. Nobody can accuse me of ever having been against the miners or the Coal Board. I have often spoken in your Lordships' House in support of them; against Saturday working and so on. But we cannot deny the fact that coal is a contracting industry, and if we take our cue from other contracting industries we can see what a terrible mess a contracting industry can get into unless it is handled in the sort of way Her Majesty's Government have been handling the coal industry. I was brought up in the cotton industry, and I know the terrible mess which that industry got into through being a contracting industry without any sort of central selling organisation.
If one is retreating in industry one must have a very strong rearguard in one's selling organisation, otherwise the retreat turns into demoralisation and a rout, which in fact happened in Lancashire. Here in the coal industry an orderly retreat is going on, and Her Majesty's Government, as part of the orderly retreat, have mitigated immediate hardships by sanctioning the stockpiling of this coal, which of course has been locking up the money of the taxpayers in stocks of coal. One hears a great deal about these stockpiles of coal. Quite frankly, I know nothing about them, and I should very much appreciate a disinterested appraisal of their value. One has seen, of course, utilities overseas, where supply of coal is apt to be irregular, piling coal in large quantities—and very often small coal at that; and presumably that coal has not deteriorated to any great extent. But what one really would like to know is the figures from a site on which coal has been dumped; the quantity dumped there, the quantity removed when that site was cleared, and the value of that coal at the end. Have the rather alarming allegations that one hears, that the coal is deteriorating heavily, with consequent large loss, any truth in them, or not? Because, of course, if that were the case, it would make this policy of mitigating the hardships of contraction a great deal more expensive than it appears to be in the books of the National Coal Board.
Undoubtedly at the moment oil is the coming fuel; and it is frequently said that oil involves vast expenditure in
766
foreign exchange, and so on, and that coal does not. However, I have been informed that the foreign exchange content of oil is to a large extent set off by the fact that the policy of some, at least, of the oil companies is to spend in the country of collection the approximate proceeds of the oil they sell in that country. They certainly are very big spenders in this country. In fact, I think that one can directly relate a certain amount of depression in some areas in this country to the fact that, owing to a world surplus of oil, investment by the oil companies has rather declined in the last year or two. But doubtless that position will right itself.
But, of course, coal is not finished by any means. Coal is going to be used in different ways. Walking through Dean's Yard this morning I saw a wagon delivering great sacks of coal; and a strong young man was probably going to carry those sacks up several flights of stairs, and dump them into a bin. My Lords, that really is the most ridiculous method in the world of distributing fuel. The way coal will be distributed in the future is by being "piped" to the consumer—down a gas pipe; or down a wire. As we get progress in these things, we shall find that more and more coal is used very near the point of origin, in the power stations on the coalfields, and that less and less is transported by British Railways (which I am afraid is going to produce a very grave problem) and less and less is delivered in wagons around the town. For instance, we already have a method by which a shop can be heated during the daytime by a stove filled with fire bricks, which is heated up by electric current delivered into it all night. Already, new blocks of flats are going up everywhere with electric under-floor heating. That is the pattern of the future. Coal is by no means finished, but the pattern of the distribution of coal is quite changed. Meanwhile the difficulty which Her Majesty's Government face, which is to keep this industry together and to prevent the retreat from becoming a demoralised rout, is being carried out, I submit, in about the only way it could be carried out.
4.14 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, like the last speaker I did not intend to say anything when I came here this afternoon; but this House is always very good in

767
considering these questions on a more or less non-political basis. Everyone realises that the trend in the two big nationalised industries of coal mining and railways is a trend downwards, and it is therefore up to all of us to be constructive in what we say in this House, on a non-political basis. There is one factor that none of us can control, and that is the weather. I think that the warm weather which, with small exceptions, we have had in the last few months, and that in the winter of 1958–59, is one of the causes of this enormous stock of coal which has not been sold. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mills, give the figure of £135 million worth of coal in stock. Of course, that figure postulates interest charges of £6 million or £7 million a year. If this were a privately-run business, it would be regarded as an extremely serious matter. As it is a big nationalised industry, it may not be so serious. On the other hand, it would be perfectly right for those in charge of that industry to regard it as most serious, and to dispose of those stocks, as they say on the Stock Exchange, "at best". They are far too big, even in the nationalised coal industry.
