§ 4.31 p.m.
§ Debate on Second Reading resumed.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, returning to the Coal Industry Bill, first of all I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the explanation that he gave with regard to the Bill. He said that it was a short Bill; my submission is that it would have been better had it been shorter. I say that for this reason: much controversy would have been avoided, much time would have been saved, and the measure would have gone through with the wholehearted support of both sides of the House. I would make an observation upon one of the matters to which he referred—the omission of the clause which is commonly known now as the "coal burn clause". As he said, there may not be the same need for it now as there was a few months ago, but may I submit to your Lordships that it would have been a very good safeguard and insurance. I am sorry that this clause has been omitted.
I understood the noble Lord to say that retail coal distribution would be regarded as a non-activity of the Board. I do not think that that is right. It is traditional, it has been taking place for a long time. Even before nationalisation, it was customary for some of the old coal owners to retail the coal that they produced. Before I make a few observations on the Bill, with your Lordships' indulgence I should like to say one or two words about the timing of the measure. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, for the benefits of the 1967 scheme to be continued it is necessary for the Bill to have the Royal Assent not later than March 31, so we have not much time in your Lordships' House to go through the remaining stages of this Bill.
The part of the Bill extending the scheme of benefit to miners made redundant is not in disagreement at all. There is wholehearted support that the 1967 scheme should be continued. A Bill to do that had been debated in, I think, April, 1970, certainly before the General Election and the Dissolution of Parliament. Although there have been one or two probings and inquiries in the other 1512 place since the Election, there was never any satisfactory answer to why the non-controversial measure of April, 1970, was not being brought forward. It was not until December 3 that the Bill which is now before your Lordships had its Second Reading. I put forward the idea, very sincerely, that that delay was completely unnecessary.
In the criticism I am making about the timing of this Bill I absolve the usual channels of both sides of the House. It was only in the early hours of last Friday morning that the Bill was completed in another place, and it was not until Tuesday of this week that it was introduced into this House, and there has been only one full day between the introduction and the Second Reading which is now taking place. I consider that it is being less than fair and reasonable to Members of your Lordships' House that they should be expected to understand and digest the contents of the Bill in that time. Some parts of the Bill are highly controversial, as my noble friend Lord Diamond said. In the Standing Committee of another place there were thirteen Sittings, and at least 50 hours must have been spent during the Committee stage discussing some of the controversial proposals in the Bill. It is my view that the Government, by delaying the introduction of the Bill, not allowing it to come forward for Second Reading in another place before December 3, and, secondly, by mixing up the highly controversial parts with the extension of the 1967 benefits scheme, have been less than reasonable and fair to your Lordships' House.
Now, coming to the Bill itself, I ask, what is it? After reading it and endeavouring to comprehend its implications I have come to the conclusion that it is a real mixture. The components of this particular mixture may be the reason for the delay to which I have just made reference. It would have been much better for the mining industry and for Parliament if a simple, non-controversial Bill extending the 1967 scheme, which, as I have said, everybody was of the opinion was desirable, had been dealt with as separate legislation from the controversial parts of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. In saying that, I am not challenging the right of the Government to bring in any legislation they wish to; 1513 that would not be right or proper. My criticism in these observations is of the way in which they are doing it.
This Bill, as I have already said, is to me a real mixture. I have found it quite difficult to find an appropriate metaphor, but I can think of three. It is like the curate's egg, good in parts. It is like a dog's breakfast. And it is a bag of all-sorts. To indicate the mixture of the Bill, may I draw the attention of your Lordships to the Second Reading in another place? Some parts of it were welcomed, as was indicated by the noble Lord who introduced the measure. Other parts of the Bill were condemned out of hand, to the extent that in another place on the Second Reading it was divided against because feeling was so strong. I recall being told some time ago that the mining industry has always had its problems; and it has them now—social, economic, problems in the field of welfare, accidents, industrial disease. If I am not mistaken, the nature of this industry, with which I have been connected for so long, presupposes that it always will have problems. During the last fifty years to my knowledge, and even beyond that, the coal industry, which once was the base of our economy, has been the subject of many debates in both Houses of Parliament, and also of much legislation.
