Sitting of 13 July 1944

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  HERTS AND ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords] [By Order]
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [5th July]; further adjourned till Thursday next, at the hour appointed for the consideration of Opposed Private Business.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords] [By Order]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next, at the hour appointed for the consideration of Opposed Private Business.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

    Shop Steward's Dismissal, West London
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a shop steward has been discharged from a factory in West London for serious misconduct, the charge being that he was playing darts, although at local appeals board no corroborative evidence was produced; and, as there is considerable evidence that the shop steward was not playing darts as alleged and that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, will he issue a direction for the reinstatement of this shop steward.
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a shop steward, charged by the firm of serious misconduct, has been dismissed from a
    1860
    factory in West London, of which he has been informed; whether, at the hearing, the local appeals board had any conclusive corroborative evidence; whether the National Service officer will be instructed to issue a direction for reinstatement; and, if not, what action he proposes to take seeing the discharge of the person concerned is regarded by his fellow-workers as a case of victimisation.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): This case was heard, on appeal, by the local appeal board who came to the conclusion that the worker concerned had been guilty of serious misconduct, justifying dismissal. Accordingly, I have no power under the Essential Work Order, nor has the national service officer, to direct his reinstatement. I would add that the board also recorded their opinion that there was no evidence of victimisation.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not possible for the Minister of Labour to have a recall of the board, so that other evidence may be laid before it?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot intervene on a question of serious misconduct.
    Sir R. Young: Is it the fact that witnesses for this man were not heard by the local appeal board but witnesses for the firm were heard? In the second place, does my right hon. Friend think that when 30 men say he was not playing they were all telling untruths, and on this information surely the man should not have been dismissed?
    Mr. Bevin: When a question arises of a man being discharged for serious misconduct I am in the hands of the board. On other matters, which do not involve serious misconduct, the board is in the position of an advisory committee, but on this issue I am entirely in the hands of the board.
    Sir R. Young: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question; perhaps he has not access to the facts at the moment. What I asked was, is it the case that the witnesses for this man were not heard by the local appeal board, while witnesses for the firm were heard?
    Mr. Bevin: I have no evidence of that. I will look into it.
    Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider this? What my hon. Friend

    1861
    on the Front Bench has said has been widely stated. Will he make inquiries into it, because, if it is true, it is quite obvious that through his Department or by mandamus or other proceedings in the courts, this tribunal could be compelled to reconsider the whole case and re-adjudicate?
    Mr. Bevin: I will look into the case.
    Mr. Gallacher: When the Essential Work Order was introduced, did the Minister consider that such a question as serious misconduct would be raised? Are we to understand, when victimisation of this kind takes place, that this House is absolutely helpless to do anything on behalf of a citizen and a worker with a good record as in this case?
    Mr. Bevin: It is assumed under the Essential Work Order that the man should be available and do his job. He was guilty of misconduct, and the case went to the board. I cannot enter into a Debate in this House on the evidence given at the board. If it is alleged that something has happened which should not have happened, I will look into it.

    Factory (Labour Conditions)
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Minister of Labour if he will institute a special inquiry into the labour conditions generally, at a factory of which he has been informed, in view of the firm's action in dismissing a shop steward without any proof of misconduct and previously refusing to establish wages rates for certain women until a case was taken to the industrial court; and, as efforts to establish trade union procedure have been met by the firm by victimisation, will he take steps to prevent this.
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. I am not aware of any matters which call for such a special inquiry. The dismissal of the shop steward has been dealt with through the machinery of the Essential Work Order; the question of the appropriate rates of pay for certain women workers was decided by voluntary arbitration; and a recognition and procedure agreement has existed since early in 1942 between the firm and the unions concerned.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister not aware of the fact that this firm agreed to the terms drawn up by the trade unions and employers so far as women's wages were concerned?

    Higher Appointments (Hankey Committee's Report)
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received the text of the Report of Lord Hankey's Committee on Higher Appointments; and, if so, at what date he proposes to present it to the House.
    Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. I have received this valuable report and I am at present studying the numerous and far-reaching recommendations made by the Committee. I cannot at present make any statement as to publication.

    Workers' Camp (Conditions)
    Mr. Guyasked the Minister of Labour if he will investigate the conditions at a war workers' hostel, the name of which has been communicated to him; and whether he will direct that, unless and until these conditions are satisfactory, no workers shall be transferred into the district in circumstances which require residence at the hostel.
    Mr. Bevin: I have ascertained that the camp to which my hon. Friend refers needed extensive repairs and reconditioning. There was some unfortunate delay in starting the work, but I understand that good progress has since been made, and I see no need now for special directions of the kind mentioned in the second part of the Question.
    Mr. Guy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will expedite the repair of this place as much as possible?
    Mr. Bevin: I am doing my best in all these cases but I would ask the hon. Member to appreciate that the heavy demand for building labour makes my task rather difficult.

    Factory Workers, Wales (Withdrawal)
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the withdrawal of workers taking place in certain workshops and factories in West Wales; the reason for these withdrawals; and whether alternative employment is available to these workers.
    Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will send me the names of the workshops and factories to which he refers I will make inquiries and communicate with him.

  WORKERS (POST-WAR HOLIDAYS AND CONDITIONS)
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps so that all who have served in war service, including the Armed Services and industry, shall be allowed four weeks holiday with full pay, within a reasonable time after the termination of hostilities.
  Mr. Bevin: I am not at present in a position to make, any statement.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour if he will undertake to suggest in the peace settlement a maximum 40-hour week and at least a two weeks' annual holiday with full pay so that they shall form part of the minimum standards to be applied throughout the world; and if he can state the main principles that he is proposing should form the minimum labour standard throughout the world by their inclusion in the peace settlement.
  Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government in considering questions relating to the peace settlement will not fail to pay full regard to the part played by the workers in the war effort. I have already communicated to the House the declaration adopted by the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia in which certain fundamental principles of social policy are formulated. His Majesty's Government have welcomed this declaration. It is for the International Labour Conference in accordance with its constitutional procedure to adopt International Labour Conventions laying down minimum international standards in respect of hours of work, holidays with pay and other matters.
  Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a communication from the Trades Union Congress General Council on the subject of a forty-hour week? If so, what is being done about it?
  Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

  INDIA

    Trade Union Organisation
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for India whether, to stimulate the building up of an effective trades union movement in India, he will consult with the Viceroy on the advisability of appoint-
    1864
    ing to his Executive Council a representative of the workers.
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The members of the Governor-General's Council are appointed on the ground of their capacity to administer the portfolio entrusted to each, and I am satisfied that the Member in charge of the portfolio of Labour (who belongs to a community which is predominantly working-class) is fully qualified to carry out the Government of India's policy of encouraging and supporting, by legislation and other means, the development of trades union organisation in India.
    Miss Ward: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that much progress is needed to enable India to have a really strong trade union movement?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, but the progress will have mainly to come from trade unionism in India itself.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Could I ask whether any Members of Congress belong to the trade union movement in India?

    British Officers' Wives, Kashmir (Double Taxation)
    Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that wives of junior British officers residing in Kashmir have to pay a State Income Tax in Kashmir on allotments and allowances taxed at the source in British India; and what steps does he intend taking to rectify this anomalous position.
    Mr. Amery: Kashmir is an Indian State with its own independent system of Income-Tax. A reciprocal scheme for relief in respect of double taxation is, however, in force between British India and Kashmir, and I have received no information to suggest that it does not meet the needs of the case.
    Mr. Leslie: Would the Minister not consider that this is an imposition? First of all, a junior officer has to pay Income Tax on his allowance where he is stationed and then, when that allowance goes to his wife in Kashmir, she has to pay Income Tax on her allowance there. Surely something can be done to rectify an anomaly of that kind? I have a letter here from the officer's wife stating—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not read out a letter.
    Mr. Leslie: Surely something could be done?
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. If these ladies reside in Kashmir, they do so with knowledge of the fact that Kashmir has a separate Income Tax system from that in British India. There are, however, arrangements to avoid double Income Tax, which I suppose they know about and of which they can make use.
    Mr. Leslie: But is the Minister aware that those arrangements only affect the officer if he travels to Kashmir, and that the wife, residing there, has to pay that tax?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, but it is no business of mine to interfere with the Income Tax laws of Kashmir.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Surely some arrangement could be made with the Government of Kashmir or India to give this woman some relief?
    Mr. Amery: There is a double tax relief arrangement already; I can only hope she will make use of it.

    Famine Inquiry Commission
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for India the names of the personnel of a Commission of Inquiry into the food shortage and subsequent epidemic in India, announced by the Government of India on 23rd June, 1944; and whether the Commission will have the power to investigate the charges of corruption, graft and hoarding, which have been made by responsible leaders in Bengal, which proved so disastrous to the people of the Province.
    Mr. Clement Daviesasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to announce the name of the personnel of the Indian Famine Commission and its terms of reference; whether he will take steps to see that the chairman of the Commission is an Indian who commands the confidence of the Indian people and that the composition of the Commission is also such as will command the confidence of Indian and world opinion.
    Mr. Amery: I hope that the names of the Famine Inquiry Commission will be
    1866
    announced very soon. The terms of reference of the Commission already published required the Commission to investigate and report on the causes of food shortage in India in 1943, in particular in Bengal. It will be for the Commission itself to decide what matters are relevant to this inquiry.
    Mr. C. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing as chairman of this Commission an Indian— someone who carries the full respect of everybody? Further, will the Commission inquire not only into the causes of the famine, but into the steps taken to relieve the suffering which followed the famine?
    Mr. Amery: The appointment of the chairman is a matter for the Government of India. The terms of reference of the Commission are very wide, and cover all the points which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Shinwell: Meanwhile, pending appointment of the personnel of this Commission, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that everything is being done by His Majesty's Government, so far as they have any power to undertake the task, to prevent a recurrence of famine?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that the Commission will consider that no limits are to be set for the scope of their inquiry because there have been alleged, as causes of the famine, ulterior factors such as inflation and failure to suspend certain Provincial Governments, and things of that sort? Surely there must be a more definite limit set to their inquiry.
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, those are in the terms of reference which were given to the House.
    Mr. Nicholson: But the terms of reference refer merely to the causes of food shortage?
    Mr. Sorensen: Cannot the Government influence the Government of India so that an Indian may be appointed as chairman of the Commission?
    Mr. Amery: That might raise communal questions.

    Hindu-Moslem Settlement (Proposals)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the proposals associated with Mr. Rajagopalachari and the pronouncement of Mr. Gandhi, particularly in relation to the Moslem community; and whether, to encourage the opportunities that may arise from these, he will release Congress leaders or, failing this, have facilities for consultation with Mr. Gandhi and other political leaders.
    Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to pronouncements made by Mr. Gandhi in interviews held this month with Mr. Rajagopalachari, indicating his desire to promote co-operation in India and his disapproval of acts of sabotage committed during the period of his detention and to suggestions made by Mr. Gandhi to meet the demands of the Moslem League; and whether further steps are being taken to facilitate the formation of an all-party Indian National Government.
    Mr. Amery: I have seen the Press accounts of certain statements made recently by Mr. Rajagopalachari and of an interview with Mr. Gandhi by a correspondent of the "News Chronicle." The former, apparently, refer to proposals for a Hindu-Moslem settlement which Mr. Rajagopalachari discussed with Mr. Gandhi in March, 1943. These proposals were recently communicated to Mr. Jinnah. The present position is obscure and I would prefer to refrain from comment until the situation is clearer. I would naturally welcome any effective move towards a settlement between the two major communities.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that it is quite possible that in the near future the Government will seize this opportunity of resuming negotiations, or at least providing facilities for further consideration of the whole matter, especially in view of the statement made by Sir Firoz Khan Noon only yesterday?
    Mr. Amery: I understand from Sir Firoz himself that there was a misunderstanding in the Press. His statement referred to a settlement after the war, and not to the present situation. Any settlement must be a matter for the two major communities to agree upon as between themselves.
    Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in any negotiations in which the Government of India have a part, equal rights will be given to the Moslem League, as to the predominantly Hindu Congress, which is unalterably opposed to the views of the Moslem League and the great majority of Moslems in India?
    Mr. Amery: There is no question of the Government in India exercising one-sided influence in the discussions in any manner.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the 50,000,000 people in India who are described as "untouchables" have the same consideration as Mr. Gandhi?
    Mr. Amery: They will have their opportunity of urging their claims.

    Food Situation
    Mr. C. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the representations made by 29 representative Indian leaders about the threat of a second and worse famine and the tragic conditions of epidemic in India; and whether he will make a full statement on the famine situation in India with particular reference to Bengal, Bihar and Malabar.
    Mr. Amery: I have seen the statement referred to which was made before the recent announcement of additional shipments of grain to India in the immediate future. As regards the particular areas mentioned in the Question, in Bengal, where famine occurred last year, the Governor has given his own confident account of the position. I understand that in Bihar the supply position is quite good and that in the Malabar district the Madras Government have the situation in hand.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister satisfied that every step will be taken to stop the recurrence of suffering, if there is another famine?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, everything possible is being done in India, and also within the limits of our own serious shipping difficulties.
    Mr. C. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for India whether the shipment of 400,000 tons of grain promised by His Majesty's Government to be delivered by October will arrive in time to avert the

    1869
    threatened famine; and whether this quantity, together with shipments already sent or promised, totals the grain requirements of India which the Gregory Committee regarded as the minimum in present conditions.
    Mr. Amery: As regards the first part of the Question, I would invite the hon. and learned Member's attention to the recently reported broadcast of the Governor of Bengal. He anticipates a successful issue to the combined efforts of His Majesty's Government, the Government of India and the Provincial Government. As regards imports, the quantity sent or promised for the twelve months ending October amounts to 800,000 tons, as compared with the round figure of 1,000,000 tons a year for current consumption recommended by the Gregory Committee. Further consideration has been promised in August and again in November. The difficulty in this matter has been to provide shipping, and His Majesty's Government have had to take risks to provide so much. What we have done and are doing is all that can be compassed without imperilling the success of our immense military undertakings. I share the Governor of Bengal's good hopes of the outcome, and I trust that everyone in whose power it is to influence opinion in India will do all that they can to stimulate and support the legitimate confidence of the people in the greatly improved control of the food situation, rather than to impair confidence by belittling what has been achieved.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Will my right hon. Friend advise the Indian Government to see that this grain does not get into the hands of money-lenders before it gets to the consumers?
    Mr. Amery: I think that both the Central and Provincial Governments are very much alive to that problem.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Could the Minister say whether steps have been taken to build up the reserves of grain which the Gregory Committee recommended as soon as shipping facilities make it possible?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, in so far as that can be done in excess of meeting current needs.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will ruthless action be taken against food speculators and black marketeers, whose activities are one of the prime causes of famine?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (NATIONALITY)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the disquiet felt at his decision not to permit British status to be given to illegitimate babies born abroad to members of the Women's Services whose fathers are of British status; and whether he will reconsider this decision, in view of the harm done to children by the withholding of the rights of a nationality.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I have already informed my hon. Friend, the national status of such children is determined by the law and not by me; and the most I can do is to afford facilities for the naturalisation of such children as soon as they reach the age at which naturalisation is practicable. I ought to say that according to my information the number of such cases is extremely small.
  Miss Ward: Is the Minister aware that the War Office want an alteration in the law? In view of the humanitarian issues involved, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider altering the law?
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend must not try to set the War Office against the Home Office—it is very naughty.
  Miss Ward: It is true.
  Mr. Morrison: We should in any case be faced with difficulties. Much would turn on the question of the nationality of the putative father, which would cause a fair amount of difficulty. The numbers are very small, and I think that in a consideration of legislative priorities, it is impossible to put this at the top of the list.
  Miss Ward: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

  ELECTORAL REFORM (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)
  Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference regarding the proposed interim

  1871
  redistribution of seats is likely to be introduced.
  Mr. H. Morrison: All the recommendations made in the interim Report of the Conference over which you, Sir, presided are receiving the careful consideration of the Government, but I am not at the present moment in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Bower: In view of the strong feeling in very large constituencies, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is intended to deal with it before the General Election?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, I can give that assurance.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman also publish the documents which were submitted to and considered by the Speaker's Conference?
  Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say, before the end of the Session, when the legislation will be introduced?
  Mr. Morrison: I hope to be. I am very anxious to tell the House the Government's intentions at the earliest possible date; indeed, I think redistribution must be among the first things to be dealt with under the Report which you, Sir, have submitted.
  Mr. Bowles: Will the Act of Parliament come before the setting up of the Boundary Commission or will it be the other way round?
  Mr. Morrison: The Boundary Commission cannot be set up without an Act of Parliament.
  Sir Reginald Blair: Will there be any announcement before the Summer Recess?
  Mr. Morrison: I said I hoped to do so. I am only a little hesitant because I am not quite sure, but I will do my best.

  FLYING BOMB ATTACKS

    Bombed Sites (Wood Burning)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the necessary instructions to stop the burning of wood on bombed sites and for such wood to be distributed locally.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I have no information to suggest that any usable timber is being burned on bombed sites, though timber which is verminous or impregnated with harmful substances is often burned on the site as the readiest means of disposal. Instructions have already been given to local authorities to make suitable arrangements for the collection of any waste timber from war-damaged property in firewood dumps from which it may be removed free of charge by the public.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as I come up in the train I see big bonfires burning of wood which would be very useful to housewives?
    Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars—I do not know whether he can in the circumstances—I will have them looked into but, if the timber is verminous, it is best to burn it.

    Morrison Shelters (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can make an additional allocation of Morrison table shelters to those households in rural areas, affected by flying bombs, in which there are young children.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Indoor table shelters are available to all householders who have not already been provided with other serviceable shelter in the rural areas extensively affected by flying bombs. Supplies of the shelters do not permit of a wider distribution at present, but the position is kept under continuous review.
    Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that quite a large proportion of these bombs are shot down before they reach London, or fall in rural areas, where there are no public shelters at all, and where at present Morrison table shelters are not allowed to be distributed?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, I am aware of that point and if I can do anything I will, but it is a question of supplies and priorities.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will it be possible to augment the stocks of shelters in the affected areas, by bringing in shelters from other areas where

    1873
    there is not so much imminent danger from bombs?
    Mr. Morrison: That was one of the first actions that we took.
    Mr. Tinker: Will my right hon. Friend make an appeal to holders of shelters outside the bombing range to give them up?
    Mr. Morrison: We have done that and there is a considerable response in the North and so on. I am grateful for the public spirit of the people in the Midlands and in the North, and also in Northern Ireland, in that respect.

    Deep Shelters, London
    Mr. John Wilmotasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to open the deep shelters in South London; and upon what basis tickets are being distributed to people to ensure priority to those who have been rendered homeless.
    Mr. H. Morrison: One shelter was opened last Sunday evening, another will be opened this evening and a third very shortly. As regards the latter part of the Question, tickets have been made available to certain local authorities for distribution to local residents without adequate shelter, and the local authorities concerned have been given instructions designed to ensure that preference is given to those who have lost their homes.
    Mr. Wilmot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the district the name of which I have communicated to him those regulations are not being observed; that tickets are being distributed to the tube population, and that families recently bombed out, without any homes at all, and with children, are unable to get admission?
    Mr. Morrison: The first move was the transfer of the existing tube population to the deep shelter. That was for traffic reasons and reasons of general convenience. But there is a substantial margin beyond that and that was given to local authorities, including the one to which my hon. Friend refers. I rather fancy that the distribution there might have been better done. I have asked the local authority to look into it and see if it can be put right. The tickets are not necessarily permanent.
    Mr. Wilmot: Will my right hon. Friend give distinct instructions to local authorities to give priority to homeless people, particularly those with children?
    Mr. Morrison: The instructions have been given and, if a local authority has not carried them out, the responsibility must fall there, though we will try to pull them round and get things right. It is only fair to say that the local authorities have been having a pretty heavy time.
    Mr. Isaacs: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the tickets are not restricted to people living in areas immediately adjacent to the shelter but that people in other boroughs have also an opportunity of going to the shelters?
    Mr. Morrison: I have raised that point and I agree with my hon. Friend. It is probable that the predominant element will be people living fairly near the shelters but I entirely agree that other boroughs should have a proper chance, and I have given instructions to that effect.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: For the information of Members would my right hon. Friend consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the boroughs to which these tickets have been sent, in order that we may be able to question him as to the necessity of their being sent to other boroughs?
    Mr. Morrison: It is clear that I cannot do that. That would be unwise. If my hon. Friend would like to know privately, I will inform him.

    Bombed-Out Londoners (Accommodation)
    Mr. Astorasked the Minister of Health whether accommodation is still being reserved in the London area for French and other Continental refugees; and, if so, whether he will consider other arrangements which will make all such accommodation available for bombed-out Londoners.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The bulk of the accommodation to which my hon. Friend refers is being used to house building labour brought into London from the provinces to carry out first-aid repairs to war-damaged houses. A small amount is still being reserved for

    1875
    the purely temporary housing of foreign refugees pending their transfer to other areas. This accommodation is not suitable for the permanent re-housing of persons rendered homeless by bombing.
    Mr. Astor: Could it not be used even for the temporary housing of persons rendered homeless by bombing, who are often sleeping in street shelters?
    Mr. Willink: This accommodation is not nearly so satisfactory as the large amount of accommodation which is available in rest centres.
    Mr. Astor: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that people are pushed out of rest centres after 48 hours and have to go to street shelters?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir. No one is pushed out of a rest centre until he is found accommodation elsewhere.
    Mrs. Tate: No accommodation is being found for a great many of them.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the difficulties in providing accommodation both in London and the reception areas, he has, or will, procure a census or secure information both of large houses inadequately utilised and property that has been or should be evacuated by troops to enable the buildings to be used for accommodation of civilians.
    Mr. Willink: Local authorities keep the position in their areas under constant review by means of survey and otherwise, in connection with their powers for the accommodation of civilians, and I see no reason for any special directions on this matter. The question whether houses occupied by troops can be released is one for the military authorities, but arrangements will be made to secure that any such houses released are used in the most suitable manner in the national interest.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, when he says he is going to provide information with regard to the last part of my Question, that it falls within his own province?
    Mr. Willink: I informed my hon. Friend a week or two ago that as soon as arrangements with the War Office were completed I would give him that information. That moment has not arrived.

    Counter-Measures
    Earl Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if he intends to make another statement in regard to the progress made in dealing with the flying bomb.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further information to give the House on counter-measures against the flying bomb.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Not at present.
    Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that a number of us, without wishing to exaggerate the seriousness of this matter, feel that this House should be given an opportunity of exercising its functions, in Secret Session or otherwise, in order to discuss a matter of great importance, such as the provision made for dealing with these bombs and, above all, the adequacy of the A.A. High Command and the Cabinet Committee dealing with the matter?
    Mr. Attlee: I am sure that if representations are made that a discussion in Secret Session is desired, the Government will be willing to meet that desire.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not very desirable that those who are suffering from the effects of the flying bombs and who are not adequately protected against them, because of the absence of prevision, and in spite of the optimistic assurances given by the Government frequently, should have a little more information from the Government as to the steps that are being taken, within the limits of security, in order to offset their effect, particularly in relation to the anti-aircraft position?
    Mr. Attlee: I do not accept the suggestions made, and I think they are made without adequate knowledge. At the present moment the Prime Minister does not see that he can usefully add anything to what he has said already in public Debate.
    Sir A. Southby: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that those who live in the affected areas are deeply concerned about this matter, and that though they realise that a statement cannot be made in Public Session, there is a strong demand that there should be a Secret Session where all these points could be discussed; and, further, that the people

    1877
    in those areas are not satisfied that all has been done that could have been done to meet the case or that all is being done now that is necessary?
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the prevision shown by the Government, especially in the raid on Peenemunde, reflects the greatest credit on all concerned and——
    Earl Winterton,——
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must not interrupt.
    Mr. Thomas—that those who reside in London fully realise the difficulties of dealing with this weapon?
    Mr. Edgar Granville: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should reconsider his answer? Would it not be the best way to dispel the criticism that the Government were not prepared and were caught napping that they should give an opportunity so that they can state their case, either in public or in Secret Session?
    Mr. Attlee: I think that anybody who listened to or who read the speech of the Prime Minister would realise that the Government were not caught napping. I understood from the discussion in the House that there was not complete agreement in the House as to the desirability or undesirability of having a Secret Session, but, as I say, the Government will consider any representations on that matter.
    Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I desire to raise a point of Order. I desire to ask whether I should be in Order in asking this question? The point is not whether we want to criticise the Prime Minister or not. The point is that we want to have an opportunity of expressing our views on this matter, and the fact that the Prime Minister has made a statement does not alter the point. We are Members of the House of Commons and the Government must have regard to that fact.
    Mr. Petherick: May I ask a question which will not do any harm at all? Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to the following point, which may be a small one, but may have the effect of saving some lives? Will instructions be issued by the Service Departments to
    1878
    despatch riders and others to observe the law in relation to the cut-out? These people sometimes make such a din when going through the streets that when a flying bomb is coming people do not hear it and have not time to take cover.
    Mr. Attlee: I will see that the point is brought to the notice of the Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if it is undesirable, or if you indicate that it may be undesirable, to press this matter in Public Session, and if we are to be precluded from having a discussion or a statement in Secret Session, indicating what——
    Mr. Attlee: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Member that I said the Government were perfectly willing to accept the will of the House. I do not think that an expression of opinion coming from some hon. Members necessarily represents the will of the House.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely my point. If you, Sir, say that it is undesirable to press this matter in Public Session and, because there is not a universal desire for a Secret Session and representations come only from a few hon. Members, the Government are not prepared to have a statement made in Secret Session, will you, Sir, indicate to a Private Member what steps are at his disposal in order to ventilate any grievances he has on this subject?
    Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with me whether the House has a statement or whether the House wants one or not.
    Captain Cunningham-Raid: In view of the fact that I had already given notice to your office, Mr. Speaker, that I am raising this matter on the Adjournment next Thursday, would it not be possible, by leave of the House, to prolong that particular Adjournment discussion?

    Small Factories (Shelters)
    Captain Pluggeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that in all small and one-man factories sufficient air-raid shelter accommodation is provided for all employees.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The statutory obligation to provide shelter in factories extends only to those in which more than 50 per-

    1879
    sons are employed and which are situated in areas specified under the Civil Defence Act, 1939. Many occupiers of small factories which are not subject to this statutory obligation have voluntarily provided shelter for their workpeople, but I am afraid I cannot say what proportion the number of these cases bears to the total number of factories concerned.
    Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend's Department prepared to give every assistance, including financial assistance, to small factories to erect shelters, or to improve their shelter arrangements in view of the emergency?
    Mr. Morrison: I have no power to do so under the law. As to the supply of labour and materials, the repair of the homes of the people must come first. My impression is that there is no great problem about this.

  SHOPS (HOURS)
  Sir F. Sandersonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that war-time experience has proved that long hours for employers and employees in shops, to meet any reasonable consumer demands is unnecessary and, in view of this, will he consider introducing legislation, at the earliest possible date, to ensure the fixing of the time for the closing of shops at a reasonable time.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 6th July to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) and Moseley (Sir P. Hannon).
  Sir F. Sanderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing demand for legislation; and could he give an undertaking to give the matter serious consideration at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, but I cannot say when the earliest possible moment will be.
  Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is also the problem of those other workers who want to shop?
  Mr. Morrison: That is one of the complications.

  N.F.S. CHEVRONS (USE OF PAPER)
  Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, during the recent issue of chevrons to the N.F.S. in East Kent, each chevron was attached to a large and excellent piece of paper at a time when schoolchildren in the locality are having to do their lessons on slates owing to the scarcity of paper supplies; and if he will take steps to prevent this misuse of paper in future.
  Mr. H. Morrison: According to my information war service chevrons were distributed in bulk to National Fire Service stations in East Kent. With each batch the customary delivery notes were sent, on one copy of which firemen and fire-women entitled to wear war service chevrons acknowledged their receipt.
  Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chevrons were attached to pieces of paper as large as this Order Paper and addressed to each member of the fire service, which was a shocking waste of paper?
  Mr. Morrison: I will look into it.

  STREET COLLECTIONS (SUPERVISION)
  Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to protect the public from fraudulent street collections and from imposters purporting to collect for reputable charities.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Street collections are subject to Regulations made by local police authorities under the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916. Regulations drawn up by the Secretary of State and adopted by a large number of police authorities provide for a careful supervision of the collections so as to ensure that they are made on behalf of reputable organisations and conducted without undue expense.
  Sir J. Mellor: Have there been many convictions lately?
  Mr. Morrison: I could not say.
  Mr. Graham White: Is there any control, a licence having been granted, over the organisation during the ensuing 12 months?
  Mr. Morrison: My recollection is that it has to submit accounts, which are examined by a competent authority.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS)
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to relax any of the existing drastic restrictions on travel to and from Northern Ireland.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that the time has not come when it is possible to withdraw the ban on travel to and from Ireland which was imposed for operational reasons. His Majesty's Government, however, realise that hardship and inconvenience have been caused to certain classes of persons by the ban which has been in force for four months, and, with a view to mitigating such hardship and inconvenience, I am prepared to consider applications made by persons who desire to travel on business of national importance recommended by a Government Department, a chamber of commerce or a trade organisation, or, in consultation with the appropriate Government Department, applications made by women, children, aged or infirm persons from London and evacuable areas subject to attack by flying bombs, who can arrange to take up residence with relatives or friends in Ireland.
  Professor Savory: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his invariable kindly sympathy to the hardships imposed by the ban on travel to Northern Ireland, may I ask whether the concessions include the case of expectant mothers to whom I have already drawn his attention, who have already booked rooms in nursing homes in Northern Ireland, not having been able to obtain accommodation in this country?
  Mr. Morrison: My impression is that certainly they will be within the category.
  Mr. Bowles: The reply refers to people travelling to Northern Ireland. Does it also apply to those who are travelling back from Northern Ireland, and are applications to be made to the Home Office?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, in miscellaneous cases. In cases of national importance they should also apply to the appropriate
  1882
  Government Department, which would make observations to me as to whether we should let them go or not.

  EDUCATION

    Industrial and Commercial Training
    Sir John Graham Kerrasked the President of the Board of Education, in view of the contemplated expenditure of nearly £300,000,000 annually upon school education in England and Wales, what steps he has taken to consult industry and commerce in order to secure that the expenditure will make available the best possible preliminary training for their recruits.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): I am not clear as to the basis of my hon. Friend's estimate of £300,000,000, which is substantially in excess of any estimates so far made. The many discussions which my right hon. Friend and his Department have had with representatives of various interests on the Education Bill after its first introduction included a number of discussions with representatives of industry. As my right hon. Friend has indicated, it is his intention that the Central Advisory Councils proposed under the Bill should provide for the representation of industry and commerce.
    Sir J. Graham Kerr: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask if the House could have the assurance that he attaches the greatest importance to the fact that the wherewithal must come, in the long run, from the trade and industry of the country?
    Mr. Ede: I willingly accept such a self-evident proposition.

    National Association of Schoolmasters
    Sir J. Mellorasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give an assurance that the National Association of Schoolmasters will, in respect of its members, have access to individual local education authorities equally with those associations of teachers represented on the Burnham Committee.
    Mr. Ede: Consultation between a local education authority and the representatives of the teachers in their employ is a matter within the discretion of the

    1883
    authority, and not one in which my right hon. Friend could intervene in the manner suggested.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is not the Minister seriously prejudicing the whole position of this Association by excluding it from representation on the Burnham Committee?
    Mr. Ede: I do not think that he is in this particular.

    Road Safety (Training)
    Sir J. Graham Kerrasked the President of the Board of Education, in view of the fact that a large proportion of road accidents are due to a want of alertness in observation by eye and ear, whether he will secure that all schoolchildren shall receive adequate training of their powers of observation instead of being encouraged to rely on the principle of Safety First.
    Mr. Ede: It was pointed out in the report on road safety among school children, a copy of which is possessed by every school, that alertness is a quality which is important for all children on general grounds; its development is one of the normal functions of the school and training in road safety would find its place naturally in the curriculum as part of this wider training. I have no doubt that this aspect is not neglected in the work which the schools generally are doing for the promotion of the safety of children on the roads.

    Curriculum
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the President of the Board of Education in what form and when it is proposed to lay before Parliament proposals for the subjects and curriculum which are to be taught in schools as a result of the administrative machinery established by the Education Bill; and whether the Norwood Committee Report is to be accepted as a basis.
    Mr. Ede: While the general principles to be observed in framing the curriculum may be laid down in grant regulations which are required to be laid before Parliament, it would not, in the view of my right hon. Friend, usually be appropriate in such regulations to enumerate the particular subjects to be taught. It is his intention, as soon as conveniently possible after the passage of the Bill into
    1884
    law, to issue circulars to local education authorities and others on the content of the instruction in schools of different types and other relevant matters. In preparing such circulars the recommendations of the Norwood Committee, in so far as they are appropriate, will be borne in mind. I cannot, however, at this stage give a precise date for the issue of these circulars.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will the regulations that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned be available for Members of the House? Is it not the undoubted right of this House and every parent to know with great exactitude what the children are to be taught?
    Mr. Ede: The answer to the first part of the question is, "Yes, Sir." With regard to the second part, I am sure that the circular will have a wide publication in the educational and the general Press, and people will get a very good idea of what the Minister's views are on the subject.