I was particularly interested to hear the question of smokeless zones mentioned, because I happen to be a director of a concern which produces smokeless fuel, though at present it is only a small quantity. I am very interested in this question of smokeless zones, because when a zone is declared a smokeless zone the inhabitants there may try to get smokeless solid fuel, and probably are not able to get enough of it. There are only a very few producers of smokeless solid fuel. The Coal Board has produced quite a lot of this smokeless solid fuel, but I believe that it has not been too successful. That being so, the user who wants
smokeless solid fuel cannot get it. He therefore turns to other forms of heating, such as electricity, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and is put off the use of smokeless solid fuel—which, of course, is very unfortunate for the National Coal Board and the other people producing smokeless solid fuel.
Another point is that the quality of the coal is often very bad, and that puts people off using it. If they have to pay
768
what is a comparatively high price for coal, and then find that they have coal of a bad quality, it turns them on to other forms of heating. I suggest that the scientific side of the Coal Board, and the side of the Coal Board which watches the quality of the coal, should exercise as much care as possible to see that coal is up to the quality it is supposed to reach. I have myself evidence of bad quality coal, and there is no doubt that a lot of very bad coal has been produced during the last few years. This particularly started, perhaps, during the war, when almost any coal which could be mined was used.
My Lords, there are one or two other points that I would mention. The first is that the two big nationalised industries, the railways and the coal mines, are so closely linked, particularly as regards transport, that I wonder whether it would not be possible for the railways to make a very special effort, in view of the present situation under which they are suffering, to try to transport coal efficiently—and, I may say, considerably more efficiently than they do now—and, if possible, at a lower cost. The concern of which I am a director sells roughly half its output by rail; the other half goes by road. That is largely because it is cheaper for our retailers to buy our smokeless fuel and take it by road; and also because of the inefficiency of the delivery of the railways, which means that the retailers and their consumers never know when they are going to have their coal delivered. That must militate against the use of coal by private individuals; and I think the two things are very closely identified.
There is only one other question I should like to speak about, and that is that one cannot help feeling that one has to look at both railways and coal mines as industries of great national importance. If they were purely privately owned, they would probably have gone into liquidation years ago. Therefore one has to look at them rather differently from the way one looks at private businesses. Nevertheless, I think that in both cases it is quite wrong to suggest throwing good money after bad, just because they are nationalised industries. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, with his great experience of private industry, will look at it in a reasonable way, and will not regard these industries as a

769
bottomless pit into which money has to be thrown—because that capital has to come from somewhere. If the railways or the mines were a private industry, the directors would go to the City to try to raise the money. It may well be that they would not be able to do so, because, frankly, the railways and mines are not particularly creditworthy organisations. But I hope that the Coal Board and Her Majesty's Government will realise that nationalised industries are not just a bottomless pit for capital for all time. On the other hand, this contraction must be done as carefully as possible so as not to throw more miners out of work than is necessary.
4.20 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene for one moment to make two points. I would apologise for not having put my name forward before. I do not expect the noble Lord to answer me straight away, but I think these are two disquieting points which are worth consideration. I wonder whether the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Scheme has ceased operation or is still proposing to spend high capital amounts on producing a relatively small amount of electricity and throwing a relatively small number of miners out of work. To-day, possibly the shortest thing in the world is capital. It is far shorter than it was fifteen years ago, when we all pushed forward with these hydro-electric schemes. To-day I reckon that they are not efficient, certainly not in their social results, and though one would not suggest halting them in their tracks I hope that no further commitments will be entered into which will only have the effect of reducing the demand for coal.
The other point is one on which I have addressed your Lordships before and on which no doubt I will address your Lordships again, as it is a point about which I am much concerned. The mines and the railways are large employers of labour. In only eighteen months or two years from now we shall have what is commonly known as "the bulge" of young school-leavers in greater quantities than we have at the present moment. The whole of industry is being requested to make its best effort to take on more young people and especially to train more young people. If the coal industry and the railway industry,
770
even in the difficult position in which they are at the present time, cannot take any part in this campaign, it will be disastrous, especially for the coal industry, because it is largely set in small districts and villages where there is little alternative employment. If it cuts off recruitment or slows it down, there will be nothing else for young people to do, just at the moment when this "bulge" is coming on us.
There is something more important than that. No industry can live if it does not have a proper supply of young people coming into it, even if it is contracting or re-arranging itself on another basis. If an industry has to contract, the proper place to contract is at the top end of the scale, by improved superannuation allowances and other arrangements of that sort. The worst possible method of contracting an industry is by cutting off the supply of young people coming into the industry and stopping their training. I would urge, as I expect I shall be urging many times in future, that over the next two or three years this should be a paramount question, and nationalised industries should be prepared, even in their difficult position, to play as great a, if not a greater, part as private industry in this matter.