I hardly know whether I dare mention what I am going to say now, but I think I will take the chance. It was only last week that I was perusing the Coal Industry Bill 1926, which was debated in your Lordships' House. An Amendment was moved to reject it, and it was divided against, even in your Lordships' House. I mention this one incident only to indicate what must have been very strong feelings on the part of some noble Lords at that time, almost half a century ago. In 1967, when a Bill similar to this, at any rate so far as the first two or three clauses are concerned, was debated—it dealt with the social consequences of redundancy, to which the noble Lord in front of me has referred—I remember making use of words which I should like to repeat. I said that the coal industry for many, many generations was the cockpit of economic struggle. However, happily, during the past thirty years there has been less turbulence, not because the problems have been minimised, but for the reason that the problems are much 1514 different to-day. Not the least of the problems which confront the coal indutry, and one with which this Bill seeks to deal, is that of contraction.
May I say one or two words about this problem? First of all, so that the magnitude of the contraction which has been taking place in the coal industry is appreciated, may I make just this simple reference. To-day there are some 285,000 men only in the industry. I remember that when I started work as a boy at the pit the figure was 1,100,000 but that is a fair long time ago. The point I wish to make upon that now is that in less than twenty years, for one reason or another, more than half a million people have left this industry. I submit that that is a staggering fact and must indeed focus attention upon this problem of contraction. A moment or two ago I said that there were still problems in this coal industry but that they were of a different kind. May I mention only two? First, there has been a technical and mechanical revolution. Secondly, there has been the intrusion into the energy field of other fuels, particularly oil. I would observe now that all post-war Governments have made the mistake of putting too many eggs in the oil basket at the expense of the contraction of the coal mining industry.
The two points I have just made could form the basis of a most interesting debate, but not to-day. The only thing I will say is that during the last fifteen to twenty years those two factors have created the problem of contraction in the industry; and I do not think anybody would controvert that assertion. What has it meant? As the two noble Lords speaking from the Front Benches indicated, there have been social repercussions, pit closures on a very large scale, and reduction of manpower to the extent that I have indicated.
The first two or three clauses of the Bill, as was the case in 1967, are dealing with the social consequences of contraction. The proof of this—do not take my word for it at all—was provided when the Minister, Sir John Eden, was introducing the Bill in another place, when he said that Clauses 1 and 2 are to extend certain schemes for three years beyond March, 1971, to mitigate the social consequences of contraction in the industry. That was an admirable thing in 1967, and may I make this observation. Although contraction started towards the 1515 end of 1956, and gained momentum in succeeding years, nothing was done to deal with this problem until the late Government took action in the matter in 1967; and that was a very admirable thing indeed. I would also say that what was admirable in 1967 in this particular field is also admirable to-day.
It is sad when men of 55 and over are victims of pit closures. Not only are there social and economic effects but there is an emotionalism involved which I personally cannot find words to describe. These are no longer young men; at no time from boyhood onwards have they done any other work. From my own personal experience I know that they are very fine men. I regard them as the salt of the earth. It is not only sad, it is not only disturbing: for these men it is also difficult to find another job at that time of life, particularly when they have done nothing else but pit work. It is with this particular problem that Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill are concerned.
I would summarise the matter by saying this: it is a bit of ambulance work, dealing with the effects of contraction. But seeing that the benefit is limited, in the case of those aged 55 and over, to three years—and for those between the ages of 55 and 62 there is a hiatus—what about the man who is reaching the retiring age of 65? If he is still out of a job, will he continue on unemployment benefit? This hiatus could last for either one year or seven years. It is really a mathematical problem depending upon the age at which the man becomes redundant.
While I am on this point may I put three or four questions to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? First, what is the total number of recipients under the scheme of 1967? Second, how many of those recipients had the three years of benefit for which the scheme provides before reaching the age of 65? Third, what is the total cost, to the latest convenient date? Fourth, can the noble Lord give us an estimate of the number of men who will benefit under the extended scheme?
Happily, the rate of pit closures seems to have passed its peak. When the Minister introduced the Bill on its Second Reading in another place he said 1516
I cannot see the rate again approaching the level reached in 1967–1968 and 1969–1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 3/12/70, col. 1489–90.]My Lords, those of us who come from the areas where so many have been affected realise that contraction is a terrible thing. I would express the opinion that during the past 16 or 17 years pit closures have been too fast. Hundreds of thousands of men—imagine it, my Lords! net scores but hundreds of thousands of men—have lost their jobs in this process of contraction. I think the statistical experts concerned with the part that coal will play in the energy requirements of the nation have been terribly mistaken.I remember that in 1950, in the very early days of this nationalised industry, a booklet was prepared, entitled Investing in Coal. It was then said that for some time coal to the extent of about 250 million tons would be needed annually; and every White Paper, every statistic and every estimate that came out after 1950 was altered in a downward direction. In respect of productivity the industry has a good record. Output at the face, output per man-shift, has increased. I could give some interesting figures, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships with figures now.