    Council School Teachers (Religious Tests)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the President of the Board of Education, if his attention has been drawn to the inquiries made by a certain education authority respecting the religious beliefs of teachers in council schools; whether he is aware of the disquiet this has caused; for what purpose such questions were put; and by what authority teachers are asked if they are Christians.
    Mr. Ede: I have seen a reference in the Press to the matter but have had no further details. I appreciate the objections to applying religious tests to applicants for teaching posts in council schools and understand that it is not the practice of local education authorities to do so. In future the position of a teacher in this respect will be safeguarded by Clause 29 of the Education Bill.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can my right hon. Friend reply specifically to the penultimate part of my Question—for what purpose were the questions put? Has he had any representations from any of the teachers' organisations?
    Mr. Ede: To answer the penultimate part of the Question I should have to get into the mind of the local authority which

    1885
    put the questions. So far as I know, we have had no representations from teachers' organisations with regard to this matter, but we are aware that they watch this matter with considerable interest.
    Sir Irving Albery: Are we to understand from the answer that local education authorities are now prohibited from inquiring whether those who are to teach the children are Christians?
    Mr. Ede: That is the effect of Clause 29 of the Education Bill. When it becomes law undoubtedly it will not be possible to apply a religious test to a teacher in what will then be a county school.
    Sir A. Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he considers that in a Christian country it is unreasonable that Christian parents should be assured that their children are being taught by those who profess the Christian faith?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for an opinion and not for information.

  HOUSING

    Subsidy
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether he will grant the full subsidy to a house or flat built by local authorities even if it does not conform to model bye-laws and is built by modern and/or prefabricated methods.
    Mr. Willink: The decision must depend on the nature of the proposals in each case.
    Mr. Bossom: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend give a lead in this matter to encourage wider development after the war?
    Mr. Willink: I do not know what sort of lead can be given by me. Design and construction are matters for my Noble Friend the Minister of Works.

    Model By-Laws
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health whether he intends issuing any new model by-laws regarding party-walls as they apply to new forms of construction used for post-war buildings.
    Mr. Willink: This matter is under consideration.

    Rural Workers
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many schemes under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1938, for which labour is available are being held up pending an increase in the £100 grant; and whether he can now state what this increase will be and from what date it will become effective.
    Mr. Willink: As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) on 25th May, I hope in due course to be submitting the Government's proposals for the amendment of these Acts on the lines recommended by the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee.
    Sir W. Smithers: Cannot my right hon. and learned Friend give an approximate date?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir.
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Health how many applications for the reconditioning of rural houses have come to his Department for sanction during the last 12 months; and how many have been sanctioned.
    Mr. Willink: One hundred and sixty-eight applications have been submitted and 167 approved, but applications for works costing less than £250 have, since October, 1943, been dealt with by the local authorities without reference to my Department and this limit was raised to £500 in January last.
    Mr. Price: When must the local authority apply to the Minister, and when can they act on their own?
    Mr. Willink: When the cost is over £500, application has to be made to me.

    Design of Dwellings (Report)
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Health whether the Report of the Design of Dwellings Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee is to be published; and what action he proposes to take on the Sub-Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Willink: This report will be published on Monday next, 17th July. Copies will be circulated to the local authorities and will also be available in the Vote Office. The main recommendations in

    1887
    the report form the basis of a housing manual for the guidance of local authorities in designing post-war housing schemes which as recommended by the Sub-Committee, has been prepared by my Department and the Ministry of Works with the advice and assistance of the Ministries of Town and Country Planning and of Fuel and Power. This manual will be published as soon as possible.

    Private Enterprise Report
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Private Enterprise Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee is to be published; and what action he proposes to take on the sub-committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Willink: The report of the Committee is being published to-day. The Government have considered this report and have decided to accept the recommendation that Exchequer subsidy should be provided for houses built by private enterprise (which for this purpose will include, among others, houses built by housing associations, houses built by persons for their own occupation and houses built for employees) during the early postwar period, subject to conditions as to size, construction, selling price and rent. It is proposed that the administration of the scheme should be in the hands of local authorities, who will have the necessary powers to prevent the risk of abuse by collusive arrangements. I propose to introduce the necessary legislation in due course. I am inviting representatives of local authorities to confer with me as to the administrative arrangements which will be necessary if legislation is approved by Parliament. The Government have also decided to accept the recommendation to reconsider the present limit of £800 fixed under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and Section 91 of the Housing Act, 1936, for the purpose of advances and to introduce the necessary legislation for this purpose. Decisions as to the amount of the increase will be made when the time comes for the introduction of the legislation. The Government also accept the recommendation that support should be given to the development of a scheme on the lines of the National House Builders Registration Council for securing the maintenance of good standards of building.
    Mr. Storey: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the legislation will be introduced during the present Session?
    Mr. Willink: I hardly think so, because the date for this legislation will really be when we know what the size of the housing subsidy will be.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand from that reply, that all the silly old follies that were perpetrated after the last war in this matter are to be repeated?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir.
    Sir Irving Albery: Can the Minister say whether small houses which have been destroyed by enemy action, and on which a value payment is being made, will enjoy the subsidy in addition?
    Mr. Willink: I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's question, because in the case of small houses of modern construction, there will be a cost of works payment, which is the cost of rebuilding the house at the date when it is rebuilt—not a value payment.
    Mr. Bossom: Does the Minister expect that building costs will be stabilised in about two or three years after the war?
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir, I would not say that I do.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    National Health Service
    Dr. Howittasked the Minister of Health what progress he has so far made in his discussions with the medical profession on the proposals for a National Health Service.
    Mr. Willink: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Preliminary discussions took place before the issue of the White Paper, on a non-committal and confidential basis. Since the White Paper, I have received and answered a number of questions of detail from the profession's representatives, the answers to which have been published. I had hoped to begin more definite discussions with the profession after the Representative Meeting of the

    1889
    British Medical Association, which was intended to be held this July, but, for reasons not due in any way to the profession, this meeting has been postponed for a time, and I appreciate that these discussions must be deferred.
    Meanwhile, I have studied with interest the draft statement of policy recently issued by the Council of the British Medical Association, and there are many detailed points in it on which I should welcome some elucidation. In particular, for instance, I should be glad to have further explanation of the Council's views upon the proposed administrative and consultative machinery, both central and local. I am, therefore, inviting the Council to send representatives to discuss these and other points with me and my officers, in order that the ground may be cleared for the general discussions which will be opened when the Representative Meeting has been held.

    Arthritis Treatment (Ertron)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that arthritis has been successfully treated with ertron, a derivative of ergosterol, at the Cook County Hospital, Chicago; and whether he will arrange for the treatment to be tried in this country.
    Mr. Willink: No, Sir. My information is that the claims made for the product called ertron in the treatment of arthritis are not accepted by the most authoritative medical opinion in the United States, and that clinical evidence over a period of some seven years past does not warrant the belief that it has beneficial effects.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister not aware that American doctors who are using this treatment claim 93 per cent. of successful cases?
    Mr. Willink: Claims are often made, but I think my hon. Friend will see from my answer that the matter has been fully considered.

    Tuberculosis (Infected Milk)
    Captain Sir George Ellistonasked the Minister of Health what happens to milk intended for human consumption which has been found to contain living tubercle bacilli during such time, perhaps
    1890
    several months, before a veterinary officer succeeds in finding the cow or cows responsible.
    Mr. Willink: There is no power to stop the sale of such milk for human consumption until the infected cow is discovered.
    Sir G. Elliston: May I ask the Minister whether his Department has recommended local authorities to take frequent samples, and whether that serves any useful purpose at all, if the local authority has no power to stop the sale of milk when tubercle is found?
    Mr. Willink: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put that question on the Paper. It seems to raise a further matter with which I cannot deal to-day.

  EMPLOYMENT POLICY
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether it is now the Government's intention to make the necessary administrative arrangements and pass the necessary legislation with a view to bringing into effect the plans outlined in Cmd. 6527 on Employment Policy.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. But in making these preparations the Government will naturally give priority to those parts of the policy which will need to be brought into operation in the first few years after the end of the war in Europe.
  Sir H. Williams: May we take it that the Government will bear in mind that the House did not endorse this policy, because the Government Motion was so evasive that it did not mean anything?
  Commander King-Hall: Have my right hon. Friend and his colleagues begun to take any steps to make the necessary political arrangements which will be required if these economic measures are to be achieved?

  SCOTLAND (FISHING LIMIT)
  Lieut.-Colonel Lancasterasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the move initiated by the Lewis (Hebrides) District Council to secure a change in fishing limits on the West Scottish coast; and if he has approved of the change.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I have been asked to reply. As already announced, the special problems of the white fish industry in Scotland, including the problems of the inshore fishermen are at present being investigated by a Committee, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) is chairman. Pending the receipt of the Committee's report, I have not asked my colleagues to consider the representations referred to.

  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE
  Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before signing or initialling any agreement or joint proposal on either the monetary fund or reconstruction bank at the Bretton Woods Conference, Lord Keynes has been instructed to submit the text for approval by the Government.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): No, Sir. As I have already explained on more than one occasion, any agreement reached at the Conference will be referred to the respective Governments for acceptance or rejection.
  Mr. Stokes: Does Lord Keynes take instructions from the Chancellor in this matter, or does the Chancellor do what Lord Keynes asks in relation to this?
  Sir J. Anderson: I do not feel called upon to make any statement as to the relations between Lord Keynes and the Department on whose behalf he is acting at this time.
  Mr. Stokes: If I put a question down will the Chancellor give an answer?
  Sir J. Anderson: I will endeavour to answer any question put to me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business of the House for next week?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Tuesday, 18th July.—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure; Committee and remaining stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.
Wednesday, 19th July.—Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and of the Housing (Scotland) Bill—we hope to divide the time roughly between these two Measures—and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
Thursday, 20th July.—Supply (18th Allotted Day): Committee: Debate on Colonial Affairs.
Friday, 21st July—Report stage of the Vote of Credit; Second Reading of the Validation of War-Time Leases Bill, if received from another place; and Committee stage of the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
I had hoped to be in a position to announce to the House to-day the proposed dates of the Summer Recess, but if the House will allow me, I would prefer to make that statement early next week, as there are one or two matters yet to be cleared up.
Mr. Greenwood: May I put this point to my right hon. Friend about next Wednesday's Business? Could there be an understanding that the Debate on the English and Welsh Bill will end at a time which will allow of proper consideration of the Scottish Bill?
Mr. Eden: We would like to have some arrangement whereby the time would be divided fairly, between the two Bills.
Mr. Kirkwood: How long is it intended to give to the discussion of the Scottish Housing Bill? We only got a few hours the last time we were on the Floor.
Mr. Eden: We must do the best we can. I hope that we shall give adequate scope for my hon. Friend's eloquence.
Mr. Kendall: Will the Leader of the House give us time to debate the anomolies in Service pay and allowances which still exist and about which so many of us feel so keenly?
Mr. Eden: I have had no representations on that subject from any quarter.
Colonel. Greenwell: Could my right hon. Friend inform the House when art

1893
opportunity is likely to be afforded for a discussion on the future of British ship-owning and shipbuilding?
Mr. Eden: That matter is being considered. I may be able to say something about that very soon.
Captain Peter Macdonald: Regarding Thursday's Business, as we had a recent general Debate on Colonial matters, could not this coming Debate be confined to the African Colonies?
Mr. Eden: No Debate on the Colonial Vote can be confined in that way, but I understand that a number of Members wish to speak about the East and West African Colonies.
Mr. Shinwell: Is it correct that a delegation is to proceed to Washington, to discuss the oil question; and is it also correct that the delegation is to be headed by the Lord Privy Seal, who is a Member of the Government? If so, as it will not be in the category of an expert delegation, and as high policy will be involved, can we be assured that no commitment will be entered into on this oil question, until the House has been consulted?
Mr. Eden: The position will be exactly the same as that in connection with any other meeting between Ministers of two countries. Arrangements, if they are arrived at, will, of course, be presented for the approval or disapproval of the House.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very short time that can be allowed for the Scottish housing discussion next week, and the fact that, when it is discussed, only Scottish Members will be present, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider allowing Scottish Members to have a discussion on Scottish housing during the following week-end in Edinburgh?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a question on Business for this House.
Mr. Messer: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Education Bill to come back to this House?
Mr. Eden: I hope, next week.
Mr. Sorensen: In view of recent developments in India, will an opportunity be given for a discussion on India, certainly before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Eden: I have received a request for such a Debate. I hope that it may be possible to hold one before the House rises for the Recess.
Mr. Reakes: Arising out of the question put by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), surely the Government must be aware of the great dissatisfaction over the continued existence of anomalies regarding pay and allowances? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us time, so that these matters may be dealt with?
Mr. Eden: I am certainly not aware of that dissatisfaction. I think the general feeling in the House is that a great deal of work has been done to remove those anomalies. I have had no representations in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.
Miss Ward: Would it not be in Order, as the elimination of anomalies does, in fact, concern money, to discuss that matter on the Vote of Credit, if we wished to do so?
Mr. Eden: I would not like to give an answer to that question without notice.
Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend look into it?
Sir A. Southby: In view of the questions addressed to-day to the Deputy Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House consult with the Prime Minister as to the possibility of a future day being given, in Secret Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—to discuss the matter?
Mr. Eden: I would like to make the Government's position clear. It is not that the Government would withdraw from having a discussion if the House desired it, but it is that in a matter of this kind we feel that we must interpret the feelings of the House. Therefore, we want to take soundings to discover what the feeling of the House is. In my judgment, the feeling of the House is against it.
Mr. Granville: When the Education Bill comes back to this House, and we consider the part of the Bill which was defeated in another place, by one vote, will the Government consider it as a matter of confidence?
Mr. A. Bevan: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that a short time ago there was a Debate in this House on the Rules and

1895
Procedure of the House. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), about the oil delegation to America, might I ask what sort of instrument the Leader of the House proposes using to enable the House to discuss any tentative arrangements which may be arrived at on what must be an economic question, as this cannot be treated as a treaty issue?
Mr. Eden: The position is quite clear. I am not suggesting any new practice. Any arrangement between this country and another, whatever its form, can always be brought to this House for ratification; and it will lie with this House to ratify or refuse to ratify. All documents do not, technically, require ratification, but it is the intention of the Government, on any important issue of this kind, to submit what they have done to the House.
Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that if these arrangements are reached between Ministers of the two Governments concerned, the prestige of the Governments will be involved in defending the decision; and is it not desirable that we should have a discussion in the House on the lines which the Government propose to take, before they commit themselves to anything?
Mr. Eden: I think my hon. Friend will see, on reflection, that he is pressing that too far. That would leave the Government no discretion. Any Administration must have power to meet and discuss, and if it so desires, arrive at arrangements, with others. We have been scrupulously careful on all these matters, to see that we present to the House the results of our work at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Shinwell: Can we be assured that Lord Beaverbrook, who heads this delegation, does not give too much away?
Mr. Eden: The hon. Member can be assured that Lord Beaverbrook and his colleagues are going to the United States on instructions given by the War Cabinet.
Mr. Shinwell: What are his instructions?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1944

    MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Fuel and Power, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, namely:—

    Class X., Vote 5, Ministry of Fuel and Power

    £10

    Class X., Vote 16, Ministry of Works (War Services)

    £10

    Class X., Vote 15, Ministry of War Transport

    £10

    £30"

    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): While this is by no means the first time on which the work of my Ministry has been reviewed, previous discussions have centred, practically entirely, on the question of coal production. This is not altogether surprising, in view of the circumstances which existed when this Ministry was formed. But I think it is of real importance that the Committee and the country should realise that this Ministry is responsible for all forms of fuel and power. While coal, of course, is the source of most of the power in this country, and will, therefore, attract most attention, we must not forget petroleum, gas, and electricity, which play an extremely important part in our industrial and domestic life. Therefore, I think it important that I should say a very brief word about those three industries, before I proceed to the larger question of coal. On the supply side, most of the work of the Petroleum Division of my Ministry must, for obvious reasons, remain secret. I can only say that, under the direction of the Oil Control Board, of which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. G. Lloyd) is chairman, it is closely concerned with the provision of adequate petroleum supplies to meet our wartime needs, in the

    1911
    air, on land, and on sea. At home, of course, petrol rationing receives rather more publicity, and, in the nature of things, cannot be popular. I do, however, feel that, on the whole, the flexible method of rationing adopted has' general approval.
    What may not be generally realised is the extent to which it has been possible for coal and oil to assist each other. At an early stage of the war, it was thought necessary, for supply reasons, to convert a number of industrial boilers and small central-heating plants from oil to coke and coal-burning. Later, when the supply position changed for the better, some would change back from coal to oil. Another illustration of this has been the relief given to the coal supply position by the use of gas oil for making water gas; this has saved nearly 500,000 tons of coal this last winter. There is much public interest, and rightly so, in the question of producing oil from coal. My Ministry is engaged with the Fuel Research Board in full examination of this problem. During the war we have developed on a very large scale the use of home-produced creosote pitch from coal tar as a substitute for imported fuel oil in industrial plants. This is by far the largest substitution of a home-produced fuel for imported oil which this country has yet seen. We have also greatly extended during the war the production of benzol from coal at gas-works and coke-ovens. This benzol is at present largely used not, as before the war, for motor spirit, but as a component of aviation spirit and as a source of toluene for explosives.
    As this war has progressed it has laid an increasing burden upon the gas and electricity industries. It is common enough to think of the question of coal supply as the only difficulty which confronts these two industries, but there are other equally important matters which we have to consider. It is obvious that plants in both these industries have been working under a very great strain since the war started. Replacements and repairs are not easy to make, and labour, particularly in the gas industry, is an extremely difficult problem. But in spite of these great difficulties the output of gas has been increased by over 10 per cent. since the war started and the electricity supply by over 51 per cent. This has been a very great effort, and the country has cause to be grateful to those engaged in these two in-
    1912
    dustries for the magnificent way in which they have met and overcome these very substantial difficulties.
    But we must remember that the demands made upon these two industries for our war effort are constantly being increased, and economy in the use of gas and electricity is more than ever necessary. I would, therefore, point out that many domestic consumers have been a great deal less careful with gas and electricity than they have been with solid fuel. There is an impression that by using gas and electricity they are saving coal. Indeed, it was brought to my notice the other day, much to my surprise, that there are certain people who do not connect electricity with coal at all. It sounds a little startling and it is perhaps just as well that I should repeat that there is a very close connection, and that it is not a saving of fuel to save solid fuel, and substitute electricity or gas. In industry, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, very substantial cuts have been made, and without any appreciable effect upon our production. In the same way economies by domestic consumers can and must be made, and I believe they can be made without producing any undue rigour or hardship.
    Whilst we are dealing with the immediate and pressing problems we have also to consider the long-term needs of these two industries. I recently appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Geoffrey Heyworth, to consider the future development of the gas industry. The Government also have under active consideration the future organisation of the electricity industry, and during the last few weeks I have been collecting the views of the industry itself from as many groups and points of view as possible. I need say no more here than that they were not lacking either in thought or variety.
    I now turn to the principal subject of this Debate, and that is the statistical White Paper published last week. I believe its publication in the form in which it has appeared was absolutely essential. Experience has shown me that the published figures were, in many cases, incomplete. I believe that this paper is almost unique in its completeness. Indeed, I think it would be hard to find another industry, certainly in this country, about which so much informa-

    1913
    tion has been made available. It may be that the word "Digest" as a title was slightly optimistic, but whether that be so or not I am certain that the White Paper will be of the greatest value to hon. Members who are interested in fuel and power questions. There are two comments which I would make on the White Paper. First, formidable as this document appears to be, it is only a summary of the figures available to my Ministry for the purposes of day-to-day control. In the second place, for security reasons it has been necessary to withhold certain figures.
    Mr. Gallacher: Was it for security reasons that the profits of the coalowners were omitted?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member will read the paper he will find that they are there too. They are shown for every district. When I say "for security reasons" I really mean it, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there have been certain incidents in the war years which fully justify the leaving out of certain figures. It may be convenient, if, rather than deal with items in the White Paper, I review the recent history of the coal industry and refer to the salient figures illustrating its course as revealed in the White Paper. The Committee will recall that when my Ministry was set up in 1942 its prime function was, to put it briefly, to make both ends meet. I have described on other occasions how in each coal year I formulate a budget, which like every budget has to be capable of meeting any strains and stresses which may arise, indeed, which are almost certain to arise in this industry in war time. In 1942–43, when we had a mild winter, we were able to add 4,400,000 tons of coal to our stocks. Last winter, 1943–44, we barely got through, and far from adding to our stocks we had to take 4,500,000 tons out of our distributed stocks.
    It is not unimportant to remember that whilst we certainly had two mild winters we have had two very cold summers. On three occasions only this summer, since the beginning of April, has the temperature reached 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Whilst one likes to have a mild winter, which is very helpful indeed, if we do not have a fairly normal summer the effect upon stock-building, which is very important in the summer, is serious. The
    1914
    effect upon the consumption of electricity if there is a sudden cold spell in the middle of the summer is amazing. I remember that on 13th June last year the temperature was exactly the same as on 13th December last year. That does affect the stock position very much indeed, and the effect of it is appreciable over the winter. The Committee will not expect me to give the present figures of these distributed stocks, but I can assure them it has never reached the level estimated by hon. Members of this House who produced a pamphlet not very long ago, which said there was nothing at all. That would imply a rather dangerous accuracy of calculation on the part of my officials, which we could ill afford.
    Hon. Members will recall that two years ago to restrict consumption was regarded as of as much importance almost as to increase production, and they will be interested to know the successive reductions in total consumption and will find them in Table 22 of the White Paper. In 1941–;42 we consumed 206,000,000 tons, in 1942–43 199,000,000 tons, and in 1943–44 198,000,000. This last figure of 198,000,000 tons is a remarkable figure in view of the increased requirements during the war of our public utilities, our Services, and certain branches of our industries.
    The necessity for restrictions has been emphasised by the decline in output. Restrictions on their existing scale, without inflicting any real hardship or seriously affecting the output of industry, have only been possible through the exercise of the system of control known as the "programming of supplies," which was referred to in the White Paper in 1942. During the past two years I have instituted a system whereby every industrial firm in the country which consumes more than 100 tons of coal or coke per annum, together with 10,000 non-industrial establishments, received coal under a regular weekly programme. It has meant that the needs of every consumer have had to be estimated by a separate calculation of the requirements met grade by grade in the types of coal required. Similar programming exists for public utilities, Service Departments and other types of consumers. By these means we have been able not only to ensure a regular and planned flow of supplies from colliery to consumer but also a system whereby every ton of coal

    1915
    produced, no matter what its type, size or quality, is sent into essential production. A member of the American Mission now in this country told one of my officials that our coal distribution machinery reminded him of the Chicago stockyards where everything except the squeal was used. I do not know who gives the squeal in this country, but I can assure hon. Members that we use that as well.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The people who have to use some of the stuff called coal.
    Major Lloyd George: That may be so, but I would like to point out to the hon. Member that production has not dropped in this country. We have maintained our war production and given to our people, on the whole, a reasonable standard of comfort. We quite appreciate that the quality of some of the coal is not as good as before, nor could it be, and it is the same with other things. The fact of the matter is that we have done well on the whole and made the greatest war effort that any country has ever seen.
    A further consequence of this control over distribution has been that it has enabled us to improve the transport of coal, a very important matter in these days. Cross-hauls have been eliminated and valuable ton-miles saved by a radical rearrangement of transport. In the Midland district, in particular, we have introduced a system whereby a large proportion of the coal goes in complete trainloads straight from the collieries to the consumers. This has eliminated the need for the marshalling of wagons en route and relieved the congestion of the railways. The advantages of this control over distribution and transport were realised to the full during the difficult period we went through in the Spring, when we had strikes in two of the largest coal producing districts, which, as well as the tremendous task the railways were performing in handling military traffic, made ordinary distribution impossible. Through this control alone could my officers determine with precision when somebody must be helped and whence that help was to come. The maintenance of the electricity supplies in South Wales, and the continuance of the railway services during the Yorkshire stoppage, are good
    1916
    examples of the benefits flowing from this control. But in addition to the control of supplies from the colliery end, my regional organisation has been keeping constant watch on the position from the point of view of the individual consumer. Every week—and this is a point I do want the Committee to remember—the stock, consumption and delivery position of all the 23,000 industrial consumers, of the 10,000 non-industrial consumers, the public utilities and the 6,000 household coal depôts is known in my Ministry, and action is taken to adjust their stocks where necessary. That is a tremendous item, and I do not think there is anything like it anywhere else. As a result of that, despite all the difficulties of last winter, the number of industrial consumers who were recorded as stopping production for want of coal was less than 100, most of these being relatively low priority firms.
    With regard to the domestic consumer, much the same procedure is adopted. Like the industrial concern, he is encouraged, where conditions permit, to stock-up during the summer so that he can draw upon his store in the winter months. It is vitally important that those people who can store coal in the summer should have every reasonable opportunity of doing so, because, by doing so, they are releasing the distributors' transport and labour to be concentrated during the winter on the consumers who have no storage capacity at all. At the same time, reserves of coal in merchants' depôts must be built up during the summer to provide coal for distribution in the winter, and this is one of the reasons why it is essential to place some restriction, even during the summer, on the amount of coal which householders can be permitted to buy and store. The opportunity to buy coal during the summer carries with it, of course, the obligation to save as much as possible for the winter, and I cannot over-emphasise the importance of rigid economy during the summer in order to meet our obligations during the winter to the people without storage space. To those persons in large tenements, for instance, we give priority of delivery in winter. I still hear of——
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether private consumers have been able to build up stocks?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, but I could spend all day answering that question. Of course they have. But because of transport difficulties there must be control, in some districts more than others. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that. Some areas will be getting stocks earlier than others, because of operational difficulties, over which we have no control. Where there are cases of difficulty, such as we had last winter, the number has been very greatly reduced and, indeed, it would be much smaller still, I believe, if the people concerned would make use of the services of their local fuel overseer. Many cases have come to my notice which I have found have never been before the local fuel overseer and when sent back to the overseer they have been adjusted. Where a case cannot be adjusted, it comes to me, but, as I have said, in many cases the fuel overseer had never been approached at all and had he been approached he could have adjusted the matter. I am going to make that known during the winter so that people can make use of the overseer to overcome their difficulty.
    I devoted some time to the mechanism of distribution since this has proved of such tremendous value to us in getting through this last difficult winter, but our main difficulty is one of production. Production, beyond doubt, as the first Table in the White Paper shows, has been acutely disappointing. I may, perhaps, recapitulate the reasons. Disputes have been a most serious impediment, and voluntary absenteeism, although the paper shows that there has been some improvement, is still of serious dimensions. There are other important considerations, however, such as the increasing age of experienced men, and the time-lag before new entrants attain real efficiency, war-time shortages, and so on, but the big losses have still remained due to strikes and absenteeism. At the time of the new wages agreement, both sides of the industry emphasised their resolve to do everything in their power to eradicate disputes of the kind which led to so many, and such severe, stoppages in the coalfields earlier this year. For that reason I do not want to discuss these strikes, grievous as their effect has been. In one region, however—Scotland—strikes, although mainly short-lived and on a small scale, have persisted, and I
    1918
    should not be doing my duty if I failed to draw attention to the damage done by such stoppages, not only to our war effort but to the confidence engendered by the wages agreement. Far too often these stoppages are for very trivial and unreasonable causes. I do not know whether the Committee will find it easy to believe, but we had a case recently where 1,000 tons of coal was lost and the reason for the strike was that the men wanted the dismissal of the lady in charge of the canteen. That seemed to me to be rather a far-fetched reason for a dispute.
    Mr. Sloan: Can my right hon. Friend——
    Major Lloyd George: I have not finished. I am simply——
    Mr. Sloan: A single incident occurred in a coalfield and the Minister is making a lot of it.
    Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend had followed my speech a little more carefully he would have noticed that I made the statement that in Scotland there still persisted a large number of strikes, for which it is difficult to find a reason. I can assure the Committee that there are many more, for less trivial reasons, although there exists machinery to deal with disputes through the unions. The unions are just as ignorant as we are of the reasons. Very often the union does not know what it is all about. All I am pointing out is that, if you mean to have agreement maintained and to have confidence in those agreements, you must see to it that they are respected by both sides of the industry.
    Mr. Sloan: The Minister is attempting to lead this Committee to believe that the whole of the loss of production in the country is due to strikes.
    Major Lloyd George: Would my hon. Friend allow me——
    The Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that this is not the time to intervene. He is not entitled to intervene unless the Minister gives way.
    Mr. Sloan: Pardon me. Major Milner, I understood the Minister did give way, and I only wanted to draw his attention to the fact that if 10,000,000 tons of coal

    1919
    were lost, as stated in the White Paper, several millions of it, of course, were due to holidays.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member may have an opportunity of speaking in the Debate. He can then make a speech, but he cannot interrupt the Minister and make a speech now.
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend really must not try to misinterpret what I said. I suggested that the strikes to which I referred last, could be shown to be trivial. I told the Committee that I did not propose to discuss the strikes in Yorkshire and South Wales. Speaking generally, the whole coalfield has been quiet since, but I called attention to one district where strikes persisted for small and trivial reasons. The lady in charge of the canteen has nothing to do with colliery conditions underground. The manager of the pit has nothing to do with the lady in charge of the canteen. I am not going to pursue this matter any further, except to say what is the fact. My hon. Friend cannot say that I am in any way unsympathetic to the miners.
    Mr. Sloan: I never said the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was.
    Major Lloyd George: It is the only area in the country where there are trivial disputes for reasons which the unions themselves are incapable of ascertaining. Therefore, it is disturbing, and I should like to see it stopped. I do not attribute the loss of 2,000,000 tons to these strikes; I am only saying that it is a pity we have got such a position. I do not think anybody in any part of this House has much sympathy for them.
    As regards absenteeism, this does show some improvement. Involuntary absenteeism has increased at the end of the fifth year of war, but voluntary absenteeism has declined from 5 per cent. in the first quarter of 1943 to 4·7 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. A considerable part of the credit for the reduction of absenteeism must go to the work of the regional investigation officers and to the effect of the voluntary fining system of which the Committee is aware. I would like to refer shortly to a special inquiry made six months ago by my Ministry as a result of a suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). This showed——
    Mr. S. O. Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) knows about coal production?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Member would listen to what I have to say he would realise how irrelevant his remark is. This showed that in a normal week over 76 per cent. of the men lost no shifts at all, voluntarily. Seventeen per cent. only lost one shift and only about seven per cent, two or more shifts. How many shifts were worked? The number of shifts worked per man is still greater than before the war and 76 per cent, lost no shifts at all during the week, which is a considerable achievement. I feel bound to repeat that, having regard to the fact that we are now nearing the end of the fifth year of war and to the nature and circumstances of coalmining work, the vast majority of the men are attending satisfactorily. Only a relatively small minority are taking advantage of war-time conditions to purchase leisure at their country's expense, and the number of these men, as I have said, is actually reduced for last year.
    Before I deal with the steps taken by my Ministry to offset these impediments to production, I must briefly refer to the coal won from open-cast workings. To say that this coal has been useful is to put it rather mildly. In the last coal year the output was 5,500,000 tons, and since November, 1941, 9,500,000 tons of saleabe coal have been produced and 7,500,000 tons disposed of. It is hoped that, during the present year, we shall be able to get at least 12,000,000 tons from this source. In the autumn of 1943, a programme for the construction of linking points, railway sidings and speeding plants was undertaken. It was hoped that this programme would be complete by the beginning of this coal year, but there have been delays from various causes which have led to an accumulation of stocks, in the Midland district particularly. Much has been done, however, and the Ministry of Works hope that the work will be substantially complete in about two months. The screening of coal will greatly increase its sphere of usefulness, and add to the large coal available for domestic purposes.
    With regard to further production, my Ministry have taken a number of important steps to offset these impediments

