Lords Sitting of 12 December 1967

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol

THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN
Charles Robert, Lord Bishop of Blackburn—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

TANZANIA: COMPENSATION FOR BRITISH CONCERNS
2.41 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: 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 are in a position to make a statement regarding the compensation to be paid by the Government of Tanzania to the various British-owned concerns that were nationalised by that Government in February of this year.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the Tanzanian Government have reached agreement on compensation with four of the British-owned concerns. Negotiations with the remainder, including the three banks, are still in progress.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer, but can Her Majesty's Government give an assurance that, before accepting a settlement, they will satisfy themselves that such compensation as is paid, is paid in some medium that is freely negotiable outside Tanzania?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it has been the wish of the companies concerned to undertake the negotiations with the Tanzanian Government themselves, and since those companies were nationalised, or partly taken over, no representa-
1004
tions have so far been made to Her Majesty's Government. However, as my noble friend Lord Beswick said earlier this year, Her Majesty's Government are always willing, should they be approached, to assist the companies.

SOLICITORS' DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
2.43 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: 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 they will state the number of cases in 1967 to date which have been submitted to the Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the Solicitors' (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1957; in how many of these cases solicitors were found to be guilty, and the number of cases submitted to the Committee which have arisen out of complaints of alleged unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct other than charges of embezzlement or failure to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1945–59.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I am informed that during the current year to date 46 applications from all sources against solicitors have been submitted to the Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Solicitors Act 1957. Of these 46 cases 21 were not concerned with defalcation or breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules. I understand that decisions have so far been given in 25 cases, and that in 17 the complaints were found to be justified.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. I do not wish to put a supplementary question.
LORD FOLEY: 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 their attention has been called to the statement by Sir Thomas Lund that the Law Society receive approximately ten thousand complaints each

1005
year concerning the conduct of solicitors; and whether they will state the number of cases in 1967 to date where the Law Society themselves have instituted proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the Solicitors' (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1957, the number of instances in such circumstances where solicitors have been acquitted; and the number of such cases pending.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the statement to which I believe the noble Lord refers mentions the receipt by the Law Society of roughly 200 complaints a week but adds that the vast majority are from people who appear to be mentally unbalanced or from clients seeking information about legal procedure or practice. I am informed that during the current year to date the Law Society have made 37 applications against solicitors to the Disciplinary Committee; that in no case in which the findings and order have been pronounced has a solicitor been exonerated, and that the results of the remaining 19 applications are not yet known.

SOUTH AFRICA: UNITED KINGDOM ARMS EMBARGO
2.46 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: 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 it is their intention to maintain the embargoes which they have imposed against exports to the Union of South Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, it is our intention to continue to consider all South African requests for equipment in the framework of the policy which we have been implementing since November, 1964.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in view of that Answer, which seems to indicate that the door is now ajar for the resumption of certain exports hitherto banned under the embargo, I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the estimated
1006
immediate cost of the arms embargo is in the region of £150 million sterling and that the long-term loss is incalculable, in terms both of money and of good will? In reconsidering this matter will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the enormous effect which these hundreds of millions of pounds will have upon our ability or otherwise to bring our balance of payments out of the red?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I should not like the noble Lord to think that the door is now in any different position from that in which it has been since 1964. But in answer to his question I can say that of course we bear in mind the factors he has mentioned. It is the policy of the Government to implement an arms embargo against South Africa in line with a series of United Nations resolutions. Of course, that must lead to a certain loss of trade, and this the Government are prepared to sustain.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our embargo, which was imposed at the end of 1964, has not had the slightest effect on the domestic policies of South Africa? And since we try to encourage the export of arms to other countries, such as China and Russia, which do not recognise human rights, what is the sense of maintaining such an embargo towards a country like South Africa, which could be of advantage to us in times of emergency?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not aware that there is any demonstrated proof of the effect which United Nations resolutions in regard to arms to South Africa has had on the policies, present or future, of that country. Furthermore, I think it right to point out that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the supply of arms about the world, but is merely to take part in the normal export of military equipment that takes place between certain States. As I have said, this is the subject of three quite clear United Nations resolutions, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government is in line with those.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord's answer to my supplementary question seems to contradict what

1007
he said in the original Answer, perhaps he would clear the matter up. I gathered from his original Answer that the Government were reconsidering the question of the embargo on arms exports to South Africa. His answer to my supplementary question would seem to make it quite clear that they are not. Perhaps he can clear up this point for me.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall be delighted to clear it up. There was no suggestion in my Answer to the noble Lord's original Question that anything is being reconsidered. Since 1964 we have considered all South Africa's requests for equipment, in line with the policy we adopted then, and we shall continue to do so. There is no change of policy.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, may we take it from that answer that there is a complete embargo on the supply of arms equipment of any sort to South Africa?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. I must beg the noble Lord not to oversimplify what is not a simple matter. The fact is that we operate an arms embargo against South Africa in accordance with, and in consequence of, the spirit and letter of a number of United Nations resolutions. This means that every request for equipment coming from South Africa is considered in the light of that policy. The noble Lord will know that there are certain other items of equipment which were the subject of agreement before the embargo was introduced and which we have supplied since 1964, and we shall continue to act in that way.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord said in answer to the Question that the Government are "continuing to consider," whereas at a later stage he said that they would reconsider. What is the difference between "continuing to consider" and to "reconsider"?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will do my best to clear up this matter. It has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government since 1964 to consider every request for arms equipment for South Africa in accordance with the policy adopted in 1964. We shall continue to do so. Therefore we are not reconsidering that policy.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord be able to clarify this matter? Since his reply stated that there has been no change in policy since 1964, and in view of the critical state of our national economy, does it not appear that it is now opportune to change from the plea, frequently stated, that moral principles are of more importance than employment to the population of this country? Further, would he not agree that the closing of the Suez Canal has changed the position a good deal? Should not South Africa, which is now permitting the passage of all ships to the West and to the East, be permitted to get from this country the arms which would enable her to carry out the mission which we are now imposing on her?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I fear I find myself in some confusion as a result of the noble Lord's question. The simple answer is that the Government do not consider that it is time to reconsider this policy, although we take into account the trade factors which the noble Lord has mentioned. So far as the Suez Canal is concerned, although this is, strictly speaking, outside the scope of this Question, I agree that the closing of the Canal has reinforced and underlined for us the importance of the Simonstown base facilities in South Africa which we continue to enjoy under an agreement with the South African Government. I fail to see how that has any effect on our policy of observing the United Nations call for an arms embargo on South Africa.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that before 1964 we prohibited the export of such weapons to South Africa as were likely to be used for the suppression of domestic riots, on the principle that we would not supply anything which could be used to suppress civil disturbances which might be caused by the apartheid policy? But does he not agree that our present wider ban on a much wider range of exports, which could not possibly be used for this purpose, is quite irrelevant?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot agree that there is any irrelevance. I am aware of the attempt that has been made to distinguish between arms and ammunition that can be used for the

1009
suppression of civil disturbances and those that cannot. I confess I find the distinction very difficult to make. Perhaps I could show to the noble Earl's satisfaction that there is no irrelevancy simply by quoting a few words from the Security Council resolution of June 18, 1964, in which the Security Council reaffirms its call upon all States
"To cease forthwith the sale and shipment to South Africa of arms and ammunition of all types, military vehicles and equipment and materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms and ammunition in South Africa."
I cannot see that our policy is at odds with that resolution.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway has several times attempted to speak. No one from this side has spoken. I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but I think it would be fair to let my noble friend make his point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was about to ask a point arising out of Lord Chalfont's last reply: whether the resolution he referred to is being implemented by France and other European countries.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it is for foreign countries themselves to decide their attitude to United Nations' resolutions. We have decided upon ours.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the United Nations' resolution was not adopted because of the system of apartheid in South Africa, to which all the civilised nations of the world are opposed and to which one thought all the Parties in this country were opposed; and whether it is not the fact that South Africa itself is engaged in a heavy rearmament programme and that it is desirable that our Government should refrain from participating in that, in view of the very dangerous situation which there is in South Africa?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can only say, in answer to my noble friend's question, that I think everyone, on all sides of this House, is aware of the reasons that lay behind the United Nations' resolutions of 1963 and 1964. I should expect that most noble Lords
1010
would be in sympathy with the spirit behind those resolutions and therefore with the Government's action in following policies that observe them. So far as the future policies of the South African Government are concerned, I think I can best answer my noble friend's question by saying that we intend to pursue the policy we are pursuing now.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, thank the noble Lord for his admission of a partial and limited change in circumstances, if I correctly understood him?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that that is not a question in the ordinary sense.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl the Leader of the House say that that was not a question? I was on the point of proceeding to a question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think to ask leave to thank a Government spokesman is not a question in the ordinary sense.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I appreciate the words of the noble Earl? I think it is unusual to ask the indulgence of the House to comment on the correction of a Minister; at least that is my experience. Without presuming to go against the Rules, may I say that the noble Lord, if I understood him correctly, said that it was for each member of the United Nations to make a choice. But surely other members of the United Nations are providing South Africa with some arms. Does he not now agree that it would be for the better if a change were made from moral principle to factual employment?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I really feel I must impose upon your Lordships for one moment simply to put the record absolutely straight. I do not accept the implication of the noble Lord's question, because I have not indicated any change of policy. I must make that quite clear to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a real question? Does he take into account in this matter the help which South Africa is giving to the illegal régime in Rhodesia?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that is outside the scope of the original Question. I would say that we take all relevant factors into consideration.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, we shall have an opportunity of reading Hansard to-morrow, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the answers he has given to-day will certainly lead to considerable confusion as to what is the Government's policy in regard to the export of arms to South Africa. We obviously cannot pursue it at the present time, but it will have to be pursued at a later date.

RHODESIA
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on Rhodesia.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill consolidating all or some of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920, the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1923, the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1935, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1938, the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1939, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949, the Crown Lessees (Protection of Sub-Tenants) Act 1952, the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the Rent Act 1957, the Housing Act 1957, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958, the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959, the New Towns Act 1959, the Landlord and Tenant (Furniture and Fittings) Act 1959, the Housing Act 1961, the London Government Act 1963, the Housing Act 1964, the Rent Act 1965, the Agriculture Act
1012
1967, and the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
My Lords, everything which increases the lawyer's time inevitably costs the client money, and this Bill, consolidating all the Rent Acts for 47 years, should be a boon and blessing to men. If your Lordships give it a Second Reading it will go in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships will recall that we had a most interesting, instructive, stimulating, and at times abstruse debate on Second Reading, and we fully explored the Title of the new permanent Summer Time. A change of this kind is, of course, bound to provoke many different opinions. But as I said in our earlier proceedings, the Government took particular care to obtain the views of all major sections of the community. We believe, and we have no reason to doubt, that the provisions in the Bill are generally acceptable. I freely admit that there will be certain disadvantages, and that some sections of the community may during the winter months find our new British Standard

1013
Time less welcome than others. We are sorry about that. But it is impossible to please everyone, and if we look at the community as a whole, as we must, I have no doubt that the change will be generally advantageous.
I should have been content to leave it at that, but it is within your Lordships' recollection that towards the end of the Committee stage three questions were addressed to me by noble Lords to which I undertook to give a reply at a later stage, and I should be most grateful for just a few moments of your Lordships' time to fulfil that obligation. First, I would reaffirm that under the Bill Greenwich Mean Time remains, as it began, the basic system of computation for astronomers, geographers and navigators.
In reply to the first question, I am glad to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that there is nothing in this Bill in any way to prevent the B.B.C. from continuing to use Greenwich Mean Time in their foreign service programmes. They will indeed be able to say in future, as they do now:
"This is 1800 hours Greenwich Mean Time in the B.B.C. World Service."
We can be proud of the pioneering work of British scientists and mathematicians in this field, but we should not allow ourselves to be so unscientific as to pretend that Greenwich' Mean Time is still the best system for the everyday purposes of a nation which is no longer primarily rural or seafaring. Surely, however, we may allow ourselves this amount of sentiment, that the name "British" should appear in the name of the new system that is being introduced; even though—and here I am answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—we understand that no other country in Western Europe uses its own name in the official description of the time on its clocks. This preference may be, as he said, "quaintly nationalistic" of us, but perhaps in a field to which Britain has contributed so greatly some small measure of national pride may be excused.
It only remains for me to fulfil my promise to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, to say something about the possible effects of the change on the electricity supply industry and its consumers. As your Lordships will know,
1014
there are two main daily peaks in the demand for electricity: the first in the early morning, around 8 a.m. in England and Wales, and the second in the late afternoon, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. At present, the afternoon peak demand is the higher of the two, and its load is therefore the main factor determining the amount of plant and equipment the Electricity Boards need to have.
It is difficult to assess precisely what effect the change to British Standard Time will have on the relative size of the two peaks; much will depend on whether there are any changes in living habits and the time of starting and stop-ping work. But the Ministry of Power and the electricity supply authorities have looked into this question most carefully, and have concluded that the afternoon peak may be a little lower and the morning peak a little higher than at present. The net effect will probably be that the morning peak will become the higher of the two—namely, the present position will be reversed—but only a little higher than the afternoon peak would have been had we stayed on Greenwich Mean Time. The industry's costs and the average price paid by electricity consumers should not therefore be affected significantly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, expressed concern about the effect of the change of British Standard Time on electricity tariffs for off-peak supplies. As your Lordships will know, off-peak electricity tariffs are available for use with storage appliances which take in heat only during the off-peak periods, especially the night, and then give it off gradually. The tariffs vary in some respects from one Area Board to another, and all Boards offer a choice of tariffs. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, read out his tariff during the Committee stage. As a rule, however, the electricity supply is switched on in the winter at between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, and switched off at 7 o'clock or 7.30 in the morning. Some off-peak tariffs also give a boost during the day, usually in the afternoon.
The Electricity Boards have not yet decided precisely how they will reflect the changing time in their tariffs. This will depend on the effect on the timing of the morning peak. The Boards will, in any case, consult the electricity consultative committees, who protect the interests of

1015
consumers, before making any significant changes. It is almost certain, however, that the change to British Standard Time will result in the morning peak falling rather earlier than at present relative to sunrise, and the Boards will therefore wish to restrict the use of off-peak tariffs for up to an hour earlier—that is 7 or 7.30 a.m. British Standard Time. But storage heaters give off the greatest amount of heat at the time that storage ceases in the morning, and thereafter continue to lose heat gradually throughout the day. Thus people dependent on these appliances for warmth will not be adversely affected by getting up earlier (going by the sun). Users of electricity for non-storage purposes—for example, farmers and horticulturists, about whom the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, inquired—who use electricity for lighting and power, are supplied under the Electricity Board's normal unrestricted tariffs, and will continue to receive their supplies as at present.
My Lords, in conclusion may I say that we have had a period of over 50 years of Summer Time of varying periods, and I am glad to think that this Bill will introduce complete stability, not only throughout the whole of each year but year by year. I am most grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House who have made their contribution to the debates. We did not expect unanimity, and we can respect—while disagreeing with—the views of those who do not agree with us. We have tried to approach this subject objectively and to explain fairly to the House the reasons that have swayed us in our decision. We recognise, and have appreciated, an equal fairness on the other side. I hope that at least all will agree that justice has been done to this small but important Bill, which I trust we shall now send forward to another place. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stonham.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have said all I want to say upon this Bill. I know that your Lordships have a good deal of legislative business ahead this afternoon, so I will content myself with thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the assurance
1016
which he gave me in Committee, and which I am sure he has mentally repeated to-day, that at the end of the first winter's experience of this new time the Government will enter into consultations to find out what has been the experience of the public, and particularly of interested bodies. The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, has taken the trouble to answer a number of specific questions put to him in Committee, and I should like to express my thanks to him.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I will not take up very much time, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the way in which he has answered most of the worries about off-peak tariffs. I accept that it will be impossible to gauge how the morning and evening peaks will go until we have some experience of how the new time will affect the way of life of the people, especially people in the North of Scotland, about whom I am principally concerned.
I am afraid I am still unhappy about his approach to off-peak tariffs. It is all very well to say that the supply authorities can supply or cannot supply. The fact is that consumers have purchased storage type heating equipment whose greatest efficiency is when the power is switched off, and it then falls away until the power comes on again. It is for that reason that I pointed out that the time when the power is switched off is' going to be one hour more before dawn than it used to be. For that reason, it means that this thermal storage apparatus will be less efficient than was the case when the contracts were entered into between the consumer and the supply authorities. It is correct to say that there is a choice of tariffs, but none of the choices may be acceptable in terms of the machines purchased by the consumer. I will not say more, since this matter has been well discussed, and what we have been saying here will give something for the other place to bite upon: but the fact is that a good deal remains to be considered in relation to the position of the off-peak consumer in the light of the change of time.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for answering the specific question I put to him on the last occasion, and perhaps ask him one more question that arises out of a letter that a correspondent has written to me?