Let me summarise the position. In spite of fewer pits, productivity is up; and manpower, as I have estimated, is below 300,000. The position is this. It is ironical that if there is not a coal famine we have a situation in which contraction is now greater than supply. The tangible evidence of this is to be found in the Bill itself, because it removes the embargo on imported coal. On this proposal in the Bill may I say to the Minister that I hope the industry, with the lifting of this embargo, is not going to be burdened with paying millions of pounds, as it was 20 years ago. At that time £70 million was the burden on the National Coal Board through the importation of coal.
This is a very important point, and when the Minister, Sir John Eden, was pressed on it in another place he said that there was no question of subsidising the price of imported coal to the customer. My Lords, I do not think that this is sufficiently explicit. A statement of that kind can mean one of two things, and I should like the Minister to-day to make 1517 the assertion that if, in the event, the price of imported coal is greater than British coal to the customer the difference in cost will not fall upon the National Coal Board. There is a shortage of coal in Europe, and it we can get it the price may be greater than the price of British coal at the moment.
May I now hurriedly make one or two observations about what my noble friend Lord Diamond described—and rightly so—as the controversial parts of the Bill? I refer to Clauses 7 and 8, but particularly the former. This gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to begin what I call the hiving-off process of the more profitable parts of the National Coal Beard undertakings. Again may I quote Sir John Eden. He said in another place that, "on this point no decision has yet been taken by the Government on the activities of the N.C.B." I accept that. But it does not preclude the fact that a decision may be taken, and there are suspicions—at this stage I put it no higher than that—which are justified in the light of what this Government have already done.
I will take only two examples. The first is the hiving off of certain airline routes—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—to private operators. The other example I take concerns the State breweries in Carlisle. A Bill has already been published for the breweries and pubs in Carlisle to be denationalised. How can the Government expect us to be other than suspicious when these things are taking place at the moment right under our noses? I would reiterate what my noble friend Lord Diamond said. Is the possibility of this hiving-off the reason why the present chairman of the National Coal Board is leaving the Board? Some of us are very suspicious about this. I am sure that the clauses which I have mentioned, particularly Clause 7, will be the subject of much discussion during the next stages of the Bill. What I wanted to do to-day was to make my opposition to these clauses clear, and to say that they ought to have been the subject of separate legislation and not mixed up with the extension of the 1967 scheme giving benefit to redundant miners consequent upon the contraction of the industry.
§ 5.2 p.m.
§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITHMy Lords, I am glad to join with my noble friend, Lord Diamond, and my noble friend, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, in this debate. As is, I think, clear, this Bill differs very substantially from the one of a similar title put forward by the last Administration. There are some parts, it is true, which are common, there are some parts of the former Administration's Bill which have disappeared, and there are other parts of the present Bill which are quite new. On the parts which are common to the two Bills, I would refer to only one point, and that is to the provision which the Bill makes in respect of mineworkers' redundancy schemes. I should like to echo and perhaps carry a little further the point which has been made by my noble friend, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, in this connection. The purpose of the mineworkers' redundancy schemes is to compensate for expected earnings in the case of those who retire prematurely, and in framing the regulations and taking action for which Clause 2 of the Bill gives him power, I trust that the Minister will have regard to a number of factors including those to which my noble friend has already referred.
In particular, I hope he will have regard to changes in the wage pattern in the industry. The payments under a mineworkers' redundancy scheme are, of course, based upon earnings in the immediate pre-redundancy period, and once fixed those payments remain static for the three-year period for which the individual may be qualified for them. There are anomalies arising from this method of calculation, particularly in the case of those who in the period on which the pre-redundancy payments are calculated have suffered ill-health, perhaps suffered from the effects of industrial disease. I hope that these anomalies may be looked at sympathetically by the Minister in using the powers proposed. In addition, I hope that he can consider the point which my noble friend described as the possibility of hiatus, the hiatus between the period when the entitlement for benefit under the redundancy scheme ends and the individual maybe gets another job or maybe comes to the age of 65.