    1921
    to production. These steps, which I will briefly outline, are not only of wartime importance. They will, I anticipate, effectively increase the post-war efficiency of the industry. First, as a wartime measure, I have appointed a number of group production directors in each Region, in each case drawn, in the main, from the general manager and managing-director class in the mining industry, who now supervise production at large groups of pits. In this way, their experience and knowledge are pooled for the benefit of the industry as a whole and are not confined to one particular undertaking. It is still, obviously, too early to report on the outcome of this measure, but I can say that it promises well. Secondly, we have recently had the benefit of a visit from a technical and economic mission of United States experts brought here to examine and report upon our methods, with particular reference to mechanisation. I hope that we shall derive considerable advantage from the report of the mission, which I have just received. Naturally, it deals mainly with the problem of mechanisation, to which I will refer later. I would first draw the attention of the Committee to the increase shown in the White Paper in the percentage of coal cut by mechanical means—Table 10. It is now over 70 per cent., as compared with 59 per cent. before the war. The conveying of coal by machinery has also risen during the war and now stands at 68 per cent. I think it was 54 per cent. before the war.
    Mr. Foster: May I put it to the Minister that according to page 10, less coal was cut than m 1940? I thought my right hon. and gallant Friend was referring to the quantity of coal.
    Major Lloyd George: No, the percentage of coal cut. There is less coal produced. These are the figures, and they are very carefully drawn up.
    Miss Ward: May I ask the Minister whether we are to have the benefit of seeing that report—whether it will be published for the benefit of hon Members who wish to read it?
    Major Lloyd George: I will consider that, but I have only just received it myself.
    Miss Ward: I think it would be very helpful.
    Major Lloyd George: I need not remind the Committee that conditions here differ very greatly from those in the United States. We here have some difficulties arising out of those different conditions, and from the lack of officials and men experienced in handling and using these new American machines. We have been up against inevitable delay in delivery, which the Committee will understand, and we have also been up against teething troubles, and, quite frankly, they have lasted longer than was anticipated. It is unlikely that a large increase will result from the use of American machinery during the present coal year.
    Mr. MacLaren: Who is responsible?
    Major Lloyd George: I am responsible.
    Mr. MacLaren: Yes, but is there not an official?
    Major Lloyd George: Certainly, there are responsible officers, but I am ultimately responsible. I think the experiments are encouraging and that they ought to be persevered in. The output per man-shift is already, on the average, some 80 per cent. higher than that obtained by the methods previously employed. It is important to remember that that increase is only half the target figure set. Only last week, at one colliery, the output per man-shift rose from 2½ tons to the target figure of 8.2 tons, while the output per loader shift was 150 tons, which compares quite favourably with American practice. Vigorous steps are being taken to improve the position generally, and we are taking full advantage of American knowledge and practical experience. The number of demonstrations in this country has been increased, and visits to the United States by British mining engineers are being arranged.
    The most important step was the establishment at Sheffield by the Ministry of Labour of a Mechanisation Training Centre. Here, American machinery has been installed in prepared galleries, and officials and workmen who are to operate the machinery are given a short course of training. A longer course, lasting six months, has been established for selected workmen from collieries, in which instruction is given in mechanical and electrical work to fit the students for employment underground at the face on

    1923
    maintenance work, both with American and other machinery. The work done at this centre has received high commendation from the American mission, and is clearly of very great value for the future.
    The steps which I have outlined to increase production and efficiency in our pits, will depend largely on able and efficient management. We need, everywhere, a relationship between management and workmen based on confidence rather than suspicion. I know from my own experience that such conditions can be created, and, indeed, that it exists at many pits up and down the country. Elsewhere, however, indiscipline and customs restrictive of work exist and I think should be abandoned. This has led to repeated requests by colliery managers that I should remove the Essential Work Order from the coalmining industry, in order that they may again have the sanction of dismissal. I do not think they fully appreciate what the implications of such an action would be, but, apart from this, I must say again that, if we succeed nationally in our policy of full employment, a new technique of labour management in the mines will be necessary, because this has nothing to do with the war; it is a question of the supply and demand of labour. The coal industry might do worse than consider the suggestion made last year by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster) when he advocated a system of personnel managers. It is for the industry itself to find its way out of this difficulty.
    This leads me to a short account of the work of my Ministry on labour problems. I would first of all emphasise the importance I attach to the new wages agreement. Again and again, on my visits to the coalfields, I was impressed by the attitude and point of view of the workmen, who always expressed anxiety as to their future, and particularly with reference to what happened after the last war. I was determined that some form of security should be secured, and we all know that the agreement prescribes a minimum period of four years free from wage strife, during which the transition from war to peace can take place, and future needs can be considered and agreed. In addition, the agreement seeks to encourage greater output by providing a suitable
    1924
    reward for effort. The new wage rates must lead to an increase in the price of coal unless output is increased, but a greater output per man-shift will diminish, or possibly avoid, the need for such an increase in price.
    Throughout my term of office, my principal concern has been to obtain the best return possible from the man-power available, within the framework of Government policy. I do not propose to discuss the problems of the ballot and the direction of new entrants. I should like to refer, however, to the results of this policy. I have now received returns from all the regions of my Ministry, and these show strikingly similar results. No less than 80 per cent. of the new entrants are satisfactory or more than satisfactory, while only 6 per cent. are really disappointing. I think that is a very encouraging figure. I think it is right, and I think the Committee will agree, that the efforts of these young men should be recognised. I would like also to pay tribute to those in the mining areas who have welcomed these young men, particularly the workmen, who have made much easier the new entrants' task of adjusting themselves to totally new conditions. In every case that has been so.
    I have mentioned recruitment during the war. No one will dispute that it is going to be one of our major problems in the post-war period. It will be seen from Table 3 of the White Paper that, in 1943, less than 50,000 youths below 18 were in the mines, compared with over 70,000 in 1938. Further, at the present time, juvenile recruitment is running at the annual rate of 11,000, against a national gross wastage of nearly 40,000. It is not necessary for me to drive home the lesson of these figures. Hon. Members are entitled to ask what is being done to meet the situation, which is not of wartime importance only. If the industry is to attract our youth, it must be made an industry that offers real opportunity. It is, however, difficult in wartime to make changes affecting the industry. Materials and labour are in short supply, and it is generally necessary to think in terms of weeks rather than in terms of years. Even so, since the Ministry was set up two years ago, we have been able to establish a Mines Medical Service, to extend to the number of eight the rehabilitation centres operated

    1925
    by the Miners' Welfare Commission—two more have been opened in the last few weeks in Durham and Northumberland—and to bring into operation, again through the Miners' Welfare Commission, canteens serving about 1,000 collieries employing nearly 700,000 men. We have also set up, with the help of the Ministry of Labour, 13 training centres for new entrants, through which nearly 20,000 men have already passed, and a special mechanisation training centre at Sheffield, for training mine personnel of all grades, in the operation and maintenance of all types of machinery.
    Mr. Tinker: Does the Minister mean that the new entrants are the "Bevin boys"?
    Major Lloyd George: Actually, the 20,000 were "Bevin boys." The value of these training centres at any time is conspicuous, and I would encourage hon. Gentlemen who are interested, to visit them. I think it would be a very good thing if more were known about what goes on, particularly in the training centres.
    Mr. Bernard Taylor: Is that an invitation, generally, to Members of Parliament to visit these centres?
    Major Lloyd George: I should be very glad to arrange for parties to visit them, because I think it would be of tremendous interest. I honestly believe that the more mechanisation you can bring into the pits, the less is going to be the drudgery of the miner's work. It is important that we should get efficiency in the industry, and far too little interest has been shown in the operations of the mining industry.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The miners think they have seen plenty of it.
    Major Lloyd George: I want to show them something good, for a change. The allocation of the trainees is proceeding smoothly, but hon. Members will appreciate that it is not easy to maintain the appropriate weekly rates of flow in view of fluctuations in the rate of supply and the obvious desirability of respecting the preferences of the trainees themselves. Further, there are one or two areas of special difficulty. The number of men becoming available in the mining industry
    1926
    in Lancashire, for instance, is much in excess of the numbers required to meet with the region's requirements and it has been necessary to send a proportion of them to neighbouring regions. Housing has also presented difficulties, but reception in private houses in mining areas has been remarkable. At the moment there are about 2,500 new entrants lodged in well-equipped hostels, which have been established by my Ministry in the coalfields.
    My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will deal in detail with matters affecting safety and welfare, with which he is peculiarly fitted to deal, but I would like to draw attention to Tables 28 and 29 in the Digest which deal with the number of fatal and other accidents. They show a decrease in the number of fatal accidents and those producing serious injuries. The total of 713 fatal accidents is, indeed, the lowest ever recorded for a full year's working which I think, in the fifth year of war, serious enough. Still it is encouraging to know that this year it is the lowest that has ever been recorded. The decrease in serious accidents has been evident both at the pits and on the haulage roads, the former being due to fewer falls of roof, consequent, no doubt, on better roof control, a matter to which we are paying particular attention. There has, however, been an increase in minor injuries resulting in absence from work for more than three days. No convincing explanation is given of this increase, and it is not easy to visualise a change in working conditions which would simultaneously result in a decrease of minor accidents. It may be that the cumulative strain of five years of war has caused a somewhat longer recuperative period to be necessary in the case of some injured men.
    I do not want to detain the Committee longer than I can help but there are one or two points on which I shall have to touch again before I conclude. Members representing the mining regions will be glad to hear that it has recently been possible to make some small headway—and I emphasise this—with the preparation of a new Coal Mines Safety Bill on the lines of the reforms worked out by the Royal Commission of 1935 to 1938, so that we may be in a position to press forward with this legislation at the earliest possible date. But, as I say, I emphasise the fact that, owing to circumstances

    1927
    beyond our control the matter cannot be dealt with at the moment. Even during the war itself it has been possible to make some progress, without recourse to legislation, on some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission—for instance, in the compulsory installation of mist-spraying and dust-laying apparatus in the South Wales anthracite pits. I must refer, too, to the report which has just been submitted to me by the special committee which I set up to study the incidence of pneumoconiosis in those pits, and I hope soon to report what action is being taken on its recommendations. This report, which will soon be published, is being very closely studied. This record of reform and improvement in wartime is not, of course, complete. I am hoping, for instance, that when circumstances improve the Miners' Welfare Commission will be able to resume, even in war-time, the erection of pithead baths at those pits which are most in need of them. Here again, progress will have to be slow because of shortage of labour and material.
    Finally, I am glad to report that there has been a gradual and steady improvement in the standard of pit production committees during this last year. It has considerably improved on the figures which I gave the last time I spoke on this matter, and I would like to say that there has been more co-operation, as a result of my appeal, particularly through the managements, and definitely they have very greatly improved. Much still remains to be done, however, and much must depend on the active interest of the district miners' unions. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the managements."] I made an appeal to the managements. Hon. Members opposite may agree that it would be helpful to encourage special pit ballots for the men's representatives.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is there behind that a suggestion that, when the committee is appointed, there is some underhand work?
    Major Lloyd George: I said that because I happen to be a democrat. That is purely my own suggestion, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will acquit me of any desire other than that which is right.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman find that these committees are a success and a great assistance to production?
    Major Lloyd George: What I said was that last year 25 per cent. of them were very good, and the rest not so good. There has been a tremendous improvement this year and I am saying that we want moo per cent., because, in my view, it will be of tremendous value to the industry, and the more there are, the better it will be.
    Mr. Glanville: Is the Minister aware that at most of the collieries these representatives are balloted for? What does he mean by suggesting that there should be special pit ballots? There is a ballot for the position of chairman of the lodge, or that of secretary of the lodge, and as such a man automatically sits on the production committee. That is understood when he undertakes the office.
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that that is not so everywhere.
    Mr. Glanville: I was on one myself for many years.
    Major Lloyd George: But that is not the case everywhere. No observer of the coalmining industry in this country, certainly no one who listened to our Debates in the old days, could fail to be impressed by the constant harping on the past. If such references are merely in order to keep alive resentments and suspicions, then all must agree that they are to be deplored; they can be justified only where there is an intention of learning from the mistakes that have been made in the past. In the coalmining industry, more perhaps than in any other, our attention should be focused on the needs of the future; for the industry is not merely of importance to the nation in the stress and turmoil of war, but is the very basis of our industrial prosperity in peace. It is, of course, for Parliament to decide, as it has been laid down, what the future control of the scheme of this industry shall be, but I do want to stress this. Whatever the system or structure of this industry after the war, whether it be nationalisation, private enterprise or any other form of control—whichever form it takes—the industry will have to be run efficiently.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Private enterprise has failed to make the industry efficient.
    Major Lloyd George: I am not going to enter into that.
    Mr. Griffiths: It is obvious.
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend cannot tempt me on that. I am simply making a statement which needs to be made, with great respect, that whatever form of government there is for this industry, the industry will have to be efficient. Some people seem to think that a change will be sufficient in itself.
    Mr. Murray: Will the Minister tell us who is to be the judge?
    Major Lloyd George: I will tell the hon. Member in a minute what I think is best and I think the hon. Member will agree with me. This has to be agreed upon—if the industry is to make a proper contribution to national economy, if it is to maintain the people who work within it at a decent standard of life we all wish to see, we must have an efficient industry. Hon. Members will agree that this industry will not be able to make that contribution either to national economy or to the standard of living of its people, on the present low output per manshift, and consequently the present high cost of production per ton. I believe in good wages. They are the spur to efficiency, and I am glad, and so is everybody else, I think, in this country, that the miner is being remunerated more in accordance with the arduous and dangerous character of his calling, and in a closer relation to other industries, than he has been before.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Look what a terrible fight he has had to get it.
    Major Lloyd George: But the men themselves must understand that high wages can only be maintained by a high output per manshift, so that the cost of production permits the supply of coal at a reasonable price to our industries, particularly those manufacturing goods for export, and to those who buy our coal overseas as coal. [Interruption.] It may be an old story, but it is none the less true. What are the steps which have to be taken to increase the efficiency of this industry?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Nationalise the mines.
    Major Lloyd George: I would say without hesitation that the first essential is to improve greatly the present relationship between the two sides of the industry.
    Mr. Henry White: That is impossible.
    Major Lloyd George: I do not think that, generally speaking, this country has much to learn in the matter of labour relations from any other country, but I do know that visitors from overseas, who have visited our coalfields, have been astonished and dismayed to see how poor are the relations between owners and men in some sections of our coal-bearing districts. I am certain that a genuine improvement in co-operation between those engaged in the industry would cause a substantial and speedy increase in coal production. Wise leadership on both sides now is therefore essential. The second requisite is to have pits properly planned and equipped, so that proper effort and co-operation will reap their reward in output. This is a conservative industry and while it is true that much coal-face mechanisation has been done in this country, involving the use of coal cutters and conveyors, the underground transport systems have never, generally speaking, been overhauled. We are still working very largely with the same size of tubs, the same type of haulage equipment. Delays due to poor facilities of this kind have, in many cases, prevented our getting the fullest advantage of the face equipment that has been put in.
    Where they can be applied, American methods and machinery can do much to increase the productivity of our mines, but it must be recognised that the use of the longwall system, either advancing or retreating, will still be necessary over a large portion of our coalfields. There is, therefore, need for considerable research——
    Mr. David Grenfell: They have done it in America without resorting to the longwall system.
    Major Lloyd George: I say that it will still be necessary in this country.
    Mr. Grenfell: One cannot compare the systems of working at all.
    Major Lloyd George: I say that there is still need for it. There is need for considerable research into new methods of coal-getting which will be applicable to British conditions. A resulting reduction in the cost of haulage and road making of itself should make an overhaul worth while. There must, too, be a marked increase in efficiency where men can be

    1931
    transported to the face, rather than walk, as in some pits, as much as two miles or more underground before reaching their working place. Apart from the question of efficiency, I take the human side to support that. That should certainly be overcome and it is one of the things which will have to be done. It is true to say that in far too many of our pits to-day we are trying to carry the motor traffic of the pre-war days on the roads built in the last century. That is a thing which has to be put right. In addition, surface equipment must be brought up to date so that coal is properly prepared for the market. Properly planned development work, including new sinkings, should be put in hand to replace obsolete and uneconomic pits. Many, I am sure, will have read with approval the passage in a pamphlet to which I referred recently and in which we are reminded that the interests of a coal-bearing area should be considered as a whole, rather than the interests of a particular undertaking.
    No less important than efficiency in the production of coal is efficiency in its utilisation. This is, in my judgment, the third essential for a more efficient industry and one of the most important lessons we have learnt in the past two years. Substantial reductions in industrial consumption have been made as a result of education in the utilisation of fuel. I commend my hon. Friends to look at what has been done by the fuel economy experts in my Ministry. Hon. Members will have observed the scale of my Ministry's efforts. I attach equal importance to improved fuel utilisation in peace time, not in this case to balance the coal budget but to reduce the fuel costs of industry. War-time research and education will provide a valuable contribution to this. My Ministry, together with experts in the industry, are already working on peacetime problems of fuel utilisation. I have previously informed the House of my decision to appoint a National Fuel and Power Advisory Council, one of whose principal functions will be to advise on certain major technical and economic problems of fuel and power production and utilisation. I am glad to inform the Committee that Sir Ernest Simon has accepted my invitation to act as Chairman.
    The Committee will appreciate that, inevitably, my attention and that of my
    1932
    principal officers in the past has been devoted almost entirely to the urgent task of ensuring that essential industry should get the coal necessary for the successful prosecution of the war, and that there should be adequate supplies to maintain health and reasonable comfort among domestic consumers. Nevertheless, discussions were begun last December, in accordance with the Prime Minister's pledge that uncertainty and harassing fears among miners should as far as possible be allayed. These discussions were interrupted by the strikes following the Porter Award and the wage negotiations over which I presided, but I hope they will now be resumed.
    Meanwhile, I have asked my Regional Controllers to prepare a factual survey of the present resources and future development required in their regions. My hon. Friends from Scotland will be aware that work of this kind has already been undertaken in that region. In the preparation of these surveys my Regional Controllers will be assisted by representatives of owners, mine-workers, and expert advisers. When they are completed we shall, I hope, be in a position never before attained in this country I would say, to decide how to develop our resources in each region to the best advantage, and I believe, until we get that, it will be very difficult to know exactly haw developments will work out.
    I have detained the Committee longer than I meant to do but I have, I hope, given the Committee in outline the work of my Ministry in the main part, at any rate, in the two years since its formation. Our record of achievement in these two very difficult years is not insubstantial. I have referred in the latter part of my remarks to work to be undertaken in the future. In reality, however, it is impossible to draw distinctions between work done to meet present needs and work designed to meet future needs. Our aim is, in short, that the value of our war-time efforts shall not be diminished when the war ends. For the time being, however, our efforts are directed, above all, to maintaining and increasing coal production for war-time purposes. That has still got to be done. An increase of even one cwt. per man shift would produce 10,000,000 more tom per annum. The need for it is as great as, if not greater than, ever. Not only have

    1933
    we to maintain our great war industries but we must maintain our civil population in reasonable comfort. We have also to provide coal supplies for operations by the Allied Forces on the Continent, and we hope that in the near future supplies of coal may also be required for the succour of the liberated peoples of Europe. That is a very formidable task but, I am satisfied, not one beyond our powers.
    Mr. David Grenfell: I would like to congratulate the Minister from this side of the Committee upon the very comprehensive survey he has given us to-day. He referred to the publication of the White Paper. It supplies much information of value to Members. More information was available before the stringencies of war compelled us to withhold it. This information is not nearly as complete as the Committee would like, or as was contained in the Annual Report up to 1938, but it is a good summary and enables the Committee to pass judgment upon the day to day proceedings of the Department and the industry.
    I want to say at the beginning that I do not hold my right hon. and gallant Friend responsible for any shortcomings of the industry at the present time. He has only been at the Ministry about two years and all he could do to justify himself would be to say that he had done better in those two years, than had been done before he went there. Unfortunately, for the country and himself, he is not able to do that. The White Paper shows us that there is a reduction in production compared with 1940, a reduction compared with 1941, a reduction compared with 1942. Each year there has been a progressive decline in production and, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, his duties when he assumed office were to make both ends meet, and he has only been able to do so by imposing limitations on consumption. He has not contributed a single ton by way of higher production to the solution of this problem. I do not blame him. I would be blaming myself if I blamed him because, when I was in the Mines Department, I warned the Department and the House time and time again. I said that we could not maintain the production of coal for the duration of a war and that the longer the war went on the more difficult it would be. I said, "You cannot
    1934
    maintain production unless you have more men than you are likely to have in that period." The fact is that we have not enough men and we have not as much material. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was interspersed with handicaps which explained the failure of his Department over production, and so I excuse him from any personal responsibility for the failure, but I cannot really excuse the Government. After all, the Government are responsible. The Government know that the House of Commons has discussed the coal situation for many years, and warnings were given by myself when I was Minister and since I came to this side—through no fault of my own, if I may be allowed to say so. I came here to do my duty and I have tried to do it just as loyally as when I was on the other side, and I believe I am doing my duty to-day as loyally as ever.
    The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made one or two points to which I must refer in the most friendly way. He knows that there is no personal desire to score in this, and there never will be. He said that the publication of the White Paper was essential, and that only a summary of the figures has been available to the Ministry. I hope everybody will read this, not only for the purpose of the Debate, but to see exactly what has taken place in this country, as far as the information goes. I would go back a little further than 1938 to show what has really been done. I join the Minister in congratulating the industry on what it has done, and I will refer to that very shortly. But this is a fact—and I mention this because the Minister himself quoted these figures—that in 1941 we were producing 206,000,000 tons of coal; in 1942 we produced 199,000,000 tons of coal; in 1943, 198,000,000 tons. The White Paper gives these figures and shows that the production has decreased, and is decreasing, at an alarming rate. I do not believe that the economies which were possible under certain weather conditions can be relied upon each winter and each summer. I have never heard anybody complain of the cold of summer in this country. The Minister is quite right, this barometer of consumption is very, very sensitive and in the Mines Department of the Ministry of Fuel they must pay attention to it. The winter consumption, on an average for many years past and particularly during the war period, has

    1935
    been 1,000,000 tons a week more than the summer consumption. That is the round figure. Twenty-six millions tons more coal are consumed in the 26 winter weeks than in the 26 weeks covering the summer period, and there are all kinds of fluctuations and deviations within that period which affect the Minister. He may have a better summer in one year than in another but, taking an average, there is no likelihood of a great diminution in consumption and I want to express that warning as clearly as I can.
    Let me take the Committee a little further back than 1938, because this is a very old industry. One cannot understand the problems if one takes the short view since 1940 or 1942. Let us go back to 1913, which was the high peak of industrial attainment in this industry. Never was as much coal produced in this country before, never were as many men employed before or since. No less than 286,000,000 tons were produced in 1913. In passing judgment on the question of production per man, the Minister has been far more unkind than he meant to be.
    Listening to him, one would have thought that the Minister was not his kind, generous self. I absolve him from any desire to show unkindness and I know his feelings are better than they appeared. In 1913 the production per person employed per week was 5·02 tons. In 1914 there was no record, the war prevented calculations. In 1915, the production was 5·21 tons—a better production than in 1913—and 300,000 men had gone into the war. In 1916 the production declined to 5·03 tons. In 1917 it was 4·79 tons. In 1918, the last year of the last war, the production per person per week had declined to 4·45 tons.
    Let us take this war. We began in 1938 with a production which can be explained largely in terms of mechanisation production of 5·57 tons per person per week. In 1939—a very good production year—5·81 tons per person per week. In 1940, 5·72 tons per person per week—it was coming down a little bit from 1939. In 1941, 5·67 tons per person per week. In 1942, 5·5 tons per person per week. In 1943 and 1944 we have been producing at a still lower level. But the output per person per week throughout this war, even in 1942, was 10 per cent.
    1936
    better than the best output ever registered in this country in 1913. So the Minister is quite right, we must not adopt too censorious an attitude towards the industry itself. The industry has not done as badly as some of us have assumed from the very hard sayings sometimes uttered in the House and. the hard words written in the Press. A comparison of the days worked gives an equally favourable picture, but does the Committee realise that throughout this war we have nearly half a million less men than we had throughout the last war? And we have made both ends meet in this industry with its many faults and have produced tolerably satisfactorily. We are not yet very deficient, and we have kept the industry of this country going with half a million less men employed in the mines than we had in 1914–18.
    The Minister did not dwell upon the question of man-power. Man-power reached the record low level of 686,000 when I was in the Mines Department, but at that time, in 1941, the production per person per shift was higher than has ever been recorded in this country before or since. I am very proud; of course, I was not responsible for the production but I helped, as the Minister is helping. I set up organisations, as the Minister is seeking to do, and we were highly successful.
    We produced, in 1941 and in 1942, nearly 300 tons per person per annum. When anybody finds fault with miners who produce that quantity of coal I would like to talk to them privately and say, "Go to the coalfield and see the conditions under which the work is being done. Go down there and share the men's labour for one day, or for one week, and then, judge as ye would be judged and do unto others as you would others should do unto you." I regard the miners as being no worse or better than the rest of us in this Committee. That is the kind of judgment you must pass upon them. What has happened? The industry is older in personnel than ever before. Never has the average age been so high as it is now. Men slow down as they age. You cannot get the same amount of work from older men as from the men at a lower age level. The older men have done very good work in this war. They are men of my generation, my best friends, and they have been as good as any men in the world. Is it too much to

    1937
    give them a word of praise? I make this allegation against the Government: Not a word of official praise has been given to the miners during the war. I know the Minister has praised them. I am speaking of the Government. The Minister lapsed a little in my opinion today, but I know it was not ill-meant. There has been no vote of thanks to the miners for the immeasurable service they have given in this war.
    I do not think I should be betraying an official secret—I have kept it locked up for some time—if I told the House about the miners of Kent. In 1940 we had to rally and summon all our sustenance, moral and physical, all the courage we possessed. The Prime Minister played a large part in rallying public morale, and we stood firm. The best example of national loyalty and valour that I can quote was that exhibited by the miners of the Kent coalfield in June, 1940. The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport and my poor little Ministry, on behalf of the Government, had been persuaded that the Kent coalfield was untenable, and trains, tickets and destinations had been arranged and plans for compulsory evacuation had been mapped out in every detail. But I realised that we relied upon Kent to show an example. We were producing 30,000 tons of coal a week. If those men ceased to produce, because of imminent danger, what would have been the attitude of Northern miners when the night bombers went to the Tees and the Tyne, and of the Scots miners when the bombers went to the Forth? If they started to decamp and leave their posts their example might have been uncontrollable and ruinous to the country. The Kent coalfield, with no public honours or acknowledgment, carried on. I asked John Elks, the miners' agent in Kent, to come and see me. Four of the men's leaders came. I said, "Will you stay on?" They said, "Yes" without any hesitation. The colliery owners were also willing to stay on and do their job, but the men were going down pits 3,000 feet deep, through a hole that might have been plugged and kept plugged for the duration of the war. But they volunteered to go down. I saw the highest military authority in the country at that time. He came to the Mines Department and I said, "You cannot evacuate these miners, because they want to stay. Cancel your trains and arrangements. Let them
    1938
    stay on." And they stayed there, producing coal.
    Mr. Kirkwood: They were heroes.
    Mr. Grenfell: Certainly they were heroes. There have been incidents. Bombs dropped and men were detained down the pits for more than their normal shifts. When they came up they went home, but were back at work again next day. The authorities told me that they could not protect those people, that they could not guarantee their safety. I replied that miners had never asked for guaranteed safety. Day after day they did their job in the service of this nation without guarantees from anyone.
    I want to say a word or two about wages. The Minister was good enough to say that he thought men would work better if they were paid well. That is true. No ill-paid body of people can acquire great skill or great courage. A man loses his self-respect and his quality of good service unless he gets a fairly decent wage. Miners' wages are better now, but let us not forget that when the war started the miners were 81st from the top of the wages list. Now they are in the 21st position, but will anybody in the Committee say that that position is too good, having regard to the service they are rendering to the country? There is equality between districts now, and I am sure everybody connected with the mining industry will give me a little credit here. I know the industry well; I know all its difficulties, as well as I know anything in life. I carry its handicaps in my body and soul. It is an industry where great qualities are required all round, and I make no distinction between the colliery manager and the miner in that respect. I could not, when the war started in the existing circumstances when I went to the Mines Department, devise a decent wage system. There was that wonderful system of ascertainments of which my hon. Friends are only too well aware. Inequalities were perpetuated and aggravated by the very terms of that system. I started in December, 1940, by a Resolution in this Chamber to level out those inequalities by the introduction of the Coal Fund. There has been a considerable uplift of wages in the poorer districts, and men in the best districts have not suffered. I do not know a better way of achieving a larger measure of adjustment than the method I put forward

    1939
    in 1940, which is still being carried on and extended. We have been repairing the coal economics of the last 30 years, and especially the last two years. For the last two years the Minister has been privileged to share in the repair work on the wage system in the industry, which has been long overdue. The future will show still better results. We cannot afford to look upon this report to-day as the final report on the coal industry. As the Minister has said, there is much to be done.
    I will say no more about wages and prices, but I want now to say something about time lost by strikes. The war has gone on for nearly five years now, and the average time lost by strikes in the industry is less than one quarter of an hour per week. Count the figures, work it out, and you will find that that is so. I have never, at any time, encouraged strikes. I believe that an organisation of labour which does not do its work when the men are working, is not a good organisation. If men have to stop to get their organisation to work then that is a bad thing. I have never wanted strikes. But when you measure the service which these men have done, and are doing, and do as the Minister did to-day, cast doubt on their loyalty and seriousness——
    Major Lloyd George Major Lloyd George indicated dissent.
    Mr. Grenfell: I know my right hon. and gallant Friend did not mean it.
    Major Lloyd George: No, I will not even accept that; I did not cast doubt on the part anybody had played.
    Mr. Grenfell: Well, we shall see the Minister's words in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is how it sounded to me and to others of my hon. Friends.
    Major Lloyd George: Read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
    Mr. Sloan: The Minister said that the men were buying idleness at the expense of the State.
    Mr. Grenfell: Let me turn again to the figures. A quarter of an hour lost per week represents 12½ hours per annum counting 50 weeks per annum, or 62½ hours in five years. Will the Minister deny that the men work illegal overtime, far in excess of the time lost by strikes?
    1940
    I also want to say something about outcrop coal. The Minister said he was glad it had come to the aid of the country and the industry during the war period. He is a fortunate man; he would have been in a bad plight if it were not for this coal coming in, and his position next year would have been still more serious. I started outcrop coal. In October, 1941, I went to the Orchard Colliery, in Warwickshire, and arranged for machines to make a cut. I went there again on 12th December, 1941, and saw what had taken place.
    I want to tell the Committee what a great achievement has been performed in outcrop mining on this one site alone. This is a site where a number of seams of Warwickshire gas coal come very near the surface on a narrow, anticlinal ridge. I saw it. I thought the extent of the working might not be more than 10 or 12 acres. We started work immediately. From October, 1941, till to-day 375,000 tons of coal have been brought from that one site alone. The average price of the coal obtained has been 28s. a ton. That place has paid for itself every day and there are still 1,000,000 tons. I also started the first site near Sheffield. We made very exhaustive inquiries into the possibility of working by this method.
    At Keltie, in Fife, the coal is covered by bog and peat land. There is a terrible surface approach to the coal that lies underneath. But we decided not to proceed then with the exploitation of the Keltie coal. But there is a way. If your over-burden is light you can take it away' by mechanical diggers. Later on the limit of your over-burden may be far greater. It may be 50 or 100 ft. provided there is plenty of coal beneath but there comes a time when you are not deep enough to work by ordinary underground methods, and too deep to work by opencast methods, and that is where I believe the Minister should immediately take steps to convert these seams of coal—60 ft. of coal within a range of 100 ft. altogether. That is a very fine opportunity of trying out something that has been done in Soviet Russia by gasification, in situ, with wonderful results. You have not to go down 1,000 ft. to strike the seam. You get to the seam with the shortest possible approach and sink a shaft here and a shaft there, join them up and start. There is no reason at all, why in Keltie and Orchard Colliery, Warwickshire, we