1017
I am told that at present, during the winter, we supply power to France during their morning peak hour, and France supplies power to us during our morning peak hour. What happens when they occur at the same time?
3.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should like to make one point which I do not think has been fully brought out. I will be brief. I refer to the question of the heavy rush-hour traffic in the morning between 8 and 9 o'clock, which is the first hour after sunrise and will become the last hour before sunrise. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has told us more than once, and again yesterday in answer to a Starred Question by me, that, though there will be an increased risk in the early mornings, this will be counter-balanced
"because we cannot ignore the effect at the other end of the day when the period of higher traffic flow will be advanced from the dark into the daylight."—[0EpicIAL REPORT, 11/12/67, col. 854.]
I have viewed this argument with some suspicion from the beginning, but I have taken police advice before asserting that I believe the noble Lord is wrong. How is the higher traffic flow to be advanced into the daylight unless it now runs in the hour which immediately follows lighting-up time? It does not do this, because lighting-up time is at 4.30 p.m., and the main traffic hour—the rush hour—is from 5.30 to 6.30, with a preliminary build-up period of half-an-hour, say, from 5 to 5.30. Under the Bill the winter lighting-up time in the midde of winter will be at about 5.30. That is the beginning of the rush hour, and the whole of the evening rush hour will therefore still take place after nightfall. In other words, the heavy traffic in the evening will still run in the dark as it does now.
Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the volume of traffic is greater, I am told, in the evening than in the morning, being augmented by a good many other motorists—returning shoppers, for example—who are not involved in the morning rush to work. That is what I am advised by the Chief Con-table of West Sussex, who also reports that the traffic accident rate is higher in the evening than in the morning. The high accident rate of the evening rush hour will therefore be maintained, while
1018
the high accident rate of the morning rush hour will be moved into the dark. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself has said, there will be more accidents in the morning. I think that the net result will be more traffic accidents, and not fewer.
The Minister also said yesterday [col. 854]:
"It appears that, taking morning and evening together, there will be more travel in daylight and less in the dark than at present under Greenwich Mean Time …"
It requires a minimum of reflection to see that, since the heavy, dark traffic is increased at one end of the day and not decreased at the other, while the number of daylight hours remains the same, the reverse must be the case, and more traffic will in fact run in the dark and not in the light. I refer only to that part of England on which the effect of the Bill will be felt most lightly. Others more closely concerned have spoken most eloquently on the effect in the northern and western counties, over whose mornings the Celtic twilight will be drawn like widow's weeds, and I leave that to them. For myself, I wish to put forward no more awkwardness towards this Bill, which I wish well, and with, I am sure, the rest of the noble Lords I will go forward in the words of the poet, Browning:
"Into a darkness quieted by hope."
My Lords, I wish you a Happy New Year—in 1969.
3.21 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if, by leave, I may very briefly answer the three points which have been raised, I should like to deal first with that put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. He said that the time when the power is switched off is going to be one hour more before dawn than it used to be—that is quite true—and that it will therefore be less efficient in terms of effusion of stored heat. The second part of his allegation I do not accept, for the reason that most people will be getting up one hour more before dawn than they do now. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. If a man has to get to work at 8 o'clock, he gets to work at 8 o'clock by the clock and not by the sun. Therefore, if the time is advanced by one hour, accepting what the noble Lord said first

1019
of all, the man will be getting up one hour more before the dawn in winter, and in order to meet that—because the morning peak demand will have shifted in relation to the sun, and therefore the time of storage will also have shifted—he will still be getting his heat at the right time.
One of the delights of the present Bill is that I have had the pleasure of a letter from Sir Alan Herbert which I think anyone would store among his literary treasures, so all has not been lost. So also with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who as usual put a very skilful question. The noble Lord said that at present during the winter we supply power to France during their morning peak, and that they supply power to us during our morning peak. He asked: What happens when both peaks are at the same time? Of course, my earlier answer covered this point. I have assured your Lordships that, in our view, our preparations for the supply will be adequate next winter to take the rather higher peak demand in the morning, and that therefore we shall no longer need, as it were, to take in the washing of France and to have them taking in ours.
The final point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who received my arguments about traffic accidents with some suspicion because he thought they were not true. I naturally reject that allegation. The noble Earl said that the main traffic hour is from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., and in his view it just was not true to say that there would be more daylight travel than there is at present under Greenwich Mean Time in winter. The noble Earl cannot go in the face of facts. It is quite true that we expect rather more accidents during the morning peak hours than there are at present. But, equally, we expect that that will be more than compensated for by the fewer accidents during the early evening peak hours.
With all respect to the views of the Chief Constable of West Sussex—and I pay great respect to him, because I know the Chief Constable—he would not suggest, and I would not accept, that experience there is typical of the whole country. I would ask the noble Earl to place confidence in the suggestion which was made by his noble friend Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, which I accept. We are going to
1020
try this out. We shall have continuous records and research into it based on our experience, and if the Government's prognostications are not borne out by the facts we shall just have to think again.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, following the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord Conesford, if we are to do without the help of France, may I ask whether France has been consulted and is able to do without our help?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is a question the second part of which I cannot answer without notice. But I can assure the noble Baroness that in a great many fields we are going to do without the help of France.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In considering the Bill, it is essential to discuss the White Paper Fuel Policy, which is its foundation. It has been said that the White Paper has been withdrawn. That is not so. It stands as a statement of the Government's fuel policy in the round. My right honourable friend the Minister of Power is re-examining some of the figures in the light of devaluation, but the pattern of demand for the different fuels is not likely to be more than marginally affected.
The Bill rests on two indisputable facts. First, in Britain, as in every other industrialised country in Western Europe, coal is losing ground to other forms of fuel. Secondly, the men in the coal industry, which has so long been a mainstay of our economy, are entitled to fair treatment. In very compressed form, the

1021
Bill reflects the changes which are occurring in the fuel industries—the technological changes in the coal industry which reduce its need for men, and the changing balance between the fuels. The story is told in terms of the price which the community must pay to minimise the economic and social consequences of these changes. The extent of the change is indicated by the White Paper estimate of the percentage of total fuel consumption which will be supplied by the four main fuels.
May I take them one by one? This year, on an estimate based on the first nine months of the year, coal will supply 55 per cent. of our fuel requirements. In 1975 that will fall to 34 per cent. of our total, enlarged requirement. This year oil is supplying 40 per cent. of our total needs; in 1975 it will supply 41·5 per cent. This year nuclear energy and hydro-electricity are supplying 4 per cent.; in 1975 that will increase to 10 per cent. of our total needs. This year natural gas is supplying 1 per cent.; in 1975, it is expected, it will be supplying 14·5 per cent. These figures indicate a continuing decline in demand for coal and virtual stabilisation of oil's proportion, with the newer fuels, nuclear power and natural gas, taking up growing proportions and in 1975 supplying together perhaps as much as a quarter of all our energy requirements.
No one anxious for our future prosperity would regret the advent of North Sea gas and the development of nuclear power. They are under our own control, and have only a modest element of foreign exchange costs. Moreover, on present evidence they will make possible the reduction in the overall cost of energy which is essential if we are to compete successfully in world markets. If we spurned the North Sea bounty, or neglected to develop the miracles wrought by nuclear scientists, we should be abdicating our position as a leading industrial nation and abandoning hope of maintaining, let alone advancing, the living standards of our people.
High fuel costs in Britain, even though they might cut fuel imports, would mean a net loss to our balance of payments if we lost markets for our manufactures overseas because we could not compete with competitors who have access to cheaper fuels. Oil imports cost this country a lot in foreign exchange.
1022
In 1965 the net cost to our balance of payments, after taking credit for the value of oil exports, was about £300 million. The difference between this figure and the cost of oil shown in the trade accounts is accounted for by the use of British tankers, inward investment of foreign companies and the costs and revenue from British companies arising or accruing to the United Kingdom. In addition, of course, overseas oil business brings further benefits to our balance of payments. Nevertheless, we have to find a substantial sum in foreign exchange to pay for our oil, although with the growth of refining capacity, the reduced rate of expansion in oil use and the changing proportion of the various oil products, the net import of fuel oil, which is now falling, should in the foreseeable future turn into a net export.
It is true that until now the main challenge to coal has come from oil, and, despite the protection of an oil tax of 2·2 pence per gallon, the use of oil has grown from 15 per cent. of our total fuel requirements in 1957 to the 37½ per cent. which it reached last year—a 2½ times increase in ten years. It is now running, at about 40 per cent., but with the introduction of North Sea gas and the advent of economic nuclear power the fast expansion of oil will be sharply checked. As I have said, on the White Paper trends the present 40 per cent. will rise to only about 411 per cent. over the next eight years. The fact that only 40 per cent. of our energy sector is supplied by oil compares very favourably with the state of affairs in most industrialised countries. In Italy, oil supplies are 61½ per cent. of total requirements, and, in Japan, 60 per cent.
The total of oil imports is sometimes quoted as if it were all competitive with indigenous fuels. But for many other purposes there is no alternative to oil. In fact, over 40 per cent. of current oil demand arises from non-fuel uses of oil. In ten years the number of cars on the road has increased from 4 million to 12 million. Oil is also extensively used in the production of synthetic fibres, rubbers, detergents, paint, fertilisers and weed killers, and many other manufactured and exportable products. Of course, energy supplies must be reasonably secure, and undoubtedly international problems could be a threat. There is,

1023
however, a growing surplus of oil and a steadily increasing diversification of world sources.
My Lords, I thought it necessary to set out briefly the position of alternatives to coal, our only fuel with no foreign exchange content, because they are both the explanation and the cause of the present and future position of coal. It is a fact which must be faced; a fact which could not have been avoided and cannot be changed. Consumers have expressed a choice, and it is not realistic to expect manufacturers to rip out oil-burning installations and substitute coal-fired ones. The White Paper tackles and attempts to answer the question: with coal, where do we go from here? It looks at the likely pattern of demand up to 1975, and I must firmly declare that no one knows what the position will be in 1980—and it would be less than honest for anyone to pretend that he does know.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend give way for a moment? If, under the econometric system—that is the present trends of fuel consumption—it can be taken up to 1975, why can it not be taken up to 1980?
LORD STONHAM: Because anyone who has read the White Paper—and I know that my noble friend has read the White Paper very carefully—must be aware that there are a great many assumptions on which the present estimates are based. Anyone who has any knowledge of the assumptions and forecasts which have been made in the past knows how foolish it is—indeed, it is quite wrong—to go so far forward and make assumptions on the basis of wholly unsound evidence, if such evidence exists. Over the last twenty years there have been many expert estimates of our future coal requirements, all of them carefully thought out and well-meaning, and all of them over-optimistic. In 1952 Lord Ridley's Committee forecast a forward requirement at the end of the 'fifties of 240 million tons of coal a year. In the event, they were some 40 million tons out—nearly 17 per cent.
My Lords, it will be within your Lordships' knowledge that a Statement has to be made, and many of your Lordships who are very interested in that Statement have other pressing and important engage-
1024
ments which you have to attend. I therefore hope it will accord with your Lordships' wishes if at this stage I postpone the remainder of my speech and ask leave to resume after the Statement has been made and discussed.

RHODESIA: MR. IAN SMITH'S PROPOSALS
3.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I will now repeat a Statement about Rhodesia that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary. I will use his own words:
"On 14th November I gave the House a report on my visit to Rhodesia. As I said then, Mr. Smith and I agreed in Salisbury that we should consult with our colleagues and reflect on our positions. This Her Majesty's Government have now done. I promised to make a full statement as soon as we had considered all the implications and I am grateful to the House of the indulgence which it has shown in not pressing for detail. I feel that the time has now come when the House should know the full position, especially since there has been a widely observed contradiction between my statement that the talks revealed new and fundamental divergence and Mr. Smith's public assertion that there is no great difference between us. I think that the facts should now be known so that the House can judge for itself.
"During our ten hours of talks in Salisbury Mr. Smith proposed a number of changes in the draft Constitution worked out on board H.M.S. 'Tiger' Since the details are lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I should like to try to summarise their more important features.
"Put simply the most important effect of Mr. Smith's changes would be to remove the safeguards provided by the 'Tiger' arrangements against what the Second Principle called retrogressive amendment of the Constitution. The main change he proposed was that all the African members of the Senate should be Chiefs. This would mean that African elected representatives would no longer have it in their power

1025
to block amendments which would weaken the protection given to Africans against discriminatory legislation or place obstacles in the way of progress to majority rule. In other words there would not be enough of them to make up a 'blocking quarter'.
"I fully recognise the important place of Chiefs in African society. But in good conscience I could no more accept the Chiefs now as the proper guardians of African political rights than the right honourable gentleman opposite could accept the Chiefly Indaba as representatives of African opinion as a whole in October, 1964. Moreover it must be recognised that the Chiefs are dependent on the Rhodesian authorities for their pay and allowances, and in the last analysis for their appointment or dismissal.
"Because of its implications for the procedure for constitutional amendment, this proposal for a change in the composition of the Senate is a fundamental one. In addition to this Mr. Smith went on to press for the removal of a further safeguard proposed in the 'Tiger' discussions. This was the safeguard providing that amendments to the Specially Entrenched provisions should be more subject to appeal to a Constitutional Commission consisting of the Rhodesian Chief Justice and other judges, with the further right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Smith wished to drop this safeguard.
"As the House will realise, the changes I have mentioned so far run directly counter to both the First and Second of our Principles—that there should be guarantees both of unimpeded progress to majority rule and against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.
"Mr. Smith further proposed the abolition of the system of cross-voting embodied in the 1961 Constitution and a reduction as compared with the 'Tiger' arrangements, in the number of B Roll African seats. These proposals would derogate from the Third Principle, which calls for immediate improvement in the political status of the African population, and would also substantially delay progress towards majority rule.
1026
"Mr. Smith made certain other suggestions about the Constitution. As these were put to me they do not necessarily involve fundamental departures from the Six Principles and I indicated that we should be very ready to consider them if a general settlement were in prospect.
"To sum up, it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that the main changes I have described are fundamentally incompatible with the essential Principles agreed by both sides of the House. They could not therefore form the basis for discussion of a possible settlement which could honourably be commended to Parliament. This is what I gave Mr. Smith in Salisbury as my own immediate reaction. I have now confirmed it to him as the considered view of Her Majesty's Government and have expressed the hope that he will reconsider the position which he took up during our talks. Failing this the House will understand that we have no alternative but to pursue the policy of sanctions in conjunction with the United Nations. Meanwhile, we stand by our pledges to the Commonwealth, including, of course, our declaration on NIBMAR.
"I refuse to despair of the régime's recognising the dead end into which they are leading Rhodesia Four our part we are certainly not going to slam any doors. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to discuss any proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia that are consistent with principles to which both sides of the House are committed."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following are the details of Mr. Smith's proposals for changes in the draft Constitution worked out in H.M.S. "Tiger":
The proposals put to the Commonwealth Secretary by Mr. Ian Smith at their talks in Salisbury on November 9, 1967, for the amendment of the constitutional proposals in Part I of the "Tiger" Working Document (Cmnd. 3171, pages 87 and 88) were as follows:
Composition of the Legislature
2. Paragraph 2 of the Working Document provided for a Legislature consisting of two Houses, composed as follows:
Legislative Assembly
33 "A" Roll Seats
17 "B" Roll Scats
17 Reserved European Seats.
Senate
12 Europeans (elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll)
8 Africans (elected by Africans on the "A" and "B" Rolls voting together)
6 Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council).
3. Paragraph 8 of the Working Document provided that the Specially Entrenched provisions of the proposed Constitution should require a vote of at least three-quarters of the total membership of both Houses voting together. The total membership of both Houses together would be 93, three-quarters of which would be 70 (to the nearest whole number), so that a proposed amendment would fail to be carried if 24 members refused to support it. The 17 "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly could be assumed to be filled by Africans or persons acceptable to Africans as their representatives, and together with these members the 8 elected African members of the Senate would supply a total of 25 elected representatives of Africans, i.e., one more than the minimum "blocking quarter" of the total membership of both Houses together required to prevent amendments of Specially Entrenched provisions.
4. On November 9 Mr. Smith pressed for all the African members of the Senate to be Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council). At the same time he said that he would wish the numbers of members in the various categories in the two Houses to be altered as follows:
Legislative Assembly

35 "A" Roll Seats (instead of 33)

15 "B" Roll Seats (instead of 17)

15 Reserved European Seats (instead of 17)

Senate

12 Europeans (no change)

0 Elected Africans (instead of 8)

12 Chiefs (instead of 6).

The total membership of both Houses together would then be 89. The number required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision would be 67, and the number required for the "blocking quarter" would be 23. Against this number, the Africans' elected representatives would be able to count on supplying only the 15 elected to the "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly, unless and until Africans were elected to "A" Roll seats. Eight "A" Roll seats would have to be won before the "blocking quarter" could be made up of the Africans' elected representatives.
5. It should also be noted that, under the changes proposed by Mr. Smith, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly which could be counted on as returning the Africans' elected representatives from the start would be reduced from 17 to 15, while the number of seats likely to be held by Europeans, at least to begin with, would remain unchanged at 50.
Constitutional Appeals
6. Paragraph 8 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that, in addition to the
1028
three-quarters majority of the total membership of both Houses together required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision, there should also be a system of appeal against such an amendment. Such an appeal would lie in the first instance to a Constitutional Commission in Rhodesia, consisting of the Chief Justice and other judges: with further appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
7. Mr. Smith said on November 9 that this system of appeals was objectionable in principle and should be dropped.
8. Quite apart from his objections in principle, he had the following objections of detail to the proposed machinery for the appeals and to the formulation of the permitted grounds of appeal:

(a) the Working Document provided that amendments subject to appeal should not come into force until the time for appeal had expired or the appeal had been finally disposed of. He objected to the delay which this would cause to the commencement even of legislation eventually held to be unobjectionable. In offering to consider whether it would be possible to meet Mr. Smith on this point, the Commonwealth Secretary reminded him that the "Tiger" discussions had envisaged arrangements for the rapid disposal of these cases and for summary rejection of frivolous or vexatious appeals;

(b) the Working Document provided that an appeal might be brought on the ground that the amendment in question "discriminates unjustly or has the effect of discriminating unjustly between the races …". Mr. Smith objected to the phrase "or has the effect of …" on the ground that it greatly widened the scope of the provision and was in fact contrary to what had been agreed in the "Tiger". The Commonwealth Secretary said that he was advised that the account of the relevant discussion on page 81 of Cmnd. 3171 was accurate: he commented that this appeared to be a drafting point which could be left to be settled by the constitutional draftsmen;

(c) the other permitted ground of appeal was that the amendment in question "contravenes any of the provisions of the Declaration of Rights contained in the Constitution". Mr. Smith objected that this would have the effect of making it impossible to amend the Declaration of Rights. The Commonwealth Secretary replied that the reference was clearly intended to be not to each and every amendment affecting the Declaration of Rights, but only to those held by the Courts to derogate from its fundamental principles.