1519 At the moment, an individual may exhaust his entitlement before either of those events.
Finally, during the three-year period there are likely to be enhancements of wages among those still employed in the industry, and I hope that the Minister will be able to look at the possibility of adjustments being made in the redundancy payments to take account of changes in wage levels in the industry. There are some precedents for this, and I hope that the Minister, when he comes to exercise his powers under this clause, will consult carefully all the parties concerned, particularly, of course, the National Union of Mineworkers, and will seek to meet these points which I have raised and others which have been raised in connection with this matter.
May I turn to two provisions which were in the Bill envisaged by the previous Administration, and the Bill as it is now before us to-day: first of all, the provision which has been discarded and which relates to extra payments for coal burned in power stations. As I understand it, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says that this point will be reconsidered if necessary. It may well be that at the moment, in the immediate supply and demand situation which confronts us, it is felt that there is not a strong case for the existence of this power. But in the experience of the mining industry we have seen how changes in circumstances can take place, and it would be a sad situation if circumstances did change be a direction which made it reasonable for payments of this sort to be made and for the Minister then to be in a position to say that he had no statutory power to make such payments and that it was not possible to envisage getting Parliamentary time for him to have such powers conferred upon him. It would be perfectly reasonable for those powers to be embodied in the present Bill, even though it was understood that there might not be an immediate prospect of their being put into use.
Similar considerations apply to the omission of the provision for compensating the National Coal Board for deferment of colliery closures. Here, again, is a point to which my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield made reference. A colliery, as we all know, often represents the only 1520 source of employment in a specified area. It may be of crucial importance to the economy and the social viability of that area. Here, again, there would be virtue in powers being included in the Bill, so that should the situation arise where there was a need to exercise such powers—and I should perhaps feel a little less keenly on this point if I had a greater degree of confidence in the regional policies of the present Government—they would be there, available for use.
I want to turn to what the present Administration have added to the Bill—what they have thought is of importance and urgency in their examination of this great industry. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is always so disarming, and so rightly enjoys respect in all quarters of the House, that one is almost tempted to be persuaded by him that this is a mere minor piece of tidying up which is to be found in Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. But it is exceedingly hard for noble Lords to be convinced of that, as it was exceedingly hard for many Members in another place to be convinced of it, when they look at the background of opinion which has been expressed about the nationalised industries. Again my noble friends have referred to this point. When one thinks, for example, of the zeal which was expressed earlier this year by the Minister for Industry for the hiving off of activities from publicly owned industries, one is without doubt bound to be inclined, and is justified in being inclined, to see an exceedingly sinister intention in these clauses in the present Bill.
It is true that the activities of the National Coal Board are diversified activities. Some of these ancillary activities the National Coal Board inherited in 1947; some of them they have developed; some, indeed, they developed in the 1950s with, if my recollection serves me aright, the specific approval of the Conservative Administration of those days. It is difficult to know whether those who are critical of these ancillary activities are more critical of those which were inherited from the former coal owners, and into which presumably the former coal owners had themselves been led by normal commercial pressures, or whether they are more critical of those which have been developed since the National Coal Board has been in existence, in response to more immediate and recent commercial opportunities and needs and in proper exercise 1521 of the commercial judgment and initiative of the National Coal Board.
I should have thought that, whichever group of ancillary activities we are concerned with, they would be welcomed in a general sense by all noble Lords in all parts of the House. Indeed, if I understood the situation aright, before the Election the present Government were emphasising that the nationalised boards were to be free from pettifogging interference in the exercise of their commercial powers and their commercial judgment. They were, indeed, to be encouraged to develop their intiative and their confidence in their own judgment. If one looks to what surely must be behind the clauses which are now before us, and if one looks at that intention, one is led to ask how far the commercial judgment of the National Coal Board is to be respected by Her Majesty's Government.
I would ask the noble Lord when he replies to address himself to this point: Is it envisaged in the exercise of the powers which the Minister will have under this Bill that he is to insist upon the National Coal Board divesting themselves of activities which, in their own commercial judgment, they would wish to pursue; or is he going to be guided by the commercial judgment of a publicly appointed board, and one, of course, subject to considerable regular public accountability and scrutiny? I hope that the noble Lord will clear up this point so that we may know whether or not it is the intention to run counter to the commercial judgment of the Board. If it is intended to run counter to their commercial judgment, then this seems to me to be an extraordinary handicap to place upon the board of a publicly owned industry. If it is not intended to run counter to their commercial judgment, I for one cannot see the purpose of embodying these clauses or giving these powers.