    1941
    might not get a better example of gasification than there is in America or in the U.S.S.R. We must take our opportunities. Never be tied down to old methods. Old conditions have resulted in declining production. We have failed to maintain production by old methods. The Minister must show more enterprise. The Government which is the Minister's boss also must show far more enterprise. The economics will look after themselves if you make a proper study of them. Outcrop coal is paying, because we have introduced a new economic factor in the capacity of these wonderful machines which are now being brought in to do the job. Technical improvements are constantly being made.
    The Minister said something about electricity and gas. This, is a remarkable thought to Members, and to the public. Electricity and gas are being maintained at a low level of prices in the last 30 years when the nominal price of coal has gone up more than three times, because of technical improvements in the consumption of coal. You get from one unit of coal, three units of electricity, compared with the one that you had 30 years ago. There is a constant improvement. The Minister emphasises the price of coal. I should prefer him to pay more attention still to the real value of coal, and not to the sham price that we fix upon it from time to time. The range of by-products in coal is amazing. You want to be a poet and not a scientist to conceive of the wonderful range of wealth contained in this treasure.
    The chemist and the fuel technician has far more to do with the raising of coal-values than either the coalowner, the collier or the Government. These scientific men are constantly working, making surveys of coal and discovering fresh secrets every day. This is the brightest prospect in our survey of coal. But there is no organisation for the purpose. Science only finds its way into the industry by the back door. There is no open way for the introduction of science into the industry. It is hard labour and sweat every time, with no welcome for science in industry, and no means of joining the good will of my hon. Friends and others, who would like to work together. They cannot work together in these conditions. The whole industry is in need of thorough reorganisation. We have to secure an output of
    1942
    coal larger than we have at present if we are to hold our place in the world. All national planning begins with coal. With no ill-feeling, and no desire to wound the sentiments of anyone, private enterprise is not strong enough for the job. It cannot do it. The physical difficulties are too heavy.
    Private enterprise has failed and those who have failed most grievously are the larger combines. The large combines have sometimes fared worse than the smallest concerns. None will undertake the essential development that the Minister referred to. Even the largest combine is dependent upon public subscriptions. They advertise to Smith, Jones and the others, "Lend us your shillings and your pounds. We want to start a large colliery. We want £2,000,000. Will you please find the money?" The money has not been found and cannot be without the writing of attractive prospectuses and specious promises of reward. And then we failed. We passed a law to impose amalgamations and the amalgamations, so far, have consisted only of the selection of the best pits, and the ruining of the rest. We have suffered ruin and desolation in almost all our coalfields where the combines have found a resting place. We have jeopardised the existence of the industry itself. The Minister knows how many pits are being kept by him. I started the bad habit. He referred to the danger to Sheffield's gas supply, if the men stopped work. But the coalowners failed to produce sufficient gas coal for Sheffield until the Department came to their rescue and paid the expense under a system of control. The Minister has maintained the supply because private enterprise cannot keep it up even in war time. Private enterprise, I say, has failed.
    In 1940 I planned to redistribute the coal trade. We are barely safe so far, but we cannot go much further without taking over responsibility for planning and owning the industry. Planning which leaves ownership undisturbed does not achieve our purpose. We have tried it. There are people on both sides who have condemned it. I beg my comrades in the industry not to be too impatient, not to give up the scheme that is working now, because I believe this is the road to the next and final thing that has to be done. We can-

    1943
    not maintain production for the generation following to-day unless in the next 10 years we invest £50,000,000 of new capital in the industry. Where is it to come from? What member of the Committee would lend his money to any private company which wants to sink a pit in Lanark, for example? In parts of South Wales it cannot be done without State auspices, State resources and State organisation. Take the Coal Commission and the nationalisation of mining royalties as examples, forced on the House not by political parties but by the actual conditions.
    I put something before the Government six months before I left. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) received my submission. He had arranged to set up a Committee before which I was to give evidence in detail on the scheme. He soon lost his job and it was not long before I followed. I took my scheme for the second time to the Minister without Portfolio. He arranged to see me and have a detailed discussion on it. The scheme is still there. I warn the Committee that it cannot allow these submissions to be made and to remain unheeded. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deliver the goods now? Can he do it over the next 10 years? It is impossible without real planning and without resources. This £50,000,000 of capital consists of new shafts to do away with these roads three miles long, about which the Minister has spoken, new machines to improve production at the coal face, new machines to do the pumping and ventilating, new materials and a new lay-out. That is why we want new capital. If we cannot get it rightly placed and apportioned, under private enterprise, let us scrap private enterprise and do the job ourselves. The country cannot afford to do without making those changes.
    I want to come back to the man in the pit. We can have our schemes and do what we like but we must come back to the man who gets the coal as the fruit of his labour and experience. He is a very good man too. I say to miners every day "Do not stop working. It is not worth it. We have to beat Hitler first, and then put our house in order." They generally accept that view. The Minister can cease to operate this agree-
    1944
    ment that he speaks of, as suddenly as the decontrol that happened after 1920. Suppose the war does not end until 1946, and two years afterwards the agreement ends and we start to make a new agreement under new conditions.
    Major Lloyd George: There is this difference, that the date is now known.
    Mr. Grenfell: It does not matter. I say that unless the war finishes very quickly it will be as in 1921. I do not say that that was the intention, but that will be the effect. Six months' notice is not very much. The owners can very easily wait that time. I would go to the men and lay down conditions which can be defended on all grounds—on grounds of production, of maintenance, of manpower and of peace and good will. The Minister might now say, with the approval of the Government. "We have promised to amend the Coal Mines Act so that the men will have a five-day week and sevenand-a-half hours a day as soon as the war comes to an end." The actual working times in 1913 was under 5 days a week. We should not go down below the average working time, but we should regularise and organise production by establishing a reasonable working week which will enable the best use to be made of manpower.
    Old Thomas Carlyle, whom I read in my early days—he was a great critic and the strongest national scold we have ever known in literature—made a comparison in "Past and Present" between the men who worked and lived in the slums of our cities, and the horses in the contractor's stable, which were well-fed and treated, in order to maintain their health and strength. I do not want to use that simile again, but every hon. Member in this enlightened mechanical age knows the importance of paying proper attention to a motor car. If you want to get the best results from a Ford or a Daimler it must be driven carefully and must not be overworked, or stinted of lubricants and petrol. In that way you get better results over a period of time. The same is true of man-power. You can work your men to death, and drive them to physical and mental breakdown if you like, but in the long run you pay for it in lost production. The lesson we should learn here to-day is that we should praise good men; let us say a kind word to them

    1945
    from this Committee—to those men who have laid the foundations of our industry and have shown, by example after example, the steadiness and courage of our race. Let us pay a tribute to the men of Kent, to the men in all the Coalfields, and say that the best we can do for these brave men in the future and the best we can do for the industry they serve shall be done by this House.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) in congratulating my right hon. and gallant Friend on his account of the stewardship of his Department during the last year, and particularly on his factual approach to the problem. I was much encouraged by several of the conclusions to which he had come in regard to the problems of this industry. I think that the whole Committee has welcomed the publication of the White Paper, and we on this side particularly welcome this opportunity of discussing the problems of the industry at this critical moment in its affairs. I do not propose to criticise the figures in the White Paper, but I feel that it has omitted to disclose certain facts and figures which are relevant to our problems and which would have been of help. Costs are confined to the period up to April this year and take no account of the effect of the Porter award and the agreement on wages of 21st April. The second criticism I have to make is that the White Paper is confined to a limited period for the coal production only of this country. We have the advantage of knowing something of what we were confronted with during the last war and the immediate post-war period, and we should be unwise to ignore the lessons we can draw from that period. My right hon. and gallant Friend rightly urged the Committee not to jog back, and I do not propose to do so. The Committee is only interested in these figures in so far as they disclose the contribution which this industry can play towards the objectives of the White Paper on full employment and the part it can continue to play as long as the war lasts. In that respect it seems to me that there are only two factors which are really relevant —the availability of the quantity of coal required and our ability post-war to produce it in a world competitive market.
    Whereupon The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Finance Act, 1944.

  2. Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944.

  3. Law Officers Act, 1944.

  4. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (North Lindsey Water Board) Act, 1944.

  5. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Warrington) Act, 1944.

  6. North-West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1944.

  7. London and North-Eastern Railway Act, 1944.

  8. London County Council (Money) Act, 1944.

  9. Herts and Essex Water Act, 1944.

  SUPPLY
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]
  Question again proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceedingx00A3;30, he granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Fuel and Power, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1945, namely:—

  Cllass X., Vote 5, Ministry of Fuel and Power

  £10

  Class X., Vote 16, Ministry of Works (War Services)

  £10

  Class X., Vote 15, Ministry of War Transport

  £10

  £30: "—

  Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I was about to say that those criteria will remain constant, whether or no this industry is nationalised, is conducted on a communal basis, or under the most conservative interpretation of private enterprise, Recently, some of my colleagues on the Tory Reform Committee and I made a study

  1947
  of the coal industry, and we found this consideration to be a most valuable aid to objectivity.
  What is the situation? The internal consumption of coal in this country before the war was in the nature of 178,000,000 tons. We must expect, in the period immediately post-war, some considerable increase on that figure, something in the nature of 200,000,000 tons. We must also expect to resume at the earliest moment supplies to the Continent of the order of 50,000,000 tons. That is no greater than our supplies immediately before the war. We must, if we are to implement the implications of the White Paper on Employment Policy, foster exports, and in particular coal exports, by every means in our power.
  Perhaps I might remind my right hon. and gallant Friend of some words which were used by his distinguished father in 1915, in this regard:
  "In peace and in war King Coal is paramount Lord of industry. It enters into every article of consumption and utility, it is our real international coinage. When we buy food, goods and raw materials abroad, we pay, not in gold but in coal."
  In the face of this imperative and imminent need for 250,000,000 tons, we find a disastrous picture. The production of coal has fallen by about 34,000,000 tons since 1938. It fell sharply last year by 8,000,000 tons, and the immediate prospect this year is little or no better. Even with the inclusion of open-cast coal, I should say that we shall not have more than 185,000,000 tons available in the year 1944, and that is against an internal demand at this moment of 188,000,000 tons. In fact, it means that we shall not have a single ton with which to provide for the requirements of the Continent during the war or for export after the war, without encroaching on the supplies that are essential to maintain our own economy.
  We are apt to console ourselves a little too much with the fact that we are doing as well as, or better than, we did in the last war. During the last war, output fell by about 60,000,000 tons, but even with that fall the industry was still producing the very formidable figure of 227,000,000 tons when the war was over, and was able, by 1920, to export 43,500,000 tons. On that occasion, more-
  1948
  over, there was the advantage of the return to the industry at the end of the war of about 250,000 miners. On this occasion, as hon. Members know, but a small fraction of that number can be due to return at the termination of hostilities, and we shall have to face the diminution of our labour force by the disappearance of great numbers of the Bevin boys. I say advisedly "great numbers" because it is a source of great encouragement that, all over the country, a very fair proportion of those Bevin boys have already expressed their intention of remaining in the industry.
  Coupled with this situation there is, of course, the whole question of the cost of production to be considered. Once again we should be wise to take a lesson from what occurred at the end of the last war. On that occasion, for a few years, we subsidised the internal price of coal at the expense of our customers abroad. We did it at a moment of their need, and we were unwise to do so. It took us about 20 years of patient endeavour to regain part of the ground we lost on that occasion in face of their resentment. I feel that we must, at any price, avoid a repetition of that mistake on this occasion, and that we must produce coal for the customers' requirements at competitive prices. I have never joined with those who suggest that costs can be brought down by bringing down wages. I say that with due emphasis. On the contrary, I welcome the fact that the conscience of the nation has decided that miners should have a minimum of £5 a week, and that there should be a guarantee of that wage level until, anyhow, 1948. I do not think we can expect any sense of security, or even sense of co-operation, within the industry unless we are prepared to pay a decent wage. I should also like to take this opportunity of saying that I think we should be wise to revise the whole of our wage scale of the technical and managerial class within the industry. We must appeal to our fair share of the best brains in the country to join this industry. We cannot expect them to do so unless we are prepared to pay proper wages. But these wages are only a "potential gain" to the miners because it will be impossible to maintain the real value of these wages in coal, or indeed any other British industry at the present high cost of production.

  1949
  I am going to make an assessment of the effect of the Porter award on wages, and to that I add the 21st April agreement. In the White Paper, the cost per ton we have considered up to April, 1944, is in the region of 28s. 5d. I suggest that that figure will now become of the order of 32s.; more or less exactly 100 per cent. greater than it was at the commencement of the war. That figure must be considered in relation to world competitive prices. In the United States they are today producing coal at the pit head price of 13s. Id. per ton. [An HON. MEMBER: "And paying twice the wages."] No, they are not paying twice the wages but a higher wage. We are very inclined to discount what occurs in the United States on the score that their conditions are in no way comparable to our own, but hundreds of pits in the United States are very similar to our own.
  Even if we discount 5o per cent. of the difference on those grounds, 13s. 1d. remains a figure to be conjured with. It gives them an ample margin for transport costs if they wish to compete with British coal in the South American markets. We have to consider the prices obtaining in the Ruhr and Silesia when they enter into competition with us. Their pre-war figures f.o.b. were 15s. for Silesia and 10s. for the Ruhr. I cannot compute what they will be precisely post-war, but we must bear in mind that before the war they were producing per man shift nearly two-thirds more than we were.
  Wages in the last war, in fact, fell proportionately from 77 to 75 per cent. of total costs. On this occasion they have gone up sharply from 66 to 75 per cent. The relevance of that figure is that if we are to maintain wages constant we have only 25 per cent. of the cost of coal, apart from additional production, with which we can play about. That 25 per cent. does not allow a very wide margin. A lot of the figures in it are constant whatever height of production is maintained. In the last war we finished up with a profit figure of round about 3s. 1d. per ton. On this occasion the figure is 1s. 4d., and even this is artificially maintained by the operation of the Coal Charges Fund. That 1s. 4d. represents merely a 6 per cent. return on the capital value of the industry, and even under a system of nationalisation, which would do away with any reward for the production of coal, the wiping out of the 1s. 4d. would make very
  1950
  little contribution to bringing down the costs of production.
  I think there can be very little doubt that the Committee, in the light of the figures that they have received from the Minister and that they have been able to adduce from the White Paper, are of the inevitable opinion that the only solution lies in an immense increase in production per head employed. I am not suggesting for a moment that that will be any easy matter. From 1913 to 1938 we barely progressed. Output per man shift had only risen from one ton to 1.12 tons. During that period, we spent £190,990,009 in mechanisation, but had very little more than kept pace with the wastage of our thicker seams. Yet the 100,000,000 had on the whole been wisely expended. What we have to consider now is not the odd cwt. We have, in fact, if we are to maintain the wage level and our position in the face of world competition, and to make it possible for British industry to compete in foreign markets, to produce something nearer two tons per man shift. That will only be possible by immense reorganisation, and by a policy of expansion far beyond, I suggest, even what the hon. Member for Gower had in mind.
  We have heard a little to-day from my right hon. Friend of the visit of this American mission from the Joint Resources Board and some of the conclusions to which they have come. Hon. Members may feel that we are thrusting American methods a little too much down their throats, but I think it would be unwise to take that point of view. If we look back over the history of the coal trade for the last 70 or 80 years we must recognise that other countries have, from time to time, taken the lead in technique. Seventy or eighty years ago the Pas de Calais was foremost in the technique of coal production. At a later stage for a short period Belgium was to the forefront. The lead came back to England, and was wrested from us subsequently by the Germans. It has now undoubtedly gone to America, and we should be wise to profit by their example, and by the phenomenal results they are able to obtain. They pay a very high wage rate in America. They have mechanised to a degree beyond anything we have hitherto achieved in this country. With regard to the adoption of these methods, and the installation of

  1951
  American machinery, I have previously expressed my views to the House. We have made a great many mistakes, unfortunately, but those most closely connected with the industry are now becoming sanguine of the possibilities in this direction. Certainly I join with my right hon. Friend in hoping that we can press forward with this aim by every means in our power.
  I promised to speak only for a short time, so I will cut short what I have to say. I have, from time to time, criticised my right hon. Friend. I have, from time to time, expressed grave doubts about the conditions within this industry. I am afraid the figures I have produced to-day do nothing to allay those doubts in -my mind. But whether or no the record of this Ministry is good or bad, or whatever my criticisms may be, neither are of any importance in the face of the stark reality of this situation: we have not got the coal, we are not at the present juncture going to be able to provide the coal required by our Allies for the rest of this war, and we are in no position to enter into the export trade after the war unless a radical change occurs. I feel that that change can occur. I do not favour nationalisation. I want a national policy for coal. I want a lead in this matter from the Government. Given that lead, and given faith and co-operation, we can achieve it. I have no doubt whatever about the miners. Anyone who has had any experience of the 5oth Division, or the South Wales Borderers, or the Sherwood Foresters, need ever doubt what they can do and what they will do. What we require is a lead. If we get that lead I have no doubt that, in due time, this industry will resume its position in the forefront of the world.
  Mr. T. J. Brooks: I was very glad to hear the last speaker on the question of what he would be prepared to do in relation to miners' wages. He would be prepared to give, for four years, a minimum £5 of a week. There was also—it is the first time I have heard it mentioned in this House or even outside—.the question of the upliftment, if I might put it that way, of the clerical staff, who work in the offices of the mines. These men, I know very well, having worked alongside them for many years, have always been very badly paid. As the
  1952
  previous speaker said, if we are to attract the better minds into the industry, particularly on the clerical side, very much better wages will have to be paid.
  I do not intend to deal with the technical side of the industry, but to leave that to minds perhaps greater than mine. But there are some matters on which I would like to touch, in reference to the health and conditions of the miners. I was very glad, two months ago, to listen to the passing of the miners' welfare levy for another ten years and I could mention one or two points in relation to that. I think it is the best money that has been spent in the last 20 years, for the social life of our men. It has, in many instances, revolutionised our village life. It has given us recreation, miners' halls for social life, libraries, and many opportunities for the use of leisure. Also, from that source have come pithead baths which have been a real revolution in the country, and aretone baths have been given at a number of places. I hope there will be more of these baths. Maybe hon. Members do not know much about these aretone baths, and what they are. It is a bath which massages the whole body in bubbling water. The man sits in a bath and compressed air is put into it and gives him a complete massage. A number of our men have been won back to health again by these baths. It has cured a good many cases of rheumatism; it tones them up. The Miners' Welfare Commission objected to putting in a lot of these baths. Let me say from practical experience that they are an excellent thing in helping many of our men to win back health and strength again.
  I would like to refer to the question of laundries attached to pit-head baths. Where there are, say, half a dozen pits in a district it would be easy to arrange for a laundry and have the miners' pit clothes washed at the pit-heads, instead of having them taken home. It would be a very great stride forward, socially, if the men were allowed to leave their clothes at the pit-head baths. Another thing to consider seriously is the provision of holiday homes, to which the men could take their families. I hope that gone are the days when homes will be built around the pit-head, so that many women's hearts are broken by having to live practically in the pityard, with all the dirt and filth. These men and their families are entitled to a much better social life.

  1953
  While we admit that accidents and deaths have slightly decreased in the mines, there is a terrible toll even yet. I would like to see the mining industry compelled by law to re-employ their injured men. A number of hon. Members will not agree with me on that. Why should men who are injured in the mines have to apply to the labour exchange, OF to public assistance, when they have been maimed? Only last week a man came to me who had been injured. They were not able to find him work at the colliery, and he had to go to the labour exchange. Thousands of men have been in the same position. After six months, when he has had the statutory benefit, he is handed over to the Unemployment Assistance Board, and then half of his compensation is taken into account. Why should these men be put into this terrible position? I repeat what I said in my maiden speech in this House—that there should be work or full compensation for the men who risk their lives every day in this great industry when they are injured. They are always in the front line. It is horrible to think that we are losing as many men in the mines as in battle—one out of every four. Perhaps the scheme of rehabilitation which has been mentioned will help. The centres which are now working are doing a grand job. I have been to see them myself. Men with broken backs and other very serious injuries are being won back again. These centres have the confidence of the men. I am glad that the Minister says that more of them are going to be established.
  I am glad also to see, from the White Paper, that we are getting near to Too per cent. provision of canteens. My right hon. and gallant Friend has in many ways expedited this service. The Welfare Commission, to which I have referred before, is very much more sympathetic now than it was. I remember very well my own experience in the early days of the war in getting them to finance a scheme at the colliery where I was working, which was the first in the country to give a full meal. Three years ago 2,500 men began to feed there. We had to spend our own funds, and take the risk of not getting the money back, until we had persuaded the Commission to help us. It took 12 months to persuade them. They had not the vision, at that time, to see what was needed. They were just about as stupid as the Government were when
  1954
  they allowed our coalface workers to go into the Army. We had all that experience after the last war, of men being taken away and brought back again after their training. Suppose they had brought back thousands of these men: they were already trained, and if the need became clear, they could have been sent back to the Army. Another point is that when repair men were wanted in munitions works and factories at least half the men in the pits who were capable of doing repairs were asked to go to the munitions works and factories. Yet, in the mechanised pits, these men are more important even than the men who work at the coalface. I have seen men stopped for hours on end waiting for machines to be repaired. When pits are mechanised, repairers are needed to keep the show going.
  Something has been said about research. Dare we go on wasting coal in open-fire grates, when coal can be subjected to extraction processes near the pits? If this industry had been progressive, we should have had that done on a much larger scale. It was said recently that the Government are prepared to help to finance research work. That is very encouraging. It would be very much cheaper to export things after the war if we took the by-products from coal. The saving in shipping space would be considerable. I understand, too, that it is not long since, in West Yorkshire, the gas people had to fight very hard to get a Bill through to enable them to convey the gas to the people in the rural areas. They had to fight like demons, and get interest and influence, to force the Bill through. We can take a great deal more from coal than what is extracted to-day. A good deal more can be used in industry.
  Give the miners better wages and conditions, and create a new confidence which they have lost during the war. Help the miner to feel his importance in the industrial life of the nation, and do not merely give him sympathy in the days of disaster. We want a new Mines Act. The present Act has been in operation for something like half a century or more, and it is obsolete. Bring the regulations up to date. Give good wages and better working conditions. It has been pointed out to-day that five days a week is enough for these men. I agree. Give the pits a chance every week to cool down and get aired a bit, and allow the repair work to be done at the week-end. That,

  1955
  perhaps, will reduce accidents. The men are breathing this atmosphere for six, seven, eight, and sometimes nine days a week. [Laughter.]
  An Hon. Member: Nine shifts.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: It is nine days for the men who work the nine shifts.
  Mr. Brooks: That was a slip: plenty of hon. Gentlemen have made little slips in this House, I am afraid. If my suggestion were adopted, that would give a real chance for recreation. I have worked for 25 years at the coal face, and I know what I am talking about. There were times when I could not hold my tools, and had to cover them with the dust because of the sweat. We had good food then: the men are not getting good food to-day, and they have had five years of war. Give the miner a real chance of a better life for himself and his family. If the facts are recognised we can obviate the need for these little towns for the Bevin boys. What is going to happen to these colonies after the war? I hope they are not going to be wasted. I think these boys would be much better in the homes of our miners. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster) had an idea that a lot of these boys from higher social scales will stay in the industry. It will do them good to stay, for they will learn a lot about conditions of life which they have never known. Give better conditions in the industry, and you will get the people you require for the industry. If we only look at these simple things we can find even better ways of spending this money than on the present method of housing these boys. But if these places are to be used after the war, I have nothing against them.
  It is not surprising that there is feeling among these men, who are risking their lives in the interests of the nation, when they see their daughters bringing home from the factories more money than they themselves get from the pit. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) is here, because I think I ought to make a confession to him. I said before that I did not care for his baby, outcrop coal. I did not think that it would be so successful as it has been. The outcrop coal industry gives better conditions than the miners
  1956
  underground enjoy, and it even pays them better. The men do not risk life and limb, as the miners do down the pit, and they have better conditions. Previously I refused to go and look at these outcrop coal places, and said that I did not think much of them: I am glad to see that they have been successful. That is a real apology. We do not ask for sympathy: all we ask for is a square deal for the miner. The wastage of man-power which has been mentioned to-day should make every hon. Member think very seriously. We cannot go on with a loss like that. We can, and must, arrest this great loss of the industry. It is a question of the bringing up of the children afterwards—of the mothers and the bairns, who are left to struggle in the world alone. Give them a square deal—not merely sympathy, but something practical.
  Major Thorneycroft: By no stretch of the imagination am I as well qualified to intervene in the debate on the coalmining industry as the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He spoke from a wide practical experience, and the moderation and quality of his remarks impressed the whole Committee. I make no apology for intervening in this complex and controversial matter, because it is not a subject which is of sole concern to those men who have invested either their money or their labour in it. It is something which affects the whole of our industrial and social life.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister can be complimented on the almost brutal frankness with which he has put the facts of the situation before us. When one reads the White Paper, and listens to the speech of the Minister and others which we have had, particularly the speech from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster), one could be under no illusion as to the very serious situation with which we are faced at this present moment. Everybody who has spoken, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde, is agreed that some drastic action is required in this matter, and it seems to me that while my right hon. Friend has posed the problem for us, the question we have to answer is, "What can we do now about this situation?" I

  1957
  emphasise "now"—all the difficulties now existing, the political situation and all the other problems we have to contend with. What we can do now, at the present moment? I know, of course, full well that these problems of the coalmining industry are human problems whose origins lie deep in the past of the industry. There are some dark and ugly pages in the history of that industry. In some areas, in bitterness, in hatred and mistrust we are paying a heavy price for the folly, and sometimes for the greed, of other men in other years.
  Having said that, I would say that we cannot solve the problems of this industry by concentrating on the past. I think it was the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) who described some of the hon. Members on this side of the House as "young men who were walking backwards with their faces to the future."I would like to turn the phrase, if one may deal so cavalierly with the hon. Member's epigram. I would say that no one of us on either side of this House, by standing stock-still and gazing at the past, is going to discern the future of this industry. Surely, the most hopeful way of dealing with this matter is to look at the facts, and then, without too much regard to the things said on one side or the other about the industry in the past, see what is best to be done at the present moment. I am not going to elaborate those facts. Our coal output is declining at the rate of 9,000,000 tons a year and costs are up to 27s. a ton and may rise still further. The coal output in 1944 is not going to leave much of a margin beyond our domestic consumption and, if that is so, whatever the cost, we shall not have any coal for export. The fact is that in America 600,000 miners can produce 500,000,000 tons of coal whereas in this country 700,000 are producing 200,000,000.
  Mr. James Griffiths: What construction is the hon. and gallant Member putting on that percentage?
  Major Thorneycroft: I am merely stating the facts and not putting any construction on it at all. I will come back to that in a moment.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Of that 500,000,000 tons, 70,000,000 tons are got by out-cast mining.
  Major Thorneycroft: I am glad of the hon. Member's intervention. The fact is
  1958
  that in this country, even under the pressure of war conditions, only 69 per cent. of the coal is cut by machinery, let alone conveyed or power-loaded. Between the wars one-twentieth of the workpeople engaged in the industry—I am blaming neither one side nor the other—were responsible for two-thirds of the time lost in disputes. We could argue for ever as to what construction ought to be placed upon these facts, but I think that anybody who looks at these facts will agree that there is a wide margin for increased efficiency in the industry, and that unless we do attempt to make up that margin the whole of our industrial and economic structure is likely to suffer. It is not a subject to be solved by stumbling from one crisis to another, or applying palliatives. What is required is a comprehensive policy to deal with the technical and human problems involved. I think the hole Committee will agree with that.
  Mr. Gallacher: Get rid of the coal-owners.
  Major Thorneycroft: I know there is an acute division in this Committee between those who believe the mines ought to be nationalised and those who take a different view. I am going to be wholly uncontroversial. I am not going to express an opinion one way or the other because I believe that nine-tenths of the problems of the coalmining industry are human, technical and practical problems that have got to be solved whether the mines are nationalised or not. I suppose there are two objectives in any policy concerning coal. The first thing we have all got to do—and hon. Members, I am sure, would take the same view—is to produce the maximum amount of coal at the least cost consistent with maintaining the proper wage standard.
  Then there is the human problem. We have to ensure to the men security of employment, opportunities of advancement and some share in the conduct of the industry in which they work. I think that is the human side of it. There are three parties to this business—the Government, the mineowners and the miners.
  Mr. Gallacher: What do they do?
  Major Thorneycroft: That is a point I want to come to. I would take the rôle of the Government first of all. Surely, the first task of the Government is to produce a national policy for coal. As

  1959
  I understand the Government's policy from their White Paper on employment I take it to be their view that the Government should seek to assess in advance the economic trends of the nation. They are committed to that policy. What does that mean and what does it mean when we apply it to a practical issue such as coal? I should have thought that His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the industry, would properly assess in advance the home and export requirements of the coal industry. Until that assessment is made, nobody in the industry really knows what it is that he is trying to do, so that is the first thing that has got to be done.
  The second thing the Government have to do is to ensure that a scheme for reorganising the industry upon an efficient basis is produced at the earliest possible moment. The third thing is to ensure that when that scheme has been produced it is implemented as quickly as possible. I am not going to be dogmatic about the machinery. We have the Mining Association, the Mineworkers' Association, the Coal Commission, the organisation of Regional Commissioners, and so forth. There is any amount of organisational machinery whatever permutation or computation is made. First I think the technical schemes ought to be prepared in the region and sent up to the top rather than the other way round. Secondly, I think the body which prepares these schemes ought to have on it representatives of the Government, representatives of the mineowners and representatives of the mineworkers. Thirdly, I would simply say that I believe that in such a matter compulsory measures will be required and will have to be taken by the Government.
  Mr. Gallacher: Does the hon. and gallant Member know that the miners and the Government have been desirous of getting the industry organised for years and that the mineowners will not allow it to be organised?
  Major Thorneycroft: I am afraid my appeal to the hon. Member to stop looking backwards and to look forward has fallen on deaf ears. I am sure all of us have made mistakes in the past, but the first job of the industry is to try to put its own house in order. It has to produce schemes for reorganising itself and I
  1960
  am not going to lay down—indeed I am not qualified to lay down—how those schemes are to be worked out. Two things will be essential. First, there will have to be a substantial reduction in the number of undertakings. I am not being dogmatic about the size of undertakings or minimum tonnages, because conditions vary widely throughout the country, but I think that, on balance, there has to be some substantial reduction in the number of undertakings, and there has to be a very extensive programme of mechanisation. Secondly, the industry must have a chance to prepare these schemes so as to get them to work as soon as possible, and, finally, when, and not until—and I emphasise that—reorganisation schemes have been prepared, then I think the maximum responsibility ought to be place, fairly and squarely, on the shoulders of the men who are running the newly organised undertaking.
  The third thing I want to talk about is the position of the mineworkers. I do so with some hesitation, because many hon. Members opposite are much better qualified to speak about it than I am. It seems to me that the mineworker wants good wages, security of employment, opportunities of advancement and a share in the conduct of the industry, and I believe he can have all these things. I am not going to enlarge on the wage system, because it has been dealt with already. On the question of security of employment, supposing the Government hall to assess, in advance, the domestic and export coal required, is there any reason why that assessment should not be translated into terms of labour required? The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) referred to some form of guaranteed employment on the basis of a five-shift week of 7½ hours a shift. I want to say that I am in complete agreement with him, and have said so. It is entirely possible, in my opinion. I know there are technical difficulties about stocking coal, but they are not insuperable, and I believe we are at a stage in the history of this matter when guaranteed employment for a period of an annual assessment could be given to the workers. Regarding opportunities for advancement, there is an immense pool of managerial and technical skill in the mines. We are talking about an extension of mechanisation. It is not only machines we want,

  1961
  but men. I believe that, in the past, the industry has spent too little in getting hold of the best men available for these managerial and technical posts.
  Finally, I come to the rather difficult question of how far the mineworkers can share in the conduct of the industry. I do not believe that any Act of Parliament or anything done in this Committee is going to secure that share. I do not believe it can. I believe it is something that can only be secured after a good deal of trial, some error and a great deal of effort on both sides. We have made a start with the pit production committees. I would like to see an advisory committee drawn from those pit production committees for each new amalgamated undertaking. If we did that, and also adopted the suggestion I made for approving schemes at the top, we would ensure that the mineworkers were represented from the top to the bottom of the industry, and that would not be a bad start, under a Coalition Government.
  Those are the views which I hold. I will add this. Of the Mining Association I would say—I hold no brief for them—they have got, at the present moment, a great chance of trying to put their house in order. They will be well advised to take it. It may well be their last chance. To my hon. Friends on this side I would say that all I have urged is a policy of efficiency combined with individual responsibility, which should appeal to any Conservative. To my right hon. Friend the Minister, I say I thank him for the White Paper, but I would ask him to go back to the Cabinet and say that we have learned the brutal truth from his own lips and that now we want the answer to the problem. We feel that the time is past for this desperate attempt to make both ends meet. The time has come for a real step forward, but perhaps it is not the Mining Association, or my hon. Friends on this side, or the Minister, who holds the key to the solution of this problem. It is held by hon. Members opposite. It is a great responsibility.
  Let us face the fact that hon. Members opposite believe, as they are fully entitled to believe, in nationalisation. If there is a party Election and the Labour Party is elected, and it wishes to nationalise the coalmines, presumably it will. I may describe this as a dazzling possibility. What we have to face is what we can do
  1962
  now under the conditions of this present situation. There are hon. Members opposite who have spent a lifetime working in the interests of the men who labour in the pits. I pay full tribute to the work done in that direction. They can help them now by taking the things that can be got at the present moment—the security of employment, the wages and the other matters I have mentioned, but I appeal to them not to sacrifice the substance for the shadow in this matter. If either party allows subservience to political dogma to cause delay now, we shall be jeopardising not only the coal industry and those who work in it, but the whole industrial structure of the nation. Let it not be said of us:
  "Too late, too late; you loitered on the road;
  Too long you trifled at the gate."
  Mr. Neal: In rising to address the House for the first time I do so, not for the mere purpose of making my bow to this honourable Assembly but particularly to ventilate some of the grievances keenly felt by my constituents and the miners in the coalfield with which I am associated. Although one might be tempted to speak at length this time, one observes the desire of hon. Members to participate in this Debate, and I am not going to detain the Committee very long. Before my entry into Parliament I was a local miners' leader engaged at a colliery where there are 12 coal-winding shifts each week. It is a colliery which has not lost a single working day through strike action since the war began, a colliery where the percentage of absenteeism will compare favourably with any other pit in the country. I say that to indicate to the Committee that I desire to assist the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his desire to maximise the output of coal in order to assist the war effort.
  Listening to the Minister's opening speech, one could not help feeling that his enthusiasm has been misapplied in some of the operations of his Ministry. In referring to open-cast mining I understood him to say that it had been useful, to put it mildly. Probably it has. On page 17 of the Statistical Digest—and let me say here, in parenthesis, that this is the most admirable document which has yet emanated from this Ministry, and that whoever is responsible for its compilation is deserving of high commendation—reference is made to the output from open-

  1963
  cast mining, and the fact that, in the North Midland area in the last quarter, 559,000 tons were yielded.
  My dilemma is to understand where the operations of the Ministry of Fuel and Power begin and where the operations of the Ministry of Works end. I feel rather like the boy who, speaking about the snake, said he did not know where its head finished and its tail began. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is claiming credit for the output from the open-cast working of coal, he should accept responsibility for some of the mistakes that have been made. The initial blunder in open-east mining is in the prospecting that takes place before these places are excavated. There is an utter disregard of local knowledge. On many occasions borings are made, when, if those who are performing these operations had made inquiries of the local inhabitants, they would have been informed that the shallow seams of coal of which they were in search had been worked two generations before. It might be borne in mind as an admirable solution of the post-war employment problem—the digging of holes and filling them up again—but it is surely a profligate waste of man power at a time when the country needs it. Half an hour in the surveyor's office at a colliery would avoid a lot of this needless boring.
  On the site of an open-cast mine, of which the Minister has been informed, which is intended to yield 200,000 tons of coal, a few weeks ago corn was growing which was the admiration of many agriculturists in the area. I do not know what the relation is between the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Agriculture, but the Minister of Agriculture cannot look with equanimity upon the wanton destruction of growing corn at a time when the food position of the country is considered to be serious. Miles of concrete roads are made so that this coal can be transported to the dumps which are necessary, so we are told, for its use. Why it is necessary to transport coal three and sometimes ten miles away from the open-cast working to these dumps I cannot for the life of me imagine.
  In one instance of which I know, where the railway is contiguous to the excavation, coal is being taken to a dump
  1964
  three miles away in order that it can be dealt with for distribution. The coal is conveyed in lorries which are overburdened to the extent of carrying twice the amount of coal they are designed to carry. Great trouble is caused to the local authorities and the police by the racing about of these lorries; the drivers presumably work on piece rates and have to race in order to get a good wage. To the utter surprise of all mining folk, bulldozers race to and fro upon the top of these heaps of coal. I am told that this is done with a view to the retention of its calorific value. That sort of thing does not convince me, and it would not even convince a first year mining student. But whatever is the reason for crushing it, brand new screens are erected with which to grade it to the required quality after it has been crushed in bulk.
  Another point I would like to mention concerns the restoration of these sites. Restoration, it would appear, has in many cases been done satisfactorily, but there are many cases in which farmers declare that the tenant rights of their land will not be restored for eight or ten years because stone and clay have been left on the surface. I was glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that he appreciated the fact that miners' wages to-day were approximating to the general wages of the community and commensurate with the arduous and dangerous tasks which they have to perform. I am credibly informed that the men engaged on these outcrop workings—"sunshine pits," the miners call them—are earning three times the wages of men who go into the deep pits and undergo the dangers they are called upon to face. The whole scheme is ill-conceived and ill-considered and is calculated to lower the morale of mining communities more than any other operation which the Minister has introduced. I hope that no hon. Members opposite will come forward at the hustings at the next General Election and put this forward as an example of State enterprise. It is private capitalism in its most comic form. I hope the criticism will be accepted in the spirit in which it is made, and I want to suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that, when he resumes his peregrinations over the coalfields, in addition to addressing groups of pit production committees, he will devote some of his time to this question of opencast mines.