4.24 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and useful debate. I am sorry about the absence of the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor and Lord Lawson, and of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. I am sure that they would have wished to take part in this debate. I have listened to them on more than one occasion and have always benefited by what they have had to say, because they spent their early lives in the industry and (I am happy to join the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in this tribute) they are representative of the kind of men one finds in the coal industry.
We had a partially friendly speech from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I say that it was partially friendly because he did welcome the Bill. I look on that as a friendly gesture. He gave the Government credit for backing the Coal Board in their method of dealing with the drop in demand, and for that I am grateful. But he was not wholly friendly. He blamed the Government for anything else

771
he could find. He blamed the Government for the recession in demand and for the recession in trade. He was very well answered, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who referred to the movement in world events. Lord Stonham did not give the Government any credit, as he might have done, for correcting the tendency to take out of the economy more than was being put into it; and the recession of trade was part of a world movement and not a deliberate action on the part of the Government to restrict the consumption of coal, as one might have gathered the noble Lord intended to convey.
The noble Lord said that the coal industry had not been subsidised, and with that I heartily agree. I do not think that the coal industry would wish to be subsidised. The industry did not wish for the necessity of importing coal at a high price, but it appears to me that that was the right way of dealing with the matter. After all, it is given the responsibility of supplying the community with the coal it requires and this was part of that supply.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I ask whether he would suggest that if there was an extreme shortage of any other commodity in private industry we should insist on that industry importing at a higher price and then bearing the cost of the loss?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that the answer to that is that that is really what does happen. We do not go short of many things and a good deal has to be imported at a higher price than we could produce here, and in just the same way as the Coal Board have dealt with the problem. The noble Lord referred to instructions given to the electricity industry in 1955. It was unfortunate that it became necessary to do that, but the Coal Board were quite right in saying that they could not guarantee a supply of coal necessary to feed an expanding power station industry. The instructions were necessary, otherwise we should have been blamed, if things had gone the other way, for not giving those instructions.
Nor is it right to say that only now has this problem been grasped. It was grasped the moment it became apparent
772
that coal was going to be in easier supply; it was grasped at the same time as I, as Minister of Power in those days, gave instructions to stop the import of coal. But it has taken time. There were firm contracts and some five stations. Four of them have been completely turned over to coal, and one partially. Nor will the process cease at the end of 1965, because oil stations will be taken out of the base loan and the reduction will go on. Negotiations are still continuing to see whether there is anything more we can do. As I have said on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House, the oil industry has behaved very well in this matter and I am sure will continue to do so. We should like to see more and more coal burnt at the oil stations.
The noble Lord referred to the criticisms of the Coal Board because it was a nationalised industry. I can assure him—and he can satisfy himself as to this—that there has been no Government criticism of the coal industry. The Government have worked hand in hand and very happily with the coal industry. Nor has there been any Government criticism of the mining fraternity. If the noble Lord will examine speeches that have been made by Government representatives, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, I am sure he will find nothing but praise for the miner. So far as I can, I will do anything in my power to dispel any feeling either that the coal industry or the men in it are not doing their job.
The noble Lord referred to the question of importing liquid methane gas. There have been a number of trial shipments, and there the matter stands for the present. It was intended that there should be these trial shipments for which the gas industry asked, before we considered whether any further use was to be made of this fuel. I think we should have been sadly lacking in our duty if we had refused to finance any exploration in this direction. It was an experiment that was worth carrying out, and it was our duty to carry it out irrespective of whether eventually that form of fuel would be used or not.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask whether his statement that "there the matter stands for the present" means that at least for the time being there is

773
no further intention to import liquid methane gas?
LORD MILLS: I will put it in this way: that there is no such proposal before the Government at this time. The noble Lord then asked why was there such a wide margin in putting down the expectation of requirement in 1965, and suggested that a margin of 1 million tons should be quite sufficient. This margin as worked out between the Coal Board and the Ministry of Power and it was the best assessment that could be made. The noble Lord will, I am sure, acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that I prefer that assessment to his statement that it is quite easy to set a figure within 1 million tons. But he went a little further and said: why could not the Government name a figure and stick to it? I think we all know what that means. The noble Lord is suggesting that the Government, if you like with the agreement of the Coal Board, should state a figure and then they should take any step which was necessary to see that that figure was used. In other words, it is the old story of dictating to the consumer what he shall use; and that is a policy—if it can be called a policy—which on more than one occasion I have announced the Government do not intend to adopt.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for his contribution. He said that we must accept the necessity for changes. I think that is true in this modern world—the pace is very great. But it does not mean that we have to accept the necessity for change and sit back and see an industry just decay. Nor are we doing that. I think an example of that was shown by the cotton industry; and another example, I suggest, is the coal industry. There has been a great deal of research and a great deal of effort to get the best use out of coal. In that connection, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned the question of smokeless fuel. This question has had great attention. The Board have had certain successes and they are now trying to bring them to a commercial level. The availability of smokeless fuel has been thoroughly examined by a committee appointed by the Government, because one of the necessary changes which we have to accept is the necessity for clean air.
774
Therefore smokeless fuel must be available to meet it, and the basis of that, of course, is coal. I, for one, am most happy to see the development that is taking place in that sphere.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked me about the loss represented by deterioration in coal stocks. I thought that I had dealt with that in my opening speech. I said that the loss in calorific value was about 1 per cent. per annum, but that there were other losses, such as breakages, and that the Board were taking account of those losses.
LORD HAWKE: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I believe that the general public would be greatly reassured if they could be given information about some dump which has been cleared: what was put on it; what was taken off it, and the final value. If the figures come out better than the allegations, the general public will be very much reassured.
LORD MILLS: If it will meet the noble Lord's convenience, I suggest that he should put down a Question on that point, and I will come prepared to answer it.
The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, put his finger on a very important matter to which I referred to in my opening remarks. That was the question of the warm weather we have experienced. I am not a weather prophet, nor can I guarantee that we shall not have more warm weather—in fact, speaking as a person I hope that we shall. But it was an unusual period and that, combined with the other movements, accentuated the difficulties of the Coal Board.
The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, also said that the extent of the stocks of coal unsold owned by the Coal Board would have been a serious matter had private industry been concerned. I should like to assure the noble Lord that it has been a serious matter for the Coal Board, and that they are fully conscious of the seriousness of it. But they had to weigh that consideration against the jobs of men. I think they took a courageous line—a line fully backed by the Government. I think the stocking has been well worth while, and I trust that the indications we see of a reduction of those stocks will be fulfilled. The noble Lord also referred to the question of the

775
railways and the necessity of trying to transport coal efficiently and economically by rail. I am glad to tell your Lordships that the British Transport Commission have had considerable success in persuading the Coal Board that they can carry coal on certain routes to certain places by rail more economically than by road. The figures show that transport by rail is going up.
I should like to say a word on a further remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket: that we must not look upon these nationalised industries, because they are owned by the public, as bottomless pits into which money has to be thrown. I wish the noble Lord could realise the anxiety of those responsible for these nationalised industries, and of Ministers, in regard to this matter. There is nothing done in directions requiring money about which Ministers do not concern themselves. It is public money that is being used. I think that on the whole it has been well used, and I can assure your Lordships that it is not granted without a thorough examination. A Bill of this kind is discussed fully and carefully, having regard to the proper need, and then framed accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, asked two questions. The first was about the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I can answer him only in one way. Can he give me any reason why the benefits of electricity should be denied to the people who live in the Highlands and Western Isles?
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I have no wish to deprive the Highlands or the Islands of the benefits of electricity. But the bulk of electricity produced in the Highlands is piped down to the Lowlands and to Northern England, where there is plenty of coal to produce electricity locally, rather than bringing it down from the Highlands.
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords; but in order to make the service as economic as possible we have to supply as much as possible. It is rather a noteworthy thing that there is no significant difference between the price at which you can get electricity in England and in the North of Scotland. On the whole, if you examine the accounts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board they do not make too bad a showing, considering what I call the large social service they undertake. I am glad the noble Lord talked about the necessity for training young people and providing them with employment, with particular reference to the children of those engaged in coal mining. It does present certain difficulties. The Coal Board have given much thought to this problem, because they realise that unless they are going to slip backwards—and they do not want to do that—they have to take in young people and train them thoroughly. I am sure they will be encouraged by the noble Lord's remarks.
My Lords, I have done my best to answer the various questions that were put to me. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, expressed the intention to support this Bill, and I now commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
4.48 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order). An Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.