Many of these activities, whatever may be said about them and whatever may be the effect of looking at them separately from a financial point of view, are closely associated in character, and certainly closely associated geographically with the main coal-winning activities of the National Coal Board. I will not list the very wide range of activities into which it would be open 1522 to the Minister under the clause as drafted to make inquiry, because in moving the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, quite rightly and wisely, assured us that it was not the intention to use these powers in some fields of National Coal Board activities where it would be manifestly absurd to do so. But, of course, he spoke only of those activities not covered by the definition of coal getting which are so obviously intimately associated with it.
There are other activities which, to my recollection, he did not mention. How can one really say that they are not very proper, indeed I would say necessary, activities for a well-run National Coal Board to be undertaking? Can anybody really say that the National Coal Board ought to be precluded from any activity in the field of distribution, especially when one thinks of the very wide gap that still remains between the pithead price of coal and the price that the customer normally has to pay? Chemical manufacture has a very natural association with the activities of the National Coal Board. Central heating is quite obviously a proper field in which any lively organisation connected with the production of a great source of energy would be concerned. Or are those activities which are concerned with using the waste products of the National Coal Board's main activities not proper? I should have thought that they most certainly were.
But quite apart from these matters, is not the essential point this? If nationalised industries are to have reasonable scope, they must be free to use their material resources and their human resources in a way in which they, as reasonable, experienced men, believe to be in the national interest and in the interests of the enterprise with which they are charged. Moreover, how far is there to be taken into account the importance of some of these activities in the provision of employment in areas which, in the past, have been so largely dependent upon the coal industry?
There was a time when diversification was preached as one of the greatest elements in a regional policy for those areas which are dependent upon the coal mining industry. If diversification was, and is, to be an important element, why should the National Coal Board be 1523 debarred from diversification? I am bound to say that I do not think that noble Lords opposite or their colleagues in another place, have at any time in their now nearly 25 years of history, given to the National Coal Board a tithe of the credit to which they are entitled for their successes and achievements. My noble friend gave the figures which measured the size of this matter in terms of manpower, in human terms.
The reorganisation of this great industry is hazardous and is an unrelenting job in regard to winning coal. The reorganisation of the industry to take account of social realities and technological changes has been an enormous achievement. Taking the history of the National Coal Board as a whole—and some of us can remember well the condition of the coal industry which the Board inherited, especially the material condition and the human situation—and taking as a whole the record of the Board, it has been one of great improvement in productivity, especially when we bear in mind that in the inter-war years the United Kingdom coal industry was lagging in progress in productivity behind almost every coal producing country on the Continent.
It has been a remarkable record, too, taken as a whole, in the field of industrial relations: not only in the negative sense of reducing the number of strikes in proportion to the size of the working force fairly continuously over a period of time, but also in the more positive sense of developing consultation with the workers in a way which I believe many other industries could well follow. It has been a remarkable record, too, in the field of improvement in safety standards and in reducing the dangers and the toll which this industry imposes. The financial records, the commercial records of the Board, taken as a whole over a period of time are a great testimony to the energy and the initiative of the Board. I should like very warmly to associate myself with what has been said by other noble Lords about the great contribution which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Robens, who has illuminated and inspired the activities of this Board and of this industry in almost every aspect, but who, in particular, has had this great qualification of never losing 1524 sight of the enormous importance of trying, in a difficult industry, to develop relations which took account of the human beings who were employed in it.
I am afraid that I must develop this point a little further by saying that noble Lords opposite—and this is a part of the background of our consideration of this matter, because it gives some clue as to the way in which Clauses 6 to 8 may be used—and the Party with which they are identified have, I am afraid, generally shown a certain degree of animus against nationalised industries as such. I believe that to be a great pity. On the first occasion on which I had the privilege of speaking in your Lordships' House, nearly four years ago, I made a plea for both Parties to be prepared to look fairly and objectively at nationalised industries; not one Party feeling that it must always defend what had happened, nor the other Party feeling that it must always criticise, condemn and belittle what had happened. I am afraid that when one sees the kind of comment which is normally made—there are, of course, honourable exceptions—as an organised body by those with whom noble Lords opposite are associated, one could hardly say that the attitude has been an objective one. I believe it is unhappily true to say that noble Lords opposite, and those with whom they are associated, are in danger of being chilly and distant friends of nationalised industries when they are in power, and unbridled, undiscriminating, irresponsible critics of nationalised industries when they are out of power.