  1965
  Having delivered myself of that criticism, I would like, in perhaps more restrained language, to refer to one or two matters. I want to support the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Brooks) regarding pithead baths. In the "Digest," page 50, I observe that 12 baths were completed last year, which is not nearly enough. If the Minister is thinking of the industry becoming more attractive, I can assure him that it will never be attractive to the lads of our country if they have to go home with black faces and dirty clothes. Everybody appreciates the reasons for cutting off the building programme for pithead baths but surely we have now reached a stage in the war when the production of certain munitions has reached saturation point and there should be some steel available for the construction of more pithead baths, an amenity which is much desired by a very large section of the mining industry.
  In conclusion I want to refer to another welfare matter, and in this connection I would mention that in the White Paper issued in 1942 reference was made to the medical services which should be available to miners. Every man who was desirous of leaving the industry had to submit himself to medical examination and in some cases to a medical referee. In the White Paper of 1942 it was contemplated that, if it was possible for a man who was leaving the industry on medical grounds to receive treatment which would restore him to fitness for work underground, that treatment should be afforded him by the Ministry.
  But why are so many men leaving the industry on medical grounds at the present time? If my right hon. and gallant Friend is concerned about the man-power problem in the industry, he ought to pay attention to this question of the medical service. Is it because there are not enough doctors, or because the powerful British Medical Association refuse to operate the scheme? I do not want to belittle the admirable work being done at Bury Hill and other places for injured miners, but I have yet to hear of one man who has left the industry through illness who has received treatment through the medical services in connection with the pits. I suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that some attention is
  1966
  needed, and I say to him with all the earnestness I can summon, and with all the solemnity of which I am capable, that one experienced miner so retained in the industry is better than three Bevin boys unwillingly directed to the pits.
  Major Braithwaite: I am sure the whole Committee will wish to join with me in extending our congratulations to the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Neal) on his maiden speech. The sincerity with which he has put forward his views, and the obvious knowledge he has of this industry, will, I am sure, find him a ready reception when he comes to take part in succeeding Debates. First I should like to congratulate the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on the peace they have restored to this great industry. I know how much the problem of strikes and difficulties preyed on the mind of my right hon. and gallant Friend over the past few months, and how diligently he and his officers have worked to bring about a successful reconciliation of the mining position as far as wages go. I hope that that peace will be continued, and that he will be able to follow on now with his wider plans of reconstruction. This great industry has such a part in our national economy that it is impossible for any Member of the House of Commons, whatever are his interests, to neglect a full and close examination of everything that goes with it. Our whole basis of life cannot be altered after this war is over unless substantial plans are made for the future, and I was delighted to hear in the speeches of the hon. Member sitting beside me, and the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster) of the progressive line which they have envisaged, the building up of this industry.
  The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and I have had the privilege of going to America since the last coal milling Debate here. We went in opposite directions, but we met at Washington and we debated there late into the night the merits of the British coalmining and the American coalmining industries. I think both of us came back with the firm conviction that America had a great deal to show us in the rehabilitation of our own industry. Conditions are not always similar, of course; there are physical difficulties here which make impracticable some of the great mass American

  1967
  schemes but, on the other hand, we saw men in deep coalmines in America using half the effort that our men have to exercise in the British coalmines——
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Less than half.
  Major Braithwaite:—and turning out four or five times the amount of coal that we are able to here. It is a very serious thing to have to say but, quite frankly, there has been gross neglect of the mechanical possibilities of mining in this country during the past few years. I know that political disagreements in the coalmining industry have created an atmosphere which has made impossible the prospect of looking at this great national development with a planning conscience, but our whole national economy cries out and demands that this industry—which this country has done so much to develop not only here but in every part of the world—should be put on to a proper basis at the earliest opportunity. I can only say again what I have stressed in speeches which I have made on this subject before, that mechanisation is the only thing that will do it. The day has passed when a man will lie on his back in a coalmine with a pick and shovel getting coal. It has gone by, and quite rightly too, in this mechanical age. The present methods in some of the coalmines in our country are only comparable with an old horse and cart in contrast with a modern fast motor truck. We have the brains and the knowledge. I have pressed the Minister of Production in the last few weeks to see that some of our manufacturers should start to manufacture power loaders in this country. That has not been done. We are having to rely on America, which is already short, for these machines for our industry. We must put it on to our own machine shops. These things are as vital to this nation as guns are to the Army, and we have to have them made here with British labour.
  There are great opportunities for revising this industry now. We have got peace, I believe we have got good will. I believe that in the House of Commons there is more unanimity of action amongst all hon. Members now than there has ever been during the nearly 20 years I have been a Member. That is all I have to ay on the subject of deep mining, but it
  1968
  is an urgent problem. I know we have the capacity to tackle it and I hope we shall tackle it. I hope that the coal owners will show to the Government officials the best seams that can be mechanised at the earliest possible opportunity. There is that great vast area in Lincolnshire. I know it is deep, but I believe that it can be mechanised. I do not know, I do not think anybody knows at the moment, until we have really got into it, but there is a great possibility there of 300 or 400 years' work, at 250,000,000 tons a year, in a new area where we can bring the miners out of the rotten villages they live in, build them up in decent towns, mix them up in ordinary society, not segregated from the rest of the people, and make the industry worthy of the great cause for which we are fighting.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: May I interrupt to underline something which my hon. and gallant Friend said about the American mines? There is grave danger in putting American machinery into shafts sunk for old-time methods and, therefore, there ought to be completely new shafts sunk.
  Major Braithwaite: I have already written to the Minister and to the Prime Minister putting forward a plan to sink 8o new shafts in this new area, and to build a new mining industry in this country, over a period of ten years, in a virgin area of coal where we can apply these modern methods. I know the difficulty of trying to put the machines down old mines. It is a heartbreaking and a dangerous job, obviously, when you have been mining in the old way, when your main roads, and so on, are not laid for this new method of dealing with the job.
  There is one other point. I would not have an advancing line of coal extraction allowed again in this country. I think it has caused more accidents and been more dangerous to the miners than anything we have done. If we are going to extract coal, let us put our collieries right to the boundary and bring them back on a retreating basis, leaving all the trouble behind. We shall then get a total extraction of coal, valuable to the country, saving life, and building up a more confident atmosphere in the mines. That is all I have to say about the coalmines. I do not dispute the suggestion of my hon. Friend about the American mines, but I would tell the Committee that the contract

  1969
  figure for American miners down the pit is a dollar an hour. That is the new standard contract figure, and it averages them out about £12 a week in wages and, at that, they are producing coal at 13s. 1d. a ton. So obviously the whole thing shouts for examination by everybody.
  The hon. Member for Clay Cross described the bulldozer racing over the heaps of outcrop coal. I am sure that is not a general practice. I am glad to think that some of the things I said originally on this matter have become possible. I want to tell the Committee to-day that the Government, and not myself, have proved the existence of 68,000,000 tons of this coal, which can be obtained in this war. I want to say to those who have had their land damaged and the amenities of their towns and surroundings vandalised by this scurrilous method of taking up the land that, obviously, this is a war-time project. It was only under extreme pressure that one could have had a situation of this sort, and I am glad that the Minister has said that it has helped him out. The Ministry of Works, under the direction of General Appleyard and his staff, have laid out fine plant for this work, and a fine team of public works contractors—nearly go of them—have been able to utilise plant which was not really very suitable. I want to say, "Thank you" to our American friends for the machines which they sent us to help us out with this job. They have sent us nearly 200 large excavators with which to do the work. They are larger than any we have ever had in the country before and will go far towards lessening the cost of this operation, which, at the moment, is too high. This coal is costing the Government, without any Government overhead charges, 27s. 4d. per ton, and it is far too much.
  Sir Herbert Wragg: Does that include the cost of screening?
  Major Braithwaite: That includes the cost of everything, apart from the Government's administrative costs. It is very much too high, but, on the other hand, we are now operating in many cases on a ratio of eight yards of over-burden to one yard of coal. So the picture is different from what it was a year ago. The shallow coal has mostly been obtained, and we are now coming to the hard digging into substantial seams of hard
  1970
  rock which overlie the depths, all of which have to be blasted and blown. On one job we are having to blast and blow 40,000 cubic yards per week.
  Mr. A. Hopkinson: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the average cost of one ton of this coal was 275. 4d. per ton, and that was the full cost, including all standing charges?
  Major Braithwaite: What the Government put on afterwards is not the business of the people who are getting the coal. That is the cost of the coal as it is delivered to the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Is that the average figure?
  Major Braithwaite: Yes. I want now to give the Committee some idea of the man-power being used in this operation. This year we shall probably recover nearly 12,000,000 tons of coal with 9,000 men. That gives us an average yield per man employed of 1,340 tons a year, compared with the miner's contribution of 280 tons a year per miner employed. Of course I do not want to compare the two jobs, because they are so different, but that is the man-power we are using. The United States of America are helping us under Lend-Lease and we now have in operation some of the very biggest machines they use. They will do much to reduce the cost. But we have something more than their machines. They have sent us three young technical advisers, who left their own responsible jobs to come here and give us advice. Mr. Bailey, Mr. Young and Mr. Beasley have been working, with the contractors and they have improved our technique and methods and have given us better opportunities of setting out this work through their knowledge.
  I want to put another proposition to the Committee, because it was the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) who first gave me any encouragement to do this work, when he was Secretary for Mines. He allowed me to go on with an almost private scheme; he gave me his blessing, and the success of this operation is largely due to his confidence that I should De able to carry it out. After the outcrop is taken off and before getting to the deep mining there is an area of coal which, in many cases, is not being obtained at all now. This coal can be drift-mined from the open-cast position. You can

  1971
  put anus in and use the new American method of power loaders and conveyors. I want the Ministry of Labour to take note of this, because this is an opportunity to train "Bevin boys" in mechanical mining near the surface, in good conditions, and it may be the means of saving many of those lads for the industry when the war is over. I intend to try one scheme of drift mining near Sheffield—the Minister has given me permission—and I hope we shall show the country what can be done. We shall make a contribution to the war in France with this open-cast mining. I have heard of five mines in France which are now being open-cast worked by the Germans. I sent plans to the Minister, and I am prepared to send the machinery and men there, because I believe we can get 20,000 tons a week when the Army has moved sufficiently far forward. If the plan can be worked it will saving shipping and be well worth while. It has been gratifying to me to see that the plan on which I worked so hard has come out reasonably well, and I want to thank my hon. Friends for the consideration and tolerance they showed towards me at a time when nobody knew very much about open-cast mining.
  Professor Gruffydd: First of all, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Neal) on his maiden speech and to express the hope that we shall hear a good deal more from him in the future. It must be obvious to those who have been listening to this Debate, and to the discussions which have taken place in the country for many years, that coal is becoming a national incubus. Owners, miners and the public generally all go about in fear and trembling, looking over their shoulders to see what blows this terrible ogre will level against them in the future.
  I should first of all pay a tribute to the profound knowledge of the mining industry and the enlightened views of the mining Members of the House. I have learned more from them about their work than I have learned from anyone else in the House about his particular work. At the same time, to be quite fair, one must note the welcome change which has of late appeared in the attitude of the more progressive coalowners. I remember not
  1972
  so very long ago that, when there was a great prosperity in the coal industry and when prices were soaring, we countenanced a policy of get-rich-quickly, and of tearing the coal out of the earth anyhow, making a ghastly horror of the countryside as we did so, and it says something for the sterling quality of the people engaged in the industry that we did not make a ghastly horror of the manhood connected with it. To-day we have learned a lesson in the hard school of experience and there is now a change of heart towards this great product of the beneficent earth. It is now for the Government to translate this change of attitude into hard and permanent fact.
  We are all troubled about the future of the mining community, not merely as individual fellow men but, at least so far as we are concerned in South Wales, as an integral part of our national life, and speaking as a Welshman, I cannot see any sort of future for my country as a whole if the Government cannot succeed in solving the coal problem. The collapse of the coal industry would, of course, have a disastrous effect on the whole of Britain, but it would go far to end the individuality of Wales as a nation. We are a nation of workers—coalminers, quarrymen and craftsmen—and our national culture depends on our being able to maintain the traditional pattern of our working communities, and among them the coalminers have a leading position.
  I should like to raise one or two points which have not been mentioned yet, first of all the question of research in the coal-mining industry. The Ministry is a wartime Ministry as at present constituted and I should like to ask the Minister, or perhaps the Prime Minister, this simple question. Will this Department be continued as a Ministry of Fuel and not merely as a Ministry of Mines and, if so, will it be given the additional powers of planning and reconstruction which are, in my opinion, essential to the future welfare not only of the coal industry, but of the general prosperity of the country?
  Mr. Tinker: Does the hon. Member mean that he would nationalise the mines?
  Professor Gruffydd: The great competitor with coal, as far as we see it in South

  1973
  Wales, is going to be the hydro-electric schemes. What will be the position of coal when there are vast hydro-electric schemes which are national and coal is still in the fumbling hands of private ownership? That is my answer to my hon. Friend. Is it not time that we revised our views of coal as some black and final substance? At present we seem to be mesmerised by the idea of coal as a finished article and we believe that, when we have dragged it out of the bowels of the earth, with much toil and sweat, we have done all that is necessary. There is no prospect of solving the coal problem until we have learned to regard coal as a raw material and that in future a great part, perhaps even the greater part, of the coal industry will be dealing with coal after it has been hewn out, whether underground as in the Russian experiment, or on the surface. The technology of coal has been cramped by the unenlightened policy of the Governments of the past, and the politics and economics of the coal industry have for many generations been vitiated by it. They have regarded it as a finished product, or they have used it as a means towards another end, something on which to base Stock Exchange speculation or as a means of paying for imports.
  I should like to say something that has never been said in the House before. It seems one of the most tragic mistakes that we have made to regard coal as a means of balancing our imports. I do not even pretend to suggest a remedy, but I have no doubt what one of the first steps should be. The Government should at once set up a Committee for University Teaching and Research in Mining and Fuel, particularly in mining and fuel joined together. At present there is no proper liaison between the coal industry and the colleges. There are three very vital questions: first, the production of coal as a raw material; secondly, the tilisation of that raw material; and, thirdly, the economics of trading in coal. Perhaps it will surprise the Committee to hear that every single book or document —some of them are excellent—which has been published on the economics of the coal trade has been produced by the Labour colleges. Not a single book has been brought out by a university, because no university has the finance for the purpose, and the coalowners them-
  1974
  selves have never published one of their documents on the subject.
  I am sorry to have to say this, but the general opinion both among owners and miners is that the Ministry is not so well informed as it might be about some of the technical possibilities of coal, and it does not seem to be possible to put matters right unless we have some such Committee as I have mentioned. I am aware that there is a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Eustace Percy. I do not wish in the least to disparage it, but it is confined to technical education in general, and it is limited to England and Wales, and Scotland is left altogether out of its purview.
  There is also a Safety in Mines Research Board, which is a Department of the Government, but this, in the opinion of experts, is too small and generally inadequate. University research, so far as our limited resources have allowed, has already done infinitely more to secure safety in mines than any Government action. I need only mention silicosis and pneumoconiosis, knowledge of which is due to university research, and particularly, I am proud to say, to research done by the University of Wales in the Mining School at Cardiff. The mining interests of South Wales through this department have done more to fight the occurrence of dust than all other bodies in the country put together. May I ask what the Safety in Mines Research Board have done comparable to this? I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend, who, I am certain, is sympathetic to all these plans, will tell me his attitude towards the committee I have suggested.
  Sir Geoffrey Ellis: I am glad to have the opportunity to deal with one or two little questions that have come up in the course of the Debate and have not been much discussed. It is of vital importance to the industry as well as to those outside to realise—and I speak as a much-despised coalowner—that if there is to be any success for us in the future—and I am speaking of both sides of the industry—the industry has to take its place as a unit with the rest of industry. We have arrived at a stage when we either make progress as an industry or we go back very much indeed. My right hon. and gallant Friend took some courage in making the statement that he was not only

  1975
  Minister of Fuel but Minister of Fuel and Power. Speaking as one who is interested in electricity as well as coal, may I put these points to him? The future of coal really consists in being thoroughly linked up with ancillary industries that exist today and that ought to be made to exist in the future. The future of coal, therefore, depends on grouping together all those industries as far as possible, and in diminishing as much as possible the transport of coal from the place where it is mined to the place where it will be used in any event.
  May I take, for instance, the industries of gas production and electricity? I ask the Minister, when he is considering the future, not to allow himself to be left out of the question of the location of industry, which is extremely important to the coal industry—just as important as to the rest of industry. In drawing a picture of how I see these things working in the future, I ask myself whether there is any reason why the bulk of gas production should not take place very near to, or almost at, the pit head. Is there any reason why most of the great power stations should not be located as near as possible to the source from which the coal is drawn? Is there any reason why new industries, such as plastics, and the by-products that are got in the distillation of coal, should not be located near the pits? Surely there are enough pits throughout the country where we could regionalise the whole of our arrangements in that way. It is in that direction that we could even bring in such a question as waste heat for industry, which is so important when there is a burning of coal in any respect. Is there any reason why we should not consider our industry in that light? I go further, and say that if we do not consider it in that light, we shall be very much left behind. I am not going into the question of the feeling between the two sides of the industry. Ever since I have been in the House I have done my best, in a progressive sense, to help to overcome that difficulty. All I would say is, "Let the dead past bury its dead and look at the future in an entirely different way."
  The Minister has been criticised much more on his short-term than on his long-term policy. I thank him for the factual and courageous way in which he put the
  1976
  position to us. If he will allow me to say so, he must go elsewhere for final decisions in a good many of these matters. I hope that, in getting those decisions, he will take to those who order these things some report of the feeling in the Committee to-day. I do not believe it is possible suddenly to expedite the production of coal, whatever method we adopt. These things are the results of processes which often go back a long way. One cannot suddenly come here and say, "The Americans are doing this and that with this and that machine; why have you not throughout your industry gone in for the kind of mechanisation that the Americans are going in for?" I would ask some hon. Members opposite what would be the effect of a sudden mechanisation of that type, if we decided to go in for all the capital expenditure necessary? To begin with, where are we to get the skilled men to deal with such mechanisation?
  That brings me to another point. One of our difficulties in the industry will be that we shall no longer be asking people to go into the industry as an industry which is self-contained in all respects, and one in which they must consider only the pit. We shall have to compete in the future with skilled men who will be considering whether they will not go into other industries beside the pit industry. Our work in future will mainly be one of engineering, and when parents are considering what sort of industry the boys will go into, they will first ask, "What is the prospect of the boy when he becomes a fully skilled man? What is the prospect, not only in his wages, but for security, which is as important to a man as his wages?" Therefore, we are faced with the necessity of devising a far better scheme of instruction than we have ever had before. The mining industry will have to get these skilled men and compete with other industries for them in the future. We shall have to look at the problem in that way much more than we have done in the past.
  It would have helped the industry very much if the Government had had from the start some sort of wages policy. It would never have allowed the inequalities which have caused so much trouble. I do not believe that, with the trend of the industry in the future, it will be possible to go on wihout a definite wages

  1977
  policy. I do not think it will be possible for any industry to consider its wages and to demand increases or otherwise without reference to other industries similarly circumstanced into which workers can go equally well. You cannot get on without some sort of general wages policy, in which are equated those questions about which everyone who is going into the industry ought to know before he goes in. In the longer term policy, we are told mechanisation is inevitable. I think it is, but it is not going to be done quickly, because we have to find the people and teach them. It is not everyone, however good an engineer he may be, who is fit to go down a pit, and is pit-minded. Not everyone of the Bevin boys has gone down the pit by any means. We shall get to it in time, and the sooner we get to it the better. Everything possible is being done to increase mechanisation and I hope that the speed with which it is being done will increase as time goes on.
  I do not think it is any good our going on, as we have done in the past, considering individual pits. There will have to be very considerable amalgamation, of which I have always been in favour. I opposed a Bill on the subject for the one simple reason that it gave no opportunity for the people who were to be amalgamated, to have any say in the matter of their amalgamation. I would oppose anything of that kind. People ought to be properly heard, before they are dealt with in that way. I think the psychological moment is here now. I think you will find many people, who would not have been very willing for amalgamation, now willing to have it in the future. My right hon. and gallant Friend can do a great deal in that direction, by way of suggestion and help, in quarters which, perhaps only a few years ago, would not have been willing to accept the suggestion. I am speaking, as the Americans say, off the record, but I hope it will have some result.
  One word more in relation to the general conditions in the industry. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) made a most excellent speech. Whatever may be said about the Tory Reform Committee, he showed a very considerable amount of vigour and a good deal of courage in the opinions he expressed.
  1978
  It does not do any Government any harm to have a reform committee, on whichever side they are. We cannot say today how much the export trade is to have, and how much is to be for home consumption. The export trade in the coal industry will depend in the future upon the price at which we can put that coal into an international market, in open competition. Do not let us make any mistake about that. For this reason, we are supposed to be in process of having a discussion with various delegates and representatives from other countries about some sort of division of international trade in the future. Is it supposed for one moment that we are to get an international agreement which will say: "We will allot to our coal consumption in England so much, and alter that, so much among so many other countries, at any price which we choose to ask and which the conditions of our industry might demand at the moment"? We might bind certain people not to compete against us, but you could not prevent other people, who were not bound by that agreement, going into the market and under-selling.
  What will be the position on the Continent when the war is over? Do not let us forget that we shall have in Silesia, in the Ruhr and in Russia centres of production, with people only too willing to work almost for bare subsistence. Some of them are producing today, and will produce in the future, coal which is quite as good as any we can produce, to stand open competition, in the Mediterranean and generally in other markets. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned just now open-cast coal workings and he saw an opportunity for the same sort of operations in France. Life will be so hard and conditions so difficult on the Continent for some years that the great essential will be to find labour. Very often people will not be asking what the conditions are, but will be glad to get almost a bare subsistence. That is the competition which we shall have to meet in our export trade.
  Therefore, it is no good our sitting around until we know what the future is to be. I believe that the future of the coal industry lies in its realisation that it is only one of the great industries of this country and that only by a proper allocation of industry shall we be able to integrate our industry, improve our pro-

  1979
  duction, and diminish our costs. H we do not look at it in that way I am convinced that there is no help for us whatever.
  Mr. Sloan: I was interested in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Eccleshall (Sir G. Ellis). When he spoke of the difficulties of the export trade in the post-war years, I agreed. I also say that if exports can be secured, only at the expense of the people who produce the coal in this country, I hope that we will not secure the export trade at all. There are two phases of this coal question, the immediate situation and the long-term policy. Nothing is more true than the statement that the coal situation is closely bound up with the whole economic life of this country. If we are to continue misusing coal as we have done in the past, there is very little hope for the coal trade. If we again settle down to a policy of attempting to sell raw coal, produced at the lowest possible cost, there is no hope whatever for the coal trade in that direction.
  I am rather surprised that the Minister has not come in for a great deal more criticism during this Debate. I do not think he is entitled to get away as easily as he has done, because his Ministry has not been the success one would expect it to be, or that it has been boosted up to be. The suggestion that it has been a success is entirely unwarrantable. There is plenty of officialdom, and money has been poured out like water, but we get no coal in exchange for that expenditure. We are just living from hand to mouth, and rushing from one crisis to another. We have had statements from the Minister in regard to the loss of coal. I wish he would put on a new record when addressing the Committee. His statement in regard to the question of loss of coal from disputes is becoming as monotonous as "Haw-Haw" at his worst, and I would seriously advise my right hon. and gallant Friend to make a change. I think he reached the limit when he trotted out the statement about the colliery that was idle because of the dismissal of a canteen attendant. It is quite true that the colliery was idle; it is quite true that the officials in the area did their best to prevent it; it is quite true that the colliery ought not to have been idle. But do not forget there was considerable irritation for months and months over the
  1980
  employment of this person, and the canteen committee could, quite easily, have obviated all the trouble had they made the change before the stoppage rather than after. When the Minister goes further and says that miners are using the war to buy leisure at the expense of the State, and then denies that he was accusing miners of being unpatriotic, I am quite unable to follow his argument.
  Major Lloyd George: I cannot let the hon. Member get away with that statement. There has been too much of that, and I do not know what is his purpose in making that statement, which I denied when he interrupted me. I made a perfectly clear statement that 76 per cent. of the miners of this country were working, and losing no shifts in the week at all, and that a very small minority were losing a large number of shifts. No one in any quarter of this Committee would deny that a very small minority are, in fact, doing what I have said.
  Mr. Sloan: If my right hon. and gallant Friend had made his statement more plain—[Interruption]—I will leave it to the Committee.
  Major Lloyd George: I think I am within the recollection of the Committee. I took particular care to make that statement because I have always said I resented attacks on miners as a body. I did point out, and I repeat, that to-day there is a small minority, not amongst the older men in the mining industry, but amongst people who have no excuse, a very small minority among the younger men, who could do better than they are doing.
  Mr. Sloan: We will have an opportunity of reading it in HANSARD to-morrow. In regard to the district which my right hon. and gallant Friend chose for his attack, the district of Ayrshire and Dumfries—he referred especially to the Scottish miners, with special emphasis on this particular incident—I find according to the Digest that he has placed in our hands they are among the districts with the highest annual output per man shift of any in the country—[Interruption]—and more shifts. In Ayrshire, where this pit is located, output per wage earner for 1940 was 374·5 tons. In 1943 it is still placed amongst the districts with the very highest output in the country, and I resent most strongly the attempt

  1981
  of my right hon. and gallant Friend to cloud the issue by bringing in this paltry little incident which he mentioned in the course of his speech. He also made great play about the loss of output through stoppages, and again I would like to turn to his Digest, just to show that there are other causes of loss of output far greater than disputes. I intervened at the time to say that Table 16 showed the total loss for a year of 10,721,220 tons. It is quite true to say that out of that, 7,617,090 tons are due to recognised holidays, but out of the total, 1,090,710 tons were lost through stoppages. But accidents and repairs, for which, surely, the working miners have no responsibility at all, account for 1,322,330 tons. My right hon. and gallant Friend did not mention that at all in his speech.
  He said something very vaguely about transport but he did not tell us that 500,790 tons were lost through difficulties in transport and want of wagons—half as much through transport difficulties as through the whole of the stoppages in the British coalfields. Other causes, indefinite, account for 190,300 tons. In the district of Ayrshire in Scotland, there were 202,310 tons lost from all causes. This district, which has been pilloried to-day, lost 52,130 tons through disputes. I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend requires to revise very seriously the statement he made to this Committee in his opening speech.
  Accusations have been made of serious loss of output through other causes, and in the previous Debate in this House in October the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) made allegations that a certain colliery was being worked with an eye to the future; he made specific allegations and gave details. The pit production committee of which he had just been a member had, for a long period, complained at meetings, and reports had been submitted to the Regional Office. The Minister promised on that occasion to have the matter investigated, but what has happened? There has been no investigation, or at least if any investigation has been made, no facts have ever been divulged, and the situation remains the same. The accusation has been made here that this coal company is preparing and developing to produce coal in 1947 or 1948. No satisfaction has been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton in regard to the allegations he made pre-
  1982
  viously. He was advised when some meeting of some kind was held not to attend. He agreed not to attend and has heard no more of the matter since.
  Sir H. Wragg: Is it not a fact that it is a sound method for efficiency in the mining industry to have a policy for five years ahead so that you know what you are going to do during those years?
  Mr. Sloan: I quite agree that, in developing mines, you want to look well ahead, but it has also been stipulated that no development shall take place at the present time for future policy, and this coal that they are prepared to develop in 1947 or 1948 could be worked in an adjoining mine, particulars of which have been given by my hon. Friend. Here is a matter to which I must draw the Minister's attention. He has waxed eloquent about American machinery. He has, I am sure, done a lot in that respect. He has, been responsible for bringing machines to the country and handing them over to the coalowners, and I think we should know something about the financial responsibility. Are those machines just being handed over holus-bolus to the mineowners, and what responsibility has this House? It is one thing to say that we are buying so many machines and bringing them into the country, but we should know what financial responsibility the owners have in the matter. We have had these machines established in some mines in Fifeshire. There was a statement by the Prime Minister, in the coal Debate last October, that the Minister of Fuel and Power would use his powers on the question of agreements on American machinery to ensure smooth working in the coalfields.
  I think the Minister is aware, through correspondence with the National Union of Scottish Mineworkers, that no consultation took place with the Union on wages before the installation of the machinery, although we know that a promise was made, either by Lord Hyndley or by the Minister, some time ago. We have cooperated to the best of our ability in Scotland with regard to output. We raised no obstacle regarding the introduction of this machinery. We did not question the right of the owners to introduce it. We were prepared to allow our men to work these machines. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] There is no reason why not. I am saying that we