Cross-Voting
9. The 1961 Constitution provides for the country to be divided into 50 "constituencies" (to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "A" Roll voters) and 15 "electoral districts".(to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "B" Roll voters). All the voters in a constituency or an electoral district, whichever Roll they are on, can vote in

1029
elections in that constituency or electoral district; but in a constituency in which there are more than one-quarter as many votes cast by voters on the "B" Roll as by voters on the "A" Roll, the number of "B" Roll votes received by each candidate is to be reduced proportionately so that the total number of "B" Roll votes received is equal to one-quarter of the "A" Roll votes received: and vice versa in the electoral districts.
10. This system is known as cross-voting, and serves to give "B" Roll voters an influence in the election of members from the (primarily "A" Roll) constituencies, and likewise "A" Roll voters an influence in the election of candidates from the (primarily "B" Roll) electoral districts.
11. The "Tiger" Working Document provided for this system of cross-voting to continue. Mr. Smith proposed on 9 November that it should be abandoned, so that "B" Roll electors would vote only for the "B" Roll seats, for which "A" Roll electors would not vote.
12. In addition to pressing for the abolition of cross-voting (see paragraph 11 above) Mr. Smith pointed out that it was presumably a slip for paragraph 3 of the "Tiger" Working Document to say that cross-voting would be applied to "all seats", since some seats were expressly described as to be elected by voters of a specified community and on a specified Roll: thus, the 12 European seats in the Senate were to be elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll. It was agreed that the clear intention was that cross-voting should be applied only to the "A" Roll and "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly.
Delimitation Commission
13. Paragraph 4 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that alterations in the composition of both Houses and in the number of seats should be effected by the Special Entrenchment procedure; it also provided for the incorporation in the Delimitation Commission's terms of reference of an agreed formula regarding the Commission's "over-riding objective" in dividing the constituencies. Mr. Smith argued on 9 November that it was not right—and had not in fact been agreed in the "Tiger"—that both the "agreed formula" and Section 37 of the Constitution should be made Specially Entrenched provisions. It was agreed that this question would require further legal study if sufficient progress were made on other points to justify it.
3.45 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating that Statement, and grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for breaking off, as it were, in mid-stream. This is a very long, serious and detailed Statement, and the House has not of course yet seen—none of us has seen—the annex to be attached to the OFFICIAL REPORT which goes in detail into Mr. Smith's proposals for alter-
1030
ations to the "Tiger" draft Constitution. Therefore I do not think it wise at this moment to comment on the Statement or on the merits or otherwise of the Government position. But I would ask two questions purely for information.
First, are the Government expecting, having communicated with Mr. Smith, that he is going to answer them? And if he does, are they going to propose some other form of conference, or are they just going to leave the situation as it now is? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord what exactly is meant by his words "to pursue the policy of sanctions in conjunction with the United Nations"? Does that mean a continuation of the existing sanctions; or does it mean an intensification?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I, too, should like to express our gratitude to both noble Lords, the one for making the Statement and the other for his courtesy in breaking off his speech. I am sorry that I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in all he said. I agree that this is an important Statement; but surely it calls for immediate reaction. I would say that Mr. Smith must be living in Cloud Cuckoo-land if rte thinks that those who believe in democracy could really leave the protection of the Africans in the hands of the African Chiefs paid, nominated, appointed and dismissed by the illegal régime. Quite frankly, I should think this country completely unworthy if we did not insist on safeguards for the Africans in Rodesia. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, one particular question? Under the Smith proposals—I have not quite understood them—how many elected Africans would there be in the Senate? As I understand it, if Mr. Smith's proposals were adopted, it would put the blocking quarter completely on one side.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right in saying that this is a very serious Statement. I share the view of my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary that, even though we realise there is more dividing us now than there was some months ago, we should not slam the door. But I must be frank I think that unless Mr. Smith and his colleagues clearly come back to the position most of us understood them to be in at the end of the "Tiger" talks

1031
—that they accepted the Principles of the Constitution—I can myself see little hope of being able to open discussions, at least on a formal basis. Clearly, if Mr. Smith, through the Governor, wishes to convey to Her Majesty's Government any message, we shall, of course, be only too ready to accept it.
With regard to sanctions, the obligations that we have to the United Nations and to the Commonwealth require us, with others, to maintain the present sanctions. As to intensification, it is not for me to anticipate; but clearly this is a matter that the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee would wish to consider.
To the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would explain the effect of Mr. Smith's proposals, and others, that the Senate should now consist of African Chiefs, in this way. Under the "Tiger" Agreement it was agreed (in fact I think Mr. Smith himself suggested it) that there should be 8 elected Africans and 6 Chiefs, and that the Europeans should have 12 seats in the Senate. Under the "Tiger" Constitution there were to be 17 elected African representatives from the "B" Roll and 17 European reserved seats, with 33 on the "A" Roll, which is predominantly European. Mr. Smith's suggestion to us is that there should be no elected Africans in the Senate; that the entire Senate should consist of 12 Chiefs and 12 Europeans. He further suggests that the elected membership of the Legislature, instead of being 17, should be reduced to 15, and that the European reserved seats again should be reduced from 17 to 15; but that the number on the "A" roll, which also is predominantly European, should be increased from 33 to 35.
This clearly means, my Lords, that under the "Tiger" proposals (which, as I understand it, and I think as the House believes, Mr. Smith accepted in principle) there would have been a blocking vote of 25 African Members of Parliament, both in the Legislature and in the Senate. Under Mr. Smith's present proposals there would be only 15 elected Africans. Clearly, therefore, the blocking mechanism, which all of us for many years and through successive Governments have felt to be necessary to ensure progressive African advance, would have completely disappeared. This is one of the reasons
1032
why Mr. Smith must move back to the "Tiger" position before there can be useful talks.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may I ask whether an early opportunity will be given for a debate in this House on which we may raise the broader issues? May I ask, in the meantime, while endorsing all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whether this Statement does not prove that the Smith administration is opposed to any changes which are likely to bring about majority rule in Southern Rhodesia? Finally, my Lords, may I ask how soon the Sanctions Committee are going to make recommendations regarding the intensification of sanctions; because unless Lourenço Marques is closed, and the nations which have voted for the U.N. resolution carry it out, sanctions are not likely to be effective for a considerable time.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with regard to a debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, well knows, there are the usual means of discussion through the usual channels. If there were a feeling for art urgent debate then, of course, this could be arranged. But perhaps I may put this suggestion. This is an important Statement, and the Government, as the Statement indicates, have not slammed the door. I still have hope, and therefore my whole instinct is that it would be better—if your Lordships' House were to think the same way—if the matter could perhaps be left until after Christmas.
With regard to sanctions, clearly they have not brought the régime down. Nevertheless, they have had a very significant effect upon the economy of Rhodesia. The economic growth of that country has now stopped, and this is a very serious matter. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many in Rhodesia who are gravely perturbed and disturbed about the economic future of Rhodesia with sanctions in force.
I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in the strictures that he made on the Smith régime. I may have very strong feelings which may not be very different from those of the noble Lord, but clearly this is not the occasion when I should deliver them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that I am afraid there are many people in this country who are living in Cloud Cuckoo-land over Rhodesia? Is he also aware that the present Commonwealth Secretary is a very sensible man; and if it is the case that the door is not slammed, as we all hope, may we be allowed also to hope that the Commonwealth Secretary will be permitted a free hand in the use of common sense?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have had many Commonwealth Secretaries since Rhodesia became a problem (I well remember the debates when the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was a member of a previous Government) and all the Commonwealth Secretaries felt, regarding the position of all the emerging countries, that whatever was done and whatever Constitution was imposed, it should be done with the free will and acceptance of the people of the land concerned. My Lords, all the Commonwealth Secretaries have used great flexibility and understanding. I thank the noble Earl for his remarks about my right honourable friend the present Commonwealth Secretary. He feels as passionately about the principles involved here as any previous Commonwealth Secretary.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, there are many others in this House besides myself who, over the long years, have heard crises discussed. Admittedly, this is a relatively small crisis, compared with others that we have heard about. I am sure that we all take encouragement from the reiterated assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the door is left open, though in earlier words he feared that no settlement was in prospect. Would it not be natural that thought should be given to the belief of many (and this must apply throughout the country) that if a settlement now is not reasonably sure in prospect, further negotiations would be essential? Emphasis was put by the noble Lord on the other side of making the concessions, and we must be forgiven if many think of the situation as negotiable, hoping that negotiation, with good will on both sides, may bring some result. But the noble Lord, in answering my noble Leader, was not able to give any indication of what would happen if negotiations did
1034
not give any results. May I therefore now ask him this question? In that kind of stalemate, will the Government not give any heed to the words attributed in the Press recently to Sir Roy Welensky, a very experienced statesman on Africa, who said bluntly two things—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I might say—probably the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will understand—that we were in the middle of a speech by my noble friend Lord Stonham, and if it were possible to allow him to continue his speech, I am sure it would be to the convenience of your Lordships' House.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, I was coming to the question I was asking: first, that the Government is firmly seated, and secondly, that sanctions will not succeed. The noble Lord suggested that we should wait until after Recess, which is towards the end of January, before having a debate. All I am asking the noble Lord is whether any encouragement can be given as to further negotiations.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask a slightly different question. Do Her Majesty's Government think that by continuing to pursue a policy vis-à-vis Rhodesia which, in the noble Lord's own words, is really leading to a dead end, and also by continuing to assume their present policies with regard to exports to South Africa, both of which are costing hundreds of millions of pounds in balance of payments at a time when the Government are exhorting everybody to make sacrifices to export, they will be able to avoid the second devaluation which is already being talked about at home and abroad?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view. He will well understand that we do not share it in the slightest. One characteristic I like about the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is his extraordinary persistence. I will look carefully at what he has said. I hope that the House will share with me the view that while this is an important matter, we have broken into my noble friend's speech and we should leave this subject to-clay. No doubt if your Lordships wish to have a debate—though I caution that it would be better after

1035
Christmas—we could so arrange it through the usual channels.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether, if this had been a black régime in default instead of white, it would have had such commiseration from the Opposition Benches?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if sanctions are to continue, would the Government consider looking into the cases of those, particularly ex-Servicemen who have resources, homes and families in this country, to whom the sanctions now apply? These have gone on for some time now and the effect on these men is most onerous and in many cases quite Gilbertian in its application. I can give the noble Lord an instance or two affecting ex-Servicemen, if he would care to have them.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
4.3 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I interrupted my speech, by leave of the House, to allow the House to discuss a matter of great importance, and I hope your Lordships will agree that we should now resume the debate on another matter of great importance to the people of this country and of particular importance to the miners of this country. I was saying that over the last twenty years there have been many expert estimates of our future coal requirements, all of them carefully thought out and well-meaning and all of them obviously wrong. The Ridley Committee forecast the forward requirement of coal to be 240 million tons of coal at the end of the 1950s. They were 40 million tons out. In 1952 that self-acknowledged expert, Sir Gerald Nabarro, wrote a book, in which he said:
"If present methods continue we shall need by 1960 an aggregate of 284 million tons."
The actual coal output in 1960 was 194 million tons. Present methods did not continue. With fuel they seldom do.
In fact, before this Government came to power no attempt was made to establish in the round and correlate the trends in fuel use. In the White Paper, taking into account all that is at present known
1036
and can be reasonably foreseen, my right honourable friend has made forecasts of our total future fuel requirements in 1970 and 1975 and the proportions of the total likely to be supplied by oil, coal, nuclear energy and natural gas. These assessments are not fixed and immutable. They are not targets, but an indication of trends. They will be continuously reviewed as circumstances change—as they undoubtedly will. On this point, paragraph 6 of the White Paper sets out the position fairly, clearly and honestly. The precise level of coal demand in the 1970s will depend on the degree to which productivity of the coal mining industry can be further improved and costs brought down. We shall all be delighted if the industry can improve on the White Paper estimates.
Meanwhile, in order to control the probable run-down in the period up to March, 1971, we are providing in this Bill for the cost of a further deliberate distortion of market trends and the social consequences of inevitable pit closures and redundancies. I mentioned distortion of market trends in favour of the coal industry. This has been going on for some time with a virtual prohibition of coal imports, the oil tax and special preference for coal at power stations which is adding to the costs of the electricity industry. Despite these measures, it was estimated that demand for coal would fall from the current rate of 166 million tons to 149 million tons in 1970. But this year production has been running at about 10 million tons higher than demand, and stocks have been rising steadily. To bring production into balance with a demand of 149 million tons in 1970 would have entailed an unacceptably high rate of manpower rundown. The Government have accepted the advice of the National Coal Board that an annual rate of rundown of 35,000 men a year would be manageable for the industry. On this basis, coal production in 1970 might be as much as 155 million tons. This would be some 6 million tons above the estimated demand and add further to our stocks if no further assistance were given.
To ensure, therefore, the consumption of an additional 6 million tons or so of coal, if that should prove necessary, Clause 6 of the Bill authorises the payment, up to a maximum of £45 million, of the additional costs which may be incurred by the Electricity Boards and the

1037
Gas Boards in using extra coal for the generation of electricity or the production of gas. It may be argued that in so distorting for social reasons the expected demand, we are adding to the competitive difficulties of British industry. That is why this additional burden is to be borne by the taxpayer, who in so doing will be paying part of the debt we all owe to the men who work in one of our greatest industries. This is not only a Bill about money and fuel. It is about people. Only ten years ago we were employing 703,000 miners; last month only 387,000. That is an average contraction of more than 30,000 a year. It has been as high as 51,000 in a single year.
The industry's needs are falling not only because of the closure of worn-out and uneconomic pits but because, with growing efficiency through mechanisation and the concentration of output on the more economic collieries, fewer miners can produce the same output. This is graphically illustrated by the fact that whereas in the last ten years manpower has declined by nearly 45 per cent., output has fallen less than 20 per cent. Indeed, if coal production remained at its present level from now until 1970 we should still need 100,000 fewer miners to produce it than we had in 1966. I ask my noble friends to realise this and to ask their miner colleagues to realise that it is not a matter of politics. It is not a failure; it is an immutable fact of economic life in 1967.
Fortunately, this substantial decline in manpower does not mean anything like a comparable number of redundancies. Every year about 20,000 miners reach retirement age, or are invalided, and a large number change their jobs. By comparison with this figure of 35,000 the total number of actual redundancies over the last four years has varied between a low of 2,463 and a top figure of 3,943. These, nevertheless, are serious figures and we have done our utmost to lessen the human impact of these changes by creating as many new jobs as possible in the areas affected. Over the next few years, as I have already explained, the reduction in manpower is expected to average 35,000 men a year. This is only a little higher than the average for the last ten years and, as in the past, a major part of this run-down will be accounted for by normal net wastage, after allowing for some continuing recruitment. We shall make specially increased efforts to
1038
provide new jobs for those who will need them.
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is taking new steps to bring work to the areas which will be most affected by pit closures. The miners, who know more about this than anyone, recognise that if productivity rises it means fewer men. If it does not rise it means higher coal prices and less coal sold which also means fewer men. There is no way out of this difficulty, but it is the aim of Government policy and the object of this Bill to give the industry a breathing space to realise its potential for further increasing its efficiency so as to make coal more competitive with other fuels.
The industry will need to press ahead with mechanisation and concentration of output on the more efficient pits. Where pits have to be closed we are introducing a new system of discussing closures in advance with the regional economic planning council chairmen, and some deferments may be agreed in order to deal with acute local employment problems. Sixteen pit closures have been deferred this winter, and Clause 5 of the Bill will enable the Government to reimburse the Board for the losses it incurs. Unfortunately, it will be difficult for some of the older miners who become redundant to obtain new jobs. To meet this situation Clause 3 of the Bill empowers my right honourable friend to make a scheme for mineworkers of 55 and over, who become redundant through pit closures between July 17 last and March 28, 1971. Subject to a minimum service in the industry, they will have their income supplemented to up to about 90 per cent. of their previous take home pay for a period of three years after they cease work in the pits, or until the age of 65 if that comes sooner. Miners who benefit under the scheme will also receive, under Clause 4, their mineworkers' pension at the end of the three year period without waiting until they reach the age of 65.
The Exchequer will bear the whole cost of this scheme and the early payment of pensions, estimated at £35 million. This does not solve the whole problem, but I think it will be agreed that it goes a substantial way towards it. It is fair to point out that during the last 10 years of contraction, when more than 30,000 miners left the industry each year, they

1039
went out with their normal notice and nothing more. When we consider this Bill we must bear that in mind. Of course we shall do our best to help them to find other jobs, because that is preferable to a pension. But if they cannot find other jobs, they will not suffer poverty.
For the closure programme as a whole the Government already provide grants under Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1965 towards the cost of various benefits to assist employees of the coal industry affected by pit closures. Clause 2 of this Bill increases the Exchequer contribution. The total Exchequer cost of what I would call the social measures in the Bill, plus the cost of burning additional coal in electricity and gas stations, is estimated to amount to £133 million. Of this, £17 million would otherwise fall to be paid under other State benefit schemes, and about £25 million represents existing commitments under Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1965.
I turn now to the other financing provision in the Bill in Clause 1 which raises the existing limit under Section 1 of the Coal Industry Act 1965 on borrowings by the Board from £750 million to £900 million, or by Order to £950 million. This £200 million increase in the Board's borrowing powers arises from two main causes. The first is that in 1965 it was thought that undistributed coal stocks, then about 20 million tons, would be run down to 10 million tons by the end of 1970, and thus release about £50 million of working capital. Unfortunately, the stockpiles have gone the other way; they have increased to about 28 million tons and, despite the measures we are taking to increase coal consumption, we must make provision for a possible further increase in stocks. Thus, over the five-year period, instead of reducing capital tied up in stocks by some £50 million, the amount so tied up may increase by £60 million before demand and production are brought into balance. This represents a swing of £110 million in expected borrowings to finance coal stocks.
The other main cause for increased borrowing is that two years ago it was assumed that the Board would be able to set aside £10 million a year towards
1040
meeting the difference between depreciation of assets at historic and replacement costs. Here again the expected trend has been reversed, and more external finance than expected will be required to maintain colliery investment at the level necessary to secure the increased efficiency, which is the key to the competitive position of a smaller though still large coal industry, on which the country will still be dependent in the 1970s and thereafter.
My Lords, there is a sharp cleavage of opinion between those who advocate policies which would in effect mean piling up coal stocks regardless, and those who argue that we should speed up pit closures to avoid adding to the already over-large stocks. To the advocates of the "keep digging" policy, I would say that it makes even less sense to risk men's lives in digging more coal than we can sell, than to employ them digging holes in the ground and then filling them up again. To those who say stop digging, regardless of what happens to the miners, I say that such a policy is quite unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
What we propose to do deserves, and I think will receive, the support of the whole House, and of the great majority of people in the country. The measures we propose are not charity, not even benevolence; they are to assist men who, through not fault of their own, are no longer required in a great industry to which they have devoted their lives. This Bill is not the death knell of the coal industry. Many coal-fired power stations exist or are under construction, and there will be a big demand for coal for many years to come. I am sure that with the help and the good will the industry deserves, coal will enter the 'seventies in good shape to play an important part in the country's future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
4.19 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his very lucid and interesting description of the purpose of this Bill? Despite the interruption, as my noble friend said in mid-stream, but as I should prefer to say, in mid-sea, his lucidity was not lost and his theme carried on as convincingly as before. I would say straight away that, although