I have had occasion recently to look at the situation in the countries of the Common Market so far as the various forms of public enterprise and joint enterprise are concerned. Although nobody would say that in the countries of the Common Market politics are any less lively than they are in this country, one does not find—and I do not believe that one finds this in any major country except the United Kingdom—a situation in which one of the great Parties regards it as a part of its attitude of mind to be so consistently critical of, and belittling towards, nationalised industries, as in general the Party opposite is. I concede again that there are honourable exceptions, but I do not think that any noble 1525 Lord opposite who reflects on the situation, and who reflects on the quality and quantity of comment upon nationalised industries which has emanated from the Party with which he is associated in the last quarter of a century, will seriously claim that it has been objective. This, I believe, is a tragic situation for this country.
I do not believe, as I said on an earlier occasion, that it is a situation which is fair to the nationalised industries. It is a situation which is, in particular, bound to be destructive of the morale of those in the nationalised industries—and they constitute, after all, a very large section of our fellow citizens and a very large section of the working population of this country. I believe that this has an adverse effect upon morale not only among the workers, the operatives, the craftsmen, but in very many grades of management as well. I believe that neglect of the morale of people in the nationalised industries—and I have not only in mind the nationalised coal industry at this moment—can be a very dangerous thing from the national point of view.
We are under some pressure of time with this Bill. As has been pointed out, there is a great need to get it approved by your Lordships' House very speedily. I think the shortage of time arises because of the excessive delay in introducing the Bill in another place, when the necessities of the time-table were really well understood. But may I, on behalf of my noble friends, make a proposal to the noble Lord? If he wishes to expedite business, I believe I can assure him, on behalf of my noble friends, that he can have all the stages of this Bill immediately if he will tell us that he has withdrawn Clauses 6, 7, and 8. In the event that he is not able to accept that generous and well-meant suggestion, I am bound to tell him that we shall seek to pursue this discussion further at the later stages of the Bill. We shall do all we can, as my noble friend Lord Diamond said, to seek the removal of these clauses, without prejudice, of course, to those parts of the Bill which we support. If, as alas! their performance in other respects sometimes suggests, the Government are disposed to go on to the bitter end, even though in their hearts they must have been convinced of the unwisdom 1526 of what they are doing, we hope that if these unhappy clauses finally appear in an Act, they will be a dead letter from the day that they are passed.
§ 5.28 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I certainly cannot complain in any way of the temper in which this debate has been conducted, and I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in it. If I may deal straight away with the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has put to me, I cannot help thinking that, while it is entirely right that we should debate these clauses fully when we come to the Committee stage, and explore every aspect of them, he would hardly expect us willingly to discard them. If I may say so, I think that perhaps it is partly because of the suspicion (this was the word used) of the clauses that noble Lords opposite are so antagonistic to them. While we could go on for a long time to-night talking about these clauses, it seems to me that the appropriate time to do so is on the Committee stage. However, I should just like to make one or two remarks about them.
The first point I would make is that the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was the first of the great, or far-reaching nationalisation Acts, if you like to put it less colourfully, that was passed, and it was enacted in 1946. It was indeed at an early stage of the growth of the concept of nationalisation that was developed over a period of years. At that time I was a Member of another place, and I am bound to say that the boot was entirely on the other foot so far as criticism was concerned. We were perpetually hearing talk of the failure of private enterprise. Private enterprise does fail sometimes—all human enterprises can. But if noble Lords and right honourable gentlemen in another place had not placed such enormous insistence on those occasions when private enterprise fails, then I do not think that those on this side of the House would have looked so critically from time to time, as I quite agree they have done in the past, at nationalised industries.
Again referring to my own experience, when the Conservative Government came into power in 1951 it was perhaps almost a surprise to some Members on our side of the House that we had to make a success of the nationalised industries. The noble Lord talks of a "chilly friendship", 1527 but there is no such thing as a chilly friendship with the nationalised industries. It was the job and purpose of noble Lords and Ministers here and of right honourable gentlemen in another place who were charged with serving the nation to see that the nationalised industries served the nation in the best posible way; and I think that over a period of years the sharp asperity which existed at one time has been rounded off very much indeed. While it remains true that those who have founded something, because they have a paternal pride and interest in it, have perhaps also a paternal resentment of criticism—and this is sometimes proper—I think on our side we have rejoiced in the successes of the nationalised industries and we have particularly noted that they have been most likely to succeed when they are faced with competition, because we believe in competition and think that it is a good thing.