  1983
  were prepared to do so. But if the men had not worked them, they would not have been worked at all. We raised no barriers at all, but were prepared to allow the men to work the machines. In exchange for that, they arbitrarily laid down the wages that were to be paid, without any consultation with our people. There are other areas in the British coalfields where machines have been introduced. The Parliamentary Secretary knows about Yorkshire. The wages paid by the Yorkshire coalowners were 30s. per shift. In Cumberland they paid 28s. per shift. I have an agreement in my hand that was signed by the Fife Coal Company and our representatives, whereby a certain wage was paid. But what happened? The Fife Coal Company, at Comri Colliery, fixed the following rates: First facemen, 26s. 8d.; second facemen, 25s. 2d.; and then 23s. 8d., 23s. 2d., and down to 20s., with certain conditions laid down before these wages are payable. There is another clause, saying that, if the conditions are not fulfilled, the basic rate to be paid is 16s. 3¾d., plus Is., plus 2s. 8d.: a total of 19s. 11¾d. At another coalfield, belonging to the same company—No. 11 Lumphinnans—the wages proposed are:—First facemen, 225. 2d.; second facemen, 21s. 7d.; and for the third man, 19s. 2d. Should the conditions not be fulfilled, the wage would be 15s. 2d., plus is., plus 2S. 8d., making a total of 18s. 10d.
  This matter was discussed by the negotiating committee of the National Union of Scottish Miners and the Scottish coal-owners. What the coalowners wanted to do was to refer the matter to a neutral chairman. The National Union are not prepared to allow this question to go to a neutral chairman. The answer of the Minister—I see him looking over his glasses—may be, "You have the machinery." We are not prepared to accept the machinery in this instance. We are not prepared to go to a neutral chairman, who might fix a rate of wages far below that of any other district in Britain. This is a matter in which the Minister should intervene, to uphold the promise made by the Prime Minister in October.
  Major Lloyd George: Is it suggested that I should be prepared in any way to interfere on behalf of one side?
  Mr. Sloan: My suggestion is that we are demanding that the Minister will uphold the promise made by the Prime Minister. He said that the Minister would use his powers, on the question of agreements on American machinery, to ensure smooth working in the coalfields. What does that mean? Does it mean that we are to allow this matter to go to a neutral chairman, who may arbitrarily fix a rate of Wages that we are not prepared to accept?
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member said that he is not prepared to accept the findings of a neutral chairman. Does that mean that he has doubts about the strength of his case? If he thinks he has a good case, why will he not accept a neutral chairman?
  Mr. Sloan: It is not a case for a neutral chairman. It is a case for fixing wages in conformity with the rates fixed in other districts. I hope that the Minister will listen to this. Dr. Reid, the coalowners' representative, stated to the workmen's representatives, "If you do not accept these wages, we shall take the machines out of the pits altogether."
  Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the coalowners to take the machines out of the pits after he has brought them from America especially for the purpose of increasing output in the coalfields? Will he allow the machines to be withdrawn from the pits, if the owners do not get their way in regard to the question of wages? This is a very serious matter, and will have serious repercussions.
  Major Lloyd George: If my hon. Friend is asking me to interfere to decide wages claims, that is a thing which I imagine no one would resent more than the people representing the workers—and, I think, quite rightly.
  Mr. Sloan: But what was the meaning of the Prime Minister's statement?
  Major Lloyd George: I have not got that statement, and so I do not know what it is.
  Mr. Sloan: I do not want to take up a lot of time, though there were some other things that I would like to say. I do not want to stand between other speakers and the Committee because many have contributions to make in this discussion. But I hope the Minister, who has been responsible, to a very large extent, on the question of wage rates for

  1985
  piece workers, will, in the near future, have some sort of equalisation made, so that the cases of those who have still not received any increase may be met. It is still a very sore point with the miners in many districts. I am not blaming the Minister for this. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman took us out of a very difficult situation, when the position was very bad, and I want to impress on him now that there are a good number of men, between the two grades, who have received no increase in wages at all. I hope the Minister will make a point of examining the position, so that there will be some equalisation made between those who got an increase, and those who have not.
  Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: This is the first time that I have ever heard an hon. Member of the party above the Gangway requesting the Minister of Fuel and Power to fix a rate of wages in that industry. If my recollection serves me right, the whole of their policy over a period of years has been entirely in the opposite direction, with a view to taking it out of the hands of the Minister of the day. I must say I think it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) went out of his way to misrepresent the speech of my right hon. Friend. I have sat through the whole of the Debate, and certainly, in my recollection, the Minister made no attack on the general body of Scottish miners. On the contrary, he went out of his way to draw attention to the fact that, in no less than 76 per cent. of the cases, there had been no stoppages at all, and only, as he was in duty bound, drew attention to the isolated case of a strike being brought about by a dispute over a canteen manageress, which, in his submission to the Committee, did not in any way justify a stoppage of work. I think that, in that submission, the Minister carried the Committee with him.
  I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd). He went out of his way to stress the interests of the Principality, in connection with the coal industry, but, in doing so, he used most odd and curious phrases, and referred to the coal industry in Wales as "a national incubus," a "terrible ogre" and set forth that it was a symbol of national futility, and that the coal in-
  1986
  dustry was being fumbled in the hands of private enterprise. What is more important, and was so surprising to me, as a fellow Welsh Member, was to hear my hon. Friend say that the coal market must not be regarded in any way as bargaining power in our export trade. Where would our export trade have been before the war if it had not been for the trade agreements which the Government of the day were able to effect with Scandinavia, certain European countries and the Argentine? Is my hon. Friend prepared to ask us to throw away that vital instrument? Had it not been for these trade agreements, it would have been utterly impossible for us to import into this country the necessities of life for the community and preserve a balance of trade. That is a problem which is very near to the heart of the constituency which I have the honour to represent—Cardiff South, which embraces Cardiff docks.
  In fact our whole interest in this matter is one of markets and the sale of the coal to foreign buyers after the coal has been won. All the Welsh mining companies in the valleys have their sales organisations in South Cardiff, and, indeed, the whole of the dock facilities in that great port were built up and developed mainly to deal with this traffic. Therefore, it is obvious that the retention, or, should I say, the regaining, of the foreign market is of vital importance to them. It is, of course, not true to say that it plays an important part to-day, owing to war conditions. We know, from the statistical returns of the Minister's Department, that, in 1941, exports and foreign bunkers were only responsible for, roughly, eight per cent. of our coal consumption, and that, in 1938–39, they were responsible for 46·5 per cent. of coal consumption.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) asked, in his very eloquent and telling speech, what is to be the position after the war, and that is exactly the question they are asking in South Wales to-day. It is a vital question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers of the Government have told us, and, in my submission, rightly, that we have got to sweat and strain after the war to improve our export trade in every way. Some Ministers have gone so far as to say that, if we are to survive, we should at least double it. The demand, after the war, for our coal will be great. It will came,

  1987
  not only, I hope, from our foreign friends but also from our home industries, and the Government will have to decide what proportion of that coal can he allocated to the foreign market, what proportion to the essential demands of home manufacturers, and what proportion of the raw material is to be used for its by-products.
  I hope the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will address himself to that prospect, and give some indication to the Committee whether it is intended to ration home consumption of hard steam coal after the war, and what is the view of the Government in relation to the export market. The Minister, in his interesting speech, had a lot of ground to cover, but did not find it possible to address himself to this problem, but I think it is universally agreed that the time has come when it can no longer be ignored.
  In that connection we might inquire how costs of production affect this problem. Whether coal is produced for the foreign market or the home market, it will have to be produced at a price sufficiently attractive to the buyer equally at home as well as abroad. In his speech, my right hon. and gallant Friend told us that whatever happens, whether you nationalise the industry or whether you do not, one fact is of paramount importance and will always be present, and that is, that the industry must be efficient. I would go further than that and would say that, whether we have a system of nationalisation or of large combines or whether we have a Tory Administration in this country, or a Communist Government, a Liberal Government or even a Socialist Goverment, we have still to face and overcome the same problem, that is, to produce our coal at a profit and sell it at home and abroad, otherwise the outlook will be such that it will be impossible for us to survive. That is the economic law which even my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will have to observe if he is to win through to the goal which he is anxious to achieve.
  I have listened with great care to speeches of hon. Members above the gangway, and that aspect of the problem does not seem to be borne in mind and it has not been stressed in any speech here to-day by Labour Members. They dis-
  1988
  cuss the production of coal—that is right —but having produced the coal, it is as much in their interests as in the interests of all other parties concerned to find a market for the coal. Unless our manufacturers are successful in obtaining coal at an economic price it will be quite impossible for them to win back the export markets for their manufactured goods which will be vital to us. An hon. Gentleman above the gangway on the Government side said that it is a mistake to regard coal as one complete industry; it is only a unit in the whole and we must have regard to the whole picture. What is the remedy? How is this going to be brought about? It will certainly not be brought about by inadequate wages and unduly long hours, and certainly not by subsidies. I hope the time will never come when it will be necessary for the Government to suggest that the coal industry is in such a state that we must again subsidise it from taxpayers' money. That would be only another way of adding to the production costs of manufactures which have to compete with other countries.
  I have studied with great interest the "Statistical Digest from 1938," and it is a momentous document, produced with the utmost care, and is of the greatest use to everybody who is interested in this problem, but no one will deny that it is also a most alarming document. But we have to address ourselves, when it comes to production, to pre-war figures, and last night I was looking up the returns and was surprised to find that between 1913 and 1918 the coal output in cwts. per man-shift increased in Great Britain by 15·35; in the Ruhr, by 78·3; in Poland by 100 cwt. per man-shift, and in the Netherlands by 118·5. If this sort of thing is to continue after the war, where on earth will this country be in the competitive coal markets of the world?
  I am going to say something which I honestly believe to be true, that, in spite of our decreased output to-day, it is the gallant old men in the mines who are doing their stuff and producing the coal. It is not the younger generation; it is the old men who know their job, and in spite, in some cases, of physical disability, are going back to the mines and doing a full day's work. The results of their efforts have enabled us to achieve the production which we have to-day.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: The hon. and gallant Member is talking nonsense.
  Sir A. Evans: Nonsense or not, the question we have to face in future is, Can we make the mines acceptable to the younger generation? Unless we achieve success in that direction, there is no future for the coal industry. We must at least try, and it is obvious from the speech of the Minister that imaginative attempts are already being made by His Majesty's Government. He referred to shower baths and lockers arid other facilities. I would like to see as many facilities as possible provided in order to ensure that the miner can go to and from his work as clean and as well dressed as the city clerk. There is a tendency in some quarters to decry the dignity of manual labour. That has to be reversed, and anybody who is in a responsible position must play his part. Schools in the mining valleys of South Wales have a particular responsibility in this connection. Schemes of training must be improved so that the young miner can acquire a knowledge of the skill of his craft, which, in the old days, he only got by working alongside his father or elder brother. This aspect, however, is a little outside my scope. There are many other Members who are much more competent to make practical and concrete suggestions in this direction, and I hope they will do so whenever they have an opportunity. May I, in conclusion, refer to a quotation from an article which appeared in the American magazine "Mechanization" published in November of last year? It was written by Mr. Wyn Williams, who concluded his observations with these words:
  "It rather looks as though the coal mines of America will have to be the coal scuttle of democracy, just as its other industries have been an arsenal"
  If he is right, the outlook for this country is very bad. I do not accept that position, although I do not underestimate the difficulties, but I am confident of this, that with the right leadership, the essential spirit and a practical realisation of the obstacles to be met and overcome, once again we shall lead the way in a manner which will bring contentment to the miner and prosperity to the industry.
  Mr. Arthur Jenkins: The hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Sir A. Evans) told us towards the end of his speech that he was not very
  1990
  closely acquainted with the mining industry, and I think that was pretty clear from his observations. I seem to remember the time when he came to this House as one of the young men of the Tory Party, quite a number of years ago, when the mining industry was fighting against a decision of the Tory Government which virtually prohibited our export trade in South Wales, and not' only in Soul Wales but in other parts of the country. I would remind him that at the time he came to this House and when that decision was taken there were 270,000 men in the Welsh mining industry. As a consequence of what has happened there are 105,000 employed there now, and he gets up and tells us that he does not know much about the industry. I think that is perfectly clear, and I say that with every respect. He has referred to the German mining industry and the increase in output. That came about very largely as a result of the free access of British capital for development in the post-war period, when there was a very substantial rationalisation of the German mines. He referred also to the development of the mining industry in the Netherlands. Obviously he is not aware of the fact that the mining industry in the Netherlands is owned by the nation, and since 1914 up to the present time it has increased its output ten times. That is an enormous development.
  Sir H. Wragg: What is its output now?
  Mr. Jenkins: It IS 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 tons, and the conditions in the Dutch mining industry are the best in the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is only a relatively small industry."] That does not matter. The position in this country is that of about 1,500 undertakings half of them are quite incapable of being modernised. There will never be modernisation of the mining industry until there is national control.
  I rose for one point, rather apart from the course of this Debate. It is with regard to supplies of gas for domestic and industrial purposes in a district that I have mentioned to the Minister. He knows about it perfectly well. The shortage of gas in that district is of a serious character. A number of big factories are doing war work there at the present time, and one day last week the shortage was so acute that a number had only approximately one-ninth of their re-

  1991
  quirements. One factory in particular wanted 200,000 cubic feet a day, and on the day to which I am referring got 20,000 cubic feet. Another wanted i60,000 cubic feet and got about 17,000 cubic feet. Clearly a great deal of work is lost in consequence of the shortage of gas. This gas is produced by two privately-owned undertakings, one of which is antiquated, out of date, and costly to work. On the best evidence I have been able to get from the experts, that concern may fall to bits within the next two or three years; we shall be lucky if it lasts that long. In that district there is at present roughly a 3o per cent. shortage in the production of gas to meet the existing requirements. When the winter months come that will drop to round about 50 per cent. and hon. Members will realise at once how serious that is.
  But there is another fact. The district concerned is in a Development Area, and there have been strong hopes of accommodating there a substantial number of modern industries, many of which would need gas to work them. Those hopes are very feeble indeed unless gas can be supplied. I understand that a scheme has been submitted to the Minister with a view to taking immediate action to put down a new plant in order to satisfy the gas requirements of that district. What has happened with regard to it I am not aware, but I am hoping to-day that the Minister will be able to give some assurance that steps are being taken immediately by him in order to put gas supplies there on a proper basis.
  I do not want to take any more time, because I know a number of speakers want to talk on the main subject of the Debate, and I am grateful to the Committee for giving me the opportunity of raising this one point.
  Mr. Dermot Campbell: I have listened to a particularly interesting series of speeches to-day and one thing I have noticed about them is that all the speakers except two indicated quite clearly that they have some close interest in the coal-mining industry. One hon. Member intervened in the Minister's speech to make the extraordinary suggestion that only those who were connected with the coalmining industry had any right to
  1992
  ask for information about coal. He is entirely wrong. I have no personal knowledge of the coal industry at all. There is a lot of coal in my constituency but, up to now, it has proved impracticable to extract it and, to all intents and purposes, coalminers are unknown in the part of the world to which I belong. However, I represent 147,000 constituents, and practically every one of them, together with everyone else in the constituency who is not on the electoral register, is a consumer of coal.
  I would like to congratulate the Minister on the digest of figures which he produced last week. It has been very well done and it was very badly needed. As long as I can remember, the industry has proceeded from crisis to crisis, and in every crisis, I think, the public has displayed a very considerable and sympathetic interest in the difficulties of the industry. Whatever may be the position of those who are actively engaged in getting the coal, the ills of the industry are of vital consideration to all those who depend upon coal for their heating, cooking, lighting and water supplies and, more particularly, those who depend for their livelihood on the operation of machinery which depends on coal for its motive power. During all these crises, when the public has wished to take an interest in the difficulties of the industry, it has always been extraordinarily difficult for an uninformed individual such as myself to arrive at a picture of what was going on in the industry. We have been told nearly continuously that the miners were underpaid, but when we tried to find out what, in fact, the miners were paid, we were given a set of such complicated figures—apparently an incomplete set of figures—that an expert was required to calculate what might be the final result. This digest should clear away a great many of the misapprehensions held by the public. I have noticed, in the short time I have been in the House, that on all occasions coal has come up for discussion—except to-day—hon. Members on the other side have cried out against any criticism of the miner. I am sorry the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) is not here to-day because I have heard him say several times, "Stop nagging at the miners."
  Mr. Gallacher: That is what we all say.
  Mr. Campbell: With all respect to hon. Members who have a great deal more experience than I have, I submit that is bad policy. Surely the one thing we have all learned during the last few years—or we should have learned—is that it is bad policy, in this country at any rate, to try to hide unpleasant facts from the people.
  Mr. Gallacher: Rag the coalowner.
  Mr. Campbell: I think that is a mistake most commonly made by everyone in this country, since the last war, and the present Government are not entirely innocent of it. The Prime Minister has shown repeatedly that he believes in putting hard facts before the public, and I think everyone agrees that that is one of the explanations of the great quality of his leadership. I wish that the same policy could be found in all Departments of the Government—but perhaps I shall be ruled out of Order as irrelevant if I try to pursue that point. I have talked to a number of people who have had the opportunity of becoming intimate with miners, without being in any way prejudiced by connection with the mining industry. I remember during the last war a great friend of mine serving with a battery largely manned by miners. I was serving with an Indian battery, and naturally we compared notes. He had no praise too high for his men. He said they were a grand set of chaps.
  Me. R. J. Taylor: We all say the same.
  Mr. Campbell: As I was trying to say, he said they were a grand set of chaps, and he was convinced that, if he could give them the right sort of leadership, they were capable of great things. Everyone who has spoken on this subject has confirmed that view. I do not think the public recognise that. Unfortunately, the majority of them hold the view that miners are simply a nuisance and that pits are a thorn in the flesh of the country. That view is held largely because of the absence of reliable information about the mining industry, and this digest will, to a certain extent, dissipate that. Another unfortunate opinion which is held among a growing section of the community is that the industry has too many political leaders. We know that many hon. Members opposite did all they could during the Spring to prevent the disastrous strikes which took place, but unfortunately not all miners' leaders, apparently, did. I
  1994
  was reading yesterday a foreword to a book written by Mr. Will Lawther, who, I believe, has considerable influence among miners.
  Mr. Glanville: He left the building about two minutes ago.
  Mr. Campbell: That may be so, but I do not think it affects my argument. I was saying that I was reading his foreword to a book, the name of which I forget. It was about coal and was written by a lady with a foreign name, and published by the firm with the unpronounceable name which ends with the letters "cz." I could only think, reading that foreword, that it could have only one object, namely, to perpetuate unrest among miners. That attitude is not representative of most of the hon. Members I know on the other side of the House.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: There is no miners' leader in this country who has made stronger pronouncements in favour of increased output than Mr. Will Lawther.
  Mr. Campbell: I am delighted to hear it. If that is so, I cannot understand how he came to write the foreword to that book. I know my words do not carry much weight with hon. Members opposite, or, indeed, any weight at all. No matter what I say the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) will continue his perpetual cry about the coalowners. In spite of that, I appeal to hon. Members opposite to try to instil into their less responsible colleagues the fact that such writings as I have just referred to, do nobody any good, except a few officials who wish to establish their position.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: I do not propose owing to shortage of time to take up the thread of the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Campbell). I want to express my deep appreciation to the Minister of the White Paper which has been published by his Department, and which contains a mine of information and a collection of data touching upon many details connected with the mining industry. It is an illuminating document and throws much light upon many aspects of the industry which were withheld, owing to the embargo put upon publication of certain details in war-time. There are two points I would like to make. The first is in connection with man-power.

  1995
  I would direct the attention of the Committee to Table III in the White Paper which shows the serious decline in manpower which has taken place in the industry, particularly since 1938. In the age group between 14 and 16 the figure fell from 27,600 in 1938 to 18,200 in 1943, and in the 16 to 18 age group the figure shrank from 42,800 to 31,500 in the same period.
  Upon these general figures may I make a local point? There is a colliery in my neighbourhood which is one of the most productive in the whole of the British coalfields. This colliery employs at least 2,000 men, but I was informed only a few months ago, that fewer than a dozen under 16 years of age were employed. That is something which causes us all great concern. Why should this be so? There must be a valid reason. This particular situation is not localised; it is general throughout the whole of our coalfields. Mining, as a career, has no appeal whatever to the juvenile members of our community. When I started work as a pit boy I, and others like me, were bubbling over with enthusiasm. But time has altered all that; there has been a remarkable change. The reason why our young men are not anxious to go into the mines is because of the propaganda of their parents at home, who remember the past. I do not want to harp too much upon the past, but the prospects of the future, while this basic industry is in private hands, will be anything but rosy. I desire to make a quotation in this connection, which I believe is to be found in the Book of Jeremiah:
  "The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge."
  The sources from which mining labour has been recruited are rapidly drying up. There is a marked indisposition, as the figures in the White Paper show, to take up mining as a career. I am not surprised. Many of us on this side foresaw this situation. There is in the mining areas, and outside too if my experience is to be relied upon, an anti-pit psychology [An HON. MEMBER: "Who caused it?"] There is a ready answer to that question. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he had been approached by managements to lift the Essential Work Order. As I said privately to the Minister of Labour, were it not for the operation of
  1996
  the Essential Work Order, there would be an exodus from the industry greater than that of the Children of Israel from Egypt.
  May I give two examples to illustrate this indisposition amongst the mining community, and particularly the juveniles? One is that of a man of 50, at one end of the scale, and the other that of a boy on the point of leaving school. In January last year the man contracted the dreaded disease of dermatitis, and it was certified as such by the certifying surgeon. The employers took full advantage of the law and sent him to the medical referee. He said, "You certainly have dermatitis but it is of a particular kind. It is constitutional and not occupational." The man asked, "Does that mean that I am not going to get any compensation?" and that is what it really meant. For seven long months he eked out an existence on public assistance and friendly society pay. Then he was certified fit for light work and he threw himself on the tender mercies of the employment exchange, because he was not allowed to go back into the pit. When I questioned him, he said, with a twinkle in his eye, "In spite of all I have gone through, I am satisfied that it has been worth having dermatitis to get a job out of the pit." In the case of the boy, I asked him what he was going to do when he left school. He said, "Joinering, engineering or anything." I said, "Are you taking up mining as a career?" There was an uncanny silence for a second or two and he said, "I have certainly got more sense than that."
  Mr. Raikes: I think a few words should be said by someone who is neither a member of the Tory Reform Committee nor a colliery director. I think the Debate has shown a considerably less bitterness than many that I have known, and for that reason I welcome it, but I am bound to say that the picture painted in the White Paper is, to me, a disturbing and depressing one. We see on the one hand a falling output and rising costs and a slowness in the introduction of machinery and we see a considerable dislike on the part of new entrants to go into the coal trade. There are things that have to be faced, and it is the duty of the Committee and the Government not merely to recite them but to endeavour to find some remedy. May I remind hon. Members opposite that, if

  1997
  they had nationalisation to-morrow, every single one of these problems would have to be decided?
  They cannot be solved merely by a change of ownership. Whether we have nationalisation or not may depend on the next Election but our task is to try to find a way of reducing costs and, at the same time, increasing output. I know that the past history of the coal trade has been a hard and bitter one, but I do not think that that is largely responsible for the voluntary absenteeism that there is today. I give only one reason. It is admitted on all sides that absenteeism, particularly at the coal face, is least among the older men, and they know more about the craft than those newly coming into it. Unless we look at the coal trade as part of industry as a whole, we are wasting our time in talking of it. If we look at it in regard to industry as a whole, I should say that the reason there are bad workmen in it is, perhaps that there are men who have been brought up in distressed areas and who had no other opportunity of getting work, and any Government which is going to get really good work after the war will have to keep clear of the horror of those depressed areas.
  On the general question of absenteeism, according to the White Paper there is about 6 per cent. of voluntary absenteeism amongst workers at the face. One realises that that is, to some exetnt, at its heaviest at the beginning of the week and just after holiday time. I understand that the Minister has a good many special officers whose task it is to see that these questions do not go to the police-court, and we do not want them decided in the police-court atmosphere. I suggest that these special officers might be asked to turn their minds more closely to that particular form of increase which we see, especially at the beginning of the week and in holiday time.
  I would also ask the Minister whether we could not in the near future have once again the monthly reports in regard to absenteeism. If as a result of the Second Front there has been a spurt on the part of bad workers, they are entitled to get a pat on the back from the public. If there has not been, the public is entitled to know. The three-monthly figures seem to cover far too wide an aspect. I hope, at the same time, that the Ministry will time after time emphasise as far as they
  1998
  can the few good points in the White Paper. It should be made as public as possible that, in spite of the fact that there is a certain increase in the accident rate, serious and fatal accidents in the pits were lower during the past year than perhaps in any year in the recorded history of the industry. That is the sort of thing we want parents to know if we are to get the boys to come into the pits after the war.
  A good many people are imagining that there is an anti-mining complex which will stop boys coming back. Boys were going into the pits up to 1938–39. Then the employment period came, and the growth of munition factories gave the opportunity for the boys to earn high wages. If there had not been the munition factories there is not a single fact to show that in 1940–41 there would have been more difficulty in getting boys into the coalfields than in 1938–9. I am not saying that because I do not want conditions to be improved, but all these matters have to be put in their proper perspective. This is a gloomy White Paper and shows particularly a certain lack of initiative in getting new machinery into the mines. I would ask the Minister how it is, if machinery is of such vital importance, that there has been no spurt in the provision of machinery, either for cutting at the coal-face or for transport, during the last few years of Ministerial control in comparison with the three or four years before. Between 1938 and 1941 there was a 10 per cent. increase in machinery for transport and only 2 per cent. between 1941 and 1944. There may be an admirable reason for it, but the Committee should know it. I can assure the Minister that, however much we may differ on various matters, everybody wants to see this industry prosperous. We want to see the men content, but we must see the costs of production go down if not only the coal trade, but industry as a whole, is to give full employment after the war.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): I think there has been general agreement in the Committee that the publication of this digest has been very helpful. While there are certain parts of it, of which one can be fairly proud, one need not hide the fact that on the production and man-power side it is a gloomy

  1999
  story. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster) rather complained that there was an omission in the statistical table of the figures for the second quarter of 1944. The reason is that we wanted to get the digest published early enough for hon. Members to have a chance to read it before this Debate. To bring the picture up to date, I can say that the provisional figure for the production of saleable coal in the second quarter was 46,470,000 tons, that is 1,930,000 tons less than in the same period in 1943. Of this loss 600,000 tons were accounted for by disputes, 430,000 tons of it in the first week during the stoppage in Yorkshire. I am glad to inform the Committee that since the Wages Agreement of 10th April disputes have been at a relatively low figure of about 13,000 tons a week, which is one of the lowest figures of the war. With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's other question about figures relating to international production and so on, it has not at the moment been found practicable to supply them. I can say, however, that my right hon. and gallant Friend intends to keep this digest up to date without promising what the specific period of publication will be. My hon. and gallant Friend also asked about the cost of the Porter award. The cost worked out something like this: Minimum wage award about £5,000,000 a year; overtime and week-end wage £5,000,000 a year; holiday with pay £1,500,000 a year, and wages agreement another £8,250,000, making a total of £19,750,000.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) has a difficult problem to deal with at the moment and he has explained why he has had to leave. He represents a district where there has been a breakdown in the gas supply, and I have been spending some time there trying to deal with a difficult question. The position is that there is a set of coke-ovens which are very old and have been going for 33 years. That is longer than the average life of coke-ovens. We have done all we can with regard to the immediate repair position and also with regard to increasing the amount of gas at the Pontypool end by the use of C.W.G. plant and other means. What is essential, however, and what the hon. Member is concerned about, is that a battery of new ovens is needed because the others
  2000
  have been in existence so long that they keep collapsing. When I was there in consultation with the local council and the local gas company, all concerned knew that a new battery of 11 ovens was needed for immediate purposes, and we shall be glad to do everything we can to get that work done. Discussions and consultations are taking place, and I promise the hon. Member for Pontypool that he need have no fear of any delay. I have kept him in touch with the varying production figures. I wanted to say this because it was essential from the local point of view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) will not expect me to delve into the historical side of the mining industry, much as I would like to do so. He said that the miner had done a good job of work in this war: There is no doubt about that. Nobody would say that the majority of miners have not done a good job of work. As a pitman myself, I would defend the miner anywhere at any time. My hon. Friend went on to refer to the man-power position before the new Ministry was created. At that time I happened to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Ministry of Mines, and I can bear out the anxiety that my hon. Friend had in those days about the man-power position in mining. He knows exactly what took place, and I do not think he will expect me to deal with that side of it very fully, except to say that we are conscious of the position. There is a gross wastage in mining of, roughly, 40,000 a year. That is a big and serious problem. In order' that we can understand what the wastage problem is, figures have been broken up to show the different classes of men who are leaving the industry. It must be remembered that the men are getting older. Some of them were on the point of retirement when the war took place, and have willingly spent a few more years in the pits, where they have done and are doing jolly good work.
  Let us take an average week's wastage in the industry, of roughly 700, and this is what we get. There are about 70 deaths, natural and accidental. Retirement from gainful employment, usually when a man has got past work, at about 65, and excess of compensation cases over those returning to colliery books represent 375. I will have something to say

  2001
  on this point shortly. Some have gone to His Majesty's Forces, mainly to the R.A.F., which shows that there are still sufficient men in the pits with the courage to volunteer. Other causes, such as dismissals for misconduct or on grounds of redundancy account for say 150. All those men are not lost to the industry, because, as a rule, the relatively young or middle-aged miner who is sacked at one pit for misconduct finds a job somewhere else in the industry, although it is difficult to check exactly what the position is.
  That gives some idea of the continual wastage. Anyone who is familiar with the accident rate in British mines will agree that the figures for 1943, and I am pleased to say also 'for the present year, are relatively low, both for fatal and serious accidents; but there is, as the statistical digest shows, a tremendous increase in minor accidents. They are between 150,000 and 160,000 for the year. We always say "touch wood" in mining. A pitman, whichever side he is on, seldom boasts about his freedom from accidents. We have known occasions when, altar we have boasted about having a clear year without fatal accidents, something has happened. What is remarkable and pleasing is that a good many lives have been saved from falls of ground, both at the coal face and on the haulage road. My hon. Friends will agree that there is no single cause for the reduction in fatal and serious accident rates, and that it is due to a combination of things that have been in operation during the past eight or 10 years. After the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower decided to appoint nine extra inspectors, for the purpose of attending to roof control, and that has had some effect. I think those inspectors and the committees in the different areas are doing an exceptionally good job of work. There have been, in operation since the Report of the Royal Commission, certain very beneficial things, by order; for example, there is the matter of stone dusting to prevent coal dust explosions. In the old days 50–50 was regarded as being the right percentage, but experience has shown that in certain pits it may be 60–40.
  There is one serious matter which all Welsh hon. Members should keep in mind. The hon. Member for the Welsh University (Professor Gruffydd) men-
  2002
  tioned the amount of research work that had taken place by one of the universities in Wales with regard to silicosis. As the Committee knows, my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the Home Office, some time ago put through a scheme and an alteration in the law, which changed the word from "silicosis" to "pneumokoniosis." That was a very excellent piece of legislation, very speedily done and, if I may be personal for a moment, I am very proud of the little part I was able to play in it. In addition to that, there has been recognition that, when a disease is eating into the very vitals of men in any coalfield, while you may think out a cure, it is very necessary to probe for causes in order to prevent it. It ought to be put upon record, because we are sometimes told that there is not sufficient cooperation in the mining industry, that in South Wales, which has a reputation for being rebellious, the tripartite committee has dealt with this very serious problem of dust suppression and has done a good job of work and deserves our thanks. Let us see to what extent they have done it, because it is interesting. There has been sufficient steel piping allotted to represent approximately 220 miles of pipe of various sizes, and it covers, in the Cardiff and Swansea Division, the approximate length of coal face treated by wet cutting and by water infusion, which is 36,003 yards. They have done a remarkably good job of work.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend mentioned that he would be very pleased to arrange for Members to visit certain coalfields and see what is being done. If there is one regret I have when I hear criticism of the mining industry, it is that the industry has never put into the shop window the progress that has been made. I have taken the precaution during the last two years to visit underground workings and see dust suppression methods in operation, such as mist sprays, wet drilling and that kind of thing. I would like them to have an opportunity, physically discomforting though it might be to hon. Members, to accompany a party into some of these pits, to see exactly what is being done and the progress that has been made.
  There is a side to pneumokoniosis about which the Committee is entitled to know. About 12 months ago, my right hon. and gallant Friend set up a Commit-