1041
I have some comments and some criticisms to make, I support the general purpose of the Bill, which is, as the noble Lord has told us, to raise the borrowing powers of the coal industry from £750 million to £950 million, which sum is expected to last until 1971.
Noble Lords will often have had borrowing-powers Bills coming before them for the nationalised industries, and usually they are a routine affair and do not arouse a great deal of interest. This Bill is the exception. Indeed, reading the debates in another place, I saw that not only did it arouse great interest but that at the time it raised perhaps more heat than light. And, as we all know, behind this Bill lies an intensely difficult national problem which goes to the very heart of our nation's economic crisis. This is the problem of reducing the size of industries which are shrinking because of changing needs and circumstances, and providing for the smooth transfer of the manpower to good jobs elsewhere. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us, deep human problems are here involved. In the main, of course, this process has been the fate of all, or almost all, our great 19th century industries with which we led the world. I suppose it would be true to say that these postwar years our greatest fault as a nation has been our slowness in making these adaptations, because the skilled and vigorous manpower which has been locked up in these great 19th century industries has been, and still is, desperately wanted in the new and developing industries.
I welcome the noble Lord's statement that the White Paper, Fuel Policy, still continues to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. From the debates in another place it was not entirely clear whether that was so or not, and his statement this afternoon that it is substantially still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, with perhaps some marginal adjustments, will be helpful to all of us. The aim of this policy is fully stated in the White Paper, and was stated again by the noble Lord. It is a cheap-fuel policy; and this must be right for the whole of industry, and indeed for all consumers. It is true to say that fuel costs in this country at the present time tend to be above those of our competitors.
1042
This is a most serious handicap to all our export industries.
I have a figure showing the cost of delivered heat at the power station for the United States of America of 2·16d. per therm, compared with a figure in this country of 4·28d. per therm—in other words, nearly double. This is a disparity which we simply cannot afford to carry. It really is essential to reduce the unit cost of fuel, and the implication here is that with the new fuels of nuclear power, which is being so successfully developed in this country, and North Sea gas we have the prospect of cheapening fuel costs, so enabling us to tackle processes that we have not been able to tackle in the past. I have in mind particularly heavy fuel-consuming processes, such as the making of aluminium, with the advantage that would bring of reducing oar imports and probably helping our export position as well.
Therefore I warmly support the Government's policy, although I recognise, as the noble Lord has explained to us, that this inevitably implies the acceptance of the continued run-down of coal production in our pits, and especially in our uneconomic pits. I sympathise with the very strong feelings of mining communities against this policy. This Bill provides a sum of about £130 million to enable Her Majesty's Government to smooth this inevitably miserable process of running down manpower in the pits over the next four years. I agree in principle, and I believe the whole nation does, with making a sum of public money available for this purpose. I think the whole nation feels, with the noble Lord, a sense of appreciation of the great services which the miners have given to the community in this dangerous and unpleasant industry, and would wish to do well by them in this difficult period of transition through which they are now going.
This is a national problem, and the noble Lord, and indeed the Government, are asking the nation to agree to this substantial contribution from our national resources in order to smooth this inevitably difficult path. I believe it is right that this should be done, and that we should make our comments on it. I feel sure that noble Lords who have a distinguished past in the mining industry will not take it amiss if I, as someone

1043
outside the industry, make one or two comments on it. It is in this spirit that I should like to put a few points to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
I listened carefully to his explanation about the 1965 Coal Industry Act and the 1965 White Paper, and I must say that I thought he was on rather shaky ground when he claimed that the present Government were the first to produce comprehensive fuel policies and White Papers—implying that past Conservative Governments were deficient in this respect. Of course, past Conservative Governments made their predictions and indicated them from time to time, and as the noble Lord rightly said, they nearly all turned out to be wrong. But, of course, so did the 1965 White Paper; and the fact that one puts these predictions in a White Paper does not make them more right. I accept that the noble Lord and his honourable friends have done all that man can do in making this prediction, but the fact is that the fuel industry is the fastest changing industry in the country to-day, and it is impossible to predict ahead for more than a few years without being wrong. Even so, it is essential to look ahead and to make some plans, and if we recognise that the chances of being right here are about 50–50 we shall probably not be far out.
In fact, Conservative Governments gave substantial protection to the industry by the highly controversial 2d. a gallon fuel oil duty, and indeed by prohibiting imports. In the main, this was felt to be the right course, and I supported it. The economy rested substantially on coal, and it was felt that this was the right thing to do. Perhaps we did not change our policies fast enough, but looking at the 1965 Act, which predicted that the £200 million then provided would last until 1971, I think the noble Lord would agree that we can all be wrong on this. However, I congratulate him on this White Paper. I think it sets the matter out clearly and makes the best prediction that can be made. I think he is wise to say that 1975 is as far ahead as anyone dare look in such a fast-moving situation. But in view of the 1965 prediction that £200 million would be enough to carry the industry for six years, and the fact that this prediction turned out to be so completely wrong and inadequate, I
1044
would ask whether the noble Lord can say anything further which might convince your Lordships that this prediction now, in 1967, that a further £200 million will be sufficient to carry us through until 1971, is accurate.
I turn to my second point, the methods proposed to help the coal industry in slowing down the rate of reduction of coal production. As the noble Lord indicated, the possible run-down of 45.000 men per annum was something which, in the judgment of the National Coal Board, was quite unacceptable, and they advised that 35,000 was the most that would be reasonably manageable. I would accept that, and that we must have the Board's advice as to what is the largest number that can be handled reasonably, either by retirement or by moving men into other suitable jobs. As the noble Lord said, this leaves us with the position that there is going to be extra production for which there is no immediate economic consumption. And that brings me to the point of extra stocks.
The noble Lord told us that the stocks now are about 28 million tons at the collieries, which is a pretty large amount, plus something like the normal 19 million tons of distributed stocks. That makes a total of 47 million tons of stocked coal. The proposition is that this total shall be added to by a further 5 million or 6 million tons over the coming four years. I do not doubt that this has been thought about very carefully, but it seems highly undesirable. I imagine that there is a considerable element of deterioration of coal that is stocked. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what is the rate of deterioration; how much of this stocked coal is likely to be lost by deterioration over the years?
This brings me to my third point. Is there no other way of disposing of this surplus? Is it not possible to find further markets in the export world? The noble Lord did not deal with the possibility of exports. But we have had devaluation since the publication of this White Paper. The noble Lord and his right honourable friends in Government have stressed, and I think rightly stressed, that the great advantage of devaluation to this country, among its many disadvantages, is that it gives us an edge in the export market. I understand that the pre-devaluation

1045
price of coal at the pithead averaged about 100s. 7d. per ton. After devaluation presumably this is about 88s. per ton for the export market.
The White Paper informs us that at the present time our exports are only some 3 million tons per annum to Europe, which must of course be our best prospect as a market. But we know that this year the United States is exporting some 21 million tons to Europe, and that the average cost of American coal landed at Western European ports is about 99s. a ton. This seems to give us a quite considerable price advantage if we make full use of the effect of devaluation; it seems to give an advantage of something like 10s. a ton. Is it not possible to expand our export market to Europe? There can be no difficulty in guaranteeing long-term supplies. We have before us the prospect of contraction. Is it not possible to do something more to try to win some of these markets? I know they are difficult markets, but nevertheless they are there. Is it not possible to try to win some of these from the Americans or someone else? Will the noble Lord please say something about this when he replies to the debate? Nothing could be more helpful both to colliers and the national economy than further sales in this way.
The fourth point I wanted to put to the noble Lord he has dealt with in his speech: that is, the arrangements under Clause 6 for meeting the uneconomic cost of the coal taken by the Electricity and Gas Boards in order to help the situation. I think it is right that the taxpayer should pay this extra cost of £45 million, rather than that the consumer should pay it by higher electricity or gas charges.
The last point I would make is this. Looking at our present economic background nationally, is this £200 million provided in the Bill being used in the most productive way possible? It is a large sum of money to ask the taxpayers of this country to pay in addition to all the other things they have to pay. We are all of us now extremely aware of the limitations on our resources. We have been driven into devaluation because we have been spending more than we have been earning; because we have exceeded our resources. It must be in the front of all our minds that our resources are
1046
not unlimited and that what we devote to this purpose we cannot devote to some other purpose. Indeed, a statement has been made by one of the senior Ministers that hard and harsh cuts are coming in all spending. Bearing in mind the need to use our limited resources in the best way possible, is the noble Lord really satisfied that this money could not be used more productively? Such a large part of it seems to be going to be used unproductively. The noble Lord said that the President of the Board of Trade was taking new action to try to stimulate new industries in the areas where collieries being closed down. Could not something more be done in this respect?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, as I have understood his speech so far, with a great deal of which I agree, he approves the £133 million. The point he is now on is that of the additional borrowing powers of another £200 million, a large part of which is for payment for stocks and the other part for the difference between the historic and replacement costs. Is that the money he is suggesting could be better spent?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes, my Lords, it is indeed—part of the £130 million which is being used for the extra stocks. I queried whether it was not possible to use some of this money for promoting extra export drive. This would be better than further stock-piling of stocks that are too big already.
Now I come to my last point, dealing particularly with the provision made for pensions at 55. The men in the mining world, Heaven knows! are among the toughest and most virile men you can find anywhere, and I am sure that they would rather have another job than be given a pension earlier. Is it not possible to use these sums of money more productively than here indicated, for instance on retraining schemes, encouraging fresh industries, in order to get more of this money into productive purposes, which would be far better for the miners displaced and far better for the national economy? I hone I have made my point clear. I would conclude by saying that in general I support the Bill. I sympathise with the difficult task which the noble Lord discharged, if I may say

1047
so, extremely well, and I wish him well in getting this Bill on to the Statute Book.
4.40 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, two years ago when the 1965 White Paper on Fuel Policy was published, on the eve of the debate which took place on that policy, the Daily Telegraph had a very interesting article. There is a paragraph I should like to read to your Lordships, because I think it is as apposite to-day as it was two years ago:
The coal industry has at various times been short of men, money, coal and customers. But it is never short of difficulties or documentation, which tend to flourish together in sinister alliance."
May I make this submission to your Lordships as far as the coal industry is concerned: that for generations it was the cockpit of struggle—a struggle for wages, a struggle for hours, a struggle for better conditions, a struggle for better compensation payments. But it is a different kind of cockpit to-day. It is now the cockpit of argument and of differing ideas as to the place that coal should take in regard to the energy supplies of the nation.
We have listened to two most interesting speeches. The detailed exposition of my noble friend of the Bill was most enlightening. I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord opposite say that he agrees with the financial commitments into which the Government are entering consequent upon the implications in the White Paper. He also made some reference to the question of our export trade. For a long time that has been in grave difficulty. We are not the only country in the world that is having coal troubles. We are not the only country which has large stocks of coal. When demand by other countries for this commodity is low because of their own stock position it is not an easy matter to do a lot so far as exports are concerned.
May I make just one other comment respecting an observation which was made by my noble friend? It is interesting, and indicates the co-operation that has existed between the men in the pits and the National Coal Board towards employing the most up-to-date technical and mechanical means, with a view to increasing productivity and also to decreasing the price of coal. I think the figures that my noble friend gave in this field are most
1048
interesting. He said, quite rightly, that during the last ten years—it does not matter what the period is—manpower had declined by 45 per cent. and output had declined by only 20 per cent. I would summarise that by saying that nobody can accuse the mining community in this period of technical change of acting as Luddites.
The Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day I support, for two special reasons. First, it deals, though not entirely and not as much as one would like, but in some measure, with the consequences contemplated in the recent White Paper on Fuel Policy—I refer to the 1967 edition and not that of 1965. Secondly, it increases the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board, enabling them to push along with reorganisation of the industry. Over the past years, in fact ever since 1967, for the National Coal Board and for the men in the mines this has been a colossal test. But in terms of productivity it is now beginning to pay off. We can see the results of the huge investment of capital made during the past twenty years, but particularly during the past decade. I have here a report that in the last five years alone—one could go back over the last 19 years, and the same principle applies—there has been an increase in productivity in the coal mining industry; and the mining industry to-day has one of the best productivity records in Britain. That is due to two factors; namely, the amount of capital that has been infused into the industry and the co-operation that has been given by the miners themselves.
My noble friend Lord Blyton will have more to say than I about the recent White Paper on Fuel Policy, but I understand that it is now the subject of further consideration consequent upon devaluation having taken place. As my noble friend indicated in his most interesting speech, devaluation is sure to affect the price of imported primary fuels, such as oil and uranium. If that is so, and I think it is undeniable, that will adversely affect our balance of payments. I could not quite follow my noble friend when he was speaking on the importation of oil. I am informed from a most reliable source that between now and 1975 the importation of oil will increase by 41 per cent. I mention that figure only to indicate that that will

1049
mean an additional 41 per cent. so far as our balance of payments is concerned, outside the effects of any devaluation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to interrupt him, because I should not like there to be any misunderstanding. Of course there will be an increase in the consumption of oil, because our total fuel requirements will increase as the White Paper forecasts. The point that I was making, and must adhere to, is that according to present trends and the information at present available and forecasts which can be made of the consumption in 1975, out of the total fuel consumption in that year oil will account for 41·5 per cent., which is only marginally more than the share of oil in the present total fuel consumption.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Well, my Lords, there may be some dispute about the figures between my noble friend and myself; but if there is an increase in oil importation, the size of that increase will affect the balance of payments. That is the point I am trying to make. The only difference between my noble friend and me appears to be not one of principle but one of degree. From many quarters and for a number of years now, although there has been information respecting the effect that the importation of oil has upon our balance of payments, I and many others have found that there has always been a reluctance to state what the net effect is. If to-day, when he comes to reply, my noble friend could say whether it is £200 million or £400 million, after taking into account the residue of refined oil, the export of petrochemicals and so on and so forth, I and many others would be much obliged to him. I wonder whether he could say what is the net effect of the importation of oil upon our balance of payments: because at this time particularly it is really a serious matter.
We have heard a good deal in the past, and still hear to-day, about the competitiveness of coal, and this was implicit in the speech of my noble friend this afternoon. We also hear quite a lot about the protection which is given to coal by the tax on oil and by the embargo on imported coal. I would say that the protective tax is only a fractional compensation for the tremendous expenditure overseas in protecting oil interests in many parts of
1050
the world. In the sphere of fuel policy outlined in the White Paper and in the assumptions which are made in regard to the use of coal, one of our four primary fuels providing energy requirements up to 1975, there has been a considerable change. Once coal was king. Now it is less than king. It is not going to be in the next few years even a two-fuel economy; it is going to be four.
I should like to make two observations on this matter. In many quarters, and certainly in the miners' union and among miners generally, there are some doubts about the wisdom of the implications in the White Paper. I would not put it any higher than that at this stage, but certainly the implications in the White Paper are a disappointment both to the National Coal Board and to the National Union of Mineworkers. That is quite understandable, since the prospect of the loss of employment by those who will be affected without their having a firm guarantee of alternative employment—and this applies particularly to the older men—is a source of worry and anxiety. I think all of us, on both sides of the House, feel that position acutely. I would also mention the dissipation of invested capital in the industry, authorised by successive Governments in the post-war period, all aimed at coal meeting the energy demands of the nation. The contemplated further contraction of the industry is a serious matter to all those who are engaged in it. Having made those strictures in regard to the policy outlined in the White Paper, I hasten to say that this is recognised in the Bill. Whatever reservations one might have about the policy in the White Paper, I can give my full support to the Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day.
I turn briefly to the question of fuel requirements as distinct from energy needs. They are two different matters. The position at the moment is that the energy needs of our country are about 300 million tons of coal equivalent. That is expected in the next few years to rise to 340 or 350 million tons. That brings me to the question of estimates, with which my noble friend dealt in such an interesting fashion. Frankly, I have a good deal of suspicion so far as the exports are concerned who provide the estimates. In the mid-'fifties it was estimated

1051
that 250 million tons of coal would be needed to meet the energy demands by 1965. The main point here is that the National Coal Board were asked, no doubt requested, to plan on this estimate and to invest accordingly.
What was the position in 1965? I know my noble friend gave the figures, but it would not be a bad thing to reinforce what he said. The position in 1965 is a totally different picture from what was estimated by the experts in the mid-'fifties. Only 184 million tons, 56 million tons less than the estimate, was the total of deep-mined coal. The estimate now is 155 million in 1970, and 120 million in 1975. But almost before the ink is dry on the recent White Paper, one understands that in the coal industry by the end of 1968, on the experience of the trends of the last two years, coal consumption will be down to the 1970 estimate of 155 million tons, unless steps are taken to prevent further erosion of the coal industry by the use of oil, which is an important fuel but which affects our balance of payments, as I hope I have shown your Lordships. This is a very big subject and affects many people. It is not altogether a question of statistics and of figures given by the experts. It is a great human problem affecting the lives of good, decent, honourable men and women in the mining communities.
I should like now to say a word or two on Clause 6 of the Bill, which makes provision for increased "coal-burn" by the Generating Boards in England, Wales and Scotland and the Area Gas Boards—but it is limited in amount to £45 million, and in time to 1971. Would my noble friend answer three or four questions which I should like to put to him on this matter? The first is, how will this proposal work between the Generating Boards and the Area Gas Boards? Second, what is the additional amount of tonnage involved in this provision—is it 6 million, or 3 million? What is the proportion of the total as between the Generating Boards and the Area Gas Boards? And, lastly, could my noble friend indicate to your Lordships why it is limited only to 1971?
Clauses 2 and 3 deal specifically with the social consequences of contemplated contraction and possible redundancy
1052
arising therefrom. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the eminently desirable things should be, first, retraining; and, secondly, alternative employment. As one who has been a member of the miners' union for many years, and as one who has been connected with this industry for a long time, may I say that the miners' union and the individual miners themselves feel very strongly indeed on those two points.
Look at the position, my Lords. For ten, twenty, thirty, forty and, in some cases, more years men have given their whole working lives to provide the energy needs of the nation, and at great cost—the cost of life and the cost of limb. It is the case—and I think this is very creditable—that through their public spirit many men have consented over the past decade to transfer from contracting to expanding areas of the coalfield. To many it has been a painful process. It has meant picking up their roots. But it has not only meant that: it has been costly, too. There has been the cost of transfer. A great amount of social capital has been involved, and this fact should not be overlooked.
I mention this, my Lords, only to make the point that, prior to 1965 the whole cost was borne exclusively by the National Coal Board. While the proposal in this Bill is much more generous than the scheme under the 1965 Act, it still remains the case that the National Coal Board will have to bear one-third of the cost up to £45 million for the redeployment and transfer of men, where their consent is obtained, from contracting to expanding areas. May I ask my noble friend this question? If up to 1971 the sum of £45 million is exceeded for the purpose described in Section 3 of the 1965 Act, what will then be the position? I think this is important, and I hope that my noble friend will give some answer to it.
Clause 3 of the Bill certainly merits the attention of your Lordships: in fact, it merits the attention of the whole country. The principle laid down in Clause 3 is quite good, but I fear that the arbitrary line of 55 years of age will, in its application, give rise to a lot of dissatisfaction. I shall endeavour to give reasons why this is so. First, there are those disabled by accident or disease.

1053
In the coalfields of Britain those cases are not isolated; they are many. For many years the incidence of accidents and disease was higher in the mining industry than in any other industry of the country. Over the whole coalfield there must be thousands of these men, and the percentage related to the number employed in the industry must be exceedingly high. I would also point out that many will be severely disabled.
I should be remiss if I did not take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the National Coal Board. They have been very good employers in fitting these unfortunate people into jobs. However, while under this clause the over-55s will have three years of benefit, the under-55s will immediately have not only no job but little prospect, as disabled people, of obtaining other employment. That will be for two reasons: first, they have disabilities; and, secondly, employers to whom they might apply for jobs have become a little more selective to-day than they were formerly. I put the point to my noble friend that those disabled by accident or disease, particularly the pneumoconiotics, of any age, who are made redundant by pit closures should at least benefit by the proposals laid down in the Bill for the over-55s. I was very anxious to make that point, and to state the case for the disabled of any age who may be affected by pit closures, because I think it important and necessary that it should be done.
May I now put a few questions to my noble friend? How are the calculations to be made in arriving at 90 per cent.? First, can it be made clear that disablement benefits, special hardship allowance and benefit from the mineworkers' supplementary scheme will not be taken into account? Perhaps my noble friend will give us some information about that.
I think that Clause 7, to which I now come, is unnecessary. I hope that Clause 7 will be deleted before the final stages of this Bill are reached. I ask: Why increase the numbers of full-time members of the National Coal Board, when on the basis of the White Paper estimates there are going to be fewer collieries, lower manpower and reduced tonnages? I really do not know the reasons for this proposal. I would put forward one reason, which I consider valid, why this clause should be deleted, and that is that
1054
the psychological impact on the people in the industry and outside will be very unfavourable indeed. I cannot see the sense or reason in it. In fact, apart from Clause 7 the Bill deals only with contraction. This clause is the only part of expansion in the Bill and, with the conditions prevailing in the industry, I do not see the sense or reason in it. I trust and hope that my noble friend will advise his right honourable friend the Minister to have another think about this, and delete this clause before the final stages are reached.
I know that I have gone on for a long time, and I hope that I may be forgiven. Finally, I want to say one or two words about the financial burden which the National Coal Board have been, and still are, carrying. It really is terrific. In the 19 years of nationalisation, payments in the form of interest to the Minister of Power have been almost £538 million. Although there has been an operating profit during that period, in collieries alone, of £372½ million and although, including opencast operations and ancillaries coming under the National Coal Board, the total operating profit in the last 19 years has been £492½ million, these operating surpluses have been turned into a deficit of £115 million. And perhaps I may remind your Lordships that £74 million of that £115 million is for the losses incurred on imported coal, which should not have been the responsibility of the National Coal Board. Two years ago the first recognition was given to the heavy financial burdens of the National Coal Board, and steps were taken to bring relief by a writing down of capital; and it is the case that in the last two years the interest payments by the Board have been considerably eased.
My Lords, the miners' union have been, and still are, concerned. They have given much thought to the fuel question, over the past few years particularly; and I want to say this about them: they are responsible people, and, as I have intimated, they have co-operated in the technical reorganisation of the industry. But they are concerned about the accelerated pace of the intrusion of non-indigenous supplies of fuel. They are concerned about the risk to the economy, and certainly of the social consequences, arising

1055
from too rapid a decline in coal's contribution to the energy of the nation, as envisaged in the White Paper.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I listened to my noble friend Lord Stonham putting the Government case, and I think he did it wonderfully well, although in the course of my speech I shall fundamentally disagree with him on many issues. I also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, speak on fuel and power matters. This must be the first time that he has tackled this problem. I remember the noble Lord speaking in the House of Commons, particularly on agriculture and transport, but never on fuel and power, and I compliment him on entering this controversial field for the first time since I have known him, which is now twenty years.
The argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was that we must have a cheap fuel policy. That reminds me of the 1926 strike. All the arguments then were that we must have cheap fuel for our industry, and that we must get our prices down in order to get into the export field. It brought us down to 6s. 6½d. a day; and while I know that in the old days a cheap fuel policy meant a reduction in wages, a cheap fuel policy to-day means the annihilation of the mining industry. Therefore, I am not at all impressed by this cheap fuel policy.
I listened to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Stonham, and heard him say that you could not project into 1980 and estimate the position of coal or anything else; and much less can you project into 1980 in the case of nuclear power. If this White Paper is based upon an econometric system (which is the economist's jargon for trying to project trends of fuel consumption into the future), and if by this formula you can project and say that the coal industry will produce 120 million tons in 1975, what is wrong with using the same formula to say that the coal industry will produce only 80 million tons in 1980? And why cannot you project this system into the 1990s? I am not going to say it will be right, but if the formula in the White Paper is right and you can project to 1975, then surely on the same basis you can project it to 1980. The noble Lord,
1056
Lord Nugent of Guildford, talked about exports to the Continent. My Lords, American coal would not get to the Continent at all, with the coal they have lying in the ground, if it were not that the Americans have long-term agreements. If those long-term agreements could be ended to-morrow, no British coal would get in, because there is any amount of coal lying on the ground in Germany and France.
If this Bill implied an acceptance of the White Paper, I would oppose it, but to the extent that it seeks to soften the social and economic effect of the industry's inevitable contraction, it has my support. It is not my intention to go over the past forecasts of this industry, except to say that every one that has been produced, both by ourselves and by the Conservatives—by every Government over the last 12 years—has been wrong. But I must say this to the Minister—and I have lived in this industry all my life. There is bitterness and disillusionment among the mining community, and I am confident that no mother or father will consider mining as a career for their sons. In the light of this savage contraction, a boy of 15 going into the pits to-day can be thrown on the scrapheap when he is 23 years of age. Who would want a boy to take up a job in which there was no future security?
Among other things, the Bill sets out the Government's proposals for dealing with the manpower rundown in the mining industry which flow from the White Paper Fuel Policy. The first question is this: Does the rundown have to be as big and as rapid as the White Paper leads us to believe? I would have been very critical of the White Paper if it had not been withdrawn so that it could be revised to take into account the effects of devaluation. Since it is being reconsidered, I shall concentrate what I have to say on the factors that the Government must take into account in the review of the White Paper. The most important facts—and these should dominate all the Government thinking—are, first, that coal is the only fuel that will not cost more as a result of devaluation; and, secondly, to quote the White Paper, coal is
"the only fuel that contains no foreign exchange element in its costs".
These twin facts are the basis on which the Government should build an entirely

1057
new fuel policy, with a much bigger share for coal.
May I try to show the House the effect of devaluation on other primary fuels, like nuclear power, North Sea gas and oil? The White Paper shows that the estimated difference in cost per unit of electricity sent out from Dungeness "B", the first of the advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear stations, and Cottam, a coal-fired station in Nottinghamshire is only one-hundredth of a penny per unit. Table F on page 78 of the White Paper gives 0·52d. per unit for Dungeness, and 0·53d. for Cottam. Devaluation means that the imported uranium which is needed to fuel the nuclear stations will cost more. Indeed, the increase in uranium prices alone may wipe out this theoretical price advantage in favour of Dungeness "B". And the Government should bear in mind that Cottam is already built and will soon be operating whereas Dungeness will not produce any electricity for at least another three years. Much can happen in that time to push up the estimated cost of Dungeness "B" which has already escalated by 11 per cent.
However, nuclear station costs are all suspect. As the Comptroller and Auditor-General points out in the Atomic Energy Authority's Annual Report (pages 120–123) the Authority has been unable to recover from electricity undertakings the past costs of research and development work which they have done for the nuclear stations. Many millions of pounds of royalties have been waived; and this means that public money provided for the Atomic Energy Authority by the Exchequer is being used to subsidise nuclear power against coal in the electricity market—with a resulting loss of their jobs by many thousands of miners.
My Lords, I urge the Government to accept the demand by the Coal Industry Consultative Council for an independent inquiry into the technical and financial aspects of nuclear power costs. Until this is done the mining industry will never accept that it is losing this market for fair commercial reasons. Again, the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Science and Technology has also said that there should be an independent inquiry into all these matters. Why do not the Government
1058
act as these important bodies request? Nuclear costs are suspect, and the whole matter should be cleared up by being thoroughly investigated.
Before leaving the field of nuclear energy, may I say a word or two on the question of whether the proposed station at Seaton Carew, in my home county of Durham, should be nuclear or coal-fired? Up to the moment, no nuclear station has been built in the coalfields. To build a nuclear station at Seaton Carew, on the coalfield of Durham, a seriously contracting area, would be a scandal. In the past when mines have closed we have been able to get our men fixed up at collieries in Durham—which means commuting 12 to 14 miles a day; but this source is now drying up. Then the receiving areas of the prosperous coalfields—as a result of the White Paper—to protect their own people will close this avenue to places like Durham, Scotland and Wales; so that our problem now is more difficult than ever.
In July of this year, the Prime Minister met the Durham miners' officials over the question of whether Seaton Carew should be a coal-fired or a nuclear station. He promised that the costs of each would be considered and that a decision would be given in due course. The Minister is still considering whether it should be, coal or nuclear. Yet we have Sir Ronald Edwards in The Times Business News yesterday stating that if we do not have a nuclear station at Hartlepool there will be no need to have a station there at all and that he will probably bring in power from Yorkshire. Here is clear prejudice against coal, irrespective of the costs of coal as compared with nuclear energy, in a statement made at a time when we are awaiting the results of an investigation by the Prime Minister and the Minister. I say to the noble Lord the Minister on the Front Bench that this is just not good enough.
Adjacent to the Seaton Carew site are some of the most highly developed collieries along the coastal belt of County Durham. It the siting of this station were to be shifted a few miles, coal could be brought in by conveyor to provide energy more cheaply than by nuclear power. But even on the site selected the forecast of the Coal Board, of 3¼d. a therm, compares favourably with the computations about the cost of nuclear power. If this station is coal-fired it will keep 10,000

1059
of our men in employment in the future for many years. Manpower in Durham has gone down in six years by 26,000 men and will go down at the rate of 7,000 a year until 1972 or 1973. It is against this background—and with all the sincerity that I can put into what I am saying—that I state that, because coal is competitive with nuclear power, it would be nothing short of disgraceful if this station were given to nuclear power. And it will most certainly kill the attitude of the Durham miners towards the Labour Party.
My Lords, I move now to the subject of North Sea gas. I understand that before devaluation the Gas Council and the oil companies were on the verge of agreeing on a price for North Sea gas. However, many of the companies engaged in the North Sea are foreign companies and I am informed that when devaluation was announced they said that negotiations would have to start all over again; and they are now demanding a higher sterling price to compensate them for devaluation. Clearly, the price of natural gas is going up. But there is another aspect of North Sea gas that worries me. The Minister has committed himself to saying that gas will be brought into use very quickly and in great quantities. But gas is going up in price and it will have to carry a still bigger increase because of the oil price rises. I do not believe for one minute that we shall see the demand for natural gas growing as rapidly as the Minister expects. My fear is that he will be left with vast quantities of gas on his hands—especially in the summer when the demand is low. Can we not get from the Government an undertaking that they will not seek to solve this problem by using the surplus gas under power station boilers? To do this would be to deal another body blow at the coal industry.
My Lords, what of oil? It was extraordinary that the White Paper, as originally written, should have proposed an increase in fuel oil usage of about one-third between now and 1975—and this is an important fuel—and at the same time forecast a one-third decrease in the use of indigenous coal, which imposes no burden on our balance of payments. That made no sense at all even before devaluation, and must surely be looked at very closely in this review of the White
1060
Paper. Will the Government tell us what the extra cost to the balance of payments would have been with the proposed increase in the use of oil? Will they further tell us by how much devaluation will push up that cost if the original estimates of oil consumption are not revised? The Prime Minister has said that the fantastically high prices we have to pay for oil as a result of the Arab-Israeli war are one of the reasons why we had to devalue. Surely, with the memory of Suez little more than ten years away, the Government will seek to get away from too great a dependence on oil imports, especially as the producing countries are pressing for higher crude oil prices and are likely to continue on those lines as their living standards rise.
My Lords, there is another big factor which the Government must have in mind when revising their fuel policy. Coal is an industry in which most of the capital has been spent. The job is nearing completion and the nation is getting a return in the form of rapidly rising productivity. During November, the overall output per man-shift was over two tons, a figure undreamed of a few years ago. Coal is outstripping the rest of British industry in this respect. The capital expenditure picture is very different in the case of gas and electricity. The White Paper says that the gas industry will require £300 million a year for the next five years to spend on the conversion to North Sea gas. The electricity industry is proposing to spend £170 million more on the remainder of the second programme of nuclear power stations than would be needed if conventional stations of the same capacity were to be built.
Here I indicate to the Government what I would do to revise the fuel policy, help the balance of payments problem and save capital. I would slow down the nuclear power building programme. One justification for our building nuclear stations used to be that this would help our chances of selling abroad. But no other country has yet bought an advanced gas-cooled reactor of this type, and I believe that no other country ever will. Secondly, I would reduce our dependence on oil. That would save foreign exchange and make our supplies more secure. As a start, I would put all the present dual-fired electricity stations on to coal. This would

1061
provide an extra market for 1½ million tons of coal a year and safeguard the jobs of 3,750 miners. Finally, I would slow down the conversion to North Sea gas and rule out the possibility of using gas in power stations.
All these measures, my Lords, would reduce the run-down in mining jobs and save the Government money which is to be provided under the Bill for social costs; and it would greatly reduce unemployment in our mining villages. The Bill is generous in the approach to these problems and I support it, especially if the problems are reduced in the way I have suggested. If they are not, we shall certainly be unable to create new jobs as rapidly as the old jobs will disappear in the mining areas, despite all that the Board of Trade is trying to do. So far, we have had very little success in providing new jobs for adult males in the development areas. Therefore, I leave these suggestions with the Government.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for special payment to miners who are over 55 years of age. This is the only clause about which I shall speak. For the first three years the benefits are reasonable, and far more helpful than ever before; but after that time the man who is still redundant comes down with a bump to his State benefit and £1 from the miners' pension scheme. Further, some of these people will get no unemployment benefit after three years, as it will have been exhausted. So if a man has a wife who is working and whose wage is above the national assistance scale, he will not get any national assistance and will be dependent on his wife for his keep. Such men will be put into a very undignified position. I support the clause simply because it will reduce hardship. But what of the social philosophy in which a man who could reasonably expect another ten years of work is told, "We are going to pay you to stay at home. You are no further use to us." It is far better to avoid making people redundant—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to say that we are not saying anything of the kind, about people being of no further use to us. It is true we are saying, "We have no further job for you in the pit where you are employed, but we will do our utmost
1062
to find you another and suitable job elsewhere."
LORD BLYTON: That is, my Lords, if you can get a man to leave his job after he has been working in the pits for so long. You cannot train a man at that stage. Therefore the prospects in the labour market for a man of 58 are pretty hopeless. And it is not only the older men who will be affected by the rundown; there will be far fewer jobs in the mining areas for youngsters who leave school. In many mining villages youngsters will have two alternatives to face when they leave school: they may either leave home to find work, or start their working life at the labour exchange. Both those alternatives are socially undesirable. It is socially wrong to have immature youngsters leaving home at a tender age, and it is wrong to tell them that the labour exchange is the place for them.
My Lords, I want to see the White Paper radically re-written to remove the problems which the Bill seeks to remedy. If this is done, it will save some of the money that will be provided for the Minister of Power through this Bill. The effect of what is taking place is not only felt in the sphere of economics and finance as far as mining is concerned; it has a big effect on our people. My people in the mining areas have always regarded Labour as their hope for the future. Over all my years the mining communities have been a bastion of support for the Labour movement on which they pin their hopes for the future. What has taken place in this last few weeks has shaken their faith. It has destroyed the faith and hopes that from our movement would come a different future. It is destroying their faith in nationalisation, because as a result of the White Paper policies are being pursued that are narrowing the area of nationalisation in fuel production, while private enterprise is expanding. Miners never thought that nationalisation would be the vehicle by which the experiences vie have had in recent years could ever come, and there are sore hearts in the industry.
My Lords, I have put the situation as I see it, understanding the feelings of the men, and I ask even now for the White Paper to be re-written. The Secretary of the Miners' Union, speaking at Edinburgh on Saturday, said—and I think

1063
that the Government should take note of it—that unless action was taken to stabilise the market for coal, the present Government would be the one which closed the greatest number of pits in the shortest time, which pioneered the principle of permanent unemployment for miners at 55 years of age, and removed the economic base for hundreds of mining communities without first providing an alternative. That reveals the miners' terrible bitterness to the White Paper. In conclusion, I urge the Government to listen to the voice of the National Union of Mineworkers, who speak for the whole of the mining industry. The Miners' Union are very angry, and this does not augur well for the future. I ask for a reappraisal of the policy of the White Paper.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I never miss an opportunity to take part in a debate which has to do with the miners and coal-mining. I live in a mining community and have no desire to live elsewhere. As a class of workers their good qualities are predominant. They are noted for their native wit, their great courage and their superior intelligence. Every experienced public speaker and preacher will readily agree, I am sure, that he derives greater pleasure from addressing an audience of miners than any other audience or congregation in the country. The nature of the miner's work has much to do with this. Every minute of the day he has to be on the alert. Every sound he hears may be a warning to him of danger. And, subconsciously, the miner listens in that way, even to addresses which are given to him, and does not miss a sound: he is all eyes and ears. I love these people, and I am anxious that everything should be done to alleviate their present despair when they find themselves becoming redundant and unwanted in the various coalfields.
I can never be persuaded to be critical of the present Government. Indeed, I regard Harold Wilson as the most enlightened Prime Minister of the 20th century. I see cynical smiles on faces opposite. Let us have a look at the Prime Ministers they have provided—and I am frightened when I hear the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition say so often
1064
from that Dispatch Box, "When we come back into power …". God forbid! Let us have a look at what they provided. Stanley Baldwin, recognised as the laziest Prime Minister who ever occupied No. 10 Downing Street; Neville Chamberlain, so naïve that in 1940 the late Lloyd George said that he was "a figure fit for a stained glass window"; Anthony Eden, the hero of Suez; Harold Macmillan, the author and the promoter of premium bonds; Sir Alec Douglas-Home, declared redundant by his own supporters. That is what the Party of noble Lords opposite have provided. And we hear them declaring, time and again, what they will do "when they come back into power."
It will be seen from what I have said that the present Prime Minister will not have much competition in earning the epithet that I have given him. But while I am not prepared to criticise the Government I do feel disposed to be critical of the set-up of the nationalised industries, particularly in relation to coal-mining and transport. I wish that I could prevail upon the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport to read once again In Place of Fear, by the late Nye Bevan. He clearly indicates in that book the weaknesses of the present set-up of these industries, and also suggests the remedies.
I am particularly interested in the North Wales coalfield, and would base my criticism on my knowledge of the situation there. The North Wales coalfield, which as recently as forty years ago had 27 collieries, now finds itself with only four remaining. Hafod Colliery, with 35 million tons of coal still available, is to be closed in two months' time. I hope that the Coal Board will have another look at this colliery and not make its decision irrevocable. I say that for two reasons. The production in that colliery last week was 40½ cwt. per man per shift. Furthermore, people who are qualified to express an opinion believe that the coal produced there could, within a short period of time, be sold in the shape of gas at 3d. per therm and within the next three months at less than 4d. per therm. These facts alone, I believe, should reprieve that colliery from the sentence of death passed upon it.
I believe that the North Wales coalfield could have done better, and could be better; but you cannot run a colliery

1065
and a coalface from the head office of an Area Board. The management of the National Coal Board is a bureaucracy, where form-filling and "bandwaggonism" and "keeping noses clean" are tops. I am sure of that. Let me give a classical example. Only a month ago the manager of a colliery in North Wales would not allow poppy-sellers to sell poppies on the premises because he had not had permission from the area office in Manchester. Well, I ask you! The once proud, resourceful and decisive colliery manager, with the lives of hundreds of men as his responsibility, has now to refer to the Board for a decision as to whether the local British Legion branch can sell poppies at the colliery pay office. This is an example with a vengeance, it is true, of running a colliery from the head office.
Communications between the colliery and the area office are so formal, as I find it, that it is appropriate to the age of the minuet and curling pin and bears no resemblance to the hurly-burly of the 20th century. This formality breeds an attitude of remoteness, which, in the North Wales coalfield, is intensified by the fact that the high management of the industry is in the hands of people who are alien in their traditions and customs to North Wales. There is no connection between North Wales and Manchester. We live in different worlds; we have a different way of living; we have different traditions and different customs. Yet every colliery in North Wales is directed by this office at Manchester, about 80 miles away.
I have said that Hafod is to be closed, and a cloud hangs over the entire coalfield. I can only hope that the cloud will be blown away by the exertions of the miners and the inspiration of managers. But for this inspiration of managers, the management of the industry in North Wales must realise that battles are won in the hearts of men and not in the watches of the time and motion engineers, that men can be led more easily than they can be driven; that instructions are no substitute for personal warmth; and, finally and most importantly, that coal is won in collieries and not in offices.
My criticism has been of the set-up of the industry, not of the Government, because the attitude of the Government is
1066
reflected in the Bill which we are considering this afternoon. I want to congratulate the Minister in particular on Clause 3 of the Bill. This clause provides, as has already been pointed out by my colleagues, that mineworkers of 55 years of age and over who are made redundant as a result of the closure of pits will have their incomes supplemented to give them something like 90 per cent. of the previous take-home pay for three years, or until the age of 65, if sooner. For the miners, I contend that it was worth having a Labour Government if only to secure that. I wonder what our fathers would have said in the coal mining areas had it been suggested even 3C years ago that the day would arrive in Britain when the miner at 55, if he was declared redundant, would still be able to enjoy nine-tenths of his previous wages. At the age of 55 an ex-miner would find it difficult to secure alternative employment, and would have formerly found himself simply thrown on the scrap-heap and on the dole. He will now be a contented person, with 90 per cent. of his wages guaranteed to him for the next three years.
I can only hope that the Minister will exert his influence to persuade the appropriate department to provide State pensions for the miners at 60. I know that Mr. Richard Marsh has been criticised over this. The Minister of Power has nothing to do with State pensions, but probably he can exert his influence on his colleagues in the right department. Many classes of workers are pensioned at 60, and if any workers are worthy of this consideration there can be none more worthy than the colliers, who have risked life and limb for forty years to provide this country with its means of energy.
In conclusion, I would say that the paradoxical situation, so far as the coal industry is concerned, was well summed-up in an article in the New Statesman recently. It said:
"In theory the closing of a coal mine ought to be an occasion of rejoicing. Future generations will look back in amazement and repulsion at this grim, unpleasant and dangerous way of earning a living and of providing fuel. That people should plead for its preservation is a sad commentary on 20th century life. But the true reproach, alike to the present Government and to society at its present stage of development, is that the alternative offered to the miner whose product we no longer need is too often simply unemployment."

1067
My plea, therefore, is: do not close a single pit, whatever it may cost, until alternative employment has been found for the redundant miners. The collier is too good a fellow to be thrown on the scrap-heap.
5.56 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, the first point I should like to make concerns Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. The provisions of these clauses are illustrative of what must be done in circumstances where elderly men and women are made redundant by changes such as are now occurring within the coal industry, and which are likely to occur elsewhere, changes which are consequences of the impact of technological progress on the structure of industry and on the nature of individual employment. But, as several speakers have said, the provisions of these two clauses cover only a part of what needs to be done. As several have said, these changes affect not only elderly people, but younger people, both men and women, who must be retrained for alternative employment. I understand well enough that this is not a matter to be included in this Bill, but I want to endorse what others have said, that this is a matter of the greatest possible importance.
The need is referred to in the White Paper Fuel Policy, and I feel obliged to say that what is said in it does not leave me very satisfied. It says:
"In order to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of skilled labour available for incoming industry in the development areas the number and capacity of Government training centres has been greatly expanded."
I should like to know what the actual number and capacity of the existing and planned training centres amount to, because my impression is that they do not justify the words "greatly expanded" in relation to the magnitude and nature of the problems that are emerging. In particular, I should like something to be said about the words "skilled labour". and what these words are intended to connote in relation to the coal industry, in the light of another sentence in the White Paper, which if I may I will quote. It says:
"The National Coal Board's objective is to develop means of production which are not only highly mechanised, but operate largely by remote control, so that much of the labour
1068
will eventually consist of highly skilled technicians."
This sentence touches on the rapidly growing importance of the technician, who must be distinguished from the craftsman and the operative as needing to possess a much wider and deeper understanding of the technicalities of the job for which he is responsible. I hope that we may be told in due course whether the Coal Board has yet quantified its forward looking need for technicians of different kinds appropriate to the operation of the automated collieries which it is said in the White Paper are to be the normal method of coal production in the 'seventies. I should like to know what steps they are taking to ensure the availability of these technicians.
I ask this because I have had occasion recently to study the development of technician courses, and I took particular care to study the position in relation to the mining industry. I found the position surprising and disturbing. If I may quote, the entries for Higher National Diplomas and Higher National Certificates taken together, in mining and mine surveying, fell from 587 in 1960 to 208 in 1966, and the corresponding awards fell from 398 to 148. At the ordinary levels of the National Diploma and National Certificate the entries fell from 1,548 to 888, and the passes from 901 to 482. For the City and Guilds Advanced Technicians Certificate for Colliery Mechanics and Electricians, and for coal mining, the number of candidates over 1962 to 1966 rose only marginally from 979 to 1,022.
By my understanding these figures, even in the 1960 context, are really very small, and I find it remarkable that they have been decreasing at this rate. It may be that the information for which I have been searching lies in a different sector of further education. It may be that the prospective technicians are not following courses related to mining, and I should be obliged if we could be informed whether this is so. If it is not so, I find it extremely difficult to understand how the proposed transformation of the collieries within the next decade is to be achieved.
My second point has perhaps already been covered. It is to express satisfaction with the insertion of Clause 6 in the Bill. As your Lordships will know, the obligation which has been placed on

1069
the electricity supply industry to give priority to the use of coal; to carry in its costs of generation the increasing costs of coal, and pass those on to consumers through the Area Boards, was a major responsible factor for the considerable increase in the price of electricity which was recently announced. This obligation to coal has meant that the Central Electricity Generating Board and the consumers of electricity have been providing a considerable subsidy for the coal industry.
I do not question the desirability of this in the basic sense, and therefore I accept without question the need for a continuing obligation by the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Area Boards and, therefore, electricity consumers to help the coal industry through its present difficulties, and I think this applies equally to the Gas Board. But I welcome very greatly the proposal within the Bill that since the changes within the coal industry are arising in large measure for wider economic and social reasons, it is right that this burden should not wholly be carried by electricity supply and gas supply, but by the general public. Therefore I strongly endorse the inclusion of Clause 6 in the Bill. Finally, may I say that I was interested in the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, because I wished to ask a number of similar questions. Perhaps I need not now ask them, as I hope they will be answered when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, replies to the debate.
6.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I greatly regret that unavoidable duties elsewhere prevented me from being present for the earlier stages of the debate, and to make amends I can only wait for Hansard. I should like to say at the outset how much we in the North-East, like many living in other coal mining areas, appreciate the Government's intentions and concern that lie behind the provisions of this Bill; the supplementary income and then the pension for redundant miners over 55; the financial assistance over the social cost of pit closures; even the provision for Electricity and Gas Boards to use more coal. Further, I am not unmindful of what has been done already for the coal industry, whether by way of import restrictions, tax on oil or otherwise.
1070
It is therefore with no lack of appreciation that I now urge that these monetary provisions in the Bill are not in themselves enough. Money is certainly necessary, but it is not by itself enough. What is also wanted is work, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, have said, and there is no time to lose. To the younger man who is redundant—and in Durham the net redundancy over the next three years is likely to be about 7,000 coal miners per annum—we have a duty, as a society which has benefited from these men's work and service in the past, to see that they are offered work which will give them a genuine possibility of personal fulfilment and which makes possible the wellbeing of themselves and their families.
May I say that it is not enough for us to wait until pit closures occur before plans are drawn up and decisions made; otherwise there is a disastrous gap of unemployment. Yet such is the lack of evidence of a major work policy for the North-East being vigorously planned and implemented that the miners are beginning to think—and they have said to me—that alternative work will not be provided for them too soon, because the Government fear that if it were it would empty the pits of men. That view may be utterly mistaken and utterly unfounded. It is certainly ironic. But I mention it here as evidence of the way in which confidence and trust is sagging (and has sagged) in the North-East. As the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, would agree, uncertainty about the possible nuclear station at Seaton Carew does not help, but that is another point. Leaving that aside, we need something to restore this trust and confidence, some clear unmistakable evidence of a good faith, and I suggest it might be done in terms of something that looks beyond monetary provision for redundancy, however necessary that may be, to the certain provision of new jobs.
New diversified industries are wanted and not, if I may say so, industries that depend largely on female labour, as some of the new industries in the North-East do. Further, they should be integrated industries and not branch factories out on a limb which, in a small colliery village, everyone thinks will be the first to close when the clouds approach. Where better than the North-East, which pioneered so

1071
much of our earlier technological society, born from coal mining and engineering—where better would be suited to industries and work based on modem technology? And it might well benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has just argued, from forward-looking concerns in the mining industry itself. This is the kind of forward-looking vision suited to its possibilities that the North-East needs. If I may put it like this, all our Peterlees look for this kind of transformation.
Here I may insert a word about Silksworth, where reaction has been so much misunderstood. I spoke recently to officials of the miners' lodge there, who had joined with the Labour Party in a memorial service to the late Lord Attlee. I found them, these members of the miners' lodge, eminently realistic and reasonable. My Lords, they are not obstinate Luddites refusing to face facts; they are not refusing to acknowledge the necessity of the major economic and industrial turmoils through which we are passing. They were not at all concerned to have the coal industry artificially protected for ever. They were not in the least averse to going to different work. They had no nostalgia for mining. But they were concerned, as I am now, that new industries of the right kind should be steered to the North-East, so that they could have the satisfaction of genuine work and be able to meet the responsibilities of their homes and their families in the communities which mining had created.
Here, like the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and others, may I put in a special word for the older man, for whom admittedly pension and other provision is made in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, said, it is well that we realise the almost revolutionary character of this kind of provision. But here especially—and I repeat, I am not unappreciative of the help which the Bill gives—money is not enough. At the age of 58, men's lives will so often seem, when that pension comes, to be at an end. This is no luxury of an early retirement. As a boy I saw enough of men like these, and walked with some of them, from the mining and engineering industries, whose spirits were utterly broken, whose lives were shattered, and
1072
who trudged "down and out", from one works gate to another, yearning to be offered even a brush with which to sweep up; and they were never given it.
I know there is a great difference on a broad and lone-term view between unemployment that arises from economic depression and unemployment that arises from rapidly changing patterns of industrial life. But the man at 58, out of a job, even with financial provision such as this Bill gives, needs more than that general consolation, and also some- thing more than money can buy, in order that he and his family may have a life, rather than a bare existence. If we have broken his spirit, money will be only a charity which is a travesty of the name and an insult to the man's personality. Of course, and I hope obviously, the Churches will do all they can, along with all men of good will, to help restore a sense of purpose and hope for men like these. But my point is that the responsibility of the State cannot finish with this Bill, and perhaps I discerned in Lord Stonham's remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that this point had, at least in part, been taken.
While, then, I welcome this Bill and its provisions, I repeat, money is not enough, especially in the North-East which has for so long been an underprivileged area, often a forgotten area, or, what is even more likely at 250 miles distance, an unknown area. We need plans for work conceived with vision and executed with energy. The men of the North-East and elsewhere must surely have the work they need and deserve, and for which they have a legitimate desire. I welcome the Bill before your Lordships' House, but more than this Bill is surely wanted to meet the problems of the men in the mining industry to-day.
6.14 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, may I offer my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate upon saying so many things which touch our hearts.
Noble Lords on this side of the House have dealt very thoroughly with several points I wanted to develop, especially the doubt cast by my noble friend Lord Blyton on this premature obsession with nuclear energy. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, touched upon the

1073
main subject of my speech which I feel now free to develop, which is the problem of the redundant mining technologists. The National Coal Board, especially during the last ten years, have gathered together a first-class team of scientists and technologists for research and development, and the results of their studies are now becoming evident. I am very concerned about keeping this team intact for use in a much wider sphere, as well as to finish the job they are doing. I will develop this point later.
Every industry depends for its success on the quality of its technical management. Each year the N.C.B. offer 100 university scholarships, 50 for students already in the industry and 50 from outside. This year they have had a very poor response indeed, which confirms the opinion given by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley. Let us take the case of the young man of 18, with the necessary "A" levels, who to-day wishes to become a coalmining engineer. It may take him three years to graduate. He has to spend two years in a colliery doing practical work. During that time, he can study for his Home Office certificate. He cannot hold one until he has done two years' practical work underground. A brilliant "First" at the university does not entitle him to manage a colliery: he has first to pass the Home Office examination. At the same time, if he studies hard enough he can sit his Institute of Mining Engineers' examination, which he also has to pass before he becomes a chartered mining engineer. Even provided that he is possessed of all the aptitudes, and is keen and industrious, he has to work intensely for five years, by which time he is 23. Then, again, he has to wait another two years before he is at the minimum age of 25 when, by law, he is old enough to assume responsibility as a manager. In actual practice, this is the age when he joins the end of the queue—seven years after he starts his first university term. It is a long, hard training. Only those of us who have been through it know what it means. And to-day the prospects of promotion are not encouraging.
My Lords, there are some 420 collieries still working. I do not know how many redundant mining engineers there are already, but if the last Government figures are right we can expect to mine all
1074
the coal we shall need by 1975 from about half the collieries now at work. This means redundancy or retirement for some 400 mining engineers, and at least an equivalent number of mining technologists. This is not a rosy prospect for a young man of 18 wishing to become a mining engineer. He may, of course, find work abroad; but this means that someone else will benefit from the training paid for by the N.C.B. So we have a problem of redundant mining technologists, as well as of skilled technicians; and, believe me, my Lords, today's miners are very highly skilled technicians. Anyone who has been in a mechanised coalpit will have realised that after a few minutes.
All this may seem outside the scope of a Government Bill to raise the limit of borrowing by the N.C.B. I agree wholeheartedly with the Bill, but I am much concerned about the future of the National Coal Board itself. Back in 1946, over twenty years ago, I was a member of a Mineral Development Committee set up by my right honourable friend the Member for Easington under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Westwood. We worked for some two and a half years. One of the other members was the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. I wish he were here tonight. The evidence proved that no real attempt had ever been made to assess the total mineral wealth of this country or the sea beds. We made recommendations, but any plans which might have come to fruition were scrapped because there was a change of Government in 1951.
A move has been made recently in the creation of the Institute of Geological Services, which I understand is to be sited at Nottingham and will work in close co-operation with the appropriate departments at that university. But that is not enough. It might take years to get into full swing, and we need the most comprehensive assessment of our natural resources now to save every penny on imports.
I suggest that the National Coal Board should be renamed the National Mineral Resources Board. Its scientists and technologists already welded into an effective team, can be used and expanded. We might even bring hope into the hearts of those mining engineers now awaiting

1075
the axe, and to the young mining students who are already too far committed to change their courses. The scope of the National Mineral Resources Board which I have suggested will extend to all the extractive industries—that is, to all mineral ores and the quarrying of all stone; to everything under plough depth. The training of the future mining engineers should include coal, ore bodies and quarrying. The Institute of Mining Engineers and the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy should be amalgamated into one, and their examinations should embrace a much wider curriculum. Out of 14 subjects there are only two which the metallurgist mining engineer takes and which make him slightly different from the coalmining engineer. There is but a short gap between them, and there is not such a big step towards becoming a civil engineer.
The need for evaluating our mineral resources has never been more urgent. We have the tools, the technologists and the technicians. All we need is to realise the opportunities which have to be uncovered and to organise the teams we already have. I hope we shall not make the same mistake as the Australians, when they allowed that wonderful consortium of Snowy Mountain engineers to disperse, with the monumental mineral resources discoveries just around the corner. The N.C.B. has built up resources of management accustomed to making decisions and spending money economically. It has trained geologists, geophysicists, diamond drillers, operational research men and computer staff. All these can be allied to the new Institute of Geological Science, Warren Springs Laboratory, and even the Atomic Energy Board, to have a real look at all our mineral resources. This sort of work is beyond private enterprise. There are too many restrictions.
I should like to remind your Lordships that Ireland, in the few short years since she started to encourage the development of her mineral resources, has doubled the value of that which we are producing from our mineral ore bodies, just by providing tax incentives such as we should have made and as are being made in every other mining country. Our administrators seem incapable of realising what this means. We are told that we are as well off by the various grants
1076
operating in Development Areas, all of which could be rescinded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow. I hope to have the opportunity of raising this matter once more in your Lordships' House and, if possible, before the Chancellor has completed his Budget proposals.
I know I have exceeded my usual average of ten minutes, but this is a most important subject concerned with the future of mining engineers. So far as I know, I am the only chartered mining engineer in your Lordships' House. I do not know how many there are in the other place; in fact, I do not know of one, offhand. The miners are well-represented, but this is not so in regard to mining engineers and technologists. I have been concerned with several branches of mining, starting with coal, and I know from experience that it requires little extra training for a coal mining engineer to branch out into other forms of mining and quarrying and other spheres.
The future of the profession is one that requires urgent attention. Our energy capital lies in our fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. But so far—I want to emphasise "so far"—there have been little, if any, commercial quantities of radioactive minerals. So we must be concerned with the conservation and the economic utilisation of our present energy capital. Even the apparently staggering supplies of natural gas which appear to exist under the sea will become a wasting asset, and with any leap in the standard of living it may not last us long enough to bring nuclear energy into full capacity to take its place.
I now come to what I hope is the most important part of my speech. In suggesting wider powers for the N.C.B. to develop all other minerals, I may have given the impression that I have almost written off any future development so far as coal is concerned. I should like to correct now any such impression. In a fascinating book called Electricity without Dynamos and sub-titled The Corning Revolution in Power Generation, the distinguished physicist, Dr. John W. Gardner, describes how plants absorb solar energy to build up complex molecules from simple ones; and he shows how coal, which is the product of such processes, will behave like other giant complex molecules in releasing its energy.

1077
When these complex coal molecules are broken down again into simple molecules or atoms, the stored energy is released in the form of heat; but the release of this chemical energy could possibly he diverted directly into electrical energy, instead of heat only, and thus coal might be exploited as the material for making fuel cells.
I should like to draw attention to this remarkable development of fuel cells now, at a stage when the concept of producing electricity direct from chemical energy without dynamos is no longer a pipe dream. It has arrived, and the next decade will see fuel cells being exported to areas of the world where fossil fuels are non-existent, and the ingredients of the fuel cells can be developed from coal. Geological circumstances have blessed Britain with a complete range of coal types, many of which will lend themselves to the new material requirements of a power-hungry world. We are on the threshold of a new look, which could be as dramatic as the one which took place when we first showed the world how coal could be used to smelt iron. Mining engineers and technologists must be nurtured carefully until these developments emerge. The miner of the future will be a most highly respected technician, not the drab, almost downtrodden, creature that I remember.
Before I sit down I will touch on one of the many developments in the pipeline. Scientists in this country are hopeful of liquefying coal. They think that the bacteria and fungi which converted the undergrowth of the carboniferous jungles into coal can be stimulated to carry this process further and so liquefy the coal. Searches are in hand to find bacteria or fungi to perform this biological operation, which I understand consists of discovering an organism which will consume the free carbon in the coal at an enormous rate and to do it continuously and thus liquify coal. It is not as impossible as it may sound. The use of bacteria for the removal and recovery of phenols from coke-oven effluents is done in this way already. It started from a small laboratory experiment only about five years ago. To-day this method has developed into an industrial process which supplies the greater part of needs for phenols in this country.
1078
The immediate object is to conserve and encourage the continuation of the work of the research establishments and technologists of the National Coal Board. These dedicated men, up to now, have been working themselves out of a job. They are in the same boat as the miner. They, together with the new Institute of Geological Sciences, could expand their laboratory work to a commercial scale. Why not select mines of marginal commercial value and use them mainly for research purposes? Certain coals contain new biochemicals of great medicinal interest, but no way has yet been found to extract them on a large scale. The utilisation of whole coal faces as fuel cells for the direct conversion of chemical energy into electricity could be explored and developed. The mass production of trace metals is within the range of possibilities if working faces of coal were freely available for scientists.
The outlook is far from bleak for the mineral resources technologist and the high-grade technical operative of the future, provided that we do not allow ourselves to be bamboozled by the negative pattern of thinking in our administrative departments. In conclusion, I would say that no word in this speech has been inspired by the National Coal Board. I have never been near any of their laboratories. It is based upon my own experience and reflects a consensus of opinion among my scientific colleagues.
6.33 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is more than 22 years since I listened in this Chamber to my first debate on coal. I have enjoyed listening to many coal debates since then, and the one thing that has always delighted me in all those debates has been the music—the music of miners' voices. We have had it to-day from my noble friends from Durham, from the Midlands and from Wales; and I was particularly pleased to note that the words have been as sweet as the music, because almost every noble Lord who has spoken about the Bill has welcomed it.
My noble friend Lord Blyton was the exception. He said that under certain conditions this Bill means the annihilation of the mining industry. My Lords, I reject that completely. I regard it as both harmful and manifest nonsense. The mining industry has a future unless, as my right honourable friend has said, it

1079
frightens itself to death. My noble friend Lord Blyton said that there is bitterness and disillusionment in the mining industry, and he was confident that no mothers or fathers would want a son of 15 to go into it because, if he did, he would only be thrown on the scrapheap at 23. That again is utterly wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, asked me about training centres and about places. He apparently is not aware that this year a total of 6,126 boys were indentured under the mining apprenticeship scheme—virtually the same number as in the previous year—for a 3½-year apprenticeship: a very wide training course, finishing up with six months' full-time training at the coal face. Again, in the same year 3,900 men, including officials, engineers, craftsmen and face workers, attended mechanisation courses. And 1,451 men attended courses leading to the deputy's certificate. These are not insignificant figures, and they all refer to courses provided by the National Coal Board. These are not signs of annihilation of the mining industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley (who I regret is not able to be here to hear my reply), asked about training centre places. Three years ago there were only 3,900 places in Government training centres. To-day there are 7,800. It is not bad in three years to double the figure. It would certainly be nice if some noble Lord had got up and referred to this fact and said, "What d first-class job is being done—about twice or three times as good as any Government have ever done before!"
My noble friend Lord Blyton said that the Secretary of the Mineworkers' Federation, Mr. Will Paynter, is reported as saying that if we went on in this way we should go down in history as the Party—the Labour Party—which pioneered the permanent unemployment for miners at 55. Will Paynter should be ashamed of himself. It would be far more true to say that the Labour Party will go down to history as the Party—the first Party—which refused to allow the economic movements in industry, and particularly in the coal industry, to destroy the miners: the first to refuse to allow them to be thrown on the scrap-heap. That is true.
1080
I have a number of ex-miner friends, close friends, friends for many years, some of them who have worked with my noble friend Lord Blyton at the coal face. From 1926 to 1929 they did not have jobs. They were good men, young men, and they started walking: and they went on walking until they got to the West Country. They had to go there before they could get a job. That is why I knew them, and still know them. One of them reads every word we say in this House. It was a very different picture in those days from the picture which is outlined in this Bill. We are told that because we seek to augment an elderly miner's income, if he cannot get a job, by up to 90 per cent. of what he was earning at the pits we are pioneering permanent unemployment of miners at 55. I think it not only untrue talk, but disgraceful talk. Despite what has been said, this industry still has a future. We still want young people to go into it. It is true that it will be a totally different industry, a smaller industry, a more highly technical industry—it will be virtually and completely mechanised—but it will still be a substantial industry with a future.
I was very interested and moved by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Durham who quite rightly said that money is not enough, that what is wanted is work and that there is no time to lose. We agree with that, and so far as lies in our power we are not losing any time. The right reverend Prelate suggested that miners in Durham thought that the Government were not providing facilities by way of factories, and so on, because if they did it would empty the pit. It is not necessary to provide facilities of that kind until they are needed. The point is that when they are needed they should be there. That was the point I made in my speech when I moved the Second Reading: that these special consultations are going on with the economic chairmen in the various regions so that if a pit is going to be closed and the facilities are not ready the closure can be re-phased. That is the whole object of that exercise. The right reverend Prelate mentioned that over the next few years there is likely to be a run-down in the Durham pits of some 7,000 men per annum. That is right, but fortunately

1081
there will not be that number of redundancies; it will be more like 2,000 redundancies per annum. It is quite a problem, and an important problem, and work must be found for those men, but the size of the problem job-wise is not 7,000 per annum.
My noble friend Lord Blyton questioned the figures for the cost of production of power at new stations, and the relative cost of the same production by nuclear energy. He questioned the figures in Table F. The estimates in Appendix 3 of the White Paper include all relevant costs, including the supply and reprocessing of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. They also include a royalty which will cover amply all forward avoidable costs in further development work for the second nuclear power programme. In the comparison between costs of future nuclear and conventional generation there are hound to be uncertainties—we recognise that—because we are concerned with stations which will perhaps not come into production until 1973 or later, but we have made a careful assessment by trying to get the right balance between optimism and caution. It is surely inherent in the thinking of my noble friend that it would be utterly impossible for my right honourable friend, or for me, representing the Government, to stand up at the Box to advocate a policy which meant a run-down of the coal industry, unless it was absolutely inevitable and unavoidable.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the nuclear costs are definitely suspect, and that the Select Committee of all Parties in the House of Commons have asked in their Report for an urgent debate in Committee to investigate nuclear costs?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that. These matters are being considered. But, as my noble friend knows better than anyone, one cannot change these things in mid-air. We have almost completed the first nuclear programme and have embarked on the second, both of which were fully debated in this House. But the ground rules which we used to calculate the return on nuclear plant are cautious, and its higher capital costs are much more than offset by lower running costs.
I want to come to the point about Seaton Carew which was raised by my
1082
noble friend and which the right reverend Prelate also mentioned. The Government have taken no decision on this or any other station, unless the decision has already been announced, and the criteria for the decision will be those set out in paragraph 98 of the White Paper. I refer in particular to the last sentence of paragraph 98, but I shall not bother to read it out. But I would say this, in view of what my noble friend said about the Chairman of the electricity organisation. The job of that organisation is to make an economic assessment of the method of generating which will give the lowest system supply cost. The Government's job, however—and this is the assurance which I give my noble friend—is to take into account also the wider economic considerations, a very important one of which is the 10,000 jobs, where they are wanted. I say this to indicate that these matters are very much in our minds.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, am I to take my noble friend to mean that, in order for there to be a coal station the Government should declare that there will be a coal station, and that Sir Ronald Edwards's statement that unless it is a nuclear one they will not build a power station, is wrong?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when I am trying to deal with him perfectly honestly, my noble friend should try not to put what I regard as catch questions to me. What I am saying, and what I say again, is that it is the job of Sir Ronald Edwards and his organisation to give their view of the kind of fuel necessary to produce their product at the lowest cost. It is the job of the Government, once they have that advice, to take into consideration all other factors which have a bearing on what fuel should be used; and I say again that no decision has yet been taken about this particular station.
I should like to try, as quickly as I can, to answer some of the many questions which have been put to me. One was from my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who objected to Clause 7 of the Bill because of its unfavourable psychological impact on the people in the mining industry. It is a proposal to increase the maximum membership of e Coal Board at a time when the industry is being run down. The intention behind this clause was to meet the

1083
situation arising from the reorganisation of the Board earlier this year, and to satisfy the need for co-ordination at regional level within the Board's organisation, and externally with other bodies operating at a regional level.
The Board have, in the Government's view, rightly shortened their internal lines of communication by eliminating their divisional tier and concentrating coalfield production into 17 areas with direct responsibility to the Board. These are natural groupings of collieries to provide areas of convenient size for efficient management, but this does not produce a regional entity for Scotland, Wales and parts of England where regional coordination is necessary—and it is fast developing in other fields. The primary role of the additional members was to give the Board the means and capacity to deal with regional problems, without losing the advantage of the more direct management structure now in operation. This was the reason behind the Government's thinking in including this clause in the Bill. But as your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power undertook in the course of the Committee stage in another place to reconsider the matter. As a result of that, and considering also the views expressed this afternoon, the Government decided to put forward an Amendment for consideration during the Committee stage seeking the agreement of your Lordships to delete Clause 7 from the Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield also asked me about extra coal tonnage under Clause 6, and about the share between electricity and gas. It is estimated that if necessary an extra 6 million tons will be burned or consumed by the electricity and gas boards, and that is the reason for the £45 million compensation. One cannot be exact about the division between gas and electricity, but it would appear that about 1 million tons will be consumed by the gas industry, and the remaining 5 million tons by the electricity industry.
My noble friend also asked me why we did not extend this beyond 1971, and also said that the time under Clause 2
1084
should be extended beyond 1971. The intention of this Bill, and particularly of Clauses 1 and 2, is to give the coal industry a breathing space so that it may realise its potential for further raising its efficiency and reducing its costs. Because of the exceptionally rapid changes which the next few years will bring, the Government decided that in the period up to 1970–71 the industry needed the further help provided by the Bill, and I think there is general agreement about that. But it would be wrong to assume that this additional coal burn will be required for a longer period than that. The point is that if we had not had this provision regarding the 6 million tons, the run-down of 35,000 a year would have meant that we should have had this extra 6 million tons still in stock.
This is the justification for one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, put to me; namely, is this the best way of spending this money? In our view it is, because it means we shall not have this 6 million tons in stock. The noble Lord approves the social clauses, which will not put more miners out of work in any given year, and therefore he should also approve the economic means of properly and usefully disposing of the coal which those extra men will produce.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one minute? I was concerned at the very large part of this expenditure being spent on relatively negative purposes. I was asking whether it was not possible to use a larger part of these large sums of money for the promotion of new industry in the areas in order to provide new jobs. This was really my thought: that a good deal of this expenditure—I quite understand the purpose, and sympathise with it—seemed to be going on rather negative purposes.
LORD STONHAM: Negative, if it is negative at all, only in the sense that it is keeping at work men who otherwise would not be at work, or for whom other jobs would have to be found. That £45 million will be keeping several thousands of miners at work. I do not regard that as a negative purpose. Nor, I am sure, does the noble Lord.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear.

1085
I quite understand what the noble Lord is getting at, and I want to help him with the orderly run-down, which I recognise is difficult enough anyhow. But I should have preferred these large sums of public money to be spent on some positive, creative purpose, in order to save the more steep run-down of the industry, rather than the approach of producing unwanted coal and paying a subsidy in order to get it used. I hope that I make my point clear.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in fact I am quite sure the noble Lord and I are in agreement on this.
Large sums of money are needed under this Bill for the purposes I have explained, but, in addition, large sums of money are needed—and, indeed, are being spent—for Government training centres and for the provision of new jobs by means of new factories, by means of extra grants under S.E.T. in development areas, by means of 45 per cent. investment and property grants and by means of substantial rents rebates for firms coming into the area. These are all substantial sums of money which are to be spent in other ways, but under this Bill we need this money for these purposes.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield also asked me how oil import costs will be put up by devaluation. I cannot give him, or my noble friend Lord Blyton, who also asked the same question, any exact answer on that point. My right honourable friend answered a Question on it in another place to-day, but he indicated that he had not yet completed his examination of the effects on oil prices of devaluation, and therefore the answer to that question must wait a little longer. But I would say that in our view the effect of devaluation on price relativities is likely to be well within the range examined in the Fuel Policy review, and I would emphasise that devaluation will not cause any major or important change in our basic assumptions, in the guidelines. That is why I said—and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, repeated it and, indeed, welcomed the fact—that the White Paper policy stands. To some extent some of the figures may be altered marginally, but we do not think considerably.
1086
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield also questioned my figure about the 41·5 per cent., and he used the figure of 55 per cent. It is true that, despite the protection given by the oil tax and discrimination against oil at power stations, oil has gained ground very fast over the past ten years, and has increased two-and-a-half times in proportion, mainly at the expense of coal; but with a four-fuel economy, a very sharp check has been given to this rate of growth, and in our view the 40 per cent. share now will be only 41½ per cent. in eight years' time.
My noble friend also asked me about the net cost of oil imports. Of course, there is the figure given in the White Paper of £300 million as the net cost of fuel imports. There is no secret about that. But what we also say (and there is a graph in the While Paper which my noble friend might like to look at) is that, with the growth of home refinement and the changing proportions of use of the various oil products, we expect to have a net surplus of fuel oil for export. After all, the crude oil comes in and there are all the various processes of refinery. In fact, we had hoped that this net export would have occurred much sooner; it has been slower coming than We had hoped. But this is what we are very confidently expecting for the future. My noble friends will not forget that 40 per cent. of our total use of oil is for purposes for which oil has no substitute.
My Lords, my noble friend also referred to how the scheme will work, and what the chaps will get—that is, the miners who retire at 55 and are paid up to 90 per cent. of their previous earnings before—
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Made redundant at 55—not retired.
LORD STONHAM: I was not trying to misquote my noble friend. I mean the men who will become redundant and who will come under this scheme. The position will be that unemployment benefit, including earnings-related supplement and sickness benefit, will be offset against the supplement under the scheme. In other words, they will get that first and then it will be supplemented up to 90 per cent. of earnings. If one takes a typical case of a married man without

1087
children, where his supplemented income is to be on a level of, say, £11 6s. a week, the make-up will be like this. In weeks 3 to 26, he would get £7 6s. unemployment benefit, £2 earnings-related supplement and £2 scheme supplement—£11 6s. in all. In weeks 27 to 52 he would still get the same unemployment benefit, but he would get no earnings-related supplement, so he would get a £4 scheme supplement—making the same total of £11 6s.
After that—that is, after the first 52 weeks—for three years there would be no unemployment benefit and no earnings-related supplement, but there would be a scheme supplement, therefore, for the whole of the £11 6s. But the hardship allowances, due to accident and disablement benefit, which are State benefits, figure among certain benefits which would be offset against supplements; that is, they would be regarded as part of the beneficiary's income, but only to the extent that they are awarded or increased in amount because of redundancy. Generally speaking, redundancy will not affect the amount of those two benefits, so that in effect the men will continue to get both those benefits free of the scheme, in addition to the benefits under the scheme. I hope that I have cleared up that point.
About the scheme, however, I would say that it is intended that it should apply to men and women in the coal industry at coal mines. That does not mean opencast work, which is a different thing. But it will apply not only to miners going below, but to those in ancillary jobs—coal-washing and things like that—and therefore will include women.
LORD BLYTON: Will it include the clerks?
LORD STONHAM: No; it is not intended to include the clerks.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: In a word, it means the producers and manipulators of coal. That is what it means.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know whether you can call a man who is engaged in coal-washing a manipulator of coal. I suppose you can. It means miners and men and women employed at coal mines in jobs ancillary to production, in getting and marketing coal, but not the
1088
clerks. I apologise for leaving the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, until last. He asked why, if the 1965 prediction about the N.C.B.'s borrowing requirements were so far out, I am so confident that these are going to be all right. That is a fair question. I gave the main reasons for the increase in my opening speech; the increase in stocks and the need for more external finances than was realised in 1965, for the reason that our expectations were not realised. But we have come closer I think this time. Our reasons are given in paragraphs 128 to 131 of the White Paper. This is the best estimate that we can make. They are not fixed or immutable, any more than are the forecasts of supply and demand of the various fuels. Is it the right way to spend the money? I have dealt with this over the £200 million.
Now may I turn to the prospects for increased coal exports to Europe following devaluation. It is true that devaluation will make British coal exports cheaper, and therefore more competitive overseas. American coal exports to Western Europe—I think my noble friend Lord Blyton mentioned this—comprise substantial quantities of coking coal; whereas our coal exports are mainly for electricity generation. The average prices are not entirely comparable. There was mention of a 10s. per ton advantage in our favour; but, as I say, the prices are not comparable. The other trouble is that the U.S.A. exports are protected to some extent by existing long-term contracts. The National Coal Board hope to increase coal exports within the next three years by 2 million to 3 million tons a year.
On the question of the deterioration of coal in stock—there are 28 million tons in stock and it is being added to—I can say that it tends to suffer degradation in size; but as most of the stock will in any case comprise small coal which can be used in most modern, coal-fired power stations it does not in itself present any serious problem. The stocks themselves present a serious problem: but the selling would not if we could get a market. On this point, I think it is wholly right to say that the National Coal Board has tried very hard. My noble friend Lord Arwyn, with his great experience as a mining engineer, I think would agree that of course there are

1089
mining engineers in the Coal Board and that they do their utmost to employ their expertise. They are most dedicated men who really want to succeed. Their lives are devoted to coal.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The whole of my speech was directed towards the saving of these people; that they should not emigrate and go abroad. We want them here.
LORD STONHAM: I agree with that. We heard yesterday of the 50 doctors in America who want to come back. Perhaps they have come to agree with me. I think this country is the best in the world; I do not need to go to another country to find that out. This has been a very helpful and constructive debate, and I have tried to reply to all the questions. But I will read the debate again, and in particular I shall read carefully the speech of my noble friend Lord Arwyn because it was a highly technical one and I may have missed some of the points. I shall also read other speeches that have been made.
I should like your Lordships to be left with this thought. We believe that in this White Paper and in this Bill we are doing the best for our country. In this Bill, and within the framework of circumstances which have been enforced upon us, we are doing our best for the miners who have done so much for us. If it should prove that things work out better than our estimates, that the coal industry can be larger in 1975 than we think, it will delight us all. That is a consummation we hope to see.
On the particular aspect of good will, the right reverend Prelate said that it would have a wonderful effect in showing good will if we could bring in industries like that, to convince people that we are doing something really important, really worth while. This is of major importance. Of course, my right honourable friend the Minister will read every word of this debate. I am sure that he, too, regards this as a most important matter. I know that he and the Government will do all they can not only to show these gestures of good will—and they are not merely gestures—but to show that by constructive action we mean to make the best use of the manpower available to us.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I express my appreciation for the new thinking of my noble friend and his right honourable friend the Minister of Power in the suggestion that an Amendment will be brought forward at a later stage for the deletion of Clause 7?
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved to add to the clause:
"(4) A local education authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make an arrangement for the constitution of a single governing body for any two or more such institutions maintained by them as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section; and the governing body constituted in pursuance of any such arrangement shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the local authority may determine."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of grouping the governing bodies of certain establishments for further education which I mentioned in the debate at the Committee stage of the Bill on December 5. It confers powers on a local education authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to group together under a single governing body two or more establishments of further education maintained by it. A governing body constituted for this purpose is to consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the authority may determine. The approval of the Secretary of State is required to every grouping arrangement, and I wish to make it clear that it is his intention to use his power of approval only where the establishments concerned are of a purely local nature

1091
performing similar functions for different parts of the authority's area.
The initiative will rest with the authority, and the authority will have to satisfy him that in the particular circumstances the balance of educational advantage lies with grouping. In other cases my right honourable friend will expect, in accordance with the general intention of the Bill, that every institution will have a separate governing body which is fully identified with it and specially constituted to meet its own needs. There will be no question of using the power in the case of polytechnics or other major colleges. As your Lordships will have seen, the Amendment does not extend to colleges of education. Every college of education will have its own separate governing body. It is intended to cover only the limited class of case that I have mentioned in the further education field. A later Amendment deals with the question of grouping special schools. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness stated, she warned us of this Amendment at the Committee stage. I congratulate her on the speed with which she has produced it. It provides what I think is a sensible arrangement: that where purely local colleges are concerned they may be grouped under one governing body; and the fact that they are purely local colleges will be assured by the necessity for the approval by the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness also assured me at the last stage of the Bill that it did not in any way affect the position of colleges of education or polytechnics, and therefore I am happy to support the Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness covers almost the same ground as Amendment No. 2 in my name. Both these Amendments are concerned with the constitution of governing bodies of institutions of further education. The difference between the Amendment
1092
moved by the noble Baroness and the Amendment which I shall move in a few moments is that my Amendment goes further. The Amendment moved by the noble Baroness makes it possible to group institutions for further education under a single board of governors. The Amendment is restricted to institutions which give full-time instruction. My Amendment would make it possible for the Minister to group institutions which give part-time instruction under a single board of governors.
There are certain aspects of this matter which are a little more than merely administrative matters. I take the example of the Inner London Education Authority, which has a very large number of institutions that are giving full-time instruction, and therefore they can be grouped together conveniently under a single body of governors. I think that local education authorities would like to go a little further and make provision to group institutions which give only part-time instruction. The importance of that is that while, as I say, in London the institutions for further education are all now giving full-time instruction, they may not always be so doing. It may be that some institutions will decide to alter their curriculum and offer part-time as well as full-time courses. If that happened, the institutions would have no statutory body of governors at all, for there is no power to appoint a body of governors for an institution which gives only part-time instruction.
The effect of that would be that there would be no body to which the local education authority could delegate functions, and the authorities are anxious in suitable cases to delegate certain administrative functions to the bodies of governors of individual schools. I think we all agree that in suitable cases that would be a very desirable arrangement. It would add to the importance and the responsibilities of the bodies of governors. But under the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness that would not be possible, and I had hoped that the noble Baroness would have extended the scope to make it possible to group not only institutions which give full-time instruction but also institutions which give part-time instruction.
7.15 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has to some extent dealt with the question I wanted to ask, but perhaps I may be allowed to ask it nevertheless. The question is, what is the purpose of the Amendment? Is it to cover matters of local convenience administratively, or is there a deper and longer term educational objective? I have in mind that a few years ago I was privileged to be a member of a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Lockwood which advised the Government of Northern Ireland on the future development of its higher and further education. This was of the nature of a small Robbins Committee.
One of the recommendations we made, which I feel was perhaps the most important, was that there should be created what we called an Ulster College, which was to be a composite of a number of colleges within the further education field, covering part-time as well as full-time education. The colleges concerned were the colleges of technology, of art, of music, of domestic science and of physical education. The intention was, long-term, to bring these institutions together on a single site and to create a community or corporate body within the field of further education on a multi-college basis corresponding to the multi-faculty campus of a university. This Ulster College, the concept of which has been accepted by the Northern Ireland Government, which has acquired a site of about 120 acres for the purpose, is to be governed by a single governing body embracing the whole of these constituent colleges. So my question is: Is something of this kind in the mind of the Government in making this Amendment?
Since I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate, may I say how much I welcome the Bill and how much I welcome the fact that this—as I am sure will be the case—will help to put further education and the colleges of education in the shop window of our educational effort and achievement. As a university professor I am, of course, in no doubt about the importance of our universities: but I happen to believe that though the country could not run very effectively without university graduates, it could not run at all were it
1094
not for the efforts of a much larger number of men and women educated in different ways and for different purposes; and these are the kind contributed from our colleges of education and further education. I believe that there falls upon the colleges of further education a growing responsibility to penetrate educationally into the careers of individuals; in other words, I think their task of in-career post-experience education is going to be an enormous one, and therefore they deserve all the public recognition which they may be given.
May I say that I think it of the greatest importance to the running of these colleges that there should be identified with them in a responsible way representatives of other types of educational institutions, bit perhaps most important of all of industry and commerce. My experience leads me to feel that industry and commerce have not yet progressed anything like far enough in defining what it is they want of the educational system, and defining their responsibility to help in ensuring that this is done. I therefore think it important not merely that senior representatives of industry should be members of governing bodies, attending periodic meetings of these bodies and also being members of committees, but, what is perhaps an even more important responsibility, that they should harness the interests and efforts of their industrial and commercial colleagues quite widely in support of the work of these colleges. I believe that in this way they can help to relax a handicap which I believe we impose upon ourselves of too often treating our schools, colleges, universities, industry and commerce as if in some way they were separate and distinct, and not intimately interwoven components of continuing educational provision. Therefore, I greatly welcome the Bill and I hope that it will achieve the objectives which I have mentioned.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, for his generous welcome to the Bill. I know that he would have liked to be able to do this on Second Reading, and I am delighted to hear from him. I completely endorse what he has said. I like particularly his phrase that this will put colleges of advanced technology and

1095
further education "in the shop window". I should have liked to be able to follow this up and say that this Amendment covers the point he makes, the creation of a corporate body like the multi-faculty university, but, as my noble friend probably realised from my words, the Amendment is narrowed. It is intended, where there is a number of local colleges of a similar character, to enable them to group together under a widely representative governing body. He would appreciate that there is a difference here. So far as the scope of the governing body is concerned, the Government are at one with the noble Lord. Your Lordships may remember that on Second Reading I said that the constitution of the governing body should include exactly the kind of representative interests the noble Lord has mentioned, and my right honourable friend would fully endorse his recommendations.
Replying to the skilful and persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, suggesting that my Amendment would make the moving of his one unnecessary, I would repeat the words that I used on Second Reading:
"The Bill is expressly limited to institutions providing full-time education. It thus excludes evening institutes and small establishments without any full-time courses, of which there are a considerable number and for which it is thought inappropriate to impose a statutory requirement that they shall be conducted in accordance with instruments and articles of government."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1172.]
And perhaps this will help with the noble Lords point about what would happen if an institution were to change from full-time to part-time education:
"There is nothing in the Bill to prevent local education authorities from making or continuing their own governmental arrangements for such establishments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1172.]
Perhaps I can reply a little more fully when the noble Lord moves his Amendment, though I am afraid that I can hold out no hope that I shall be able to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.23 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved to add to the clause:
"( ) The Secretary of State may at any time after consultation with the local education
1096
authority by order direct that the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to such other establishments or institutions for further education as he may determine."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the two later Amendments standing on the Marshalled List in my name have been put down to meet certain administrative difficulties which local education authorities have experienced in administering the principal Act, which is of course the Education Act 1944. I move this Amendment in rather depressing circumstances, because the noble Baroness has already told me that she is not going to accept it. The Amendment deals with circumstances in which a body of governors may be appointed. The Bill is limited in its operations to those institutions for further education which offer courses in full-time instruction. I was hoping to persuade the noble Baroness to agree to enlarge that field a little by including also institutions which give part-time instruction.
I am not quite clear what the noble Baroness's objections to doing that are likely to be. I thought she said that it will be open to local education authorities to form their own bodies of governors. That will not get over the fundamental difficulty that there will be statutory authority for the formation of such boards. Unless there is statutory authority for the formation of bodies of governors it will not be possible for local education authorities to do what they want to do and delegate to the governors some of the functions in connection with the management of the school. I should have thought it was a good thing that a body of managers, or indeed a group of managers of primary schools, should be delegated some responsibility for certain of the administrative arrangements for running the schools. That will not be possible unless this subsection is amended on the lines I suggest. I hope that on second and wiser thoughts the noble Baroness will agree with what I propose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, may I say that I was disappointed that I was not present at the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their kind

1097
references to me. On reflection, I should like to comment on this Bill. I served on the Weaver Committee, but, to put it clearly, I was by way of being "the odd man out", for though I sat on the Weaver Committee I felt I could not sign the Report because I could not agree on the question of academic freedom as between the colleges of advanced technology and the local education authorities. But I have since reflected on the Bill, and I am now perfectly clear that on that occasion I was mistaken. I would have said so on Second Reading had I been able to do so.
In my own education authority we have proceeded to set up a management body along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has indicated. If I may, I would say to him that I hope that the universities will take much more interest in linking with the colleges of advanced technology under this Bill than they have done previously. In many cases the colleges have been completely out on a limb, and I hope that this new conception in this field will yield that greater link between the colleges and the B.A. degree which will link them more closely with universities and help them to work together in that spirit which should be basic in the structure of our educational system.
I wanted to make that short statement. I commend the Bill and as chairman of a large education committee I shall do everything I can to see that it is implemented, in the college of education stage and in the college of further education where we shall have all the interests necessary to make the college a real college for the community.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Heycock for what I think is his maiden contribution, which I am sure all noble Lords were delighted to hear. His reputation in the field of education in South Wales is well known. There is no question that Her Majesty's Government endorse fully the words of my noble friend. The link between the universities and the colleges of education is something that needs to be strengthened, and I am sure that all noble Lords will hope, with me, that this Bill will help to bring about this strengthening.
1098
To the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, I would say that I should have liked to be able to reply in a different way, but I must say that my right honourable friend does not think it desirable to provide in the way that the noble Lord's Amendment would for a potentially very wide extension of the class of institutions to which the Secretary of State could make the Bill apply, and believes that it is best left to the local education authorities to decide what arrangements they wish to make for governing such institutions and what delegated powers they wish to entrust to them.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will probably say that they need direction, but I would ask him to appreciate that this is a Bill on very narrow lines, and this perhaps is not the best way of dealing with the problem with which he has presented us this evening. I hope, therefore, that he will accept my assurance that I will discuss this matter further, and be willing to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Haycock, on his maiden speech, and say that I hope to hear from him again on an occasion that gives greater play to his oratory. He has a great name in the part of the world from which I come for all that he has done for education. As I say. I hope we shall hear from him at greater length on another occasion.
I hope also that the noble Baroness will carefully consider what my noble friend Lord Ilford has said. He certainly put his point in a most persuasive fashion. If from an administrative point of view there are advantages to be gained from grouping colleges of further education, which may not be full-time establishments, I hope she will consider whether it would not be an advantage to have it in the Bill.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Haycock, on his maiden speech. I am sure that as his local education committee proceed with the organisation of further education in the place from which he comes, and begin to set up the bodies of governors, they will feel themselves very much handicapped by the fact that they cannot include institutions which

1099
give only part-time and not full-time instruction. I must confess that I am disappointed that the noble Baroness was not able to go a short step further than she has gone, but in the light of the assurance she has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved to add to the clause:
"( ) For the purposes of this section the maintenance by a local education authority of an establishment or institution of further education shall be deemed to include defraying all the expenses of maintaining the establishment or institution."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a much simpler and more straightforward matter. There is not in the principal Act any definition of the meaning of "maintained" in regard to institutions of further education. That has proved in the administration of the principal Act to be a difficult defect. There are many institutions which derive their funds from a number of different sources. Some receive part of their funds from the local education authority; some have endowments and other forms of income. The schools which are not entirely dependent on the local education authority are inclined to claim that they are maintained schools. The local authorities would welcome a definition which would enable them to give with some authority a decision in those cases where that claim is made by a school which does not derive all its funds from the local education authority. They think that that definition should be restricted to an institution where all the funds of the institution, and not only part of them, are derived from the local education authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has explained the purpose of his Amendment; namely, that it is intended to bring about that where an institution which is not, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, maintained by a local education authority has the whole of its running expenses met by a grant from the authority, it should be treated for the purposes of this Bill as though it were
1100
so maintained and so brought within its scope. The main effect of that would be to deprive the institution of the most important attribute, its voluntary status, requiring its instrument of government to be made by order of the local education authority, and its articles of government also to be made by the local education authority, subject to the Secretary of State's approval. My right honourable friend does not think it is desirable to make a major change in the status of certain colleges by means of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consider this point, and perhaps withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment, of course, is to restrict the definition of "maintained" to those institutions which derive all their funds from the local education authority.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: That, in fact, is the group already covered by the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Lord wishes to extend it to those which receive grant aid and are not fully maintained.
LORD ILFORD: No. The difficulty is that schools which do not derive all their funds from the local education authority claim to be maintained schools. What we should like is to have that definition precluded. Perhaps the noble Baroness will look at this point again.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Lord.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in my view, the Amendment is not very clear. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is now driving at, but I do not think it really says that in the Amendment. I wonder whether we could perhaps get together later and draft a better Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think it is the fact that, as the Amendment stands, it would have an effect which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, would not want in connection with these establishments for which he is so concerned.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will consult with her advisers again. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Government and conduct of special schools]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this Amendment is simple and straightforward. It confers power on a local education authority to group together under a single governing body two or more special schools maintained by it. A governing body constituted for this purpose is to consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner as the authority may determine. The approval of the Secretary of State is not required to the grouping together of special schools. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(3A) A local education authority may make an arrangement for the constitution of a single governing body for any two or more special schools maintained by them; and the governing body constituted in pursuance of any such arrangement shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the local authority may determine.")—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD ILFORD: Here again the noble Baroness and I are so close to one another that it seems a pity that we cannot join hands. This Amendment deals with special schools, and makes it possible for the local education authority to group two or more special schools under a body of managers. Here again the local education authorities would like to go a little further—they would like to be able to group special schools with primary schools, which could be conveniently carried out. Of course they have to be in convenient situations. It would have the great advantage that the treatment of special children is changing, and the local education authorities are anxious, so far as they can, to get rid of segregation between special children and the normal children who attend the primary schools. If they were able to group the special school with the primary school to which normal children go, I think it would help the special children to get rid of that sense of segregation which they feel when they are attending a special school. At least the local education authorities are experimenting in this direction and they would be glad of the opportunity to see whether the grouping of the special schools with the normal primary schools under the same body of managers might
1102
help to remove that sense of segregation which special children feel to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.41 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I think I have already explained the purpose of this Amendment, which is not very obvious when one reads it, because it is based upon a reference to two sections of the principal Act. This Amendment proposes to leave out the reference to Section 21 of the principal Act and to substitute for it a reference to Section 20 of that Act. Section 20 provides power for the local education authority to group the managers of primary schools, and if the Amendment were adopted and Section 20 substituted for Section 21, it would make it possible for the local education authorities to group special schools with the normal primary schools, which is what they want to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("21 of the Education Act 1944") and insert ("20 of the Education Act 1944 (grouping of schools under one management), of section 21 of").—(Lord Ilford.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has said we are so close that he would like us to move a little closer, and I am disappointed to have to say that I cannot accept this invitation, even in relation to this Amendment, with which we have sympathy. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Government Amendment was designed to confer power on a local education authority to group together under a single governing body two or more special schools maintained by it, whereas the noble Lord's Amendment is designed to extend the arrangement so that special schools can also be grouped with county primary or secondary schools.
It is the hope of the Secretary of State that the local education authorities will try to find, as governors of special schools, persons who have a particular knowledge of, and concern for, the needs of handicapped children which could not normally be expected of the governors of ordinary schools. He thinks this is less likely to be achieved if the governors concerned are required to extend their interests over a wider range of schools. Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that

1103
in my experience quite often the people who are in fact governors of the one type of school are also the governors of the special school, but I am sure he will appreciate the point made in this connection by my right honourable friend.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, at this stage I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Supplemental]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this Amendment does three things. In the first place, it enables a local education authority which has made an arrangement grouping together two or more establishments of further education or special schools to bring that arrangement to an end at any time. When this is done it will be necessary to establish under either Clause 1 or Clause 2 a governing body for each establishment or special school which was included in the group. Next, the Amendment provides that while a grouping arrangement is in force, and there is a governing body appointed under it, there shall be no separate governing body for each of the establishments or special schools concerned. Thirdly, the Amendment secures that for legal purposes a governing body constituted in accordance with a grouping arrangement shall be the governing body of each of the establishments or special schools included in the group and that a member of such a governing body shall be a governor of each of those establishments or schools. This is significant in particular in relation to the statutory provisions specified in subsection (2) of Clause 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) Every arrangement made under subsection (4) of section 1 or subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act may be terminated at any time by the local education authority by which it was made; and while such an arrangement is in force with respect to any establish-ments—

(a) the foregoing provisions of this Act as to the constitution of the body of governors shall not apply to those establishments; and

1104

(b) for the purposes of any enactment the governing body constituted in accordance with the arrangement shall be deemed to be the body of governors of each of those establishments, and references to a governor in any enactment shall, in relation to each of those establishments, be construed accordingly.")—(Baroness Phillips.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Commencement]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will move this and the following Amendment together. The Amendments are consequential on those already made and are necessary so as to make the subsection applicable to grouping arrangements as well as to instruments of government and articles of government made under the provisions of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 will enable a local education authority to make an instrument of government, articles of government and, as now to be amended, a grouping arrangement before they become subject to a definite duty to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, after ("establishment") insert ("and any arrangement under this Act for the constitution of a single governing body for two or more establishments").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("instrument") insert ("or arrangement").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.