To take the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, there was one single central feature to it: the duty laid on the Coal Board under Section 1 of the Act to work and get coal; to secure the efficient development of the coal-mining industry and to make supplies of coal available at such quantity and at such prices and so on. These were the duties of the Coal Board, and to exercise these duties they were given a discretion to extend their functions in certain directions. These were called discretionary functions.
My Lords, what we are saying in this Bill is that over the period of years there has never been any full examination or even a partial examination of the ancillary functions of the Coal Board. They have been subject as a whole to scrutiny in a number of ways but there is a difference from some of the other industries—transport, iron and steel and, more recently, the Post Office—and I think the onus of showing why the Coal Board should not be subject to the same disciplines and the same degree of accountability as the other industries lies on the other side of the House.
It seems to me that after 25 years it is reasonable to look at various activities of the Coal Board, particularly the non-coal-getting activities, the non-colliery activities. The Bill itself does not impose any duty on the Secretary of State to have a review carried out. It merely gives a 1528 discretionary power to direct the Board—and it is the Board who are to carry out this—to carry out a review and to report to the Secretary of State either on non-colliery activities of the Board or such of these activities as may be specified in the direction. So what we are saying is that it is not unreasonable to give the Secretary of State the same powers in regard to the National Coal Board as Ministers have in the case of other nationalised industries, and to exercise these powers selectively as he feels it to be in the national interest. I find it very difficult to see why there should be any objection to that, and really one must confess that the objection lies, as noble Lords have said, simply in the suspicion they have of the motives of those on this side of the House—
§ LORD DIAMONDWould the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? He keeps on referring to suspicion. May I refer him to the exchange which took place on December 3 on Second Reading of this Bill in another place, when Mr. John Cronin (col. 1486) asked the Minister the following question:
Will he bear in mind that his party's election manifesto made it clear that the Government's policy would be a progressive reduction of State involvement in the nationalised industries …"—
VISCOUNT GOSCHENI think the noble Lord is quoting from a Member, not a Minister, in this Session of Parliament.
§ LORD DIAMONDMy Lords, I am grateful for that advice, which I find as astonishing as it is acceptable. I was anxious not to say anything other than was verbally precise. I understand that your Lordships would prefer me to indicate what an honourable gentleman said in another place. He asked whether it was not clear that the policy of the Government was to hive off peripheral activities, and Sir John Eden, a Minister of Her Majesty's Government, said in column 1486:
Yes, and the honourable Gentleman should not be surprised that we are taking these powers for the purpose of the coal industry.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes, my Lords, I entirely accept the noble Lord's interventions at this time and I certainly do not want to indicate that these powers are being taken to no purpose. There 1529 would be no object in taking them unless there were some possibility of their being used. But really this brings me to the next point: that when you have industries of this size and when they are so enormously diversified, the whole question of the efficiency of control is bound to be called in question; and to that one has to add that the normal disciplines of the market do not apply to the nationalised industries, in the sense that the money is forthcoming from the Government for the advancement of their enterprises except to the extent that they are able to finance them out of their own profits. In these circumstances, I find it difficult to see why noble Lords should so strenuously object to these powers being taken.
On the power to order a review, may I repeat what I have already said on the question of confidentiality. The assurances given in another place about confidentiality were in relation to information provided by the Board in a report to the Secretary of State, following a review under Clause 6. If the Board considered it necessary to disclose confidential information to the Secretary of State in a report, the Secretary of State would treat it as strictly confidential, and it would be used strictly on a need-to-know basis. When the review has been done—I come to the next leg of this matter—a decision has to be made, in consultation between the Chairman of the Coal Board and the Minister, as to what action should be taken in consequence of the review; and that is what Clause 7 is about.
It seems to me entirely possible that, having looked at this very wide array of enterprises that are controlled directly or indirectly by the Board, it may be thought, by both the Board and the Minister, that it would be a good thing to dispose of some of them. It may also be, given a natural reluctance on the part of those who run activities to give up running them, that the Board will feel disinclined to give up or even to alter an activity in which they are engaged. If, after long consideration—and there would be long consideration—the Minister decided that it was in the national interest and for the good of the Board themselves that they should divest themselves of assets or discontinue activities, it seems to me not unreasonable that he 1530 should give the Board a direction to do so, especially as there is the safeguard that at that stage he has to lay an Order before Parliament in regard to the direction.
The noble Lord will know that directions do not go into great detail, and the likelihood of any disclosure of confidential information at that stage would be very slight. It would be for the Minister to make sure that confidential information was not disclosed, however much he was taunted by the other side—whoever the other side might be at the time—in either House. I see no difficulty at all in, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, raised, and, given the fact that these powers exist in other nationalised industries, it is difficult to deny them in the case of the Coal Board. I have been asked some specific questions to which I shall try to reply—
§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITHMy Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, is he really saying that the Minister might use these powers to produce a change which is contrary to the commercial judgment of the Board?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I should not exclude that. But I should also take the opportunity of saying that it might be the Board's own wish that, although they agreed with the Minister, this should be done by way of direction. That could also happen. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who always speaks with great experience and authority on these matters, asked me a number of questions which I should like to answer. He took a great interest in the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme, and on that I would say that there is nothing that is excluded from the review. All the points which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, raised, and all matters of consultation about which they showed some anxiety, can be covered. So I hope that with that assurance I need not pursue the subject any further.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about the number of recipients. The answer is 35,000 up to March, 1971. I am afraid that I do not know the answer had benefits in the last three years. The to his question about how many have noble Lord asked what was the total cost 1531 to date. The total ultimate cost will be about £34 million, with a further £7 million for premature pensions; that is, pensions for men who have qualified by now. Those who qualify hereafter will be covered by the Order up to next year, and we hope by that time to have the review. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, also asked how many men will benefit under the extended scheme. The answer is that it is thought that about 5,000 more men will benefit in the course of the next year, and if the present scheme were continued until March, 1974—and I must emphasise that this is very tentative indeed—it is possible that a further 9,000 would benefit.
I understand the reluctance of noble Lords opposite to see the disappearance of the coal-burn clause, but, as Mr. Wedgwood Benn said when the Bill was going through another House, that was regarded as an insurance scheme. One always has to consider whether or not it is worth while taking out an insurance policy. One has to consider the risk. The view of the Government is that the risk is really not sufficient to make it worth while to renew this clause at the present time. I would only repeat the assurance given in another place, that if the Government feel it is desirable or necessary they will reconsider this matter.
§ LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, I suppose most people feel it desirable to take out insurance against possible contingencies, but does not their decision depend upon what company it is?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the noble Lord really cannot have it both ways. The implication is that even if we on this side had the powers we would not use them when necessary. I really cannot accept that.
§ LORD DIAMONDMy Lords, is it not rather the case that my noble friend was referring to the financial difficulties which have arisen in regard to a certain company, because the premium was too small? But is it not the case here that the cost of this premium is precisely nil? The noble Lord gets the insurance policy at no premium cost at all. All he has to do is to put the clause in the Bill, and through it goes.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the noble Lord's remarks are quite apt, but this is more a point of argument than a point of reality. It does not make sense, in the present position of coal shortage—and we are likely to be battling against a certain amount of coal shortage for, at any rate, the next two years—to retain these powers. Reference was made to the power to compensate for deferment of closures. As I said in my opening speech, mines are likely to be closed down in present circumstances only if they are entirely uneconomic or if they are worked out, and here, too, it does not seem worth while to retain the powers. I took special notice of what was said about the hiatus under the redundancy payments scheme, and certainly this will be one of the matters which is looked at. If there are further questions which I ought to have answered, I will, if I may, write to noble Lords. I do not want to be drawn in any way on the reasons for the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Robens. One always knows that such reasons are very complex; and I feel justified in saying that one should respect the personal nature of the reasons that he may have felt for not continuing as Chairman of the Coal Board.
My Lords, there is one further point I want to deal with, and that is the question of imports of coal, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, raised. There is no question whatever of the Coal Board's having to pay the higher cost of imports. These imports are now on open general licence. The price at which coal is being imported—and I believe some 72,000 tons were imported in December—is very substantially above the market price here. It is being imported because people need the coal and because, for that reason, they are willing to pay the price; and the full market price is borne by the purchasers. My Lords, I have done my best to deal with the questions which have been raised, and I hope the House will be prepared, with whatever reservations your Lordships may have, to give this Bill a Second Reading.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.