  2003
  tee, mainly of doctors, under the Regional Controller in the South Wales coalfield, for the purpose of recommending what was best for the treatment and rehabilitation of these pneumokoniosis patients. That report has been handed to my right hon. Friend and will be published in due course. It will be well worth everybody's while reading it carefully, if only on humanitarian grounds. The position so far as coal is concerned, and the effect of the disease is that the committee are satisfied of the cause, but when it comes to treatment and rehabilitation, they admit frankly, that there is no known specific remedy for it. I remember visiting the first meeting of that committee and asking the doctor what was the thing to do. I was told that, in Canada, Banting was at that time experimenting on the inhalation of aluminium dust and was not too optimistic about the results. They said quite frankly that so far as treatment and rehabilitation was concerned, they have not much to offer at the present time. Here is a curious thing. Some of these victims of pneumokoniosis, especially those partially incapacitated, and who have had to leave the pit, have done remarkably well during the war in other industries. They have adapted themselves as engineers, inspectors and so on. They have done wonderfully well. There is no doubt that the totally disabled man is in a different category. The mere fact of bringing him out of the pit to an open-air life would not in itself cure the disease but would prolong that man's life.
  The committee made a number of recommendations to my right hon. and gallant Friend mainly on the line that further research is necessary with a view to obtaining more accurate knowledge of the disease, its causes, prevention and treatment, including rehabilitation. They suggest the early establishment of a treatment and rehabilitation research centre, with certain indoor accommodation. They also suggest periodical clinical X-ray examination of miners and so on, and the setting up of a co-ordinating bureau to deal with it. What they ask for in general, is for further facilities for research. My right hon. and gallant Friend has not had time fully to digest all the implications of these recommendations, although he himself is most anxious to do whatever is best with regard to this report. I am authorised to say that we
  2004
  are giving it the fullest consideration, and the Committee can take it, that everything that can possibly be done with these recommendations, to make the treatment of this terrible industrial disease more effective, will be done. In view of the fact that this disease is so rampant in the South Wales coalfield, I may be excused for telling the Committee exactly what is happening there. It is not limited mainly to the anthracite coalfields. They are very much concerned about the steam coalfields, but, on the whole, this committee has done a very good job of work. This is an advisory committee. Anything we can do to implement these recommendations we certainly shall do.
  Mr. Gallacher: One or two very important speeches have been made on the organisation of the coal industry. I think the hon. Gentleman should deal with these, and point out that it can only be organised if the mineowners are got rid of.
  Mr. Smith: We have had to-day one of the most interesting discussions. We have had a recognition by all speakers that there is something wrong with this industry, and that it has got to be put right. The difference of opinion was as to method. We have been asked what we are doing. Believe me when I say there has been, in the two years since the Ministry was set up, a good deal of thought and inquiry as to what is best to do, not merely with coal as coal, but with gas, electricity and so on, and my right hon. and gallant Friend did indicate that he has asked his regional organisation to have a factual survey made' as quickly as possible so that he himself will have some evidence in knowing how to formulate policy. I think that the hon. Member for Eccleshall (Sir G. Ellis' was right in saying that you cannot treat coal in isolation, that good economic organisation suggested a closer connection between coal production, gas and electricity. The Committee have been informed that my right hon. and gallant Friend has been meeting the different bodies connected with electricity, both in production and distribution, quite recently. He has also got an advisory committee working with regard to what is best to do with gas, and the Committee may take it from me that there is plenty of thought being exercised inside the Ministry as to what is best to

  2005
  do with this industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "We want action."] A Ministry has always to put up its plans to the Government, and the Government then decide policy. Hon. Members can take it for granted that the preparatory work is being done.
  The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Sir A. Evans) asked me if I could state what is going to be the Government's position regarding the export of coal after the war. That is a question that few people could answer at this time. Let us be perfectly frank. While we have got to maintain an export trade, and obtain as large a one as is possible, it certainly does raise a question of high policy with which no Parliamentary Secretary could be expected to deal on an occasion of this kind. But one thing we all hope, as the hon. Member for Pontypool mentioned, is that there will not be the same mistakes when the next peace treaty comes as were made when the last one was signed. I happened to be close to some of the events in 1920 with regard to reparations and of knowing the effect on the export trade. While we are thinking about the matter, and the Government are aware of it attention is being paid to it, I hope I shall be excused if I am not able to give an answer. One very important thing before I close——
  Mr. Gallacher: What about mining machinery in Scotland?
  Mr. Smith: With regard to Scotland I have sufficient material here for another half hour. We are looking into the points that have been mentioned. I would like to refer to one thing of a general character. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower expressed a fear about the four years under the new wages agreement. It is only fair to say that the six months' notice on either side was put in that agreement purposely, because if there are six months in which to talk, there is
  2006
  plenty of time to thrash out differences. I am not looking forward to four and a half years in which we shall have another big strike or lock-out. I think we shall have sufficient common sense to avoid the same tragic strikes and lock-outs that we had after the last war.
  With regard to the colliery mentioned by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) I think the position is this—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) paid a visit to our regional office in Scotland and I think he met the Regional Controller with regard to the matter. Rightly or wrongly, I am told that after the company had explained the position my hon. Friend felt a little easier in mind than he had done before. If that is wrong, I will look into the matter again; but that is the information supplied to me.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: That is certainly wrong. It has been looked into for four years now. The Regional Controller has had the matter before him for two years, and up to now he has not been able to report one way or the other.
  Mr. Smith: I will look into that. Any points which have been raised, and which time has not allowed me to deal with in full, will be fully considered, and, where possible, I will answer them by correspondence.
  Ordered:
  "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain McEwen.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved:
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PLANNING SCHEMES (TECHNICAL WORKERS)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PLANNING SCHEMES (TECHNICAL WORKERS)
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE
  SOCIAL INSURANCE (WHITE PAPER)
  SOCIAL INSURANCE (WHITE PAPER)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  River Thames (Effluents)
  River Thames (Effluents)
  Tuberculosis Patients (Rehabilitation)
  Tuberculosis Patients (Rehabilitation)
  Disease Diffusion (Aerial Transport)
  Disease Diffusion (Aerial Transport)
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  Diphtheria (Immunisation)
  HOUSING SITES (GROUPING)
  HOUSING SITES (GROUPING)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Soft Fruits (Prices)
  Soft Fruits (Prices)
  Milk Haulage
  Milk Haulage
  COAL INDUSTRY (HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES, FIFE)
  COAL INDUSTRY (HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES, FIFE)
OPERATIONS, FRANCE
  Accredited Photographers
  Accredited Photographers
  Duty-Free Cigarettes
  Duty-Free Cigarettes
  PROTECTED AREAS (INDIVIDUAL PERMITS)
  PROTECTED AREAS (INDIVIDUAL PERMITS)
  INDIA (WAR EXPENDITURE)
  INDIA (WAR EXPENDITURE)
RAILWAYS
  Congested Trains
  Congested Trains
  Crewe and Chester Stations (Staffs)
  Crewe and Chester Stations (Staffs)
  Priority Passengers
  Priority Passengers
  Women Employees, Stratford Sidings
  Women Employees, Stratford Sidings
  ITALIAN CAMPAIGN (GERMAN REPRISAL THREATS)
  ITALIAN CAMPAIGN (GERMAN REPRISAL THREATS)
  GERMANY (TOC H WORKERS)
  GERMANY (TOC H WORKERS)
  WALTON PRISON (OFFICIAL'S PURCHASES)
  WALTON PRISON (OFFICIAL'S PURCHASES)
  SEYCHELLES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  SEYCHELLES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  LANDOWNERS, GREAT BRITAIN
  LANDOWNERS, GREAT BRITAIN
  EX-SERVICE MEN (RESETTLEMENT)
  EX-SERVICE MEN (RESETTLEMENT)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BOUNDARIES)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BOUNDARIES)
  AIR-RAID VICTIMS, 1914–18 (PENSIONS)
  AIR-RAID VICTIMS, 1914–18 (PENSIONS)
  SURGICAL GOODS (GIRL EMPLOYEES)
  SURGICAL GOODS (GIRL EMPLOYEES)
  FLYING BOMB ATTACKS (BUILDING REPAIRS)
  FLYING BOMB ATTACKS (BUILDING REPAIRS)
  AGRICULTURE (INTENSIVE HORTICULTURE)
  AGRICULTURE (INTENSIVE HORTICULTURE)
  EXPORT TRADE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
  EXPORT TRADE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (AIR MAIL)
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (AIR MAIL)
  TELEGRAMS (DELIVERIES)
  TELEGRAMS (DELIVERIES)

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

HERTS & ESSEX WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance,

Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration),

Law Officers,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (North Lindsey Water Board),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Warrington),

North West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Provisional Order Confirmation,

London and North Eastern Railway,

London County Council (Money),

Herts and Essex Water.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Government contributions towards expenses of local authorities for rural water supplies and sewerage.
(3) Where the expenses incurred by the local authority are expenses in respect of liabilities arising from time to time under a lease or hiring agreement or a contract for the supply of water or for sewage disposal, an undertaking under this section may provide for the making of the contribution in the form of sums payable from time to time, within any period not exceeding twenty years from the date of the undertaking.
In this subsection, the expression "contract for the supply of water" includes any undertaking to make, or guarantee of, payments to a person supplying water given under Section one hundred and twenty-three of the Public Health Act, 1936, or under this Act.
(4) The Minister may withhold, or reduce the amount of, a contribution which he has undertaken to make towards the expenses incurred by a local authority in respect of any works or transaction, if it appears to him either—
(a) that any of the works have been executed in an unsatisfactory manner; or
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "thirty years" for "twenty years." The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here to-day, I have agreed to move the Amendments standing in his name. The first Amendment to leave out "twenty" and insert "thirty" in subsection (3) of Clause 1. If I read the subsection that will explain what my noble friend has in view. The subsection says:
"Where the expenses incurred by the local authority are expenses in respect of liabilities arising from time to time under a lease or hiring agreement or a contract for the supply of water or for sewage disposal, an undertaking under this section may provide for the making of the contribution in the form of sums payable from time to time, within any period not exceeding twenty years from the date of the undertaking."
This Amendment, therefore, would extend to thirty years the time during which the sums would be repayable. The matter has been brought up because the extension of time is urged by the Association of County Councils in Scotland. There are many areas in Scotland which are very sparsely populated and great distances separate populated places. The

899
result is that the ratepayers are often called upon to pay very heavy rates for comparatively small benefits. If the period of twenty years is changed to thirty years it would make matters very much easier for the districts which I describe, and that would apply, to a certain extent, in other cases as well.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("thirty").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment. In the first place I would remind your Lordships that Scotland is a very much poorer country than England. When we ask for a little more time to pay we are therefore not asking for anything that is unreasonable. We make the request partly because of impoverishment due to the war and partly because of travel difficulties. Those difficulties make it extremely difficult for Scottish Peers to fulfil their statutory duties in your Lordships' House, and for that reason when we make an appeal which is backed up by that extremely live and efficient body the Association of County Councils in Scotland, it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Government to take special note of our position and to endeavour to meet us, if not at this stage of the Bill perhaps at a later stage. Possibly they will at least take it into consideration so far as it affects Scotland.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): It is quite true, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that the period of repayment of money borrowed by a local authority for the purpose of carrying out capital works for water or sewerage may be spread over a period of thirty years. But I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I tell him that the argument which he employed is misconceived here. Cases where a loan sanction is involved under this Bill will be dealt with, not under subsection (3), but under subsection (2) which provides for lump sum payments. A grant in the form of a lump sum in such cases instead of annual payments is really, I venture to think, to the advantage of the local authority for it obviously gives them the power to borrow
900
money at a less rate than would otherwise be required. The third subsection, which follows identically the 1934 Act, with the exception of the inclusion of the words "sewage disposal," is intended primarily for cases of the type to which Clause 5 of this Bill refers. In such a case there will be no capital payments, no capital burden on the local authorities but a liability to guarantee an annual payment to the water undertakers. It was thought right in 1934 to legislate for the possibility in such cases of spreading an Exchequer grant over a period of years, but the benefit should obviously be concentrated on the earlier years when the burden in the particular area may be heavier than would normally be expected in the future years.
Under the Act of 1934 there was, in fact, so far as my information goes, only one case of spreading in England and Wales over a period. All other guaranteed cases were dealt by a lump sum payment to the satisfaction of the local authorities. If in cases coming under this subsection (3) the local authority wishes to spread the benefit over more years there is nothing to hinder a local authority from taking a lump sum or, say, a seven years' payment and forming their own fund for spreading the benefit more evenly over a larger number of years. The whole system is based on a temporary grant scheme. There is no intention and never has been of continuing grants towards these services. The noble Viscount will remember that the Exchequer undertakes to find a sum of over £21,000,000 and my right honourable friend does not think that you can have bits and pieces of this grant hanging about indefinitely to be paid perhaps long after the circumstances have changed, so much so that if starting de novo no grant would then be justified. As I have pointed out, the authority can take the grant under subsection (3) and spread it over a period of years by forming a fund for its own purpose. The clause is, I know, complicated, but this subsection (3) does relate to cases of the type referred to in Clause 5 of the Bill, and does not deal with the matter to which the Amendment is directed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Am I to understand from what my noble friend says that it is at the discretion of the local authority whether a lump sum is taken

901
or a payment spread over a number of years? I understand that if it is a payment it must be spread over twenty years, but it taken in the form of a lump sum the remainder can be spread over thirty years if that is desired.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think that that is correct, as long as it is clear that the grant in aid which will be received from my right honourable friend will be paid, I do not say in a lump sum but in the course of the period during which the work is being done.
LORD SALTOUN: If I understand my noble friend aright, the Government contribution is over twenty years and the local authority can apply it over thirty years. It is a question of amortization. Is that so?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think that that is not really correct. Subsection (3) deals primarily with cases where statutory water undertakers accept guarantees from local authorities. There is a limit of twenty years. It is exactly the same clause as that which appears in the Rural Water Supplies Act of 1934, in which twenty years is the limit. There are two different points; one is the Government grant, and the other the agreement which local authorities can make with statutory water undertakers.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In view of the explanation given by my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved to add to subsection (4):
"or (d) that the new water supply has been, or will Is, taken from underground sources."
The noble Earl said: The Committee will remember that in the previous debates, not only on the Second Reading of this Bill but on rural water supplies generally, considerable anxiety was expressed about the danger of continuous over-abstraction of underground supplies. This Amendment is designed not in any way to tie the Minister's hand but, on the contrary, to make it possible for him with greater ease to withhold a grant or to scale his grant in favour of new water undertakings which will take their water from riverine sources or from impounded headwaters, rather than from underground sources,
902
where there is the slightest question of abstraction from underground sources being a danger to the whole ecology of the countryside.
The situation is very serious in some counties. I have had the assistance of the good offices of the various technical officers of my own war agricultural committee in Hampshire in reporting what is taking place throughout the county, and I should like to give the Committee the general picture as it has been reported to our own war agricultural committee. All districts in our county report that the local water shortage is extremely serious. That may, of course, be largely due to the drought; but there is, for instance, on the food production side the fact that one district reports that very extensive watercress beds are now drying up and being ruined, and there is a subnote "acres of desolation." In many parts of the county there is a serious risk that milk production will have to be given up completely because of the failure of ordinary water supplies. In many villages the wells are drying up, as are also farm bores and wells.
I am aware that in many cases this is due merely to drought, but in other cases, where the well-levels come into sub-strata of water-bearing levels which would normally be flowing naturally, these hays been dried up by tremendously increased underground abstraction. Three public water supplies, upon which the supply of three small towns and some large villages depends, as well as farmland, note drops in their deep bores of 140 feet to 119 feet, 15 feet 6 inches to 11 feet 6 inches, and 253 feet to 239 feet, in recent years. There is a very grave danger not only that these bores may ultimately cease to run but that in the meantime, through drying up, they may cave in, and the districts may be left completely waterless. There are other instances which have been given to me privately. One bore, 400 feet deep, has normally been able to pump 4,000 gallons an hour for 36 hours without the slightest change of level in the water supply in the bore. From 1939 it has dropped no less than 20 feet, and in the last few months no less than 6 feet. In 1921 and in the very bad drought years in the 'thirties there was no noticeable change of level, and none occurred until the enormous new abstraction for military and other purposes took place in Hampshire

903
quite recently. Only last Monday I had, as a member of the war agricultural committee, to visit a farmer to try to persuade him to keep up his milk supply. The farmer produced the unanswerable argument that in 1939 he had spent £1,000, with the best engineering advice obtainable, in putting in a deep bore which gave him 7,000 gallons at any time he wished to pump it; to-day that has been completely dried out, and again there is no possibility of milk supply from that particular farm.
In these circumstances I think it is of the utmost importance that the Minister should have a discriminatory, power in dealing with grants for water supply, because there will always be the temptation in local authorities to ask for the extension of their existing water supplies, which is exactly what happens at the moment, and if these existing water supplies are extended, with bores from underground sources, then the danger will become very grave and extremely acute. I know we are promised, through the White Paper, that experts are accumulating advice and will be ready to give it, but the temptation will be to give the water supply now and get the advice later. This Amendment will enable the Minister to give grants on a more long-sighted basis whereby you can extract water from the river and purify it rather than extract water from underground sources if there appears to be the slightest danger. Because, though 20,000,000 gallons a day, for instance, for a fairly large catchment area may not appear to be a very large quantity, a river will produce, even in drought times, 300,000,000 gallons a day flow, while from underground sources there is continual abstraction of water from emptying reservoirs without refilling. The water taken from the river does no harm to anybody. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, after ("transaction") insert ("or (d) that the new water supply has been, or will be, taken from underground sources").—(Lord Portsmouth.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I had a suspicion that the noble Earl was basing his arguments upon the conservation of underground water sources generally. If that is so, as I think it is, let me say at once that this Bill does not deal with that
904
matter at all, but the next Bill—the big Bill which is promised—will be dealing with that particular question and the noble Earl's arguments will undoubtedly be very relevant then. But as he has moved this Amendment and explained that it is intended to enable the Minister to withhold or reduce the amount of his grant-in-aid contribution to the local authority who intended to provide or improve a water supply, or even augment their existing sources of supply, by abstracting additional quantities of water from existing underground sources, let me try to give my noble friend an indication of what would happen if this Amendment were accepted.
I have been told that, as the law stands at present, public water undertakings are already subject to control in the abstraction and use of underground water for public supplies. No water undertaker who operates under the Public Health Act can construct any works for taking or intercepting water without the approval of the Minister, and indeed no water undertaker operating under a special Act can abstract water from a source which has not been authorized by Parliament, or extract water in excess of the quantity which has been authorized by that special Act, which, of course, has been through Parliament. It is easy to see that the Amendment would only confer upon the Minister a discretionary power which he or Parliament can already exercise far more effectively by a complete and absolute veto, if the case should warrant it.
Let me make this one other point, which I think the noble Earl has perhaps forgotten. The scheme which is made by the local authority would be put to my right honourable friend. He would consider it, and take into account all the relevant facts. If the scheme will not work because the underground water supply will run out then the local authority will have to think again. My tight honourable friend will have the advantage, when these plans are put to him, of appreciating very early what other places are supplied with water from the particular sources which that local authority might intend to use. He would then be in the position to say: "You shall not have the grant, because you are threatening your next door neighbour's water."

905
Or, alternatively, he can say to them: "You are threatening your neighbour's water, you must go back and consider this scheme again." The scheme which has been put to him will then return to the local authority who will consider the facts again. I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. As I say, I suspected that it really applied to the conservation of water resources generally. That will come up in the next Bill, and personally I think "sufficient unto the day," and I suggest that the noble Earl should withdraw his Amendment and discuss this particular point when the bigger Bill is presented to your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I will withdraw the Amendment, having regard to the wider opportunity that will offer later, but I should like to say that nothing in the working of existing supplies affects the fact that it is practicable to undertake extra abstraction, and once undertakings have got their bore down they can pump twenty-four hours a day without anybody interfering.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Extension of duties of local authorities and joint boards as to water supply.
3.—(1) Every local authority shall provide a supply wholesome water in pipes to every rural locality in their district in which there are houses or schools, and shall take the pipes affording that supply to such point or points as will enable the houses or schools to be connected thereto at a reasonable cost:
Provided that—

(a) this subsection shall not require a local authority to do anything which is not practicable at a reasonable cost; and

(b) if any question arises under this subsection as to whether anything is or is not practicable at a reasonable cost or as to the point or points to which pipes must be carried in order to enable houses or schools to be connected to them at a reasonable cost, the Minister, if requested so to do by the council of the county or by ten or more local government electors in the district of the local authority, shall, after consulting the local authority, and, where the request was made by local government electors, after consulting also the council of the county, if any, determine that question and the local authority shall give effect to his determination.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "Every local authority shall provide," to insert "as soon as practicable." The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple Amendment, dealing with a point I raised on the Second Reading. This clause says that it is the duty of the local authority to provide a piped water supply in their district, and the second part of it says that the water supply must be brought in pipes to such a position as will enable the consumers to get it conveniently for their purposes. The clause goes on to say that if there is any question as to whether the local authority are doing their duty under those two provisions, that is to say if they are providing a piped water supply and if they are bringing it to a proper position with regard to the consumers, the question may be decided under the machinery proposed by the Minister of Health. I have nothing to say against that; I approve of it. But there does seem to me to be a gap. I may be wrong; but I should be very glad if my noble friend can explain to me why I am wrong.
This clause provides for certain duties to be done and certain penalties to be incurred if those duties are not done. It contains no provision saying when those duties are to be done. Therefore if an obstructive local authority, or, more probably, an obstructive minority of the authority, do not want to do anything at all they can always say, "Oh, we are going to do it. Don't fuss about it, we shall do it all right in time. We do not refuse at all, but we are not bound to do it under the Act within any lime at all. There is nothing about time in the Act, no suggestion that it has to be done as quickly as it can be done. Therefore we are not in default, and the Minister of Health can do nothing." It seems to me that there is a possible danger—I shall not put it higher—of that happening. I agree very much with what fell from my noble friend Lord Portsmouth as to the urgent need for water in many districts. To put it off for a year or five years or ten years would be a real disaster. All I want to make quite clear on the face of the Act is that if there is any unreasonable delay—delay for which there are no sound reasons—the Minister of Health can say to the local authority that they must go on and do their duty under the Act. That is the whole purpose of my Amendment, and I hope it will not seem

907
to be of a, revolutionary character to my noble friend Lord Munster. I hope he will be able to accept it or, at any rate, effectively explain why it cannot be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, after ("provide") insert ("as soon as practicable").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My noble friend has explained to your Lordships that he is somewhat concerned with the delay which might result from a dilatory or idle local authority who did not bring the water to the neighbourhood as mentioned in Clause 3. If a local authority failed to carry out the obligations imposed upon them by this Bill, there are a number of remedies open to my right honourable friend which he can apply at any time. With your Lordships' permission I might explain what these remedies are. If a question arises as to whether anything is or is not practicable at a reasonable cost under subsection (1) (b) of Clause 3, any ten local government electors can request the Minister to decide the point. If the Minister decides that it is practicable for the local authority to carry out the work at a reasonable cost, then he can give a direction to the local authority under paragraph (b) to perform the work. It is quite obvious that such a direction given by the Minister would be followed up by the Department. Secondly, there is this. Irrespective of any power to determine the question under Clause 3, the Minister has additional powers under Section 322 and the following section as well as other sections of the Public Health Act, 1936, by which he can make and enforce an order declaring the local authority to be in default in carrying out its duties. Its duties will of course include those particularly mentioned in the first subsection of this clause. If the local authority fails to carry out the work specified in the order within the time allowed by the Minister—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Can the Minister allow a time?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, the Minister can certainly allow a time. He can not only make an order, but can direct that within a period of time the work shall be done. If the order is not carried out, then the Minister can ask the
908
county council to do the work or he can do it himself through a contractor, and the expenses incurred in carrying out the work will be charged against the local authority which is in default. I know that my noble friend is nervous that if Clause 3 stands by itself it might be possible for a local authority to defer the question by repeating a promise to do the work or saying, "We shall be better able to do it next year than this year." But Clause 3 does not stand alone. It is a statement of duties which the Minister has before him when he considers any action he can take under Section 322 of the Public Health Act, 1936. There are additional powers which the Minister has under that Act without Clause 3 of this Bill being taken into account. I am told that my right honourable friend can act on the complaint of even one person without having received a complaint from any of the inhabitants at all. He may have an adverse report from one of his own inspectors who has been down and made a survey of the area, and he can act on that. With that guarantee which I have given to my noble friend he will sec—and we are all at one in this—that my right honourable friend does not intend to allow any dilatory methods to be employed by local authorities. I feel quite certain that the powers conferred by this Bill and by the Act of 1936 are quite sufficient to abolish any fears my noble friend may have in his mind.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I cannot pretend to keep in my mind, even if I ever had them there, the provisions of the Act of 1936 or the Act of 1875, or the many other Acts which deal with this question. The Lord Chancellor no doubt has them absolutely at call, but I have not got that comprehensive memory which he has. Therefore I must take my noble friend's assertion that this Amendment is not necessary because the point is already covered by previous legislation. All the same I hope that before the Bill is finally passed the Government will consider whether it would not be a convenient thing to put it in this Bill, which the local authorities will normally consult, that they have got to do these things and to do them in a reasonable time. If that were put before them it would make the Bill a simpler and more workable measure instead of saying you have got to do these things, and as to the time in which they must be done, you must look back to the

909
Act of 1936 and consult this clause and that clause. I was very glad to hear that the Minister can fix a time. That is entirely new to me, and I am much obliged to my noble friend. I did not know the Minister had that power. I hope my noble friend will consider very carefully whether, as a mere matter of practical convenience, it would not be as well to put my words into the Bill. They could not possibly do any harm. The worst that could be said about them would be that they were repeating what was already the law. We all know how urgently these questions come before the local people, and how very hot everybody gets over the question whether there should or should not be a water supply. It my noble friend tells me that there is nothing more that need be done I must submit, lout I hope he will consider the matter carefully.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am only too glad to give my noble friend that assurance. I shall certainly convey his remarks to my right honourable friend the Minister of Health.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "ten" and insert "twenty-five." The noble Viscount said: Again on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of. Buccleuch, I wish to move this Amendment. This refers to Clause 3 (1) (b). Again, if I read out the short paragraph, it will convey to your Lordships much more clearly what I have in view than if I attempted to explain it:
"(b) is any question arises under this subsection as to whether anything is or is not practicable at a reasonable cost or as to the point or points to which pipes must be carried in order to enable houses or schools to be connected to them at a reasonable cost, the Minister, if requested so to do by the council of the county or by ten or more local government electors in the district of the local authority shall, after consulting the local authority, and, where the request was made by local government electors, after consulting also the council of the county, if any, determine that question and the local authority shall give effect to his determination."
I am again speaking on behalf of the County councils Association of Scotland. They feel that ten is too small a number, and that: ten people may raise perhaps trivial questions of little substance and put the local authority to trouble and expense for something which is not of
910
real importance. It is suggested, and I am moving, that the minimum number who should be empowered to make these representations ought to be twenty-five and not ten. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty-five").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD SALTOUN: In supporting my noble friend in this Amendment I should like to say that so far as my own country is concerned we are contentious folk and if there is a real grievance I cannot imagine any district where you could not get twenty-five ratepayers to support it. I think ten is too few. The noble Earl, in rejecting the last Amendment, pointed out that the Minister could move upon representation made to him by a single individual, and if the noble Earl is going to reject this Amendment I shall be very interested to hear the terms he will choose for the rejection of it. I will put forward only one other argument in favour of this Amendment and that is that by raising the number from ten to twenty-five ratepayers you are probably going to cut down by at least half the work of the Ministry concerned with this particular question.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The effect of this Amendment and the next Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend is to raise the number of persons from ten local government electors to twenty-five ratepayers who may request the Minister to determine the question whether the work is practicable at a reasonable cost.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I intervene for a moment? I have not argued the next Amendment yet. The noble Earl is going beyond the Amendment that I have moved.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I can assure my noble friend I am not. The noble Viscount told your Lordships that this Amendment had been put down at the instance of the Scottish County Councils Association and that their reason for it was that they thought ten local government electors might raise frivolous complaints and that twenty-five ratepayers would be less likely to raise such frivolous complaints. Let us for a moment make a mathematical calculation. Take two adults to a house.

911
Then one ratepayer would take the place of two local government electors and twenty-five ratepayers would be the equivalent of about fifty electors—that is to say, five times the number that is specifically provided for in paragraph (b) of this clause. This Amendment would make it far more difficult for the local inhabitants to raise any questions at all; in fact I am told that in some hamlets of Scotland it would be extremely difficult even to muster twenty-five ratepayers. Therefore the Amendment which my noble friend has moved would tend to defeat the whole intention of the clause and I maintain that that is wrong. I think the clause as it stands is quite reasonable. It does seem to me—though I do not like to think it is correct—that the Scottish County Councils Association in their capacity as water undertakers are deliberately trying to limit the right of appeal to the Secretary of State to determine questions that would come up under Clause 3 of the Bill. I do not think my noble friend need worry because it is specifically laid down in the Bill that the Secretary of State must hear the county council's side and I do not really think the county councils in Scotland have very much of which to be afraid.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With great respect I must take exception to the statement of my noble friend that the county councils of Scotland are deliberately trying to reduce the number of complaints that might come up. That is entirely inaccurate. I might even use a stronger term. Their whole intention is to try and get a workable Bill just as the Government are attempting to get a workable Bill. But I do not feel sufficiently strongly on this point to press my Amendment. As to the next Amendment, I do feel a little more strongly about it and when I move it I hope I shall receive a more satisfactory reply than has been given to this Amendment. I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "local government electors" and insert "ratepayers." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to the same clause, and I am moving that instead of the words "tea or more local government electors"
912
the word "ratepayers" should be substituted. Here again the Association of Scottish County Councils feel that this is a matter which particularly concerns the ratepayers and not the local government electors.
NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am speaking from the Scottish point of view, not from the English one. The county councils also feel that they have to consider the question that has been raised quite recently in the Speaker's Conference where a proposal has been put forward that in future burgh and county councillors should be elected by all citizens entitled to vote for Members of Parliament and not as heretofore by ratepayers. This seems to be the thin end of the wedge, and if that proposal at the Speaker's Conference were to be carried in the future it would apply very definitely to this clause. I think everything ought to be done to avoid bringing politics into local arrangements, and that those who have to pay the rates should continue to be represented not only in this matter but in all matters in which their particular interests are involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("local government electors") and insert ("ratepayers").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD SALTOUN: I only want to say one word in support of the noble Viscount. If as we understand the Minister can act on a letter from any individual concerned, then automatically he will take care to look after places with very small populations that might be unable to muster twenty-five ratepayers, the number that we ask for in this Amendment. There can be very few such places in Scotland. Moreover, what is in my mind is that it any public Department is overloaded with work the work is done worse than otherwise it would be. We are quite cantankerous people in Scotland and I am not in the least sorry that we are, for thus it is quite easy to muster the required number of people on any matter about which they feel concern. I do think that the noble Viscount's Amendment is a desirable one.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is one which I think my noble friend is quite aware I cannot possibly accept. It would have precisely the

913
same effect that the previous Amendment was intended to have. Instead of ten local government electors he proposes to have ten ratepayers. In small areas, whereas it would be easy to find ten electors, it might be difficult to find ten ratepayers. Let me remind my noble friend of something else. The housewife is, I understand, normally an elector but not a ratepayer, so that she would be in point of fact cut out from making her plea to the Minister although she would be more concerned than her husband in a piped water supply. Honestly I think my noble friend should withdraw the Amendment. If anything it is worse than the previous one.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am sorry that my noble friend has such a poor opinion of these two Amendments. They are Amendments which have been very carefully considered by quite intelligent people in Scotland and therefore I think he might have treated them with a little more seriousness and consideration. However, I do not think they are Amendments that I can press and therefore I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Sewerage, sewage disposal and water supply expenses to be general expenses.
6. Notwithstanding anything in Section three hundred and eight of the Public Health Act, 1936, all expenses incurred (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by a rural district council in connexion with sewers or sewage disposal works or a supply of water shall, in so far as they fall to be defrayed out of rates made in respect of periods beginning after the end of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, be general expenses.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved to leave out "with sewers or sewerage disposal works or." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to exclude from a general rate sewers or sewage disposal works. I am aware that my noble friend, in reply to my remarks on the Second Reading of the Bill, gave a most persuasive and well-informed answer which would normally put me out of court completely, but I am still unrepentant on the duper issues which are involved. Water-borne sewage and sewage disposal works, where there is difficulty in connecting with the mains outlying farms
914
and cottages, are not only expensive but also wasteful both of water and good fertilizer, and the system is very often extremely unhygienic, as I have explained before.
There are three very serious objections. The two Amendments which have just been withdrawn by the noble Viscount have gone to point the moral which I wish to draw. Unfortunately, the householders in this country are by no means all ratepayers and I doubt very much if we shall ever get a reasonable, far-sighted democracy until they are ratepayers responsible for what they are asking for. The vast majority of rural householders and local voters are not ratepayers. In the second place, rural district councils—I say it not in any disparagement—are largely composed of men who have retired from various services or from work in the city and want to give some public service. They very rarely understand the full implications of rural life and the difficulties and expenses of people who live there. Those councils have as officers men who are imbued with urban minds, who have received an urban education and whose whole desire, very often, is to be able to prove that they have produced the largest and most expensive scheme possible in the poorest and most desolate area. On the other hand, a great many rural districts have a substantial semi-urban majority with a sewerage scheme which they would like to extend.
Finally, the majority are ignorant of the fact that rural building is always more expensive. Because of the difficulty of siting and the cost of taking the materials to the works the builder's estimate is always higher, and an addition to the cost on account of water supply and electricity supply will fall very heavily on a rural housing scheme. If on top of all this you have a new rural sewerage system and sewage disposal work, where possibly half the inhabitants will get no benefit, the additional capital cost of a housing scheme may make a difference of 10s. a week in rent and add 2S. in rates. That will be extremely onerous. I say quite frankly that I do not expect that the noble Earl will accept my Amendment. I would be quite content if I could have some assurance that where houses and cottages cannot be connected to sewerage schemes their rating will be on an entirely different scale. I think the same differen-

915
tiation should apply in the case of water. If an owner-occupier or a cottage owner has to provide expensive disposal works himself, it is only fair that he should be rated accordingly on a lower scale compared with those who have the benefit of being connected with sewage disposal works.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 45, leave out ("with sewers or sewerage disposal works or")—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am afraid it will not be possible for me to accept this Amendment. At the same time I would say that I am not at all certain that I do not observe an ultimate object behind the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved—namely, an endeavour to discourage the provision of public sewers altogether in rural districts. I told him on Second Reading that the provision of new houses in a parish by a local authority is a district charge and not a parish charge. If that is right, (and I maintain and I think all your Lordships will agree that it is correct), there is, as far as I can see, no good ground for different treatment in the case of services which are often less parochial than the provision of houses. If, as I fear, his object is to hinder the process of spreading sewerage expenses over a rural district as a whole, I think it really will not work. Since 1929 rural district councils have been free to do the spreading themselves and a very large number in fact have already done so. They have done it with the encouragement of the Rural District Councils Association and of my right honourable friend. All that this clause does is to turn into an obligation what is in fact a growing practice of the more enlightenend rural district councils.
I cannot help thinking that public opinion calls for a piped water supply wherever possible and when the piped water supply has been installed a water carriage system of sanitation would normally go with it. What I feel is needed in the provision of sewerage facilities is that in a particular area the matter should be gone into on the facts of the particular case with due regard to economy. As to the rating of cottages, obviously I cannot give an answer to my noble friend to-day. I will certainly convey his remarks to my right honourable friend, but
916
I cannot say that he will be able to accept the suggestion. I know how keenly the noble Earl feels on this matter, but I hope that in view of what I have said he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In view of my noble friend's agreeing to bring the point about lower rating assessment before the authorities, I would wish to withdraw my Amendment. But I would like to say that I have already seen the general rate spread for water sewerage causing considerable injustice and extreme inconvenience to a good many people. But what I am most concerned about is to have built the requisite houses suitable for our own country people in the quickest possible time. I want to see houses of the best possible type put up, and I want nothing to hinder their erection and use, neither enormous capital outlay nor subsequent heavy expenditure for upkeep. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

STALAG LUFT III.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had given Notice that he would call attention to the massacre of fifty officers at Stalag Luft III, and propose measures which will both ensure retribution and provide a safeguard against further atrocities. The noble Lord said: My Lords, so much water has flowed under the bridges that it may possibly have been forgotten that on May 25 I made a speech in this House in which I described the killing of these fifty air officers as cold-blooded butchery. I added that this would be followed by a lying report from the German Government, and that I would decline in advance to accept one single word of it. That was a statement which brought me several reproaches from various Germanophiles. But that was exactly the position we were led to on June 23 when exactly that point of view was adopted. It was perfectly correct that it was unnecessary to wait for the German report. The modern German really is a little like the new terror weapon, the pilotless bomb—

917
you can usually tell pretty well which way he is going. Indeed I think that this newest engine of destruction is in many respects a replica of the modern German soul.
This report has been received and the Secretary of State on June 23 made a statement in the House of Commons of which I fully approve. He stated that the culprits would be punished. Well and good. Of course we expected no less. But how? There is the rub. It is a very difficult question to answer and I do not think it can be answered at all unless your Lordships are prepared to adopt some such proposals as those which I will propound to you to-day. It has been sail that the punishment will take place, but before you consider the answer to the question I put I would ask you to remember for a minute what happened after the end of the last war. The first German world war was hardly over when the new German Republic, the German people, made it very manifest, with a unanimity which was frequently proclaimed at the time and never challenged, that they were not going to allow the war criminals to be punished. At first sight you might have thought this attitude rather strange when applied to the case of a man like General Stenger, who had butchered not fifty but literally thousands of prisoners in cold blood. And it may well be that the General was no worse than his colleagues General von Billow and General von der Goltz, whose barbarous proclamations are still available for anyone who wants to read them. And you might have thought it strange that the German people, including the German women, should have been so anxious to protect those German submarine commanders who had butchered women and children as well in lifeboats. If anyone was surprised at that he little knew the heart of Germany. You might as well expect to find a shilling under a stone as expect justice from a German. As we have learnt from experience the German heart is a stone.
So it was that far from being executed these war criminals were turned into something like national heroes. They were adulated and be-laurelled. I for one will never forget the flowers that were strewn in the path of that bullet-headed old reactionary Marshal von Hindenberg when he made it clear to the people of
918
Germany at the time of the last German Republic that he was going to interfere with the course of justice. I think the sin on our part was that we asked for such a short list of criminals in the last war. There were hundreds and thousands of Germans who deserved to be punished for their crimes, but we whittled away the list until we had got it down to a score or so, and even that score we did not get. I beg your Lordships to remember that, because this time we shall be asking for scores of thousands not scores. By that you may measure the magnitude of our task.
Out of that there arises another fact which has a very distinct bearing on our problem. The first act of the united people, of the German Republic, was to cast the mantle of their protection over the very worst specimens of the old régime of which they had professed themselves so anxious to be rid. By that again you may measure the value of the alleged German change of heart. That is a problem which we have to consider very closely now. We, at this time, are naturally determined not to be cheated again. But we are most certainly going to be cheated, and justice will be cheated unless we begin to think ahead, and I propose that we should begin to think ahead to-day. The German people will in all probability deal rather roughly with some of the men who have been cruel to them at home. But for those who have been cruel to their neighbours abroad they will have nothing but the old admiration which was manifested after the last war. Unless we are very careful the real culprits will again be covered by national connivance.
We are told that this crime has been committed by the Gestapo. It is quite true that it was. They are the immediate culprits but behind them remain the ultimate culprits who are an even more pernicious body of men. I will therefore begin by dealing with the immediate culprits and take the ultimate ones last. I think it will not be disputed that practically every member of the Gestapo is a guilty man, that his life is forfeit an hundredfold. I have pointed out in previous speeches in this House—twice in successive years—that we are going to have even less chance of getting a reformed Germany and an habitable Europe if we leave in existence an even

919
greater number of thugs, hooligans and sadists than after the last war. It must further be remembered that every member of this force has gone into it of his own free will; there has been no compulsion. According to German standards it is a corps d'élite The first thing that I ask to-day, therefore, is that His Majesty's Government should approach the Allied Governments and ask them to agree to the entire Gestapo being put on the proscribed list; in other words, to agree to bring to trial every member of it on whom we can lay hands. I venture to think that His Majesty's Government will find very little difficulty in obtaining the assent of the Allies, who have suffered so much from these people.
Even so, we shall not be able to lay hands on very many unless we are prepared to adopt the further methods which I will now describe. Secondly, therefore, by "unconditional surrender" I understand what I think that every plain man understands, and that is that when the Germans have had enough of being beaten they will surrender, and they will be told the terms afterwards and not beforehand. However, there will be no disadvantage whatever, and in fact very considerable advantage, in making known, on an occasion like this, something of what we shall require, and of what we must require if we are to have retribution visited on the right people, and an orderly Europe. We must let it be known to the German Generals that there will be no cessation of hostilities until they have handed over, or are ready to hand over, a substantial portion of the Gestapo as an instalment.
What do I mean by "an instalment"? I will explain that. I calculate that in France, for example, about 30,000 members of the Gestapo have probably been employed. The same will hold good for Poland and for the parts of Russia which were once occupied. There are, of course, many other overrun countries which are smaller in size, and have therefore required fewer of these atrocious people. If we are to take an overall figure, and include in it the Gestapo employed in Germany, it would be unsafe to calculate on the basis of a smaller figure than about 200,000. The demand which I put forward to-day is essentially a moderate one. I would ask, as a condition of the cessation of hostilities, that one-quarter of
920
that number should be handed over—not to us but to the Allies corporately. Since we have not been invaded we shall be concerned only with a small portion of these people, but included in that comprehensive instalment would certainly be all those responsible for the crimes committed against our men. This is what I think should be done with that instalment; they should be put in prison camps until the Allies have had time to decide which of them will be executed and which deported to some place such as Devil's Island or some South Sea atoll. The one thing which is absolutely essential is that none of them should ever set foot in Europe again. I think everybody who means business will agree with that.
I have accounted for a quarter of them. We shall have to look after the other three-quarters. We must get rid of as many of them as possible if we are sincere in looking forward to a settled Europe, and therefore, thirdly, I propose that the Allied Governments should declare the Gestapo to be outlawed—in their own language, Vogelfrei, fair game for anyone. If you will do these things you will find that you will get a large crop of denunciations and identifications, which you will never otherwise obtain, and not only in occupied territories but from Germany itself. If you do not show now that you mean business you cannot expect denunciations and identifications from anyone, when he will have reason to believe that the vast bulk of the satanic colleagues of these people are left at liberty.
You can go further with this process of sanitation, denunciation and identification by the fourth measure which I propose, and that is that you should declare, either to-day or as soon as you possibly can, that as soon as we get into Germany we are going to set up inter-Allied military tribunals all over the country, which will deal with the Gestapo and kindred bodies by summary procedure. If you do not do these things or their equivalent, I predict that you will not get one per cent. of the real culprits. In that case all the brave words of His Majesty's Government will once again become as tinkling brass and sounding cymbals, and we shall be "had" again as we were after the last war. Moreover, all prospects of European security will be frustrated at birth; and anybody who is prepared to contemplate that possibility is himself a war criminal.
I now come to the ultimate culprits, and here I make my fifth proposal. The German General Staff are in this up to the neck. I think your Lordships will remember that ever since I have been a member of this House I have been a persistent critic of our broadcasting to Germany; but on June 24, the day after the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke, there were two excellent broadcasts to Germany, in which we said that the General Staff were guilty, and we added, to my great satisfaction, that we were going to punish not only the guilty officers but the guilty men. That is excellent, but it is not specific enough. Experience has taught us that in dealing with Germans it is not the least good threatening generally or vaguely; you have to he specific, and you have to give it a name. I am going to give it a name. I propose that to-day we should declare our intention of bringing to trial every member of the German General Staff who at the time of the crime had any connexion whatever with prisoners-of-war matters. I do not think that anyone can challenge the justice of that demand.
I want to go one step further, and to say that we must also engage to bring to trial all those who held positions of military importance and responsibility in the Wehrkreis district at the time of the commission of the crime and, as I said on May 25, that will also include the head of Stalag Luft III and his assistants. All these are guilty men; they have all been conniving with the Gestapo. Never at any period in this war has it been possible for the Gestapo to take action of this sort without the authorization and connivance of the General Staff and the Army generally. I should like to say here with what great satisfaction I hailed the excellent speech made on July 6 by the Minister of Information. On that ocasion he was dealing with the wholesale massacre of Jews from Hungary in the suffocation camp of Auschwitz, and he then said that the General Staff were deeply involved in this. He was quite right; they are the real culprits for everything that has happened to afflict humanity for generations past. Mr. Brendan Bracken indicated that they will all be brought to trial, and I hope that he will insist on that.
He also said something further which I am sure will be highly unwelcome to the
922
right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, when he said that the German nation is responsible also for what is happening. Dead right too!
If your Lordships will bear with me a little longer I think you should listen patiently to what I say to-day because you owe the ensemble of these measures not only to the Europe of the future but to all prisoners of war of any nationality still in German hands. If you will take the advice, the urgent advice, that I press upon you to-day you will find two things happen. You will find that because the Gestapo know well enough that the game is nearly up and that the doom of the Third Reich has struck—and incidentally I hope that we shall also strike out of the German vocabulary the word "Reich": the word "State" is good enough for the future—because they know the game is up and know also what is coming to them, if you make it manifest to-day what is coming to them a good many of them in these last crucial, vital weeks and months will stay off the job and go underground, and I prefer them underground until we come to smoke them out. Of those that stay on the top a fair proportion will be interested in constructing twelfth-hour dossiers of good behaviour for submission to the Inter-Allied tribunals which are going to try them for their misdeeds, and I need not emphasize the infinite gain from the point of view of all prisoners of war.
I do not think you can do less than what I have proposed to-day. I hope you will adopt that point of view because it is in deadly earnest that I am putting this forward to-day. I am hoping to receive from the Government a declaration that the Gestapo are really going to be extirpated, eliminated altogether, and I am hoping also that I shall receive from them a declaration that the General Staff, the ultimate culprits, are going to be dealt with with equal severity. I hope that nobody in this assembly will waste a scruple, let alone a tear, upon the Gestapo. Their epitaph was written generations ago by Sir William Gilbert, when he said: "I am happy to think that there will be no difficulty whatever in finding plenty of people whose loss will be a distinct gain to society at large." If you are firm you will have no difficulty in finding plenty of such people in Germany, but if you are not firm you will find next to none.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, in calling attention to the massacre of the R.A.F. officers the noble Lord proposes measures designed both to ensure retribution and to provide safeguards against further atrocities in the future. The murder is a terrible murder and the noble Lord's strongest words, like Mr. Eden's strongest words, are not too strong to express the British detestation of an abominable crime committed against brave and honourable men in cold blood. But the noble Lord's measures are not calculated to promote the interests of British or Allied prisoners of war, as I shall endeavour to show, or to advance the ideals of our own country; and I am bound to add that had the noble Lord shown a more statesmanlike attitude on other occasions, and had his words, both printed and spoken, been less unremittingly violent, his proposals for dealing with this occasion would have carried a good deal greater weight.
I say first that the noble Lord's proposals are not conceived in the interests of British prisoners of war or in the interests of all prisoners of war, of whose cause he seems to claim to be the champion. The Foreign Secretary said in another place than this mass shooting was an individual occasion and that the Government had no knowledge of any other. The Foreign Secretary quoted the official Nazi version, which the noble Lord repudiated in advance before reading it. The official Nazi version—and this is a point of great importance which has not been sufficiently recognized in discussion—said that internal security questions in Germany itself were involved. It sought to justify the Gestapo because it said there was some connexion between opposition groups within Germany and prisoners of war, and the official German Note states that in March there were mass escapes of prisoners of war from camps throughout Germany, involving several thousands of prisoners, systematically prepared by the General Staffs of the Allies, with both political and military objectives. This statement, whatever significance may be attached to it by the noble Lord, is in line with reports from other sources as to contacts within Germany between Germans and prisoners of war of different nationalities.
There are reports well authenticated of fraternization between German workers in the Rhineland and in the Ruhr and,
924
still more, between German peasants and prisoners of war, and I should like to quote a report from East Prussia in March of this year—the same month—when an innkeeper was sentenced to death by the People's Court at Konigsberg because in the presence of prisoners of war and German guests he had undermined the armed strength of the nation and helped the enemy by making an appeal for resistance to the régime. There is a still further interesting illustration of collaboration between the French resistance movement and the German resistance given by a French officer who had escaped to Switzerland. It was reported in a Swiss paper that the French resistance movement was organized among millions of French prisoners of war and forced labourers inside Germany, and that this organization of the French resistance would have been impossible without the aid of the German resistance.
In addition to this there is plenty of evidence that escaping prisoners of war have been assisted by members of the German population, that Nazi newspapers have been exhorting ordinary citizens to give up prisoners of war to whom they have given shelter, to avoid giving them food and shelter, and to inform the police about doubtful figures. There was a very recent illustration of these orders in the instructions given by a Gauleiter at Bayreuth. It would be very hard on would-be escapees and on the prisoners, British or Allied, who are still in Germany if the efforts of a section of the German population were to be denounced by spokesmen here. I claim that the attitude of the British Government as stated by the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right. This is an odious but an individual crime committed, as the noble Lord has affirmed, by the Gestapo superseding Army authority and Army responsibility after such supersession. The question of the legal responsibility of the Army authority is, at any rate, open to doubt. His Majesty's Government's policy is that the foul criminals responsible for this cold-blooded act of butchery should be tracked down to the last man and brought to exemplary justice. It is surely all the more regrettable that the noble Lord should attempt to abandon this ground and—I would ask your Lordships' special attention to this point—should give the Nazi authorities a pretext for exchanging the Army guards and the Army responsibility for those of

925
the secret police. This is what the noble Lord's Motion would imply.
LORD VANSITTART: Does the right reverend Prelate deny the overriding authority of the German General Staff? Because if he does so, it shows he knows singularly little of the German Army. I ask for a straightforward reply: Does he or does he not deny that, which is what he is seeking to do?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: The question is open to doubt.
LORD VANSITTART: On what ground does the right reverend Prelate doubt it?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: It is a matter that cannot be gone into except by a tribunal—
A NOBLE LORD: After you are dead!
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: After victory is won. It is all the stranger and mote regrettable that the noble Lord should adopt this attitude, involving this risk for the prisoners of war, since he is the President of the Association of Relatives of Prisoners of War. How many parents, how many wives, I wonder, from the shelter of this free country, would advocate that their relatives in German hands might just as well be handed over to the Gestapo as remain under their present custody? That is the issue which the noble Lord raises, and in raising such an issue he is no friend of the British or the Allied prisoners of war.
LORD VANSITTART: That is a little more than I am prepared to stand even from the right reverend Prelate. I have pride in being President of the Relatives' Association. I was proposing measures to-day which would mitigate the risks to which the prisoners are going to be exposed Out of the blue comes the right reverend Prelate and, with his one hundred per cent. Germanophile views, takes exactly the opposite line, and pretends that there is nothing to be done. That is the worst possible way of protecting prisoners of war, and it is a very fair example of endeavouring to hit below the belt.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I do not think the noble Lord can have quite envisaged the effect of his attack on the German General Staff and the Gestapo in one and the same breath, or
926
could have imagined the effect in Germany on the prisoners of war if measures such as those he suggests were to be carried out. They are not in my opinion in the interests of prisoners of war. There is another substantial reason for disagreeing with the noble Lord's proposals. They are not calculated to advance the ideals of this country. This fearful crime has to be viewed in the framework of the German situation as a whole. It is one of a series covering a long period against innumerable innocent victims. Read the Polish Black Book of three years ago. Read the account of the deportation of German Jews last year. Read the account in the last few weeks of the transport of Jewish children from Hungary in their thousands, in crowded trains, and in circumstance of pitiless cruelty. Ask the exiles from the Allied countries what they have suffered. Ask the German victims of the Nazi concentration camps who are in America or in this country. They are all fruit of the same ruthlessness and the same mockery of law and justice of which these fifty British officers are the latest victims. The Foreign Secretary was surely right in calling very particular attention to the fact that this crime, like the other crimes, is the crime of the Gestapo, those gangster criminals employed by Hitler and Himmler who are the authorized executors of the vilest principles of the Nazi way of life.
I would emphasize this point, for it has a very real bearing on the attitude which British people ought to adopt. Last Tuesday the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, drew a contrast between Hitler's and the British way of life. This war is a war of rival ways of life, rival religions, and the real issue is which is to prevail. It would be fatal at this stage of the war if we were to allow any climax of Nazi brutality to induce us to abandon the principles to which we have pledged our allegiance. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in Black Record, after enumerating a number of bestialities committed by Germany in the present war, says:
"To do all these things that no Briton could or would do the Nazis find a large supply of cold-blooded young barbarians who are not only willing to do them but revel in doing them."
The noble Lord is right both in what he said about the Nazis and in what he said

927
no Briton could or would do. At all costs we must stand by law, as the Foreign Secretary stands by law, and with any measures which confuse the criminal with the non-criminal, which savour of proscription—and the noble Lord used that word—and are directed against a whole community, we should have nothing to do. As to retribution, we should in no way depart from the Foreign Secretary's policy of fixing retribution on those who are responsible for the crime. As to safeguards, the best safeguard against further atrocities of any kind is to end the wild ungoverned Nazi system as victory will end it.
I have spoken of principles. If I were disposed to pay regard to drier and colder maxims of policy I would add this. To speak now of retribution in this large-scale indiscriminate fashion, apart from the punishment to be visited on individuals proved guilty of stated crimes, would be to prolong the war, to increase man's suffering, and to add to the havoc of Europe and the world. The Gestapo know, and Hitler and Himmler know, that there is no hope for them after victory. Their whole purpose at this hour of imminent catastrophe is to persuade the German people that there is no hope for them either and that their only chance of survival is to rally one and all around the Führer. The diplomatic correspondent of The Times of July 8 describes in calm, objective words the ever-present fears of the German people, their fear of the Gestapo, their fear of defeat, their fear of what will follow after defeat and the determination of the Nazi leaders to increase those fears by word and by deed. Tell them that the Allies are intent on measures of this kind and you will unite the responsible leaders, the Nazi leaders, with what Hitler calls the great stupid flock of sheep-hearted people in a desperate struggle for life. Tell them that the criminal system of militarism, focused in Hitler and Himmler and the Gestapo and the Nazis, must be destroyed, but that there is a hope for a Germany purged from these horrors, and you will meet that within the German people which longs for an end of war's agonies and you will slacken the will to fight.
It is right to tell Germany, as she groans in misery, that she is the victim of her own crimes. I do not differ very much in principle from what the noble Lord said
928
about that. It is right to bid Germany ask pardon of God and man for the calamities which she has brought on herself and others. But it is also right to make it plain that our aim is not to exterminate all the German people, but to overthrow a monstrous tyranny which seeks to dominate the world, to ensure security for the future and to fasten the punishment on the individual guilty perpetrators, however many they be, of proved crimes by process of law. For these reasons—first, that such measures as the noble Lord proposes will recoil on the prisoners of war in Germany itself; second, that they are inconsistent with British ideals; third, that they are calculated to rally all Germans in a last desperate struggle under Hitler and to prolong war's sufferings—I hope that His Majesty's Government will have nothing to do with the noble Lord's proposal.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I wish in a very few sentences to reinforce what has been said this afternoon concerning the complicity of the German General Staff and of German officers in the war crimes of Germany. In regard to the particular incident which is being considered this afternoon, these men who were shot while in the care of the Commandant of the camp, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that, speaking of the captives taken after one of his victories, Nelson said, "When they became my prisoners they became my guests." Surely that is the spirit which should inform the actions of any officer in charge of prisoners of war. But I have seen no explanation whatever of the action of the Commandant of this camp when his functions were usurped by the Gestapo. I have read of no protest which he has made. I have read of no protests made by the German General Staff of the functions of this Commandant being usurped by the Gestapo. For these reasons I do not see how either the Commandant or the German General Staff can possibly be absolved from complicity in this murder.
It confirms my view also that we should begin to repudiate and contest, wherever it is found, this extraordinary legend about the German General Staff and about the officers of the Wehrmacht that they are an honourable body of men, admirable for their professional qualities. I think in some cases far too much honour has been paid to some of

929
these German officers who have been taken prisoner. I have no doubt that that is due to a mistaken sense of chivalry, but I repeat, I think too much honour has been paid them. After all, what are the actions of these officers of each branch of the Wehrmacht? General von Kluge, now Commander-in-Chief on the Western Front, is on the Russian list of war criminals, and we know quite well that the German Army in Russia were accomplices in the appalling and abominable crimes committed on the Russian people. Then take the Navy. What inhumanities and brutalities have commanders of U-Boats committed on officers and men of the Merchant Navy turned adrift hundreds of miles from land in all weathers, mocked and laughed at and dended by officers of U-boats. And the officers of the Luftwaffe have not even hesitated to machine-gun the crews of lifesaving ships. Those are specimens of the things which the officers of each branch of the Wehrmacht do.
I will say nothing this afternoon about what we should say as to our intentions with regard to the trials of war criminals. A statement has been made on behalf of the Government by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack of our intentions. Repetition is not always emphasis and it is for the Government to decide upon the new statement of our intentions with regard to war criminals and whether such a statements appropriate at this time or not. But I hope the noble Viscount who is to reply may find it possible to make clear that His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever of distinguishing between the German General Staff and the officers of the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo and the S.S. in this matter of the trial of war criminals, and that it will be made clear that those officers cannot possibly be dissociated in our minds from Himmler and his minions.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, this is a terribly serious matter and I wish that Lord Vansittart had tabled a Motion much more in the form of a demand upon the Government of the day that they should deal with this affair. The murder of these officers is not the only thing we have to be concerned about. We have heard of cases, and I have had cases in my own family, of bloody murder. It seems to me that unless we take a very determined and
930
bold stand on this matter many of the criminals will escape punishment, as they did in the last war. I hope and trust that when the end of this war does come the surrender of these war criminals will be part of the demands made on the Germans. That must be done at the time of the Armistice. It is no good waiting, as after the last war, for a Peace Treaty. One of the first things to be dealt with is the punishment of these war criminals. They must be dealt with, not by courts of law, but by military courts composed of officers who know what has been going on during the war with Germany. The Germans in war have proved themselves to be outside the pale of civilization. They have committed atrocities, offences against the laws of war, and the only courts before which they can be suitably dealt with are courts of military justice.
Germany will be under military law, I hope, during the early stages of occupation, and we can trust our officers who may be sitting on military courts to adjudicate in all fairness in the cases that come before them. I feel sure that this country and the various families concerned will demand that speedy justice be done in this matter. I strongly support all that my noble friend Lord Vansittart has said. Having had a considerable experience after the last war in Germany, I am of opinion that the only way in which you can deal with these brutes is to bring them before a military court on which all arms must be represented. It is all very well to say that we will have legal courts. They are too slow and too far away from the atrocities that have been committed. I hope the Government will give an assurance that they are determined to deal with this matter quickly immediately after the Armistice and see that these criminals are brought before military courts.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I am quite certain that there is no noble Lord in any quarter of the House who would not endorse to the full the solemn and moving indictment delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, against those responsible for the brutal murders to which his question refers. It might have been thought that, after four years of the type of war we have been enduring, we might have become callous to horrors.

931
But the cold-blooded slaughter of young airmen who had committed no fault at all but to fight fearlessly and single-mindedly for their country is a crime which, in my view, and I am certain in the view of your Lordships' House, stains indelibly the honour not only of those primarily concerned but of the German Army and the German people. It has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, said, a degradation of those military virtues which it has been supposed in some quarters that the German nation still possess.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, while fully concurring in his speech with all that Lord Vansittart said with regard to the crime itself, attempted, I thought, too strictly to limit the responsibility for this crime. While we all recognize the passionate sincerity with which the right reverend Prelate speaks, I could not find myself in agreement with what he said on this occasion. There is no one, I am quite certain, in this country, from Lord Vansittart downwards, who wishes to condemn the innocent, but I cannot feel that, though there are certain people who are most directly and immediately responsible for these crimes, either the military authorities or the German people can be held entirely free from blame. They have allowed this odious Nazi system to be set up and they are fighting to-day wth fanatical zeal to keep it in power. If they want to see the end of Nazism the remedy is in their own hands. While they continue to support Hitler they must share the responsibility for the crimes committed in his name. It has been said that every nation gets the Government it deserves. It seem to me that the responsibility of the German people in this respect is a very heavy one. It is no good ignoring that fact. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we must punish the guilty and not the innocent. But we must not delude ourselves as to where the guilt lies, and I could not myself draw such narrow limits as have been drawn to-day by the right reverend Prelate.
In his statement in the House of Commons on June 23 this year, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary explained the facts of this terrible story which led His Majesty's Government to the inescapable conclusion that fifty
932
officers who were prisoners of war in Stalag Luft III were murdered, after removal from the camp, at some unidentified place or places, at some date or dates unknown. He recorded the solemn protest of His Majesty's Government against these cold-blooded acts of butchery and he declared that His Majesty's Government would never cease their efforts to collect evidence to identify all those who are responsible. My right honourable friend added that His Majesty's Government are firmly resolved that these foul criminals should be tracked down to the last man wherever they take refuge when the war is over and brought to exemplary justice. Your Lordships will have noticed that in a further statement in another place yesterday the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs slightly elaborated that statement and said that this resolve of His Majesty's Government to track down and bring to exemplary justice the perpetrators of such crimes applies to all, of whatever rank and whether or not they are members of the Armed Forces, who are responsible for the crime either as instigators or as actual perpetrators. I think that is a perfectly clear statement.
It is, I hope, evident from the statements to which I have referred that His Majesty's Government are in the fullest agreement with the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, both to ensure retribution for this particular crime and to provide safeguards against further atrocities of the same kind. The noble Lord in his speech to your Lordships put forward certain proposals as to possible ways by which these objects, which we all hold in common, may be achieved. I would like to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we welcome all such proposals and assure him that we will take full account of them in discussing with our Allies the large and important issues that they raise. He will, of course, recognize that I cannot at this stage commit either His Majesty's Government or the Allies. I speak only for one Government of the great company of United Nations. We must come to united decisions. But I would make one or two brief and preliminary observations upon the noble Lord's proposals.
I understood him to suggest that no unconditional surrender should be accepted from, and no truce granted to,

933
the German Government which did not ensure the immediate handing over of a substantial proportion of the members of the Gestapo. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that it is no part of the intention of His Majesty's Government, when Germany surrenders, unconditionally, as she will, to leave the Gestapo free. On the contrary, we intend to root out utterly the whole of that devilish organization. It is our firm intention that those who are responsible for these crimes shall pay the full penalty for them, and, personally, I shall be very glad to see the handing over of a substantial proportion of these odious men. I am not quite sure if I was right in understanding that the noble Lord's proposal goes rather further than that, and that he suggests, with a view to encouraging further denunciations and identifications of its members, that the Gestapo should here and now be de-dared an outlawed body. As I understand it what he has in mind is this: that after the United Nations have issued a declaration to this effect, anyone who kills a member of the Gestapo should be able to do so without any danger of suffering any legal penalty for having committed that act. The House will appreciate that this proposal—and I say this in no spirit of criticism—is one of an extremely drastic character, and it contains very far-reaching implications. It will be necessary to weigh this proposal very carefully in the balance as to the results which are likely to accrue from it. That, however: is an aspect of the matter which it is neither necessary nor desirable that I should go into in great detail this afternoon. Clearly, I could not commit His Majesty' Government or our Allies at the present stage. But the noble Lord may rest assured that his proposal will be most carefully examined with a view to any international discussions that may take place. And the same applies to his other proposal with regard to the setting up of military courts.
Finally, the noble Lord implied, if he did not actually say so, that he wished
934
His Majesty's Government to make clear, in broadcasts or by any other methods, to Germany, their determination, and the determination of the United Nations, to bring to trial all members of the German General Staff who held appointments, or were connected with the treatment of prisoners of war, at the time of the crime, and also all military authorities in the military districts concerned at the time of the crime, including the Commandant of the camp and his assistants. My Lords, on this point let me make the position of His Majesty's Government once more quite clear, if there remains any doubt. It is our firm intention that all who are responsible for this crime, and all who have connived at it, whether they be military authorities or others, shall be pursued and brought to exemplary justice. And we shall make this clear to the German people by any and every means in our power, in order that they may be in no doubt as to what will be the fate of those, whoever they may be, whether they be high or low, who lend themselves, either as principals or agents, to the commission of these abominable crimes.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of subsection (1) of Section eleven of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, praying that the said Act as amended by any subsequent enactment be continued in force for a further period of one year beginning with the twenty-fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-four.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned.