Sitting of 29 May 1945

Preamble
The House met—after the Adjournment, on 18th May, 1945, for the Whitsuntide Recess—at a Quarter past Two o'Clock.

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of John William Banfield, Esquire, Member for the Borough of Wednesbury, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)
Mr. Bowles: I beg to ask leave to present to the House, on behalf of certain of my constituents, namely, those resident in the rural district of Arley whom it is proposed to transfer to the new Division of Sutton Coldfield, a humble Petition protesting against the proposed transfer, on the grounds that there is a community of interest existing between these people and the municipal borough of Nuneaton
2
touching secondary education, petty sessions, shopping, trading, entertainment and convenience of travel.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL INDUSTRY

    Output
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the concern among the general public regarding the coal situation; and whether he is considering the complete overhaul of the coal industry at the earliest opportunity with a view to allaying these misgivings and producing the necessary volume of coal.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Yes, Sir.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that the reduction in their small meat ration has caused the physical fitness of the miners

    3
    to be less than it was four years ago, and will he consider this and all relevant matters with a view to allaying the serious misgivings which are felt in all parts of the country?

    Domestic Coal (Consumption and Cost)
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the average weekly consumption of coal by a man and wife who have no alternative system of heating or cooking; and what would be the increased cost due to the recent rise in coal prices.
    Major Lloyd George: In the present coal year, maximum deliveries would permit average weekly coal consumption of a small family with no alternative means of heating and cooking to be just over 1 cwt. The recent increase in coal prices applied to this quantity amounts to 2d.–2½d. per week.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: Will the Minister explain how a rise of 3s. 6d. a ton becomes 2d. a cwt.?
    Major Lloyd George: After a rise in prices we generally take it to the nearest halfpenny. In some cases it is taken to the upper level and in other cases to the lower level.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: Why does the Minister take the lowest figure?
    Major Lloyd George: We do not invariably.

    Allocation (North of England)
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider amending his Ministry's advertisements that the maximum permitted quantity of coal in the North of England is one ton whereas in practice coal is allocated to merchants on the basis of 15 cwts. per customer and the full allocation is not always received, in view of the anxiety to coal dealers caused by these advertisements.
    Major Lloyd George: As I announced in this House on 26th April, the basis of the restrictions has been altered and the quantities obtainable without licence have been materially reduced. The North of England maximum for the 12 months ending 30th April next is 50 cwt., of which not more than 10 cwt. may be obtained in each of the three-month summer
    4
    periods May-July and August-October, and not more than 10 cwt. in each winter period of two months. The advertisements now appearing already embody this change.

    German Prisoners of War
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many of the 1,000 German prisoners of war in this country who are miners have started work in British coal mines.
    Major Lloyd George: None, Sir.
    Sir W. Wakefield: When are these prisoners of war going to start work to help to overcome the shortage of coal?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot say anything more than that the matter is still under discussion together with the whole question of the employment of prisoners of war in this country.
    Mr. Tinker: Could they not be put into employment in open-cast mining where there would be no danger to underground miners.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the Minister employ our own British miners who are in the Army?
    Major Lloyd George: This matter is still under consideration. I would remind my hon. Friends that we can utilise some of these people to extract coal in Germany, which will be of great assistance to us here, because of the question of supplying S.H.A.E.F. and other sources.

    Supplies, Birkenhead (Quality)
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that considerable quantities of outcrop coal, containing a large proportion of rock, are reaching Birkenhead and district for domestic consumption; and whether he will make arrangements to stop this hardship.
    Major Lloyd George: Only a vey small proportion of house coal allocated to Birkenhead comes from opencast sites. A few complaints have been received about the quality of this coal but on investigation these were found to be unjustified. A special examination was, however, made of the opencast sites and it was found that the screening operations at one site were unsatisfactory. Steps have been taken to remedy this.

  PETROL

    Motor Coaches
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider increasing petrol facilities to enable private-hire motor-coaches and omnibuses to take parties of workers for outings and excursions into the country or to places of interest this coming summer.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr, Peter Thorneycroft): I have been asked to reply. It is my Noble Friend's intention that road passenger services should be improved to the extent that the man-power available will allow; but as my hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree, it is necessary first to concentrate on the strengthening of the existing scheduled services, on the restoration of Sunday morning services and on the provision of services later in the evening. I regret I cannot yet say when it will be possible to allow additional facilities for private trips or the re-introduction of excursions and tours and long distance express services, but I hope to make an announcement on the subject shortly.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, now that the basic petrol ration is being granted again to private car owners, that it would be an act of justice to give the workers who have no cars a chance to share in the brighter times that have come?
    Major Woolley: Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to trips for old people?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My Noble Friend is anxious to extend facilities as soon as possible, but my hon. Friends will bear in mind that it is not only petrol but manpower that is involved.

    Taxicab Services (Permitted Radius)
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider increasing the present permitted radius of 10 miles for single journeys allowed to those running taxicab-hire services.
    Major Lloyd George: Under the control of Motor Fuel Order signed on 18th May and coining into force on 1st June, the inner radius for private hire cars was increased from 10 to 20 miles. At the same
    6
    time the distance outside the boundary of the local authority's area within which a taxicab is permitted to operate has been increased from five miles to 10 miles.

    Basic Ration (Coupons)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will arrange for basic ration petrol coupons not to be dated but, like clothing coupons, to be valid as and when they are required.
    Major Lloyd George: Owing to considerations connected with supply and distribution. I have not yet felt able to amend the Control of Motor Fuel Order so as to permit the use of basic ration coupons in any but the month for which they are issued.
    Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give further consideration to this matter in view of the fact that it would add considerably to the value of the basic ration?
    Major Lloyd George: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I am sure he will appreciate that, in the first period when the basic ration is being restored, there is a good deal of doubt as to the demand, and we are making it possible for tins to be provided in which the petrol can be stored.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Paper Supplies (Trade and Technical Journals)
    Sir Geoffrey Manderasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make with reference to action to be taken on the memorandum addressed to him by the Council of the Trade and Technical Press, representing more than 200 trade and technical journals, with regard to the difficulties with which publishers are contending and the importance of removing these in the interests of industrial revival.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that, although supplies of paper are still extremely short, the Department of Overseas Trade has recently arranged for a substantial increase in the ration of paper for technical journals that are solely for export. I am sending the hon. Member, for his information, a copy of my predecessor's reply to the Council of the Trade and Technical

    7
    Press on those points in their memorandum which are the concern of my Department.

    Civilian Uniforms (Coupons)
    Sir Thomas Cookasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will reduce the number of coupons at present necessary for the purchase of uniforms for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I shall shortly be reviewing the coupon arrangements for all civilian uniform wearers in 1945–46, and I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Household Equipment (Exports to Eire)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that shops in Southern Ireland are fully stocked with kitchen equipment and household requirements such as electric fires, kettles and other goods urgently needed in this country which have been imported into Southern Ireland from England; and will he prohibit the further export to Southern Ireland of goods urgently needed in this country.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am making enquiries about the statement contained in my hon. Friend's Question, but recorded exports from the United Kingdom to Eire in 1944 of most of the types of goods to which my hon. Friend refers are a very small fraction of the corresponding figures in pre-war years.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Does my right hon. Friend really think that our own people should go short of these urgently needed goods for the home while there is a surplus in Southern Ireland?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am making inquiries. Until I have done so I would not at all accept what my hon. Friend says.

    Fruit Preserving Jars
    Lady Apsleyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of fruit preserving jars and that wholesale merchants are unable to obtain delivery from the glass manufacturers in time for the jam making and bottling season commencing next month; and what steps he proposes to remedy this deficiency.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Owing to the heavy demand for glass containers for food, drink and medicine during the war and the shortage of labour in the glass container industry, there has been some fall in the production of fruit preserving jars. My right hon. and gallant Friend, the Minister of Food, has, however, been able to arrange for adequate supplies of closures which enable ordinary jam jars to be used satisfactorily for bottling fruit.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very many jam jars if we could only get the fruit and the sugar?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That question should be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend.

    Ministry of Supply Depot, Barry
    Mr. Lakinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Ministry of Supply depot at Palmerston, Barry, has yet been declared surplus; and whether steps have been taken to allocate it to a new industry, particularly to the firm whose name has been mentioned to him, which is willing to extend the present structure and employ 400 men.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Ministry of Supply depot at Palmerston is being made available to assist the promotion of civilian industry in that area; and various applicants, including the one which my hon. Friend has in mind, are being considered.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR

    Nazis
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Secretary of State for War whether measures will be taken to ensure that no prisoners of war, under British control, who have shown themselves to be unrepentant and aggressive Nazis are returned to Germany free to organise anew Nazi cells and tyrannise over non-Nazi Germans, until they have given evidence of good conduct.
    Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 8th May.
    Sir S. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is causing very serious apprehension and that those who are in

    9
    touch with these unrepentant, irreconcilable Nazis view with anxiety their early return to Germany, there to revive their nefarious activities?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am completely unaware that any of these unrepentant and aggressive Nazis are being returned to Germany.

    Rations
    Mr. Frankelasked the Secretary of State for War whether German prisoners are allowed a cigarette ration; if so, how many; and whether he has made inquiries to ensure that this does not contribute to the shortage in this country.
    Sir J. Grigg: German prisoners are not given any cigarettes free. If they have enough credit they may buy up to 50 a week in their canteens at the normal commercial prices. If each one buys his full amount the total number of cigarettes involved is, I am informed, considerably less than half of one per cent. of the cigarettes smoked by civilians.
    Captain Peter Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for War, if, in view of the imminent necessity for reductions in the civilian food rations, he has any further statement to make regarding the rations to be issued to German prisoners of war in future; and how they will compare with civilian rations.
    Sir J. Grigg: In view of misunderstandings which are still prevalent I should like to repeat what I have already stated more than once in this House—that non-working German prisoners of war have never received more of the nationally rationed items of food than civilians in this country. But in view of the world wide shortage of food it has been decided that the normal scale for these prisoners held by His Majesty's Government must be further reduced, and instructions have been issued for a new scale providing approximately 2,000 calories of all items, that is irrespective of whether they are rationed for civilians in this country or not. Two thousand calories is, of course, substantially less than the average civilian consumption in this country. Suitable additions of non-rationed foods, mainly bread and potatoes, will be made to cover the minimum extra needs of working prisoners, but otherwise they will receive the same scale as non-working prisoners.
    Captain Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish figures showing the difference between the civilian rations and the rations issued to prisoners of war; and will he ensure that certain commodities such as rice which are unobtainable, are made available for civilians, because there is a great deal of feeling about it?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not think I can answer without notice the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, but I will certainly consider publishing the comparative ration scales now prevailing.
    Wing-Commander Millington: May I ask when these reductions will be brought about, in view of the reduction of the civilian ration which took place a few days ago?
    Sir J. Grigg: The instructions have already been issued.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Cannot the Secretary of State for War ask the very large number of public relations officers in his Department to get busy with the newspapers, in order that Members of Parliament might be saved the necessity of answering a very large correspondence on this subject?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider that suggestion, but I would like to add, as a sort of codicil to my hon. Friend's question, that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that all Members of Parliament are receiving a large number of letters on this subject, because his Department has failed to make the matter clear to the general public?
    Sir J. Grigg: My answer was intended to apply to certain newspapers, which continue to disseminate inaccurate information in spite of the fact that the truth has been made clear over and over again.
    Mr. Logan: Does not the Secretary of State for War think that a little courtesy would be much better?
    Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister make it clear that his remarks do not apply to—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Stephen: May I ask whether the Minister was referring to the newspaper of Lord Beaverbrook, one of his colleagues in the Government?
    Sir J. Grigg: I was not referring to the Press generally but to some elements of it.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Billeting with Germans
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that while members of the Forces in Germany have orders not to fraternise with the enemy, in some instances they have to sleep with Germans; and whether he proposes to take steps to prevent this practice.
    Sir J. Grigg: Instructions were issued by 21 Army Group in January which expressly forbid the billeting of British troops on Germans. I am not aware of any departures from this rule.
    Mr. Daggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman read a letter that I have received and consider whether the implications contained in it are correct and reliable?
    Sir J. Grigg: If the information which the hon. Member has is reasonable information and not mere gossip I shall be glad to investigate it.
    Mr. Daggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the letter, which can be accepted as being reliable, and will he treat it privately?
    Sir J. Grigg: I could not hear properly what the hon. Member said. I will certainly consider any evidence that he has which is more than mere gossip but I really cannot ask people to investigate accusations which are nothing but gossip and have no serious foundation in fact. If he will give me the letter I will consider whether it has a serious foundation in fact.
    Mr. Daggar: I take exception to the word "gossip." The letter is from a soldier who speaks on behalf not only of himself but of his colleagues, who are instructed to be billeted with Germans.
    Sir J. Grigg: If this man was so billeted it was contrary to orders given as far back as January. I hope the hon. Member will assure himself that the letter that he proposes to give me will have enough basis of fact to provide material for a serious inquiry.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to consider seriously any letter sent to him by a Member of the House?
    Sir J. Grigg: Certainly, if it has a prima facie basis of fact.
    Mr. Thomas: Is it not for the hon. Member concerned to decide and not for the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Messer: Why assume in advance that it has no basis of actual fact?
    Sir J. Grigg: I assume naturally that, prima facie, orders given in the Army are carried out.

    Absence Without Leave (Loss of Emoluments)
    Mr. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is upon the authority of his Department that an order has been issued that as from a specified date all soldiers charged with absence without leave will forfeit all post-war gratuities and other emoluments that may have accrued to them.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware of any such order. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know more precisely what he has in mind.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he would stand up and not lean on the Box we should hear him better?

    Eritrea (Administration)
    Mr. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War whether lie will take action to terminate the colour and racial discrimination now being exercised under the British military administration in Eritrea against the native people of that ex-Italian colony; and is he aware that notices forbidding the admission of Eritreans are posted outside certain restaurants, hotels, theatres, etc., and that Eritreans applying for land, export licences and permits to cut green wood are refused, although such facilities are granted to Italians.
    Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend will send me the particulars on which his Question is based inquiries will be made. From my information it appears that nearly four times as many concessions to cut wood have been granted to Eritreans as to Europeans.

    Discharge Categories
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary of State for War why men in category A1when joining the Army are now being discharged as being in BX2 with 14 days' leave, whereas others in C1 or C2 are discharged with 56 days' leave; and whether he is aware that the difference in treatment is causing dissatisfaction.
    Sir J. Grigg: Other ranks whose terminal leave on discharge begins on or after 8th May will in general receive 56 days' leave on full pay unless they are discharged on voluntary termination of full pay service, or to enter the Navy or the Air Force, or on appointment to a commission or for misconduct. This also applies to officers.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does that also apply to those who are discharged on medical grounds?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think the Question refers to people who are discharged on medical or quasi-medical grounds. Perhaps the hon. Member will study the answer in relation to the Question and, if necessary, put down another Question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wise: Is it not the case that this period of leave on full pay is intended to supplement the gratuity, in which case should not every soldier have it?
    Sir J. Grigg: I could not hear the question very well. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put it down.

    Requisitioned Premises
    Sir T. Cookasked the Secretary of State for War if he will reduce the number of hotels and other properties requisitioned in the towns of Cromer and Sheringham.
    Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now inform the House of the result of his inquiries as to the possibility of releasing schools which have been requisitioned for various military purposes; and whether he is aware that pupils of London schools who were evacuated to the country are in many cases returning with their parents, their country billets being no longer available, and are receiving no education by reason of the occupation by his Department of their schools.
    Mr. Arthur Duckworthasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the policy of his Department to de-requisition shops at the earliest possible moment, so that men discharged from the Services who were previously engaged in retail trade may find premises available.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that East Bilney Hall, Dereham, which was requisitioned by his Department, has not been occupied by troops for a considerable time and that the owner, who is a soldier who has served with distinction in the Middle and Far Eastern theatres of war, urgently requires his home for his family who are obliged to leave their temporary accommodation; and as he is liable to be posted for further duty abroad, whether East Bilney Hall can be derequisitioned forthwith.
    Sir J. Grigg: The reports on the properties held by the War Department are virtually complete and a programme of de-requisitions is now being drawn up. I will make a statement as to this in a fortnight's time. As I have repeatedly said, priority in de-requisitions will be given to small dwelling houses and schools, and these will definitely come before shops and hotels. A considerable number of small dwelling houses and schools have been released already and of course the process is continuing.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: If the programme is now complete, cannot a statement be made next week?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have very carefully studied that question. I shall be glad to make as full a statement as possible, but I should be grateful if I could be allowed a fortnight in which to produce the answer rather than a week.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the scheme w0ould begin only after his statement in a fortnight's time?
    Sir J. Grigg: Not at all. The last sentence of my answer, to which my Noble Friend could not have listened, was that a considerable number of small dwelling houses and schools have already been released and of course the process is continuing.
    Mr. Arthur Duckworth: Cannot my right hon. Friend give a specific answer

    15
    to this quite simple question in view of the great dissatisfaction that exists, certainly in the town which I represent, in regard to these matters?
    Sir J. Grigg: As I said, I am in the final stages of an exhaustive review, and if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will make a full statement about it in a fortnight's time.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is it not a fact that even after derequisition it takes some time to assess the damage done to property?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is one of the very important elements in the process of de-requisition. It is necessary that the dilapidations statement should be agreed between the parties concerned.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the delay which has taken place in derequisitioning properties which have been commandeered by his department and which are now standing empty, he will take steps to overhaul the existing department dealing with these matters with a view to securing increasing efficiency and understanding, having regard to the urgent public need of increased accommodation.
    Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answers I gave him on 13th March and 15th May he will, I think, find that there is no lack of understanding, at any rate in the War Office, on these matters. I might remind him that the number of requisitioned and part requisitioned properties still held in Evesham, Pershore and Broadway is less than one-half of the peak figure.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are still far too many unoccupied premises retained by the War Department, and will he and his Department have enough common sense to derequisition them?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, I have looked into those particular cases. There are not a very great number, and what there are are earmarked for the return of troops from North-West Europe in connection with the release process.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the Secretary of State aware that the officials of his Department read his answers before he
    16
    delivers them but the House of Commons cannot hear them?
    Mr. De la Bère: I wish to make a vigorous protest.

    Accidental Casualties (Lists)
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the termination of the war in Europe, he will consider publishing lists of casualties caused by accidents not due to enemy action.
    Sir J. Grigg: Lists of casualties furnished to the Press for publication include accidental deaths, but not as a separate category.

    Training Grounds (Agricultural Areas)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement about agricultural areas taken over for military training purposes as a war measure; and whether the Claims Commission can now be authorised to make good damage, gaps in hedges and fences, etc., as previously promised, so that farmers can proceed with their business.
    Sir J. Grigg: As my answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the answer:
    All land taken over for military training purposes which is not being used, or which it is clear will not shortly be used for such purposes, is being relinquished, with the exception of training areas on which there is unexploded ammunition. This process has been going on since 6th June, 1944, and over four million acres of training areas have been returned to their original use. Where areas cannot be entirely relinquished the training has whenever possible been considerably lightened, so that there will be the least interference with cultivation.
    Repair parties have worked in all the larger training areas and for all major exercises they carry out temporary repairs to fences, hedges, etc., damaged in the course of troop training in order to enable farmers to proceed with their normal farming business. Permanent repairs are not normally carried out by the War Department but compensation is paid.

  POLISH OFFICERS, ITALY (PROPAGANDA)
  Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Polish officers in Italy are distributing broadcast to officers and men of the British Forces anti-Soviet and to some extent anti-British propaganda in the English language printed in this country, in Italy, and in Palestine; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to this activity and to provide facilities for the dissemination of true information as to the British policy of preserving the friendship of the United Nations.
  Sir J. Grigg: I am finding out the facts about this. I will then consider whether any action is necessary.

  GERMAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
  Mr. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War whether political, religious and other German victims of concentration camps now released will be given facilities to publish their experiences in Germany for the purpose of exposing the lull evil of the Nazi régime to their fellow Germans and thus encouraging the development of the democratic movement.
  Sir J. Grigg: The restrictions on publication in Germany are at present necessarily very stringent but my hon. Friend's suggestion will no doubt be borne in mind when a relaxation proves possible.
  Mr. Hynd: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these restrictions are a very bad contrast to those operating in the zone occupied by our Russian Allies and does he not consider that this is a bad example to show the Germans of democratic methods?
  Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me the evidence on which he bases his assertion that more freedom of political utterance is allowed in the Russian zone of occupation.

  ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR (NON-CO-OPERATORS)
  Sir Alfred Beitasked the Secretary of State for War what is the proportion of non-co-operators amongst the Italian prisoners of war in British hands.
  Sir J. Grigg: About a quarter of the Italian prisoners in this country are non-co-operators. This includes, of course, those for whom no suitable employment can be found.
  Sir A. Beit: Is there any material difference in the treatment of co-operators and non-co-operators?
  Sir J. Grigg: If my hon. Friend wants to know exactly the difference and puts down a Question I will give him the information.
  Viscountess Astor: Why not send the non-co-operators back to their native land?

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he is in a position to make a statement regarding British prisoners of war who are now in the sphere of the Soviet Union; how many prisoners are unaccounted for; and what was the last place and date when located;
  (2) how many British and British Commonwealth released prisoners of war have now been repatriated; how many have come by air and how many by sea; and what is the estimated number to be repatriated from the European theatre of operations and where are they mostly situated.
  Captain Bullockasked the Secretary of State for War (1) what steps are being taken to get in touch with the British and Dominion prisoners of war who may be outside the areas in Europe controlled by the British and American Armies;
  (2) how many British and Dominion prisoners of war have so far been accounted for and how many are still unaccounted for.
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for War the number of British prisoners now in camps in areas occupied by our Russian Allies; and what progress has been made in arranging their evacuation to British or U.S.A. occupied territory.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that British prisoners of war in Stalag IIIA, Luckenwalde, were liberated

  19
  by the Russians on 23rd April, but have been retained in the camp; that no British officer has visited the camp; that American trucks which arrived to evacuate the prisoners were sent away as permission for their release could not be obtained; and what steps he is taking to have these men repatriated;
  (2) the reason for the retention of British prisoners of war released from Stalag IVB Mulhoerg by the Russians, on 23rd March; whether he is aware that no British officer from our Mission has visited the camp and that there is a shortage of food; and when these British prisoners will be repatriated.
  Sir J. Grigg: At the beginning of this year it was estimated that there were some 180,000 British Commonwealth prisoners of war in German hands. This estimate was made for the purpose of the provision of relief supplies, and accordingly it contained an allowance for the possibility that some of those notified as missing might turn out to have been taken prisoner. As my hon. Friends are aware, the repatriation of prisoners was undertaken as soon as they were reached by the British and American Armies, and very large numbers were flown back to this country within a very few days of their release. The Soviet authorities were meanwhile evacuating to Odessa those British prisoners which they had overrun in Western Poland and Eastern Germany. In the last days of German resistance considerable numbers of British prisoners were reached by the Russians in Saxony, Bohemia and Austria. When the Soviet Forces had linked up with the American and British Forces it was clearly desirable to transfer the prisoners directly rather than to take them round by Odessa. The local Russian commanders, however, had no instructions to do this, and as they were anxious in the interests of the prisoners themselves that the transfers should be orderly they prevented the men making their own way westward. An agreement for the transfer of prisoners was reached on 22nd May and has been going on since. As a result it is unlikely that there is still any appreciable number of British prisoners in the Soviet zone except in Austria.
  The overall position now is that 156,000 British Commonwealth prisoners have been repatriated, over 140,000 of them by
  20
  air. About 10,000 are awaiting repatriation either in General Eisenhower's or Field Marshal Alexander's zone and about 400 in Odessa. It is known that about 8,500 are in the part of Austria controlled by the Red Army, and it is hoped that arrangements will soon be made for their transfer to the British or American Forces. There must be a number of stragglers on the Continent whose collection and repatriation will take some time, and it is therefore impossible at the moment to estimate how many prisoners cannot be accounted for. The number is not likely to be large.
  Major Markham: Is the Secretary of State for War aware that there is considerable gratitude among all ranks of the Army and the Air Force for the steps taken by the War Office and the R.A.F. combined to get these men back?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for saying that, but do not let us forget that great thanks are due to the American authorities.
  Miss Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman any specific information about the two camps mentioned in Questions 99 and 101?
  Sir J. Grigg: Speaking offhand, I think the prisoners from those camps have been returned by the direct route rather than through Odessa.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Have any inquiries been made in Yugoslavia about the airmen who baled out and have not since been heard of?
  Sir J. Grigg: I would like notice of that question. I have not any special information about prisoners liberated in Yugoslavia.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Procedure
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the figures which have been issued by the United States Government as to the number of troops which they intend to demobilise now that the European war is over, and the numbers which they intend to reserve for service in the Far East; and whether in these circumstances he can make an equivalent statement about

    21
    the British Army, indicating how many men are to be brought home within the next few months, what proportion will be reserved for service in the Far East; and what principles will be applied to bringing home those who have already served for considerable periods in the Far or Middle East.
    Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour on 16th May, and to the answers which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Members for Everton, Liverpool (Mr. Kirby) and South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and which I gave to the hon. Members for West Lewisham (Mr. Henry Brooke)and Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) on 15th May.
    Sir G. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there are considerable complaints in the Army about the long term that has to be served by those overseas and of the length of service of those who are in the ranks?
    Mr. Bellenger: As this is a matter which concerns the three Services, will not the Prime Minister himself give the House some more precise information as to methods of demobilisation, in view of the considerable apprehension that exists in the minds of Service men and of their families? At the present moment all we have is a global figure and not individual figures.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): A statement on this matter might well be made before we separate, but the subject is not as simple as it seemed to be at the outset.

    Royal Army Medical Corps
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now announce demobilisation plans for officers and men in the R.A.M.C.; and if they will be treated in the same way as officers and men in other branches of the Service.
    Sir J. Grigg: The ordinary release Regulations will apply to the R.A.M.C. as to the rest of the Army. I do not anticipate that the "military necessity" clause will be frequently applied to other ranks and general duty officers. It will probably have to be applied to specialist officers much more freely in view of the over-all shortage of such officers and of
    22
    the difficulty of obtaining from civil life replacements which are likely to be necessary.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is not the Minister aware that there is a great shortage of doctors in many parts of the country? Will he bear that fact in mind in making his plans?
    Sir J. Grigg: Quite a considerable number of doctors are due to be released under the ordinary working of the scheme.
    Dr. Haden Guest: If medical officers are to be released under Class B as being essential for civilian needs, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that their rights as regards 56 days' leave are safeguarded? Otherwise a good many of those who are released for urgent civilian needs will lose a corresponding amount of pay.
    Sir J. Grigg: My difficulty is not of releasing doctors under Class B but of releasing those whose turn comes under Class A.
    Dr. Haden Guest: Is it not the case that a considerable number of applications is being made for the return at an earlier date of those who are due to be demobilised, because in certain areas the civilian need is very acute? If that is so, will the Minister not have regard to the suggestion which I have made to him?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think that the need of the civil population for doctors is much more likely to be met under Class A than Class B. It is a new idea to me that it will be necessary to have recourse to Class B for doctors.

    RUSSIA (TRANSFER OF BRITISH VESSELS)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the war in Europe is ended, he is now able to give information as to the transfer of vessels of the Royal Navy to the Red Fleet.
    The Prime Minister: I will ask the hon. Member to defer this Question, the answer to which would be somewhat lengthy, till next week.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he is dealing with British property in this prodigal fashion, remember the promise he made that he

    23
    would not preside over the liquidation of, the British. Empire, as this is part of the British Empire?
    The Prime Minister: This particular episode was part of the process by which the consolidation of the British Empire was achieved.
    Mr. Gallacher: When the Prime Minister is preparing an answer to that question, will he also prepare an answer to the question, why he transferred the Secretary of State for Scotland from this House to another place?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will not also hand over the Welch Fusiliers to Marshal Tito in the process?
    The Prime Minister: I think I can safely go as far as that.

    S.E.A.C. (HEADQUARTERS)
    Sir Alfred Beitasked the Prime Minister whether the headquarters of S.E.A.C. will be moved from Ceylon to a place nearer the scene of operations in view of the liberation of Burma.
    The Prime Minister: The choice of the Headquarters is not governed by its exact geographical location, view of the great distances involved on this Front and the facilities of air transport. Should any change be made, there would be no reason to inform the enemy of it.

    OCCUPIED GERMANY (BRITISH ECONOMIC INTERESTS)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a special economic advisory body to assist military government in British-occupied Germany for the purpose of designing an economic policy appropriate to safeguarding the traditional interests of British business in Europe, as demonstrated by Europe's ratio of the foreign trade of the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Adequate arrangements have already been made to enable those responsible for military government in British-occupied Germany to receive from His Majesty's Government the advice, information and instructions which they require on economic matters.

    REPARATIONS COMMISSION (BRITISH DELEGATE)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister how often the Reparations Commission in Moscow has met; who are the British delegates to this body; and what share of the reparations total is claimed by this country.
    The Prime Minister: The Reparations Commission has not yet met. It will meet in Moscow in accordance with the Yalta decision. The United Kingdom delegate will be the Solicitor-General, Sir Walter Monckton, whom I can mention by name because he is not yet a Member of this House. I regret I can make no statement in advance of the date of the meeting of the Commission.
    Mr. McGovern: Could the Prime Minister say whether the report that France is taking unilateral action in transferring cattle from Germany to France, and that Russia is transferring male population in order to rebuild cities, is true?
    The Prime Minister: I should require notice of that question.

    UNITED NATIONS (GERMAN TERRITORY)
    Lady Apsleyasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the other members of the United Nations are taking steps to ensure strategic control of the approaches to their respective countries, whether consideration will be given to the safeguarding of the United Kingdom by retaking possession of the former Kingdom of Hanover.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Lady Apsley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree from his researches into history that it would give much greater confidence to the smaller countries of Europe if they felt that this country had a definite status on the mainland of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: We are not seeking to enlarge our bounds as a result of this war. We have fought it for great principles, and in the satisfaction of those principles we shall find our reward.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Nevertheless, we have got Heligoland.

    BRITISH COMMONWEALTH AND EMPIRE WAR CASUALTIES
    Major Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the total casualties suffered by the Armed Forces of the Crown during the present war to date, compared with those suffered in the Great War, 1914–1918.
    The Prime Minister: The total casualties suffered by the Armed Forces of the British Commonwealth and Empire in the present war, as reported from 3rd September, 1939, to the end of February, 1945, a total of 66 months, were 1,128,315 of which 307,201 were deaths. For fuller details I may refer my hon. and gallant Friend to a statement circulated on 10th April in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies). In the first Great War the total casualties suffered by the British Commonwealth and Empire Forces in 52 months were 3,286,090 of which 996,230 were deaths. It should however be borne in mind that in this present war the following additional losses have been inflicted upon the civil population of Great Britain by the enemy bombardment, namely: killed, 60,585; seriously injured, 86,175. I cannot give the precise figures for the slightly injured but they are upwards of 150,000.
    Professor Savory: Does that include Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister mentioned only Great Britain. What about Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I said "the Armed Forces of the Crown."
    Professor Savory: The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned civilians. What of civilians in Northern Ireland—942 killed in Belfast alone?
    Mr. Silverman: Has any estimate been formed of the total loss of human life that has been occasioned in all countries, as a result of this war?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly could not attempt to answer that without notice.

    EMPIRE FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Prime Minister if opportunity can be given to the peoples of London and other centres to meet and greet contingents of the Dominion, Indian and Colonial forces of
    26
    the Crown, in order to show our appreciation of their fellowship in the war effort.
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Prime Minister if in view of the services rendered by volunteers from all parts of the Empire during this war, and the numbers of Empire troops still in this country, he will arrange for a march through the Metropolis of Empire units before their return home, so that the citizens of London may show their appreciation.
    The Prime Minister: Nearly all the Dominion, Indian and Colonial troops now in this country, other than Canadian troops, are returned prisoners of war, who naturally wish to get home as soon as possible. It would be very difficult to arrange a suitable and representative parade. But the suggestion will be borne in mind. Meanwhile the best way in which we can show our appreciation of the contribution to victory made by these troops is to extend every hospitality and courtesy to individual members of these Forces throughout the short period of their stay in this country.
    Sir P. Hurd: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that that does not give the people of the country the opportunity of greeting them in the streets in a march past?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it might inflict hardship on these men if, in the short period, they had to go through the drills and organisation necessary for ceremonial parades. I think we can trust to the warm contacts which have already been established.

    WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
    Captain Longhurstasked the Prime Minister to what modal men who have served in Paiforce will be entitled.
    The Prime Minister: I should be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would repeat this Question this day week.
    Major Nieldasked the Prime Minister if he will consider recommending that a reasonable period of service, perhaps 18 months, from 24th August, 1939, shall qualify for the Defence Medal the volunteer veteran members of the Home Defence battalions, many of whom have been prevented from serving for

    27
    three years by reason of having the age-limit or by reason of ill-health or infirmity.
    The Prime Minister: Such service after 3rd September, 1939, amounting to less than three years and terminated by death due to enemy action on duty or by injuries entitling the candidate to a Wound Stripe qualifies for the Defence Medal. It is not proposed to make any reduction in the qualifying period in favour of those who retired because of ill-health not falling within this definition or on account of age.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir Arthur Salter:
    56. To ask the Prime Minister to which Minister questions on general policy regarding European relief and reconstruction should be addressed.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Despite the usual practice, can you, Mr. Speaker, permit the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) to put the Question that stands in his name, in order that the Prime Minister can say that the answer to the Question is the questioner?

  GENERAL ELECTION

    Speaker's Conference (Recommendations)
    Sir G. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to introduce legislation before the General Election to implement the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference with regard to the limitation of election expenses and other matters.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Sir G. Mander: Is it not the case that there is general agreement on this subject, and that not much time would be occupied with the necessary legislation?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: In view of the shortage of paper might not one recommendation, namely, that a common poll card should be issued, be implemented?
    The Prime Minister: It would be a very uncommon poll card that would meet the desires of all the different parties.
    Mr. McGovern: Will the Prime Minister undertake that the General Election shall be held at some time during the last week in June to enable the electors of Clydeside to vote?
    The Prime Minister: That does not arise on this Question.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Conference recommended that in view of the difficulty some people would have in finding their way to vote registration officers should issue a universal poll card?
    The Prime Minister: There is no question of getting this Bill. These matters have to be gone through before the Election, and we have not even started on them.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's answer that the labours through which the Speaker's Conference went, when they reached a large measure of unanimous agreement, are to be set aside, and that this Election is to be fought by means which the Speaker's Conference condemned as wrong, merely because the Government will not find the time to carry through these elementary reforms, including the poll card?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend—perhaps it is my duty to say the right hon. Member—will find plenty of opportunities of descanting upon the topics he has just mentioned.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it not the case that if this election had not been brought on so quickly a Bill of this nature would have been introduced into the House during this Session, and passed?
    The Prime Minister: If the sessions of the House are interrupted by a Dissolution, some rearrangement of Business is inevitable.
    Sir Percy Harris: Was it not part of the recommendations of the Conference that, as there was complete agreement on this subject, people should all work together to facilitate such legislation?
    Sir Joseph Nall: Is it not a fact that, according to the report of the Conference, matters relating to the conduct of elections were intended to be brought in after the next election?
    Mr. McKinlay: Was it part of the recommendations of the Committee, Sir, that the whole of the police forces of Scotland should be deprived of their votes at this election?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not in Order to ask me questions about the Report of the Select Committee.
    Mr. McKinlay: I wanted to know whether that was one of the recommendations.

    Palling Date
    The following Question stood on the Order Paper, in the name of Mr. SILVERMAN:
    64. To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the date chosen as polling day in the coming General Election is such that nearly 500,000 electors in Lancashire will have no reasonable opportunity of casting their votes; and whether he has any proposal to make to remove or mitigate this injustice.
    Mr. Woodburn: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the fact that you have shown latitude on previous occasions, Sir, you could allow Question 64 to be answered, although it has not been reached, as it affects a great many electors in the coming election?
    Mr. Speaker: I can only at this stage allow questions of urgent public importance, of which Private Notice has been given.
    Mr. Silverman: As Question 64 is in my name, might I ask whether it would be possible for it to be answered, in view of the fact that it affects a great number of people?
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members can ask questions in that way only by Private Notice.
    Mr. Silverman: In view of the fact that so many thousands of electors are affected, might not the Prime Minister be allowed to answer?
    The Prime Minister: Might I perhaps be allowed to make a statement at the end of Questions, by the indulgence of the House, which would, in fact, answer a Question which is of concern to a great many Members?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that would be a very satisfactory course.
    At the end of Questions—
    The Prime Minister: You and the House, Mr. Speaker, have granted me the indulgence of allowing me to answer, in the form of a statement, a Question which was put down by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The statement is a very short one. I was asked whether, as the date designed for polling day in the coming General Election would deprive nearly 500,000 electors in Lancashire of a reasonable opportunity of casting their votes, I have any proposal to make to remove or mitigate this injustice. I do not admit the figures as being accurate. It is probably a very remarkable exaggeration. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] That is my opinion. The hon. Member said 500,000; I should think it was more like half that number, but still that is quite serious. We are examining the point about these holidays, which affect certain boroughs. I am not, at the moment, in a position to make a statement on the subject, but railway facilities may certainly be considered as a means of assisting holiday-makers. [Interruption.] I am not going to bandy discourtesies with the right hon. Member opposite, who seems to have come out of his tenure at the Home Office with worsened manners. The question of railway facilities, I say, can also be considered. It is a matter for friendly discussion to see if any particular hard case, of a town taking its wakes in a particular week, causes a serious loss to voters of their chances of discharging their civic duties.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When the Prime Minister is considering the matter, will he bear in mind that there are other large centres of population, including the City of Edinburgh, where the same difficulty arises?
    The Prime Minister: That is just one of those difficulties. If it were merely a question of these Lancashire towns, the matter might not be so difficult, but as claims can be made of all kinds, we might not be able to meet them.
    Mr. Silverman: Does the Prime Minister realise that the holiday period in question is one which these people have forgone for five years; that their arrangements were made before the decision was taken as to the date of the Dissolution; and that hundreds of thousands of people will regard any failure to make it possible for

    31
    them to cast their votes reasonably, with other citizens, as a denial of the democratic liberties for which the war was fought?
    Sir Percy Harris: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the first week of July is an important holiday-time for workers all over the country, as well as in Lancashire, and that the proposed date will cause great inconvenience and, unfortunately, make it impossible for a large number of people to vote?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the Prime Minister realise that in any case the question closely affects the industrial burghs of Scotland, and especially on Clydeside, and will he decline to extend to any other part of the country facilities which are denied to that industrial area?
    Sir Cyril Entwistle: As my constituency is one of those affected, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it would be possible, by a short Bill, to arrange that those constituencies which are on holiday should vote on the Monday or, alternatively, that they should be able to vote, say, at Blackpool or one of those holiday places?
    Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are something like 10 constituencies in Scotland affected in this way and that many of the people concerned will be so faraway from home that it will be impossible to return by rail, even if they could afford it? May I also ask whether this date has been chosen intentionally—I assume it has not—and, if not, is there any reason why a simple Bill should not be passed through the House of Commons making it possible to postpone the Election for one week or two weeks, which would not affect the date of the count, which comes three weeks after the Election?
    The Prime Minister: That would not be any release from this difficulty because the practice of staggering the holidays is very widespread.
    Mr. Gallacher: Why not stagger the Election?
    The Prime Minister: If the Election were postponed for another week, another group of constituencies would be similarly affected, and if it were postponed for a fortnight, that would also be the
    32
    case. I have seen a list of all the constituencies affected which spreads over five weeks, and that would get us into the harvest season, when other great difficulties arise, which have long been considered as cramping the freedom which should exist for a General Election, But I will say that I am quite ready to discuss this with the leaders on the other side to see if anything can be done which is of manageable proportions, to meet the particular Lancashire difficulty which has been described and which is much more wholesale than other cases.
    Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister if he would consider the possibility of a short Bill to give the returning officers, with the consent of the Home Secretary, the power to postpone voting within a certain period—it may be a day or so—in order to cover a particular wakes period? I am not suggesting that it is possible to make a general postponement but that we should adapt this to the particular circumstances of the towns in Lancashire and the places in Scotland which are most affected.
    The Prime Minister: I would be quite ready to have discussions on that point through the usual channels, and if the thing were agreed, it could be passed very quickly. But I cannot hold out hope that every part of the country from which people go in the holiday season, can have special treatment. That would be beyond all power, but with regard to these Lancashire towns, which I know very well myself—Oldham, for instance—the whole population goes away.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Do not forget the Clyde.
    The Prime Minister: I do not suppose that we shall be allowed to forget it.
    Captain McEwen: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, no matter what date in the whole twelve months is decided upon as the date of the General Election, some objection would be found to it, no less valid than the present one?
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that it is not only Lancashire that is concerned, and that in our coalfields we have staggered holidays so that there shall not be an actual interruption of coal production? In my area there is one group of collieries whose turn it will be for holidays, where there are 10,000 workers. Taking account

    33
    of all these, there are 30,000 workers going on holiday, and if this proposal were restricted to Lancashire it would be keenly resented.
    The Prime Minister: That just shows the difficulty of attempting to make special arrangements.
    Mr. Ernest Bevin: Would it not have been better if the Prime Minister had taken this into account before rushing the Election—[Interruption]—and had accepted Labour's offer to go on until the Autumn?
    The Prime Minister: All these difficulties would have been removed to a later period if the representatives of the Labour and Liberal Parties had consented to go on until the job was finished.
    An Hon. Member: Who walked out? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Bevin: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister was so uncertain about this House continuing its life that he proposed a referendum and the introduction of a new feature into the British Constitution?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think it is time we stopped all these practice shots in advance of the General Election.
    Mr. McGovern: May I make a suggestion to the Prime Minister? It is that the General Election should take place in every constituency in the country on 5th July but that returning holiday-makers—seeing that the votes are not to be counted until the 26th—should, under the guidance of various parties and the municipal authorities, have power to cast their votes after coming back from their holidays.
    The Prime Minister: I think it is hardly possible to state more effectively the case against the proposal which has been made.
    Mr. Silverman rose—
    Hon. Members: Next business.
    Mr. McGovern rose—[Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I heard an extremely insulting expression applied to a Member of another place, namely, the word "blackmail" and I ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order to use this dis-
    34
    respectful expression about a Member of another place?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear it myself. It is, of course, out of Order to make derogatory remarks about Members of another place or to mention them by name unless they have office.
    Mr. McGovern: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I assume that I am the Member to whom the Prime Minister referred. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no."] I did not use the word "blackmail." I referred to Lord Beaverbrook and said he was the Hitler of this country.
    The Prime Minister: I distinctly heard the word "blackmail."
    Earl Winterton: May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the precedent, when a statement is made by the Prime Minister with the permission of the House, for a long Debate to follow, as has been the case to-day; and will you. Sir, intimate, how long this Debate is to continue?
    Mr. Speaker: I have given the House one or two reminders on this already.
    Mr. Silverman: Does the Prime Minister realise, in spite of the heat engendered in the series of questions just now, that this is not really a party question at all; that electors in constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House are equally interested in having a proper opportunity to vote; and that it is quite possible, by a short amendment to the Representation of the People Act, to provide opportunities for everybody to cast their franchises in cases where, by tradition, the holiday period has already been fixed in advance of the Government's decision as to the date of Dissolution? Would it not be right and proper and in accordance with the dignity of this House, that in the present circumstances we should all cooperate to give everybody a reasonable opportunity to exercise the franchise at this time?
    The Prime Minister: No heat has been engendered in my breast; in fact I rather enjoy these occasions. But I thought my answer to the Leader of the Opposition would be of a nature which would be, on the whole, in the general line of the inclinations of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Speaker: We ought to get on with Business now.

    WAR CRIMES (TRIAL PROCEDURE)
    Lieut.-Colonel Marloweasked the Prime Minister what organisations have been set up and what is the procedure for the trial of war criminals; and what, in this connection, are the respective functions of the Allied Control Commission, the War Crimes Commission, the Judge Advocate-General, the Attorney-General and the Treasury Solicitor's office.
    The Prime Minister: As the reply to this Question is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should, however, like to take this opportunity of announcing that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been appointed as the representative of the United Kingdom, to join with Justice Robert Jackson, of the United States, and with the Soviet and French representatives when they are apointed, in preparing and prosecuting charges of atrocities and war crimes against such leaders of the European Axis Powers and other principal agents and accessories as the Government of the United Kingdom may agree with any of the United Nations to bring to trial before an Inter-Allied Military Tribunal.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Does not my right hon. Friend think that in relation to the notorious Nazi leaders the tangled machinery of trial is an inappropriate farce? Will he not ensure that they are despatched with the maximum speed; and, pending that desirable event, will he see that they are maintained in prison cells, and not in hotels?
    The Prime Minister: As I anticipated some time ago, a good many cases seem to have been settled by local adjustment. So far as the greater Powers are concerned, the movement of thought has tended towards the establishment of a military tribunal.
    Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the great urgency of this matter, and that these trials ought to be proceeded with as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: They ought not to be proceeded with until they have been properly arranged and the methods agreed between the four great Powers.
    Mr. McGovern: Are we to understand that all these Nazi criminals will be having
    36
    a supply of champagne and chicken and so on?
    Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the proceedings that ensue will not be of the character of those instituted by the Norwegian Government against Quisling, but will be short and spectacular?
    The Prime Minister: I should hesitate to criticise a friendly Government, newly re-established, because, while implacably pursuing justice, they have shown a dignified absence of primal fury and violence.
    Mr. H. Morrison: However it may be with Mr. Quisling, could the Prime Minister give a rough estimate of how long it will take to despatch Field-Marshal Goering to his proper destination?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know more than I did the day before yesterday, when I shared this want of knowledge with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Following is the reply:
    Under the terms of the Moscow Declaration on German Atrocities, published on 1st November, 1943, those major war criminals whose crimes have no particular geographical localisation will be punished by a joint decision of the Governments of the Allies, and discussions are at present in active progress with a view to deciding the best procedure.
    As regards criminals who are accused of having taken part in specific war crimes against Allied nationals, the Moscow Declaration laid down that they should be sent back to the countries in which their offences were committed, in order that they might be judged and punished there by the Governments concerned. So far as concerns those who have been guilty of crimes against British subjects, the procedure is that the charges brought against them are examined by the United Kingdom National Office, of which the Treasury Solicitor is the head, and submitted by him to the War Crimes Commission. The Judge Advocate-General will be responsible for the collection of evidence against and the prosecution of these criminals before military courts. The Attorney-General exercises a supervisory role in matters relating to war crimes which concern His Majesty's Government, and, in particular, in prosecutions against persons who have committed alleged war crimes against

    37
    British subjects. His fiat is required for any such prosecutions. In addition, as I have to-day told the House, he has been appointed as the United Kingdom representative for the prosecution of such war criminals as may be brought before the proposed Inter-Allied Military Tribunal.
    The functions of the United Nations War Crimes Commission were described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in his speech to another place on 7th October, 1942, when he proposed the establishment of this body. The Commission is principally concerned with the drawing up of lists of persons alleged to have committed war crimes, on the basis of material which is normally submitted to it by the various National Offices of the Allies represented upon it. Arrangements are being made for these lists to be forwarded to Allied commanders in the field, and the lists will, I am sure, prove of very considerable use to them in ensuring that all these criminals are detained as a preliminary to their appropriate disposal.
    The Allied Control Commission will, when established, be generally responsible for the administration of justice in Germany, but it is not at present envisaged that Control Commission courts will deal with war crimes against British subjects.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Mr. T. Johnston (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to make any statement regarding the intentions of the Government on the further progress of the Education (Scotland) Bill, now being considered by the Scottish Grand Committee; and whether he proposes any constitutional rearrangements to enable the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Scotland to take part in the proceedings; or how, otherwise, he intends to ensure that the Government will be represented, with Cabinet authority, in the Committee stage of this Measure.
    The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government adopt the policy of the Education (Scotland) Bill. It is impossible to carry this in the interval before the dissolution, but should His Majesty's present advisers be concerned with the direction of public affairs after the polls, they will certainly carry it foward to the best of their ability.
    38
    This gives me the opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend on the important conceptions and agreements which are embodied in the new Bill, and to assure him of our desire that his own great personal contribution may be embodied in a future Statute.
    The question of legislation to enable Ministers to speak or function in either House of Parliament or in Committees of either House is one which raises issues long dormant. It certainly needs to be awakened in the period of stress which lies before us.
    Mr. Johnston: If it is proved, in the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee at its meeting to-morrow, that there is substantial agreement regarding the education Clauses of this Bill, and that it can be sent back on the Report stage to this House with general concurrence, will the Government give facilities for its further progress?
    The Prime Minister: If such a happy state of things should arise, and if there is general agreement, that is a matter which can always be settled through the usual channels on both sides. It is possible for this House to legislate with extreme rapidity in matters where there is no difference of opinion.
    Mr. Maxton: May I ask whether it would not be much more desirable, rather than raising vexed constitutional issues on the powers of Lords and Commons, if the Prime Minister would recognise that the people of Scotland would not, for more than a temporary period, be ready to accept a Secretary of State who sits in the other House of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: That is raising very large constitutional issues in relation to matters which have not so far, for many years, been of a controversial nature.
    Mr. E. Bevin: Why does the Prime Minister raise this dormant issue in this appointment affecting Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I can quite see that my hon. Friend's Scottish soul has been outraged, but the reason why I am said to have raised the point was that I consider the appointment was the one best calculated to give satisfaction to Scotland—
    Mr. Gallacher: We want someone we can throw bricks at right here.
    The Prime Minister—but it is certainly not expressed by some of those who are trying—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Bevin: Was the decision arrived at because of the lack of ability amongst the Tory Party in this House? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member is in as good a position as I am to judge that, having so long enjoyed their support.
    Mr. Maxton rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think I ought to remind the House that we are getting a very long way from the original purpose of this Question, which was the Scottish Education Bill.
    Mr. Gallacher: The important question in connection with the Scottish Education Bill is whether we are going to have someone there in the Scottish Grand Committee who is actually responsible for carrying through the Measure.
    Mr. McNeil: Might I plead with the right hon. Gentleman, who attaches to this Bill so much importance, to use such influence as he may have with his own Members to see that we can get Cabinet authority that would enable us to get this Bill?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the Prime Minister, in considering this problem of the Scottish Education Bill, take into account the fact that all parties in Scotland are almost unanimous, in desiring that the education parts of this Bill should go through, and it would reflect, I feel, the wishes of all Scottish hon. Members in the House if the effort could be made?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is making a speech.

    SYRIA AND LEBANON (SITUATION)
    Major-General Sir Edward Spears (by Private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to implement their pledge to maintain the independence of Syria and the Lebanon, in view of the recent arrival of French reinforcements there and the announcement of the withdrawal of the British Brigade from South Lebanon.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): A serious situation has arisen in Syria. Some French reinforcements recently arrived in Lebanon about the same time as the French Delegate-General brought the French proposals for a final settlement between France and the Levant States. Considerable popular excitement has been caused and there have been disturbances in Homs and Hama and on a lesser scale in Damascus and Aleppo. There is also some tension in other parts of the Middle East.
    The net increase of French troops is very small, about five hundred men, but His Majesty's Government had told the French Government of their fear that their arrival might cause regrettable reactions.
    The British Brigade to which my hon. Friend refers has been in Syria for a short period of routine training. It has no connection with any of these events.
    We are in active consultation about these developments with the French Government and with the United States Government, which is also closely concerned, because the tension in the Middle East is liable to affect one of our lines of communication to the Far East. I think, in the interests of a settlement, that it would not be desirable for me to say more than that for the moment.
    Meanwhile, I am sure the House will share my hope that all parties involved in the present discord will behave with caution and prudence. It would be inexcusable if developments in Syria or the Lebanon were to create a situation which interfered with the prosecution of the war in the Far East and nothing in the present situation would justify such a development.
    Sir E. Spears: Are the Governments of the two Republics expected to negotiate whilst 75's are firing on their towns; and ought not a preliminary to negotiations be the withdrawal of the French people?
    Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend ought to be in a very good position to realise the delicacy of these matters. Our responsibility here is to try to the best extent in our power to bring about an improvement in the situation between the two Levant States, with whom we are friends, and our great Allied neighbour across the Channel, and I am sure that

    41
    I should be doing no service to the cause of amity between the two nations if I were to add a single word to what I have said.
    Mr. Price: Are we making it clear to the French Government that, as long as French troops remain in Syria and the Lebanon, there will never be peace or security in the Middle East?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman knows that this matter is wrapped up in the possibility of negotiations. As a result of the great efforts, largely by His Majesty's Minister on the spot, we had hopes that negotiations were going to begin. Then, unhappily, they were timed to coincide with the arrival of these reinforcements. We expressed our regret about that, and we have now got to start again to see if we can produce a better situation.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether, in any representations to the French Government, the right hon. Gentleman will remind them of the categorical assurance given by General Catroux as to control by the Syrians and Lebanese of their own army; and whether, in regard to the strategic considerations, it would meet their case if they had bases similar to those we have in Iraq?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Member can be assured that these matters are ever in my mind; they are hardly ever out of it, but the difficulty is to produce circumstances in which the situation which we have created in Iraq can be repeated, and that needs confidence between the negotiating parties, which, unhappily, does not exist now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the Business for this week, and whether he can also indicate what Business the Government desire to get through before the Dissolution.
Mr. Eden: I may be allowed to reply. We propose to proceed with the Business as announced for to-day, for to-morrow, and for Friday. On Thursday we propose to take the Motion to approve the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Order and afterwards consider the continuation of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts. These Acts, as the House knows, expire on 24th August and must therefore be renewed before Parliament is
42
dissolved. The Government do not think that it would be right to ask the House to extend these Acts for a further 12 months. We propose, therefore, to introduce a short Bill extending the Acts for six months only. The whole issue will therefore have to be brought before the new Parliament before that period of six months expires. The Government hope that the House will agree to take all the stages of this Bill on Thursday. If there is time we hope there will be an opportunity of taking the Report and Third Reading of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Bill (Lords). On Friday after the Government of Burma Bill and Proclamation, if there is time, we propose to take the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (Suspension of Registration Limit) Order.
I have also to make a brief statement relating to the Finance Bill. It will not be possible in the time available to proceed with the Finance Bill now before the House and the Government propose to substitute for it a much shorter Measure to cover only those matters on which legislation before the Dissolution is regarded as essential. These comprise the reimposition of the Income Tax and Surtax and the Hop Duty, the adjustment of the standard profits for Excess Profits Tax for small businesses, certain machinery provisions relating to Purchase Tax and the Clause concerning the fixed Debt Charge. Motions will accordingly be submitted to the House later to-day to authorise the withdrawal of the present Bill and the introduction of a new Bill based on those of the Budget Resolutions which related to the matters I have just enumerated. If these Motions are approved the new Bill will be available to-morrow, and the Government trust the House will be willing to give it speedy passage.
It will be necessary for the Government to ask the House to sit on Mondays, 4th and 11th June. We propose to meet at 2.15 p.m. but not to take Questions, except Private Notice Questions and Questions relating to Business. The purpose of these additional Sittings is, of course, to make progress with necessary Business.
As regards the Business of Supply, the public services must be provided for before the Dissolution. It will be necessary later for us to propose a Motion to

43
complete outstanding Supply in a reduced number of allotted days. A Supplementary Vote of Credit will also be necessary for war expenditure, and a Supplementary Estimate for Civil Aviation. We shall also have to pass a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Finally, with regard to legislation, there are certain Measures which the Government consider are essential and others which it is desirable to pass. We are entering upon discussions through the usual channels between parties, and hope that, by agreement, it will be possible to complete work on a number of important Measures which are in various stages of progress. I hope that the House will allow me to defer making a definite statement on these until Thursday, in order to give us time to ascertain the measure of agreement which we can obtain in regard to a number of these Bills.
Mr. Attlee: With regard to the extension of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, do I understand that it is proposed to drop the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, which is a Bill, as I understand it, which would have enabled the Government to deal with many matters of reconstruction which it is difficult to do under the Emergency Powers Act? Is it not possible to get that Measure through the House? It would be extremely desirable, having regard to the need for getting on rapidly with measures of reconstruction.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have not yet even made a start with that Bill, and in view of the amount of legislation which we do want to get through before the House rises I am afraid I do not see how we can achieve it.
Mr. H. MorrisonDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this Bill is urgently necessary for purposes in connection with housing, with furnishing, and a large number of other matters? Now he proposes to hold over this Bill to somewhere in the dim and distant future, not earlier than the autumn, while letting the country get along as best it can in the meantime. Cannot this Government make up its mind about it? I ask in all seriousness, Is this Government so hopelessly divided about the future of economic controls which are so urgently necessary for peace that the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: This is not an occasion for election speeches.
Mr. Morrison: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the delays involved in the General Election and the reassembly of the House form one of the reasons why I urgently demand an answer to this question.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman really need not generate so much heat. He has asked a question to which I have already replied in replying to his leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
Viscountess Astor: Is it not the case—
Mr. Eden: We cannot all speak at once. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were not going to proceed with that Bill, and I explained why in the present state of Business—
Mr. Morrison: In the present state of the Government—
Mr. Eden: I am stating the Government's position. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He asks at one moment why we do not make up our mind and says at another moment that we have no mind, and when I express our mind he complains about it. I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Leader of his Party, that we do not propose to continue with this Bill because of the amount of legislation which we have to get through before the end of this Session, and I added that we are extending the powers for six months just in order that there may not be the situation which the right hon. Gentleman has just deplored.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there can be a suspension of the Rule on Thursday, as the failure to continue with this Bill raises very wide issues and needs very full discussion?
Mr. Eden: I will certainly consider that.
Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Leader of the House, in defence of the rights of back benchers, why it is that if we are to sit on Mondays for the rest of this Session we should not have Questions on that day? A large number of Questions remain unanswered every day.
Mr. Eden: I had thought of that, but it will be only for two Mondays, and as

45
the rearrangement of Questions would cause a great deal of extra work I thought that it would hardly be worth while.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not the whole of this situation due to the Socialist Ministers walking out of the Government?
Mr. Maxton: In the announcement of the Business between now and the Dissolution the right hon. Gentleman has not provided any time or occasion when the House could express its views on whether it desires the Government that is now in office or not. Will there be no occasion before the Dissolution when the House will have that opportunity?
Mr. Eden: I have been doing my best, I hope with the approval of the hon. Gentleman, so to arrange Business that the country can be allowed to do that as soon as possible.
Mr. Gallacher: Is the Business for to-day exempted Business, or will the Standing Order be suspended?
Mr. Eden: The Business for to-day is exempted Business.
Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask—[HON MEMBERS: "Speak up."] May I ask the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to realise the embarrassment which the architecture of this Chamber imposes upon some of us? Further, may I inquire when the Government propose to ask the House of Commons to exempt them from providing for 15 allotted Supply days.
Mr. Eden: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear [HON MEMBERS: "We could not hear."] We are bringing forward a Motion to deal with that matter.
Mr. Bevan: When?
Mr. Eden: I cannot give the exact date.
Mr. Bevan: In view of the delicacy of the constitutional principle involved, and in view of the fact that control of Supply provides the effective control of the Government by this House, why have not the Government indicated an early date for the discussion of these exemptions?
Mr. Eden: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with a little reflection, would have been able to answer that question for himself. It is clear that our desire would be to give as many oppor-
46
tunities for Supply as possible, bearing in mind the legislation we want to get through. I did not wish to commit myself about the number of Supply days until I could see what were the possibilities of agreement about legislation, such, for instance, as the Education (Scotland) Bill, about which I have been pressed, but I would wish to give the House an early intimation of what it is that we propose.
Mr. Bevan: Why should the Leader of the House assume that the House would agree to a remission of the number of Supply days?
Mr. Eden: I think the House will bear me out when I say that I did not assume the decision of the House, but the Leader of the House is allowed to make a proposition to the House.
Mr. McGovern: Owing to the difficulties of one in my position having an opportunity to express himself through the usual channels, may I be permitted to ask a question in connection with the General Election, to which I am certainly not opposed? Could there not be some reconsideration of the question whether the General Election could not be held in the last week of June, as in many areas 5,000 or 6,000 people will be prevented from using their votes due to holidays? In many parts of the country the people themselves are protesting, and I wish to know whether the Prime Minister will give this matter reconsideration, so that all the citizens of this country will have the same opportunity of expressing their point of view in this General Election?

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY BILL
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday; and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 90.]

FORESTRY BILL
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 91.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
National Loans Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords].
Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

NEW MEMBER MAKES AFFIRMATION
David James Williams, esquire, for the County of Glamorgan (Neath Division).
NEW MEMBER SWORN
Ronald McMillan Bell, esquire, for the Borough of Newport.

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, Etc.
Eleventh Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:
Your Committee have considered the Draft of an Order in Council entitled the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Order, 1945, a copy of which was presented on 17th May, the Clearing Office (Turkey) (Amendment) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1945, No. 559), a copy of which was presented on 18th May, and the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 2) Order, 1945 (S.R. & 0., 1945, No. 533), a copy of which was presented this day, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to them on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference to the Committee.
Report to lie upon the Table.

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1945 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)
Estimate presented,—of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1946, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of
48
the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 89.]

COAL (CHARGES) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 1) ORDER, 1945
4.4. p.m.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move,
"That the Coal (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 1) Order, 1945, dated 25th April, 1945, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 1st May, be approved."
I feel that in view of the slight warmth engendered just now, the House will welcome a return to the more tranquil atmosphere which generally governs a Debate on coal. When the adoption of the last Order was moved by me, many hon. Members in many parts of the House suggested that it would be more acceptable if I took a rather wide view of the discussion, and gave them more information with regard to the industry. That is what I propose to do this afternoon.
Last April, when the increase in the price of coal had to be announced, a demand was made for this Debate, to which I readily acceded and, of course, when that demand was first made the circumstances were rather different from what they are to-day. The decision to increase the levy on the price of coal by 3s. a ton was made by the preceding Government. However, since that decision was made, if I may say so, a great deal of water has flowed under Blackpool pier, and I have now the privilege of seeking the agreement of hon. Gentlemen to this levy across the Table rather than, as I did before, round it. The presence on the other side of the House of former colleagues, apprised of the recent history of the coal-mining industry will, I am certain help to ensure that the Debate to-day will be conducted with a full knowledge of the importance of the issues involved. I am sure that my motives will not be misunderstood if I say that I am well aware of the debt I have incurred to my former colleagues and, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) who has given me valuable assistance and loyal support as my Parliamentary Secretary during the last three years.
The Coal Charges Account, as the White Paper recently issued shows clearly, is a fair index to the condition of the industry after nearly six years of war. The Account has been used, as the

75
hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) mentioned last October, as a means of maintaining equilibrium between district and district in an industry which war-time conditions such as the withdrawal of man-power, loss of export trade, the necessity of maintaining production at uneconomic pits, would otherwise have thrown into disequilibrium. In particular, it has become the means of levelling out the effect of the very substantial increase in wages resulting from the Greene Award, the Porter Awards and the Supplementary Wages Agreement of a year ago.
I must emphasise this point. By far the most important increase in the war-time cost of our coalmining industry has been in the form of wages, which have accounted for over two-thirds of the total increase. Both mineworkers and consumers should be aware of this. The increase in the price of coal, we all realise, is very large. At the pit-head it is to-day double what it was in 1939, and the effect of this increase on our national economy is, and will be, felt in more ways than its consequences for the domestic consumer and the rise in the cost of living. Yet, with all the increases to which I have referred, the present wage of the miner is not, in my view, excessive compared with other industries, and I think few will disagree with me when they reflect on the character of the work which has to be performed. Coalminers' earnings to-day stand about twelfth on the list of industrial wage-earners compared with 81st in 1939, but in wages per man-hour, they stand second—higher than for any other industry except the motor cycle and aircraft manufacturers.
I think I have made it clear that the miner is now in receipt of a wage worthy of his job. Yet, unless that wage is to be cut, the only way to lower the price of coal is greatly to increase the output per man—that is, greatly to increase the efficiency of the coalmining industry. That we should select the latter alternative can scarcely be in doubt. I do not think anyone would wish to repeat the unhappy, the almost dreadful, experiences of the greater part of the period between the two wars. In 1921 the average earning per shift to the miner reached a peak of 19s. 2d. In the next year, it sank to 10s. It went down at other times to 9s. I do not think at any other period between
76
the two wars it had ever gone beyond 11s. It was in this period between the two wars more than in any other, in my opinion, that the seeds were sown which brought forth a harvest of discontent, of suspicion, and mutual distrust. If I may illustrate how deep this is, I would like to tell the House of a thing that happened to one of my controllers some time back. He was asking a miner how he liked the particular mine where he worked and the miner said he liked it very much except that they were rather inclined to cut rates. This man said, "Well, I have been here now for some years and I do not know of a single occasion on which rates have been cut since I have been in this colliery." The miner said, "I know, but my father used to tell me about it." It gives one a feeling of how deep distrust and suspicion have entered as a result of the experiences of the past. As a result of this attitude in industry we have seen a loss of man-power, a steadily decreasing rate of entry into the coalmining industry which, before the war, could no longer attract recruits adequate either in number or in quality.
High wages, however, involve the recognition of responsibilities and in this connection I must refer to the decline in production which has taken place during the war. The total output of coal in this country has fallen by nearly 50,000,000 tons since the war. A large part of that, of course, is due to the serious loss of man-power in 1940 and 1941. Output per man shift, however, which is the figures which matters, was 1.14 tons before the war and it has now gone down to 1 ton. This decline in output, of course, is reflected in the rise of the price of coal, though to a lesser extent than a good many people imagine. It is important not to over-emphasise the effect on the price of coal of a lowered output for, if you take the 17s. 6d. which represents the increase in cost per ton since 1939, some 3s. 6d. only can be attributed to the reduced output. That a part of this decline in output is inevitable I have no doubt and is due to the increase in the average age of the miner, war-time conditions, fatigue, and what is known as "green" labour—the optants and the Bevin boys—but I think it is only fair to recognise here the contribution that the Bevin boys have made to the working of this industry, not only in that some thousands of them have gone to the face

77
but, what is even more valuable as a contribution, they have enabled about 11,000 more experienced workers to be upgraded to the pits, which is a very great contribution.
I recognise, too, and would again pay a tribute to, the whole-hearted effort of most miners throughout the war. Nevertheless, having said that, production should not have fallen each coal year to the extent it has, and no one—miners' leaders and, I would say, the majority of the mine workers themselves—would try to excuse the absenteeism and unofficial strikes which have marked and marred the war-time record of this industry. I have to receive every day dispute sheets, and sometimes they make quite astonishing reading. Time and again you come across a dispute of which nobody knows the purpose. Disputes are not always confined to managements and men. There was a case last week when somebody travelling along a single line with an empty tub, met somebody coming in the opposite direction with a full tub. Neither would give way, and the result of that was a stoppage. That is not an industrial dispute in any sense of the word. I came across another case on the same day, where a pony went down the pit and it was found that the water had not arrived. The pony was taken back to the stables and 60 men went out and stayed out, although the water was available very shortly afterwards. Nobody could say that that was an industrial dispute. There has been a good deal of unofficial striking which has been a blot on the industry since the war started.
Members will recall that during the Debate on the Bill which established my Ministry as a post-war Ministry the chief charge made against my Department and the war-time control was that we had not arrested the decline in output. It was a natural charge, and no one would regret more emphatically than I the fact that it can be made. Nevertheless, I felt that during that Debate Members on both sides of the House were less than fair to the efforts made by my Ministry both to maintain production, and what is equally important, to maintain supplies. During the war the amount of coal required for the making of gas has increased by 10 per cent., for electricity by 60 per cent., for the railways by 15 per cent., and for the engineering industry by 100 per cent.
78
The work of those industries on which our war effort has so largely depended, has been maintained through having the coal which was required. The production of munitions for war purposes has never been allowed to suffer through lack of coal. This has been made possible only by strict and efficient planning and control, and a great contribution to the war effort in this field, as in so many others, has been made by the domestic consumer. I am fully aware of that debt to the domestic consumer, and although, as the House knows, supplies of coal will be difficult, I will do my best to meet that debt so far as I can.
I am doing my best to stimulate production by a new technical drive undertaken by my production staff, which I intend to follow up myself. We may also hope for solid benefit from the 12,000 underground miners, who will we hope be released, according to the present programme, by the end of September. But in distribution to-day London, as always, is the problem. Special pockets of difficulty are to be found in the Provinces, but London is the main problem, and I am now engaged in strengthening the organisation which will have to tackle that task next winter. On the question of production, I would impress upon Members that although output has fallen I believe that the trend has been slowed by measures taken by my Ministry. I think it is only right to point out that if you take the decrease in output of the last war and compare it with this war it will be found that the trend was very much greater in the last war than it is to-day. It may be of interest to note, also, that if you compare the decrease in output per man shift in this country with Germany it will be found that this country has a better record in this war than the German miners.
Mr. Foster: Despite absenteeism.
Major Lloyd George: The fact remains that the actual index figure of output in this country compares more than favourably with that in Germany. I can think of no genuinely constructive measure which it was possible to apply in war-time that I have not applied since my Ministry came into being. Mechanisation has been tried to the utmost possible extent, and there are great difficulties attaching to that. The concentration of undertakings

79
has been tried. Group production directors have been appointed in order that they may be helpful to other undertakings without the same advantage. A great deal has been done with regard to upgrading. It is interesting to note that at one period during the war the percentage of face workers to the rest of the industry was declining, and that we have been able not only to maintain that but actually to increase the percentage of face workers. Every effort has been made to recall miners from the Services and other industries and large numbers were, in fact, recalled. Very important welfare measures have been taken with regard to medical services, canteens and so forth. Training schemes, despite all the difficulties of war-time conditions, have been initiated.
I also felt, during our last Debate on this industry, that Members rather forgot the circumstances which led to the setting up of the war-time control. It was set up as an emergency measure and, like so many other war-time measures, it was a compromise. It was set up because of the critical situation of the mining industry in the spring of 1942. I have no doubt in my mind—and it is borne out by the views of many in the industry—that the rate of decline in output would have been far greater and the actual situation far graver if the control had not been set up by the Government in 1942 and operated on lines which are now very familiar to the House. The control has provided—and Debates in this House are proof of that—a buffer state between the two sides of industry and, more important, it has gained the confidence on the whole of both sides, with whom, I think, it has dealt fairly. I saw a speech made by an hon. Member of this House in which he said that I was determined never to offend anybody. Well, if I may say so, I was not put into this Ministry in order to offend people, although it is not so difficult to do sometimes. I was put into this Ministry to operate the control, but that does not mean that I am not prepared to go for what I think is right at the appropriate time. That is a totally different thing from saying that my main object is not to offend anybody.
Hon. Members will not forget that the control and Ministry have introduced measures for the lasting benefit of this
80
industry in the field of technical advance and human relationships. I referred a few moments ago to training schemes, and I would now like to refer to another important matter—training for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the industry. In conjunction with the Ministry of Labour we set up a training centre in Sheffield, where miners from all over the country become acquainted with the various machines which they have to operate and go through the courses which make them into skilled fitters. Incidentally, a report from the instructor states that these miners compare favourably with any other type of worker he has come across in the art of acquiring such skill. I went there a few weeks ago and spoke to men and boys from all parts of the country, and without a single exception they were all enthusiastic about the course they were taking and the training they were acquiring. It was most encouraging because I believe such training is an essential preliminary to any real increase in the efficiency of this industry. In addition, university courses have been started, which are proving very popular, and there is a steady improvement in the pit production committees. It will not be an easy matter to get these committees into the pits into which we would like to see them. I have attended myself some of the admittedly good production committees, where tremendous interest was shown by the men in the development of the industry, and in the mines in which they were working. They were taken into the confidence of the management, were shown all the possibilities, and took a great interest in the life of their mines and what would be the development when a certain district was worked out. The production committee is something which must be persevered with.
There is also a great expansion in pit canteens, but the only thing that worries me is this: I have had complaints ever since I have been in office about food for the miners. Everything that can be done under war-time conditions, particularly with regard to the extension of canteen facilities, has been done, and it is disappointing to find such a small percentage of the mineworkers not taking full advantage of these facilities. In our present situation I believe it is right that advantage should be taken of them. I would like to say a word or two about health services. Rehabilitation centres,

81
with the great assistance of the Welfare Commission, have been greatly increased during the last three or four years and in particular with regard to one aspect of health which affects miners mostly in West Wales and South Wales—the question of pneumoconiosis. We have been able to increase our staff of doctors, with great difficulty, in order to cut down the waiting list, and I am glad to say that we are to have a research centre where, I hope, will be found a cure for this disease, about which so little is known at the present time. We have done everything that engineering skill can do in connection with preventive measures, and now we must tackle the bigger question of the prevention of this most terrible disease.
Mr. E. J. Williams: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say the speed at which he is reducing the waiting list of pneumoconiosis cases?
Major Lloyd George: I will let my hon. Friend know, because I think there has been some alteration since we obtained increased medical staff. The waiting list was at one time 3,000, I think. When I think of the importance of these measures—which I have sketched briefly because I have already given a full description of them to the House—the benefit of which is recognised throughout the whole industry on every side, I am sometimes surprised that anyone, particularly on the opposite side of the House, as happened during the last Debate, should challenge the value to the war-time effort of my Ministry. Many of the measures I have referred to have been of immediate advantage in war-time, but they will be of even greater benefit to the industry in peace-time. I cannot think that any one of them will disappear. Equal in importance to these measures I myself would put the Wages Agreement of April, 1944, which, although it did not fulfil the hopes for increased output, expressed at the time, marked the beginning of a period of stability within the industry, backed by a Government guarantee.
I would like here to pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Mr. E. Bevin) for his help at that time. His vast experience and knowledge and ready co-operation were of great value at that difficult time, and I would like to take this opportunity
82
of expressing my appreciation of all that he did. This Government—and this is important—adheres to the undertaking which I gave in the House on 21st April, 1944, that the necessary financial arrangements, such as the continuation of the Coal Charges Account, shall operate until the termination of the present wages agreement in 1948. That assurance was given last April, and I want to repeat it because it is important that it should be known.
I have now the reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams). We hope to get rid of the arrears in nine to 12 months.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: How many specialists are there for pneumoconiosis?
Major Lloyd George: We have had four panels, and my recollection is that at the head of each is a doctor who is a specialist in the disease. When we get other panels, other doctors will come in and be trained under them.
Dr. Summerskill: This is an important point in view of the fact that the Minister has already stated that 3,000 men have been waiting for examination. Will he tell me how he chooses the doctors? I have a feeling that there are many who have the requisite qualifications, but who have never been approached.
Major Lloyd George: I would not know that, but the qualifications are such that it is not as easy to get the right men as my hon. Friend thinks. It is very difficult to get them. I am told that one cannot regard the ordinary tuberculosis specialist as having any real knowledge of this extraordinary disease. We hope that after the Japanese war we shall have many more who have had experience of the disease, and I hope that, as the result of the research centre which we are putting up, we shall be able to have a proper clinic and get contacts with other countries where they have the same thing in different forms. At the moment, very little is known about it. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done, and I am determined to do everything that can be done to carry on with the work.
Dr. Morgan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has really not answered the question. Is not there a shortage of medical boards and a large

83
number of applicants waiting for examination? If so, what steps are being taken by any Government Department for the training of either young medical men who are just being taught, or of older men who are experts in respiratory diseases, so as to enable them to get the requisite knowledge of the disease?
Major Lloyd George: I answered the question in the main part of my speech. We had a large number of arrears waiting for examination, and we have increased the panels in order to do the examinations. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the late Minister of National Service who gave me tremendous assistance in this matter. There is a great shortage of medical men of all categories in this country, and it was with the utmost difficulty we were able to get men who could be trained. We have substantially increased the number of panels available for this purpose, and I am hopeful, now that hostilities in one theatre have come to an end, that we shall be able to increase the number. I am as anxious as anybody to clear off the waiting list, which is one of the worst aspects of the whole problem.
I would like to conclude this survey of our work during these three years by a reference to the series of reports which I have had prepared and laid before the House during the last 12 months. The series includes the Regional Surveys, some of which, have already been published and others of which will be got out as soon as possible, the Reid Report, the White Paper on the Coal Charges Account, and the Statistical Digest, a new part of which was issued yesterday. The purpose of issuing these various reports and White Papers was to provide Parliament and the country with all the essential information on which to base their decisions as to the conditions and future of the coal mining industry. There is probably more talked about this industry with less knowledge than practically any other industry. [Interruption.] It is important for all sides to get the information. We try to give such information that nobody in any party will suffer by acquiring it. Never before has so great and so clear a mass of information concerning any industry been available.
Of these reports, the most important, I am sure hon. Members will agree, is the
84
Report of the Technical Advisory Committee, the Reid Report. Before coming to its recommendations, I must emphasise the background against which that Report was prepared. The coalmining industry in this country, taken as a whole, has fallen behind its competitors. The output per manshift is far too low and the price of coal is far too high. Labour relations within the industry, although, as I have said, they have benefited by the period of control, are not satisfactory, and for a number of years the industry has ceased to attract recruits of sufficient quality or sufficient quantity. Further, because of the war, we have lost our export trade, and the present high cost of coal will make it extremely difficult for us to regain it. It is important for us to realise that it is not the war which is responsible for the present condition of the mining industry. But the war has done this: owing to the shortage of supplies and the consequent restrictions imposed upon consumers, coupled with high prices, attention has been concentrated upon the industry.
I will not attempt to summarise the Reid Report with which, I am certain, hon. Members will by now be fairly familiar. I would, however, refer to two passages in it which convey graphically in a few words and figures how far the coal industry in this country has fallen behind technically. The first is in paragraph 158, which deals with the comparison between the coal industry of Britain and that of certain other countries. The Committee lightly take the European coalfields as being more similar to ours than others. They take the basic year for Poland, Holland, the Ruhr and Britain. The interesting thing is that in 1925–27 the output per manshift in Great Britain was higher than in Holland or the Ruhr. By 1938 we had fallen behind two of the countries. The increase in output per manshift in Holland was 118 per cent. between 1925 and 1938; 81 per cent. in the Ruhr; and only 14 per cent. in Britain. It is important to remember that, in that period when this great advance was made in coalfields not dissimilar to our own, we could increase our output per manshift by only 14 per cent. All three of these competing countries had, in 1936, an output per manshift of 10 to 13 cwts. higher than in this country.
The second point in the Report I want to emphasise is that the Committee drew

85
particular attention to the loss of efficiency in underground transport. They do this in paragraph 184, where we find that in Holland the haulage worker deals with four to five times as much coal as the haulage worker in this country. In America, which is, of course, totally different, it runs up to as much as ten times.
Mr. David Grenfell: Did the Minister say Holland?
Major Lloyd George: Yes.
Mr. Grenfell: It is the nationalised industry there.
Major Lloyd George: Not all of it.
Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Nine-tenths of it is.
Major Lloyd George: This is not a point to score off. It is a point to think of. Here is a very competent Committee which reports that one of the most vital parts of the reorganisation of our coal industry is an improvement in underground haulage, and to support that they say that in the Ruhr and Holland there is a far greater output per manshift because of the improved haulage system. It is a point that we should seriously think about. I do not propose to go at length into the technical details of the problem of haulage ways, but I would draw attention to the importance of providing man-riding facilities, by which there would be a great saving in time and a consequent improvement in productivity. I have had several examples looked at in this country. A walk of 2,000 yards is not out of the way, and there are others where the workers walk three miles. I came across one instance where the miner has to walk three and a half miles before he gets to the working face. Leaving out the question of the working conditions, that cannot be economically very sound. That is one of the things which the Committee rightly presses as questions to be faced. Indeed one Member of the Committee said to me that we had in this country mechanised at the wrong end first. There is a great deal to be said for that.
Let me turn to the effect of these conditions on the cost of production. The need for reorganisation, particularly underground, is obvious, and if coal is to play its part in our national recovery re-
86
organisation must be begun without delay. Reorganisation of this type, however, cannot be undertaken with the industry constituted as it is to-day. I will read paragraphs 752 to 758 of the Reid Committee's Report, because they are very important in this respect:
"There are mines on the point of exhausting their reserves; mines which should be closed down altogether and their reserves worked from adjoining collieries; mines where the remaining reserves can, under no scheme of reconstruction, be worked profitably; mines between which valuable coal has been sterilised to form barriers; and mines which, for a period of their reconstruction, will have to be completely closed down.
There are undertakings which have a lease of coal that could be worked to better advantage by another undertaking; and undertakings whose mines are widely spread through a district, and even among several districts.
There are new sinkings required where the reserves which should be worked from them are leased to two or more undertakings; and new sinkings where, by reason of the depth to be reached, so long a view has to be taken and such heavy interest payments incurred, that the cost of the shafts, plant and development is likely to be beyond the resources of the undertaking owning the leasehold."
Mr. Ness Edwards: It sounds like an old speech from this side of the House.
Major Lloyd-George: If hon. Members will forgive me saying so, I do not think they went as deep as this. This is a much deeper shaft. The Report continues:
"There are surface plants to be erected which should serve a number of mines, which may be under different ownership.
There are districts where the reconstruction of certain mines would enable the output required to be maintained, leaving for the time being at least, no place for the remaining mines in these districts.
There are many other spheres also, including systematic research into methods of work, and a wide range of problems from mine drainage to the training of the personnel of the industry, in which combined action upon a broad basis presents the only satisfactory solution.
Unfortunately"—
and this is very important—
"there is a serious dearth of mining engineers who possess the knowledge and experience necessary to undertake the far-reaching-schemes of reorganisation which are essential. The services of those who are so qualified will consequently be required for the wider benefit of the industry."
Mr. Ness Edwards: Whose fault is it?
Major Lloyd George: That sort of question does not get us anywhere. I am not

87
concerned with whose fault it is. I am concerned with trying to get something done for a most vital industry, and we shall not get anything done by saying, "Whose fault is it?" [Interruption.] I think I am entitled to reply when an hon. Member makes an interjection. I have read out the main parts of the recommendations of the Reid Report. Hon. Members are entitled to ask what are the Government's intentions to meet this situation, in view of the vital importance to our industry and to our export trade. Therefore, the Government are taking this early opportunity of outlining their general policy on the coalmining industry. The Government consider that the working, treatment, and disposal of coal should continue to be conducted by private enterprise—
Mr. James Griffiths: Mismanaged by it.
Major Lloyd George Major Lloyd George: —provided these are planned in accordance with the national need and conducted with the maximum efficiency. Coal is to-day owned by the State. It is, further, a wasting asset; some qualities are wasting far more rapidly than we like to think. Therefore, it is right that it should be conducted in accordance with the national need and with the maximum efficiency. War-time measures are not necessarily suited to peace-time conditions and a new practical start is needed. The position cannot be remedied by mere change of ownership. That offers no solution. The Government have, therefore, decided that a central authority, appointed by the Minister of Fuel and Power and subject to his general direction, should be set up to insist that the necessary measures are taken and to provide such help and guidance as are useful. The measures to which I refer centre upon the proper development and efficient conduct of operations in each coalfield, according to the best modern practice. In so far as the grouping or amalgamating of collieries is necessary for this object, it will be carried through, voluntarily if possible, but otherwise by compulsion. We do not propose amalgamation for amalgamation's sake, for in this diversified industry, where conditions vary widely, there are often to be found highly efficient undertakings which are sometimes not large. In such cases amalgamation would only
88
be proposed if there were clear advantages to the nation and to the industry. The making and the carrying out of these plans will be undertaken by the industry itself. The duty or the central authority will be to satisfy itself that the scope and the effect of the plans conform to the national requirements, and it will have powers of enforcement in reserve. The policy will preserve the incentives of free enterprise while safeguarding the industry from political interference in its day-today management. It will also provide the necessary sanctions for making sure that the essential improvements recommended in the Reid Report are carried through.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to gather that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now putting before us the Government's policy? Will he explain how this differs from the coalowners' policy put forward by Mr. Foot?
Major Lloyd George: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman asking what is the difference. If he studies what I have said, he will see that there is a great difference. In the first place, there is a central authority.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Mr. Foot proposed that in his supplementary report.
Major Lloyd George: This authority will also have power. I have said that amalgamations will be voluntary if possible, but otherwise there will be compulsion.
Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Foot said that.
Major Lloyd George: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Griffiths: It is the coalowners' policy.
Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is provision to be made for any appeal against the decisions of this central authority?
Major Lloyd George: I would not like to go into great detail at the moment. This is the first day of the new Government, and I have outlined the Government's policy to implement the findings of the Reid Report. I understand the Report finds great favour in the eyes of practically every hon. Member in all quarters of the House. Surely, that is not a thing to quarrel about. With regard to the very important detail to which the

89
hon. Member referred, that matter will have to be gone into, but naturally one wants to avoid any appeals which might mean long delays. There is no doubt at all that the Government, in the statement I have just made, propose in fact to implement the main recommendations of the Reid Report.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): May we have one question at a time?
Mr. Bernard Taylor: What will be the constitution of the central authority? From what sources will its personnel come?
Major Lloyd George: There is a very great difference between the Foot plan and what I have announced. This central authority will be quite independent; it will be appointed by the Minister, and will have the powers I have just mentioned. If hon. Members think that is the same, they should think again.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: From where will the central authority draw its members?
Major Lloyd George: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me for not going into great detail. There will be plenty of opportunity for further discussion.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Will this policy be embodied in a Bill later on—if the Government are returned to power—or will it be done by regulations? What form will it take to secure that there is adequate Parliamentary criticism?
Major Lloyd George: I have outlined briefly what are the Government's intentions in regard to implementing the main recommendations of the Report. Obviously they imply legislation.
Mr. E. J. Williams: The Minister has outlined the machinery which is to be set up to implement the recommendations of the Report. How is the finance to be obtained? Is the finance necessary to sink new shafts, provide new equipment and so on, to be obtained from the Treasury, and if so, are these things then to be operated by private enterprise?
Major Lloyd GeorgeObviously the hon. hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to
90
answer that question at this stage. I am not making a Second Reading speech on a Bill, but sketching very broadly the Government's intentions. If hon. Members opposite were to get up and say broadly that their proposal is to nationalise the mines, I do not think I should be entitled to get up and say, "Will you explain exactly how it is to be done and give the details?" All I am doing is to state what are the Government's intentions, and when those intentions are put into practice, obviously a good deal of discussion will take place. I thought hon. Members would like to know what are the Government's intentions in regard to putting into effect the main recommendations of the Report. At this stage I cannot go beyond that.
Mr. George Hall: These proposals are important not only to the coal industry but to the country generally. They are sufficiently important for a White Paper to be published. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, when the proposals are ready for submission to the House, they will be submitted in the form of a White Paper?
Major Lloyd George: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot commit myself at the moment, but that is the course I would prefer to follow. Certainly, I will consider that suggestion. I have endeavoured to put before hon. Members the lessons not merely of my three years' experience of the coalmining industry, but also the experience of the mining engineers responsible for the Reid Report, to whom I think we can all say the nation owes a deep debt of gratitude. I do not think we could have found a body of mining engineers with greater experience and knowledge, and we are extremely grateful for the work they have done. That is something I want to say also to many others in this House and outside who have given me the benefit of their knowledge and experience. I believe that the great step forward which the Government intends to make if returned after the election is the answer to the present critical situation in this basic industry. It is an industry which is full of controversy, but on one thing surely we must all be in agreement—the need to bring its technical efficiency to the highest possible level. The great difference obviously is to be found in the question of ownership. That question must, and

91
will shortly be, decided by the electorate. I trust that, when that issue is decided, we can all bend our energies to the very formidable task that I have outlined. The Reid Report warns us, in its very last words, that there is no time to be lost. I agree. To regain the ground that we have lost, that is the task that we have to do, to regain our export trade, to lower prices and last and by no means least, to make the conditions of work in our mines worthy of what is, after all, our greatest basic industry.
Mr. E. Walkden: What are the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposals to stave off a coal shortage next winter?
Major Lloyd George: To do what we have done before—stock up in the summer, and get as much output as we possibly can. It may help hon. Members if I say that, with the leave of the House, I shall be prepared to reply later in the Debate to any questions that are put.
Mr. A. Hopkinson: On a point of Order. Shall we be in Order in continuing this Debate in regard to technical matters which cannot possibly affect the Order in question? I submit that we should not be quite in Order in discussing matters which cannot be put into force for many years.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not heard the whole of the discussion but I have heard a great deal of it and it seems to me that Mr. Speaker will allow, and I will allow, a wide discussion on the future of the coal industry. The Minister has put forward one point of view as to how to deal with it. Obviously there may be other ideas and it seems that this has become an occasion for dealing with the future of the industry based on this Order. Clearly we cannot go into technical matters too closely, but a general outline of policy such as the Minister has laid down, would seem to me to be in Order.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. David Grenfell: I will try to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in seeking to unravel many of the points which have been made in the Minister's speech. While the right hon. and gallant Gentleman welcomed the tranquillity which prevailed at some of these discussions, I do not regard this extreme dolefulness as a necessary concomitant of
92
a Debate on coal. I should despair of the prospects of the coal industry if I felt that we had surrendered to a kind of fatalism and a feeling of industrial inepitude such as the Minister has displayed. He began by saying that we had suffered decline, decay and deterioration, and that something must be done to improve the situation in the industry. That is quite true. The Minister has been in office for nearly three years. I was in office for two years, before he became Minister of Fuel and Power. I knew that the industry was not in prime condition in 1940 and 1941. It has in fact been in a state of decline and decay for a quarter of a century.
Reference has been made to pronouncements made recently by people who have taken upon themselves an unwarrantable authority to speak for the industry. Mr. Foot—I do not know whether we are entitled to name such an exalted person in this connection—said he knew nothing at all about coal. He knew nothing about the miners, he had not seen them in their homes or at their work until he was commissioned, at a high rate of salary, to write a report. I decline to accept the authority claimed for such a person. After all, what we found in the Foot Report were long quotations from the Sankey Commission which we all knew by heart. Everyone of us on this side could quote thousands of words from the Sankey Report and many speeches made in the House and outside and give definitions of mining problems and examinations of the evils of the industry and explanations of technical and other failures as found in that Report. Mr. Justice Sankey presided over probably the best Committee of Inquiry that has ever examined the industry. We all know what had also been said by the Samuel Commission—though I am not quite sure that the Minister does, from what he has said to-day. The Samuel Commission said very clearly many things to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred—for example, the simple elementary condition of human economy in human labour by the carrying of men to distant parts of the mine. The Samuel Commission said that more precisely and more fully than either of the people, who have now reported upon the problem. There is nothing very new in the problem and nothing new in the setting in which the Minister has placed it. As I noticed the way he handled his subject, I was not sure whether he was turning over a

93
patient on the way to a hospital, or a corpse on the way to a grave. But the fact is that the patient is seriously ill, and is in immediate need of attention. Then we get quacks telling us how to deal with the problem.
Major Lloyd George: Who are the quacks?
Mr. Grenfell: One is Foot, who earns his literary salary under false pretences. I am using hard words because the time has come for plain speaking. When I was in the Mines Department, I gave advice to the best of my ability, and I do not withdraw one word of the advice that I gave. I said, long before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared on the scene, that the time had come for public ownership of this industry, with a national plan of production, distribution and use of coal. This industry, of which I form a part, to which I belong, which has drawn from me the best of my physical and mental powers, this industry in which I am still intensely interested, which is the foundation of our national life and our political activity, and upon which the whole superstructure of Britain's life, commercial and industrial, has been built for the last 150 years—this industry which has given strength and prestige to Britain as nothing else has, is now subjected to neglect and selfish exploitation and to a lack of patriotic interest. It is going down, and down, and down. Not a word said by the Minister to-day will prevent it sliding down deeper. It is already lower down in production than it was 50 years ago. The Minister does not appear to be very concerned. Apparently no one is. They are prepared to go on, and on, and on, and with, a measure of political effrontery, they present reports to us showing how well the coal industry has been served, not in Wales or Scotland or England, but in Holland, in Westphalia, in Silesia, in the Ruhr, in France and in Belgium. There are higher technical standards, better production, better conditions of work and a far higher degree of safety in all Continental coalfields, and the Minister quotes a report which says all that. We knew it all. I knew that production was better in European countries and in the United States. We have tried to explain that where superior conditions exist you expect greater production, but you do not expect greater production
94
where inferior natural conditions exist on the Continent.
When I started taking an interest in mining my first concern was safety. I never wanted to be a mining engineer for the sake of getting a higher salary. I was a very modest person with modest ambitions. I knew I had a taste for and a knowledge of mining, inherent and acquired, and I wanted to qualify by public examination on the same terms as anybody else, in order that my voice might carry strongly in defence of the lives and the limbs of the people I represented. I qualified, and I found that in those days, 38 years ago, we had the lowest death rate of all the mining countries. It was not more than one-third of the death rate in American mines, and it was lower than the rate in France and Germany, in the Ruhr and Silesia. I watched the relative decline. I found a public led by a baneful Press, prejudiced against the miner and unheedful of his just complaint. I have seen the death rate standing high, and I have seen an improvement elsewhere. The Americans have reduced their death rate to nearly one-third in the last 40 years, and every country on the Continent of Europe has achieved not quite as great but relative improvement. No explosion by fire damp has occurred in France in the last 15 years. We have had scores of explosions in this country during the same period. Why has there been no explosion in France? Because the French have gone far ahead of us in the application of mining and engineering technique. Ventilation is vastly improved.
I was on the Commission on Safety in the Mines from 1935 to 1938, and it was agreed that we had much to do even then to catch up with the conditions under which men worked on the Continent of Europe. They saved lives and limbs, less people broke down, and mining employment was more congenial. I would ask the Minister to listen to this. For the moment he holds a responsible position. Let him examine this. Do not ask Mr. Foot about it. He does not know and I doubt if he cares. Let the Minister ask some of the engineers whether or not, if you make a mine safe and healthier to work in, you get better production as a first result. You must improve mining conditions, not with a view to getting more coal, but if you make your mines safer and better to work in the coal will

95
come better as a result, and you will not drive the men away. The men will go back to the pits if you make the pits better. You will not get the next generation to undergo the mining conditions that I have known in my time. I would not allow anybody's son to work as I did, with the leather harness on my slender body, dragging coal in a place less than two feet high. One cannot forget those things. The Minister said there are memories of cuts in wages. I challenge the engineers who wrote the Reid Report, and I challenge Mr. Foot and those who hired him, to quote one case, with the backing of experience, to show that the employers ever offered a halfpenny a ton more to the men. They are always cutting and there have been miserable squabbles for halfpennies to enable the miners to keep body and soul together.
I must not go on too long. After all, we need a new chapter. I hope we are opening a new chapter. The Minister has admitted that. He dare not stand before his own constituents, as none of us dare appear before our constituents, whether we represent suburbia, slumdom, the rural areas or the mining constituencies, to defend the present mining policy. The Minister has told us that he knows the industry is in a bad way. He almost wept tears this afternoon. He said, "It is in a bad way. Get your mourning ready. This industry is dying. It is losing strength. Its pulse is getting weaker every day." But he said, "I have got a remedy for this." In these conditions of profound failure, sadness, decline, decay and pessimism, when conditions are becoming worse in this vital industry day by day, there is no remedy which the Minister can give. He said, "We will make quite sure that we will give the patient a good send-off. We will hoist the flag of private enterprise."
That will not do. I say in all solemnity that the men in this country will not have it. You cannot bury your misfortunes and troubles. You must bring them up to light in order to examine them and prescribe remedies. I know Mr. Carlow Reid and some of his colleagues. I say nothing against them as engineers. I am an engineer, too. I have a profound respect for the engineer in the mines and for the worker anywhere. The nation owes a tremendous amount to the skilled
96
workers who experiment and demonstrate and develop new methods. This engineering profession has been thwarted by selfish private enterprise. The Minister declares that the coal now belongs to the nation. It is national property. He said, "That is very good. We ought to be proud that we have acquired possession of this invaluable treasure." We know nothing at all about it yet. The future will find in coal treasures of various kinds which will serve mankind as it has never been served before by any other natural element. The Minister says, "It is good that this coal belongs to the State, but the profits shall belong to private enterprise." You may hoist the flag of private enterprise, but you will not touch this problem.
What is the gist of the Reid Report? The Minister himself quoted examples of operative practice and of development in the Dutch coalfields. I would say to him that the Dutch coalfields are all the better for being in State possession.
Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, it is important to get this matter of the Dutch coalfields right. There are 12 pits at present operating in Holland. Eight of them are privately owned and four are State-owned. Recently the head of the Dutch State mines was over here and I had a conversation with him about the comparative efficiency of privately owned mines and State-owned mines. He said the privately owned mines were slightly more efficient than the State-owned mines, although the latter evened up matters by a higher standard of discipline. It is a great fallacy to go away with the idea that all Dutch mines are State-owned.
Mr. Grenfell: I do not know what has happened in Holland in the last six or eight years. Few of us do. Of course, one may meet a Dutchman who is a partisan of private enterprise—a collaborator with the Germans, perhaps. Why should the Dutch have State-owned mines if they did not think they were better than the others? They have nationalised the mines.
Mr. Colegate: Some of the mines, not all of them.
Mr. Grenfell: The practice in Dutch mines is quoted in the Reid Report. They say the mining practice is better—
Mr. Colegate: What about the United States of America?
Mr. Grenfell: It is a wholly private enterprise. It is run in a scandalously wasteful way. If I were to be allowed to live another lifetime instead of one, I might in the future have a chance of joining my colleagues in this House in commiserating with the U.S.A. in their mining troubles.
Squadron Leader Fleming: Might I ask how many mines in the United States are owned by the State?
Mr. Grenfell: The mines are privately owned. If my hon. Friend believes that better mining exists in the United States of America because of private enterprise, he had better go back to school on this subject before he speaks again.
Mr. Colegate: The hon. Member on his own showing said that private enterprise produces better conditions and better mining results in the United States.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a reasonably wide Debate but we ought to get one speech finished at a time.
Mr. Grenfell: The proposed new private enterprise means that private people in this country find the finance for the re-equipment of the mines on the lines of the Reid plan, with these special organisations to supervise and to compel amalgamations. Private people have to supply the financial resources to pay for the cost of new development. Hon. Members will judge of public opinion themselves. Suppose the coal industry to-morrow were to go, cap in hand, on the lines of the recommendations of the Reid report, and ask for £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 to enable the mines to be re-equipped with machines and new pits to be sunk. Do hon. Members think that John Smith, citizen, is going to loan his money to people who are responsible for the doleful and miserable account which the Minister has given us this afternoon of this industry which is falling into decay and is incapable of saving itself? It has to come to the country to borrow £200,000,000 or £300,000,000, which is more than the industry ever carried. This industry is to borrow twice as much as the old capitalised value of the industry at the time of the Sankey Report. At the time of the Sankey Report the whole
98
capitalised value of the industry was held to be £135,000,000. That £135,000,000 has been repaid over and over again from 1920 to this year. Now it is proposed that private enterprise should spend £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 to build up a new industry over which there is to be complete private control, either individually or in small collective corporations, managed by private enterprise. I assure hon. Members that that is not the conception of the future of this industry which will have the slightest influence for good.
This House has to make up its mind and the Minister and his Department have to make up their minds to proceed at once to a betterment of conditions in the mines of this country. If the capital cannot be found for it by private enterprise, let the State find it. This country cannot live without coal, and it cannot go on very long with the price of coal rising and rising by shillings per ton. We are now charging something approaching 5s. per cwt. for coal, and the public of this country will not tolerate it. We are wastefully mining and distributing our coal, and this has been done under private enterprise. Private enterprise stands condemned by its own results. I warn this House—and I appeal to the people of this country as far as my voice will carry—that if we are determined to have a strong and efficient industrial system in Britain, we must make quite certain of our foundation, which is coal, got from the mines by the miners of this country. Treat the coalminers right. Develop our coalmines right. We cannot go into detailed technical discussion on the subject in the House of Commons. We really must learn the lessons, even the lessons of the Reid Report, the lessons which Mr. Foot stumbled upon in trying to earn his pay. Let us learn those lessons, and realise the danger in which the industry stands and, in the interests of decency and safety, and of the real wealth of the country, and of an abundant supply of fuel and power for our industries, let us make up our minds to make a job of it. Let us get the industry organised, planned and sustained by the whole resources of the State, as a vital element in State property which we all have a right to enjoy.
5.33 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: Once again I have the privilege of following the

99
hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) in a Debate on coal, and once again I must, straight away, say that I do not agree with his conclusions, although I recognise the sincerity with which he expresses his views. For a moment, I would like to deal with a few figures of the present situation. We are producing coal to-day at 39s. 6d. a ton, and at the rate of about 177,000,000 tons year. Absenteeism is going up daily. That is the position with which we are confronted. It is somewhat analogous to what occurred in the last war when the country embarked on its first experiment in State control. During the years from 1913 to 1920, output dropped by about 70,000,000 tons, more or less the same as the drop on the present occasion. The production cost of coal went up from 11s. to 37s. 6d. just as it has now gone up from 16s. to 39s. 6d. There is one other set of figures. The index figure for coal to-day is 211 as against a pre-war figure of 100, a figure in advance of any other raw material or manufactured article in this country. The House can, therefore, readily recognise what an effect that will have upon our competitive ability and our prospects of exporting coal after the war.
Confronted with this situation, the hon. Member for Gower has suggested nationalisation as the solution. I do not believe that the House or the country is particularly interested in political theories of ownership. What they are interested in is, How are we to put this matter right? And at this moment we have the inestimable advantage of having before us the report of the technical advisory committee under Dr. Reid, a body of experts who have investigated the circumstances of the industry and have given us, for the first time possibly, an opportunity of assessing the position both from the technical and from the more general point of view. I ask hon. Members to mark that that Committee has not recommended nationalisation.
Mr. George Griffiths: They recommended a pup of it.
Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: It was not within their terms of reference to do so, but they were free agents, and had they wished to do so, I have no doubt that they would have done so. Neither did the independent experts of the Sankey or the Samuel
100
Commissions recommend anything of the sort. The experts do not, for the very good reason that it is not the solution. Nationalisation has not yet proved itself anywhere. It is a political concept of how the industry should be owned; it is not a method of producing coal. What the Reid Committee set out to do, was to indicate the broad lines on which the re-organisation of the industry can occur. They have not fallen into the error, into which some hon. Members have fallen to-day, of thinking that because we are producing less coal than we need, and have not got the men to produce more, that is the standard to apply to this industry. Before the war, we were producing all the coal we required both for our internal consumption and our export markets. There was no shortage of men; in fact, there was unemployment. What was wrong was that we were producing coal at an output per man-shift which did not allow us to compete successfully in world markets.
The causes were manifold; wasting seams, redundancy of undertakings, and various factors adding up to a situation which was not, from the financial point of view, enabling the industry to pay adequate wages or to command a body of technicians and officials completely adequate to the problem. The Reid Committee has approached the problem broadly along two main channels. So far as the technical aspect is concerned, they recommend the introduction of room and pillar extraction under mechanised methods wherever possible. The great majority of the seams in this country today are less than 40 inches. The vital necessity of mechanically extracting coal of that thickness needs no emphasis and the fact that this particular technique enables us to do it satisfactorily is the reason for the very strong manner in which the Committee have recommended it.
Mr. Bernard Taylor: Does not the Reid Report lay it down that the best method is the long wall retreat?
Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I was referring specifically to the shallower seams, but I agree the Committee do recommend that the long wall retreating method should be used in thicker seams. I mentioned this because it brings into the picture the introduction of American mining methods. About three years ago, when

101
the Ministry undertook this new development, it was urged upon them that they should give the fullest facilities to technical management of acquiring first-hand experience and practice in the introduction of this type of mining. They did not profit by that suggestion. They purchased a considerable amount of equipment, and attempted to put it into the mines as quickly as they could. The industry could not digest it, because the men and the officials were not trained to accept it. We lost about two years. Since then the Ministry have taken steps to remedy that situation. Managers are going across increasingly to the United States and, as has been said, a school has been set up in Sheffield where practical experience can be obtained. The result is that this particular technique is now gaining ground, and I think it can be safely claimed that within the next 18 months very satisfactory results will be forthcoming.
As to the method of extraction, I feel that the Reid Committee fell down slightly by limiting themselves to recommending the general principle. They did not get down sufficiently to its practical application or give a clear lead to managements. If managements are to embark upon such a revolution in their methods it is essential that they should be furnished with the latest information and knowledge on as broad a scale as possible. I urge that this matter should be put right at the earliest possible moment, and that the methods and technique to be applied should be specified in far greater detail. Their other main technical approach to this problem is the necessity of the reorganisation of underground haulage. Here again we can profit by Continental and American practice. We suffer under a severe limitation in regard to the introduction of the particular type of haulage they have in use on the Continent and in America.
It is likewise essential that the safety regulations in regard to underground electrification should be reviewed at the earliest moment possible. The machinery in connection with both underground haulage and this technique of American mining in room and pillar work in the first instance, comes from abroad, and I suggest that we should be unwise not to profit to the full by the experience, particularly, of the United States. They have 15 or 20 years' advantage over us in this respect, and it is fair to say that the dependability and construction of their
102
equipment are in advance of ours at present. Our manufacturers are catching up as fast as they can, but I think they would be wise to model themselves, as close as they can, on actual American specifications for the time being. Those ate the two general technical approaches to which I wish to refer in this matter.
The other matter dealt with in the Reid Report which is of vital importance is the question of amalgamations. The bottleneck in regard to amalgamations is undoubtedly the shortage of good managerial ability. Although amalgamations must be based on geographical and geological conditions, we have to recognise that if we are to undertake this immense task of reorganisation we shall have to use our available colliery managers in the most widely dispersed manner we can. To illustrate what I have in mind, I would say that one cannot generalise on the question of the size of amalgamations. In South Yorkshire it might be quite practicable to have an amalgamation of anything up to 5,000,000 tons or over, but to attempt to do the same thing, shall we say in the thin seam areas of Lanarkshire and West Durham, or the faulted deep and often inclined measures of Lancashire, would be quite impossible, and there we should have to limit ourselves to a figure nearer 2,000,000 or3,000,000 tons. So long as this question of amalgamations is approached sensibly, from the aspect of the ability of a management to control a given output, there can be no question that inherent in the whole question of reorganisation of this industry lies the necessity of recognising that amalgamations must occur.
So far as the rest of the Report is concerned there are, of course, a great many important and valuable points which we might profitably discuss, but I have purposely limited myself to these two main aspects of the situation, the technical aspect and the matter of amalgamations, because I feel they are fundamental to any attempt to put this industry on its feet. In implementing this Report, it will be necessary, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, to set up the necessary machinery at the earliest possible moment to give sanction to this question of amalgamations, and I hope the necessary Bill will be introduced at the earliest moment. As the Report rightly says, a great opportunity lies at this moment

103
before the industry, before all those connected with it, owners, managers or men. There is, throughout the world, an immense advance in methods and technique of which we can take the fullest advantage, and which we can turn to the benefit of this great industry, but as the Reid Report so rightly says, the time do so is now. We must get on with the job
5.51 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey Mander: It is always a pleasure to listen to an enlightened coalowner, and that is a pleasure we have whenever the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks. The mining industry would be in a very different position to-day if there were more persons associated with it with the mind and temper of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But we have to take the coal industry as we find it, which is a rather different matter. My right hon. and gallant Friend, in opening his case, dealt with a large number of different ways which have been adopted by the Government during the war to try to improve the situation in the mines. I will mention one or two of them. We must clearly keep in mind that no one particular item can be a solution of this problem. We can only get matters right by adopting a number of different methods, some of which are absolutely essential, while others will be of great value. The Minister referred in particular to the wages agreement of April, 1944. That is certainly a stabilising and valuable element in the situation, but it is only one. Then there are production committees, and the Minister gave a picture of the working of certain production committees. I was delighted to hear that account. It would be an admirable thing for the whole Industry if discussions could take place between the owners and the miners, over the whole range of matters connected with a particular mine or the industry, in the sort of temper indicated there. I hope that these committees will be a permanent feature of our mining organisation. I am sure that they have a valuable part to play in instilling a spirit of partnership.
The Minister referred to the question of mechanised haulage, and great developments are necessary in that direction. I can give an example within my own experience. A number of miners whom I
104
have the honour to represent here, who work at Hilton Main colliery, complained to me for many years about the very arduous nature of their task in having to walk up and down an exceedingly steep incline and having, when they got to the bottom, a long march to undertake. I went down that pit the other day by courtesy of the management, and found that things have changed. I was whisked down by mechanical haulage. The whole situation from the miner's point of view is entirely different. One gets from a picture of that kind an indication of the immense changes for the better that can be brought about in the work of the miners by the introduction of these essential methods, which have been far too long neglected. The Minister made reference to the work of the Miners' Welfare Committee. I saw something of that when I was a member of the Departmental Committee which went into the matter in 1930. One appreciates the most valuable work which, under the chairmanship of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes) is being done in this field. The miners deserve every encouragement in the way of pithead baths and other amenities which can possibly be associated with the mines. I always feel that the precedent set in the mining industry, by which a charge per ton is made available for amenities, might well be adopted in other industries which have neglected matters of that kind.
The other point in this connection, to which the previous speaker referred, was the importance of obtaining the highest possible technical qualifications in the management of mining. We cannot attach too much importance to that. I am very glad that that is being attended to as well. In introducing this subject my right hon. and gallant Friend said that the Government's scheme which had been working throughout the war was a compromise. So it was. He then proceeded to describe a new policy of the Government, and it seemed to me also to be a compromise, based to a considerable extent on the Reid Report, which will be a landmark in regard to this subject for a great many years. It is proposed to set up a statutory committee, with compulsory powers to amalgamate a large number of private enterprises in different parts of the country. That was recommended by Lord Samuel in 1926. One would have

105
thought that steps might have been taken to put that recommendation into operation before now. There is nothing new in that. A mining commission was set up, with powers to bring about compulsory amalgamation, but for one reason or another nothing came of it. Apparently we are to take that step again.
The choice seems to me to lie between two things, that is, that we should have piecemeal amalgamations into a number of different mines, working under private enterprise, or amalgamations into public utility companies. So far as speed of action is concerned, I should have thought that there was no doubt that the public utility method was by far the quicker, if we want to get things done with the utmost speed. It is perfectly clear that a very large capital investment will have to be made by somebody in the mines of this country to bring them up to date. It is clear from the Reid Report that it will be much easier for that capital to be found by the State at a low rate of interest, and made use of wherever it is needed in the mines, than for industrial companies to find it on their own. The State will have to provide a great deal of the finance, and it is very difficult to see how that can be handed over to private enterprise.
From another point of view, I think it important that the State should be associated with the mines. We are looking forward to a policy of full employment; we are all committed to it. In the years immediately ahead, difficulties may not arise but they will arise later, and it will be very convenient for the State to be able to turn to one of its own undertakings and say, "We have here vast opportunities. We can go ahead on our own. We can spend money and provide employment through capital investment on a large scale." From the point of view of full employment I think the arguments are in favour of the public utility company. The last reason I would give against a scheme of leaving the matter to private enterprise is that we will not have the cooperation of the miners so long as that state of affairs remains. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that there was no remedy by mere change of ownership. There will be no remedy without a change of ownership. That alone will not do it; a lot of other things will be needed as well, but if we are to get where we want to get that step is vital.
106
After the terrible experiences, the misunderstandings and the friction there have been for so many years, a psychological attitude has been produced, which makes it impossible for the mines to continue under undiluted private enterprise. We want to look, therefore, to a system by which there will be a number of public utility companies—it is impossible to say exactly how many will be required—where there would be decentralisation of operation and where the supremacy of the national interest would be kept in mind the whole time. The companies would have to carry on their work without subsidies, of course. I believe there is no reason why under such conditions there should not be the fullest opportunity for personal initiative, which plays so great a part in the minds of all individuals and in the development of any enterprise, whether public or private. My right hon. and gallant Friend interjected in the course of the discussion, "Let them think again." I hope he will think again. I think that he will have to go further than is intended at present. This is a step of a kind, but further steps are essential to reach our goal. The target to aim at is that of making the mines a national possession, willingly worked by the miners, for the benefit of the State.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: Debates on the coal situation in this House have been marvelled at by the people in the country. We do not seem to make any progress in the direction that we desire to go, after these Debates. People outside, and many people inside this Chamber—and, I know, the miners—are sick and tired of Debates in this Chamber, after which there is no evidence of improvement in the mining industry. It has been said, and I repeat, that this country has been blessed by the Divine Creator with the best coal ever put into the bowels of the earth. We have the best miners, who, by their craft and their skill, can produce that coal. We have the best brains, which our mining colleges and technical institutions have developed. We have three great assets: the best coal, the best miners and the best technical advisers; yet we cannot, under the present system, make the coalmining industry a paying proposition. Report after report has been made, inquiry after inquiry has been held; yet we find ourselves unable to give satisfac-

107
tion to the miners, and certainly we cannot at present give satisfaction to the consumers of coal.
What are the reasons? There are many. One of the things which appealed to me in the two previous speeches was the hint that there should be amalgamations—piecemeal in some parts. If amalgamations of groups of collieries are essential, it is even more essential that nationalisation should take place. As an ex-miner of 35 years' experience underground, I have tried, in my humble way, to focus the minds of the people responsible on to the direction we ought to take. We are often accused, as miners' representatives, of not attempting to bring the industry into a state approaching perfection. We are reflecting to-day the Debate that took place in the House of Commons on 4th July, 1919, when there was a very animated discussion on the increase in the price of coal by 6s. a ton. We were told that we had no interest in the industry, and that we were not concerned about whether it rose or fell. May I be permitted to show our interest, as miners, in this question? I quote from the records of our Federation in 1919:
"This annual conference of the Miners' Federation, of Great Britain, having heard the report of the miners' Members of Parliament on the discussion in the House of Commons on the proposal of the Government to raise the price of coal by 6s. per ton, declares that such increase is not necessary and should be avoided. It regards the problem as one of production only, and it is of the opinion that production can only be increased to a point which will make the industry self-supporting without additional charges to the consumer if the economies set forth in the Interim Sankey Report are effected and the recommendation of the majority of the commissioners as to an immediate change of ownership and control of the mining industry passed into law. It therefore informs the Government that it is prepared to co-operate with them to the fullest extent to put such economies into effect and such recommendations into law."
That is a statement made by the Miners' Federation in 1919. We are now in 1945, and no attempt—and I say this with all respect—has been made by any Ministry, whether it be the Ministry of Mines, the Board of Trade or the Home Office, which used to be responsible for the mining industry from an administrative point of view, to put into operation the recommendations either of the Interim Sankey Report or of the full Sankey Report. What is standing in the way? Why do
108
we allow things to drift, drift, drift, instead of making up our minds, not so much from a party point of view as from a national point of view, that certain things ought to be done? As far back as 1816 a very important and eminent mining authority in this country wrote a treatise on the Northumberland and Durham coalfields. He said:
"If ever a Government is justified in interposing its authority between the interests of the public and individuals, it must be in instances where the good of individuals is daily trespassing upon the moral probity of the country and the social happiness and industrial prosperity of the community."
Those words have never been denied. They were written as far back as 1816; since then many waters have flowed under the bridges, there have been reports, inquiries and investigations. Despite them all, all our advocacy, all our appeals, have fallen on deaf ears, and the position of the mining industry is such as has never been experienced before in its history. One thing that troubles me is that people keep complaining about production falling, and saying that we cannot meet the needs of the community. If we cannot meet the needs of the community at present, what will be the position when all the industries are revived? God help us in the years ahead unless we adopt a bold courageous policy. I wonder whether people who try to put the responsibility on the miners ever trouble to discover the gradually diminishing personnel in the mines. That is a very vital factor. It is well that this House and the public should be reminded that in 1913 there were employed in the mining industry, in men and boys, 1,110,884 persons. They were responsible in that year for producing 287,439,473 tons of coal—the highest that has ever been produced in the history of the industry. What was the position in 1943? There had been a slowly, gradually diminishing personnel in the mines, and 707,800 people were employed in the industry. They produced 194,493,000 tons of coal. We have a saying in the pit that neither wise men nor fools can work without tools, and you cannot produce coal without the men.
A great deal has been said, in this House and in the Press, about absenteeism in the mines. It is well that the figures should be analysed. I do not want it to go forth that there are any miners' Members or people interested, in the mining

109
industry who stand for avoidable absenteeism. We do not stand for that; we believe that our men should play their part. But what is the position to-day in relation to that of 1919, after the last war? I guarantee that if hon. Members analyse the figures to-day they will find that the position is similar to that which existed after the last war; so why attach this importance to the question of absenteeism? In December, 1941, absenteeism in the mining industry amounted to 9·65 per cent. In December, 1942, it had risen to 10·79 per cent. In December, 1943, it was 14·40 per cent. For the second quarter of 1944 voluntary absenteeism among face workers—and here is an important point, because some people try to classify all men alike—was 8.6 per cent., and involuntary absenteeism was 5·8 per cent. Therefore I hope that there will be fewer accusations against the miner on the question of absenteeism.
It is all very well for people outside the mining industry and people who have had no experience of deep mine working, to talk about absenteeism in the mining industry. This House and the public outside should be reminded that we have men working to-day in deep-shaft mines which are 1,000 yards deep to start with, and have a gradient of one in five, who, when they get to the coal face, are working in a temperature of between 90 and 100 degrees. We have tested them out, and we know that they have lost in seven and a half hours at the coal face, 13 lbs. in weight. I challenge anybody to deny it. How can you expect men working in these conditions, and almost naked, to continue working five or six days a week? The strongest could not do it. I myself claimed, when I was in the pit, to be as strong as the next man, but I could not stick it. I think the longest period for which, I worked six days per week was two months, and, finally, I had to yield to the effect it had upon my physical condition.
Let us get away from blaming the miners. We are not without faults, but do not put them all on our shoulders. We will carry our own, and stand up to the best man living, but we do not want to be charged with responsibility for the reduction in the output of coal. A great deal has been said by the two previous speakers about mechanisation. Let us see how far we have travelled in that
110
direction. Again, I speak with some knowledge of the introduction of machines in the mines. In 1913, there were, in this country, 2,895 coal-cutting machines producing 24,368,000 tons of coal. This was eight per cent. of the total output of coal, produced by machines in 1913. In 1920, seven years later, we had 5,071 machines producing 30,194,000 tons—13 per cent. of the total output of this country. In 1930, another ten years later, we had 7,637 coal-cutting machines, which produced 75,758,000 tons—31 per cent. of the total output. In 1941, the second year after the war began, we had only raised that figure to 7,794, but—and here is a very important point—despite the fact that there was only a small increase, we produced 134,131,691 tons. Sixty-nine per cent. of the total output in 1941, produced by machines. I want the House to realise what this means to the men in the mining industry. We used to be prejudiced against the introduction of machines. That prejudice has been broken down. We are now prepared to accept them, provided that one very important thing is done, and I hope the Minister will take note of this. We are prepared to lend a helping hand and co-operate with the Minister in the introduction of more efficient machines into the mines, if the first thing that he does is to have regard to the safety of the men who have to operate those machines.
I am glad of this opportunity of addressing a few words to the House on this subject. I think it is time to realise that whatever Government are in power after the General Election, they must cease to tinker with this business, and make up their minds, not so much for the benefit of the miners, but for the nation's benefit, that this industry has to be put on its feet. An hon. Member on the opposite benches said that, in 18 months, if certain things were done, we might expect greater prosperity and a greater increase in production, because of the American machine-mining methods. It is as well that he should be reminded that he offered the very same words two years ago, and that he put forward a proposal that we could expect greater prosperity and output. One is tired of accusations against the miners, and of listening to the wails and moans of the people who cannot get coal. I have every sympathy with them, but we shall never get the coal that this nation requires.

111
unless we are prepared to set ourselves on a bold, courageous policy. That policy can only be the policy recommended by the Sankey Commission—despite all that is said against it—namely, the nationalisation of the mines of this country for the benefit of the country and the people.
6.22 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I have listened to all the speeches in this Debate and I cannot help being impressed by the tremendous importance of the subject we are discussing. When we consider that the coal industry is the basis of the whole of our industrial activity in this country, on which everything else depends, and which, in the past, has been our biggest export trade, it makes us realise that it is far above the question whether the miner has done all that he can, or whether management has done all that it can. We are really discussing now whether we shall get more coal, cheaper and better coal, for industry and export, under the system of nationalisation, or under the system of private enterprise. There is another point which one must bring into consideration, and that is the effect on the enormous number of men and women concerned with the colliery industry. All should realise that this question affects not only the collier and the colliery industry, but all other industrial workers who are dependent upon the products of the collieries. We are therefore engaging to-day in a very much wider Debate than we have had for many years. It involves the question of whether we should do better under nationalisation than under private enterprise. I do not think I can possibly persuade hon. Members who have already made up their minds on what is the best course to pursue, but I think it very important that all who are associated with the industry should put before the public the various arguments one way and the other. In a very few weeks, the people will have to decide, by the votes they cast in the General Election.
Having thought it over, I cannot see that we should get any more coal, or get cheaper coal, by means of nationalisation, than we get under private enterprise. It is possible, as a political argument, to say that a man might be happier if he felt he was working for the nation instead of for a private employer. That is one con-
112
sideration. Another is whether big industries throughout the country will get better, cheaper and more coal by a change of ownership. The last speaker talked about the diminishing personnel. I am not at all sure that, by State ownership or nationalisation, we should increase the personnel in the mines in any degree. It seems to me that the only method by which we can get more coal out of the mines is by the system of intense mechanisation suggested in the Reid Report, and I entirely agree with the view expressed in that Report. The mining industry is not an industry that men really like. It is an ugly industry, from the point of view of the workers, and, therefore, I do not think it is possible to get greater personnel in the mines by public than by private ownership.
So far as the handling of the industry itself is concerned, I must put this view—that State management is quite unsuited for an industry which has so much detail connected with it as coalmining. Such a system would be unsuited to the amount of detail which must be dealt with in the coal industry, whether in the treatment, the marketing or the shipping of coal. I do not think these matters should be a State responsibility or that the State is suited to handle that class of industry. So far as cost is concerned, I cannot see that any reduction of cost would be achieved. I do think that the solution to this problem is to leave the initiative and individual effort of those who have been brought up in the industry and have inherited skill, though I would add that it is the responsibility of the State to control, in the broad aspect, the management of the industry. The State must be able to say that it insists on certain amalgamations, on certain conditions and rearrangements, on certain rates of wages to be paid to the miners and on certain provisions and facilities for welfare to be given to the miners by the colliery companies. But to nationalise the mines and run them as a national enterprise would be, to my mind, no improvement whatever on what has been going on in the past. I strongly feel, although I know others have a different view, that this is a view which must be put before the people at the Election so that they may realise that there are two sides to the question. My view is that the way to get better results in the industries of the country is to leave the production of

113
coal in private hands instead of applying nationalisation. Personally, I am entirely in favour of having the industry under private enterprise, because I believe that in that way we can get better coal, which is the raw material of the industries of the whole country. It would be all wrong that a basic industry of this nature should be carried away by a political force, without consideration for the reactions which may follow an enormous change of policy. I welcome the statement of policy from the Minister, and his indication that the industry is to be left to private enterprise to manage, while the Government will set up a Commission or Committee to insist on certain improvements being made.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. George Griffiths: I have listened to mining Debates now for something like 11 years, but I have never heard such a melancholy statement by the coalowners' representatives as that which we heard to-day. One of them has been preaching what is almost a funeral sermon; I have never heard anything so doleful. Another mineowners' representative has said: "We know we have been a complete failure in the past; we have not been able to deliver the goods, but give us another chance, and we will see what we can do." The coalowners have had a chance ever since before the Sankey Commission. I shall never forget the Sankey Commission. I was working at the coal face at the time and every night the evening papers in Yorkshire published the evidence and the miners swallowed it wholesale. It is rather a remarkable thing—and I want the Minister to listen to this—that on the appointment of the Sankey Commission the father of the present Minister promised almost everything this side of Heaven.
Major Lloyd George: That is not true.
Mr. Griffiths: The Government at that time stated definitely that they were prepared to bring in legislation to implement the Sankey Commission, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot get behind that.
Major Lloyd George: Not before it reported. Is the hon. Member suggesting that any responsible Minister would promise to introduce legislation to implement the findings of a Commission before that Commission had sat?
Mr. Griffiths: I challenge the Minister to deny that the Government at that time stated that they would set up a Commission because of the unrest and that they would implement the findings of that Commission. That is on record, and no one can get behind it. But they did not implement it. They gave us the Miners' Welfare—the penny a ton—because they found that the living conditions of the miners in those days were a disgrace to the British Isles. They introduced the Miners' Welfare in order to help. I am not saying that that was not a good thing, but it was not sufficient. I hope that all the mining community will read the speeches in this House to-day. The coal belongs to us. It is ours. We bought it from the royalty owners for a round £100,000,000—[An Hon. Member: "Sixty-six million pounds."] It was £66,000,000 plus £5,000,000 per annum for four years, plus another£10,000,000. So that it was close on £100,000,000 that we paid to the coalowners. It is our coal. What do we do with it? We say, "We bought the coal, it belongs to us and we will let somebody else work it for us." We hire out the coal to the owners instead of working it ourselves, and working it better than the coalowners have worked it up to now. I hope that all the coalowners will swallow the Reid Report. They swallowed the Foot Report, but the Foot Report did not last three weeks.
Mr. A. MacLaren: Foot-and-mouth disease.
Mr. Griffiths: It was foot-and-mouth disease, and when we criticised that Report, Foot goes back into chambers and makes an attempt to alter it. The coalowners themselves do not unanimously agree with him. I spoke to half-a-dozen coalowners and they condemned him, though all the others acquiesced in the Report. The coalowners had to go outside the coal industry to get the assistance of a man who had never seen a piece of coal at the face and did not know anything about the workings. He said that he would have to go to Yorkshire, Lancashire and to Scotland and have a chat with those concerned, and he made out his Report without any experience whatever, only theory. And now we have the Reid Report. The Minister appointed to that Committee mining engineers belonging to big firms which want to swallow up the smaller firms. The

115
Reid Report, from Genesis until Revelations, is a condemnation of the present working of the mining industry. They say, "Let us have amalgamations." If they want bigger amalgamations, why do not they come out for them in a full-blooded fashion? What is wanted is public ownership, not private enterprise, for the good of the entire country. Miners are far more educated now than they were when I was a lad. They can argue out a thing and look at it from both sides. They do not want the mines merely for the sake of an advantage to the miners. If one goes into any mining village he will find that they demand that the mines shall be owned by the nation, so that they can -produce coal not for a couple of million miners and their wives, but for 44,000,000 people in this country.
The Minister has talked about a decline in output. There will be a bigger decline than that, and why? I have been at home this week-end and I met some of our miners' wives. Both the wives and the men complain of the rations being cut down. They are being cut down to such an extent that the men will not be able to work five days a week, in fact it will take them all their time to work four days a week, on the amount of food they are to get. If I ask the Minister of Food for a bigger ration for the miners he will say that they have their canteens, but they get only one meal a day there and have to have the other three meals away. They will not be able to take bacon fat with them because the bacon ration has been cut down. A miner said to me last week, "George, I have had to get coal on dry bread." This is not theory, but something straight from the horse's mouth. How can you expect men to get more coal on nothing but tea cakes? They have to get steam up on tea cakes. I wish the Minister of Food were present, so that we could put this across. I predict—and I have predicted a few things since I have been in this House—that less coal will be produced because of ration cuts.
An hon. Member opposite said that State management is not suitable for miners. State enterprise in other things has been successful and there is nothing to prevent State enterprise being successful in the mines. It was said that we want more managers. That is all bunkum
116
and eyewash. We have scores of men working at the coal face who would make first-class managers. They have grown up from boys of 14 at the pit. They have their deputy's certificate, their under-manager's certificate and their manager's certificate and they are awaiting the chance of a manager's job. We have the men, they have the brains and they can do the job. With regard to production committees, it was understood that the manager was to be responsible to the coalowners on the financial side and to the State on the production side for the time being. I suggested speaking from the very place from which I am speaking now that no man could serve two masters. Managers have been expecting control to go off again and that as soon as control went off they would get the sack, and they were watching that sort of thing. I leave that and come to the actual production committees. The Minister told us at that Box that 75 per cent. of the collieries were not working the production committees.
Major Lloyd George: I did not say that 75 per cent. of the collieries were not working the production committees, but that 25 per cent. were very good and that the others ranged from good to indifferent. I am only correcting the hon. Member.
Mr. Griffiths: I am certain that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made the statement that 75 per cent. of the collieries were not working and I wish I could get Hansard to prove it to him. If 75 per cent. had not been working and had been absentees, what a row there would have been in the country. I want to tell the Ministry why the miners have lost confidence altogether in the production committees. It is because the miner on this side of the table has not the same power as the owner on the other side of the table. I can cite cases from the pit where I worked, in which, when the men's representative put proposals before the management, they said, "No, we shall not carry them out." Our chaps said that they were sick of it and at the branch meetings which were held every week there was controversy because of the reports of the production committees with which they were very dissatisfied. So I ask the Minister not to depend too much upon the production committees.

117
The Minister says that we want to increase production because we must get more coal. There as a pit in my division in which there are 2,300 men, and about which I asked a Private Notice Question. I put my Question at a time when the Prime Minister was expected to come just round that comer into the Chamber and all eyes were turned in that direction. I wanted to follow it up, but everybody was waiting for the Prime Minister so I had to cut my questions short. If we had known that the Prime Minister was not coming in until later the chaps on these benches would have followed up my supplementary question and would have made things a bit awkward. Let me put this point. There has been a fire at the pit. In addition to that they talk about operating it to the far end, and bringing it back on long wall work but they cannot stand that, because there would not be any profit for 20 years. As soon as ever the pit is sunk they make the shift pillars as short as they can, so that they can get into the coal and turn it out and make profits. This pit, without a doubt, was sunk on that system and if you went to that pit to-day you would find the roads and the ventilation and everything else like a dog's leg—our folk understand what that means. There is hardly a straight main road in the pit, yet it is one of the latest pits sunk in South Yorkshire.
As I say, a fire occurs down the more profitable side of the pit, the South side, and the men at the coal face there, with advantages, are producing twice as much as the men at all the other sides of the pit. We try to stem the fire but it becomes boss, so they seal the pit off, not a long way from the pit bottom on that side. The other side of the pit, which does not pay so well, could work alongside this one, but immediately the South side is sealed off the coalowners says, "There are some fires in the others." As long as you are packing your roads with coal instead of sending the coal out of the pit, there will always be fires. That is the up-to-date way in which the mineowners of to-day are carrying on the pits—packing with coal, leaving dry wood in the pit. In the district I have mentioned it was all right to work whilst there was a productive South side, but immediately they seal off the South side they say, "This other piece is dangerous now." Yet the conditions are no worse now than they were when the South side was work-
118
ing and producing coal. I want to put this to the Minister. They stop that side altogether, they stop the pit altogether. Why? The owners said, "We cannot carry on because it will be a loss of so many thousands a week to us." I say that if the mines belonged to the public they would not have said to these miners, "We are stopping this lot here." No, the good mines would have helped the poor mines out, and the men would have been working there to-day without a doubt.
There is something else. Those men—some 1,700 of the 2,300—have now drifted somewhere else. Some have bought their own houses, so these folk are away from the district. I know what the Minister's reply will be—"But you know we are taking them over in a car and they go home at nights." I do not think the Minister understands that miners like to be together as a branch, and the men that are working at Bullcroft and Rossington and Bantley and the other South Yorkshire pits, never get to a branch meeting. They go home. They live 10 to 15 miles away and they have not the community of interest which they would have if they were all living together, so they lose the opportunity to know what is going on so far as their trade union is concerned. I have nothing else to say but I felt I must protest against the idea that we are shutting down a portion of a mine where we can produce, if the mine is developed, not less than 8,000 tons of coal per week. Will the Minister tell us whether it was his technical advisers? He took the technical advice himself without ferreting into this case because he got the technical advice on a Saturday night about seven o'clock and they decided on the Monday morning that the pit was closed. I finish with this. You will never get increased production under private enterprise. Private enterprise is played out without a doubt.
6.53 p.m.
Colonel Clarke: I have listened with close attention to what the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has said, as I always do, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I want to take the Debate back to another aspect of this problem as it relates to the consumer. The Debate began, I understand, on the question of the raising of the price of coal, and also on the information we have received

119
of a possible shortage of fuel. That is causing a good deal of anxiety in my constituency and other parts of the South of England, which last year were quite short, and people there fear that in the coming winter they may not only have insufficient fuel for heating but may even be short of fuel for cooking. In towns, and in quite a number of suburban districts, there are alternative resources in the form of gas and electricity, but that is not so in the rural districts, though, of course, agricultural workers often get wood fuel. What emergency preparations has the Minister made if it is found that in the coming winter, there is a real scarcity of fuel in the country?
I would like to suggest that all alternative resources are explored, such as the provision of wood fuel in forest districts. There is a great deal of it about, and much more could be cut and, in the cutting of it, only good would be done. What arrangements have been made for the use of that fuel? Another alternative method, I would remind the Minister, is that a great part of the Army abroad in the Middle East during this war have heated their huts and tents and cooked very successfully on crude oil and water. Very simple cookers could be made to use that method of heating and, as an emergency method, I believe that something of that sort might be prepared and be of use in a real crisis in districts where gas and electricity and solid fuel were not obtainable.
To return to the more general tenor of this Debate, I would say that though I have roots in the coal industry, everything I say here is said entirely as a free lance and I am not representing anybody. I listened to the Minister's exposition of the Government's policy as regards coal with great interest. I cannot in a few moments give a considered opinion but, by and large, my appreciation of it was that it was a thing which should be welcomed. It occurred to me that the Government were trying to combine the best of the Reid and Foot Reports and, particularly, to carry out the technical recommendations of the former. I think there is a great deal of good in both those Reports and I believe that if the Reid Report were given some teeth, so that its recommendations could be implemented, there lies in it a great prospect of solving some
120
of the problems that beset the industry at the present time.
Naturally there has been in this Debate a lot of talk about nationalisation. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) gave as an example of how successful nationalisation could be, the case of the Dutch mines. I suggest that perhaps his example is not altogether a fair one. The story is gone into in some detail in the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission in 1925.From that it appears that the earlier attempts to nationalise the mines in Holland were not a success. In the early nineteenth century there was a State mine called the Danielli. It ended in disaster and apparently, having learned a lesson from that, when the big new Limburg coalfield began to work, the State reserved by law the greater part of it for national exploitation only, and the development of private mines in that part was strictly circumscribed.
I suggest that it is not really a fair test, and that quite possibly private enterprise might have done as well, or even better. I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered, but if our export trade is some day to be restarted, and become an important thing in our business life once more, as I fully trust it will, I feel that to nationalise the coal industry might be internationally dangerous. To compete as a State against the private businesses of other countries would leave us in a dangerous position. At present the private exporter forms a buffer, and prevents a direct clash.
As regards the provision of finance to reconstitute our coal industry, based on private enterprise, I believe that the best of our mines to-day can get all the money they require, and that if the industry was reorganised on the lines suggested there would be little difficulty in finding the necessary money, particularly if owners felt that for some years ahead they would have security. I realise that lack of security of employment has probably been one of the principal causes of dissatisfaction among mine workers ever since the bad days following the last war, but I think it is sometimes forgotten that that same feeling of insecurity is felt by mine owners. Security is wanted on both sides. If owners were assured of security for some years I believe there would be little difficulty in getting the necessary money for the industry.

121
Finally, I want to say a word or two about getting miners back from the Forces. It may be necessary, but I hope this policy will be considered most carefully before it is put into effect. If we depart from the policy of re-allocation of man-power which has been announced, and which Servicemen have had carefully explained to them and understand, a great deal of dissatisfaction might be caused. I saw that for myself after the last war in France, when men from first one industry were called back and then from another, quite regardless of how long they bad been in the Army or had been abroad. That dissatisfaction lasted for a long time, and although no one has a higher regard for the soldier miner than I have—many served under me and they are the best fellows you can get—I feel that we should not return them to civil life before men of equal age and length of service without grave consideration. Release should be granted only as a last resort, because any departure from the system of what is commonly called demobilisation and technically re-allocation would be very unpopular, and might cause a lot of ill-feeling in the Forces
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest) said that the mining industry was an ugly industry—
Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I used that word by mistake. May I now say "unpopular"?
Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member used the word "ugly," and I want to say that so long as mineowners are in the picture that term can apply, but that when they are cleared out that term, or the word "unpopular," need not apply. The important thing about the mining industry is that it is the life's blood of our other industries, and it is essential to every home. Therefore, it should be under the control of the people as a whole, through the Government, and not under the control of particular individuals. Mention has been made of the Sankey Commission of 25 years ago which recommended the nationalisation of the coal industry. This recommendation the Government refused to accept. What have we had since then? Just a policy of drift from one crisis to another, each
122
crisis worse than the preceding crisis until, in the past winter, in this, the first coal-producing country in the world, thousands of people were sitting in their homes without a piece of coal, without a fire in the house.
Last winter the people of this country became coal conscious. So desperate has the situation become, and so untenable is the position of the mineowners, that they have had to engage an expert, Mr. Robert Foot, at £8,000 a year, to do something about the industry. Mr. Foot produced a report for the mineowners, and at the very beginning of that report he asks the question, "What do we expect to get from the industry?" He gave three categories each of which expected something from the industry—the miners, the mineowners and the consumers. Then he says: "If we are to get something from the industry we must give something to the industry," and he listed as those who contribute to the industry, the miners, the mine managers and the consumers. There is no mention of the mineowners. They take from the industry but even Mr. Foot cannot find a place for them, so far as the production of the industry is deemed concerned. The miners are sick to death of the mineowners. They do not want to risk life and limb to make profits for the few; they want to labour and face all the hazards of the industry in the interests of the people as a whole. It would make an enormous difference to miners and to production if they felt that their services were really being given for the benefit of the community, and not simply in order to provide profits for owners, whose sole business is to take from the industry and give nothing in return.
After the 25 years which have been lost from the point of view of bringing the industry up to date we are faced with a crisis that demands, in order to solve it, the complete reorganisation of the coal industry. Reorganisation, of course, means reorganisation of the conditions under which miners work and live. There must be in the mining villages and areas every desirable amenity in order to ensure the best possible life and opportunities for culture and sport and the like for miners and their families. Pithead baths have been constructed in greater numbers, but sports fields, bowling greens and tennis courts are required, which means that abundance of land must be available and

123
not be held up by private owners. When will the owners carry through that job? It is not possible for them to reorganise the industry, because the substance taken out of the industry has been wasted by them. They have not been concerned with the development of the mines, they have used them purely for profits, and not for progress. That sort of thing must be ended. There must be reorganisation in the villages, at the pitheads, and in the pits themselves. This will call for a tremendous effort and the expenditure of much money, and it is only by the Government taking control of the situation that this can be carried through. I want to say this, because of the criticism which has been made of miners by mine owners and by their Tory supporters—and I challenge anyone to deny it: the miners of this country have a record of labour far above any reward they have ever received. Will anyone dare to deny that or would anyone dare say that on behalf of the mineowners? No. Not even Mr. Foot could say it. We have to see that in any reorganisation that takes place, the miner gets the standing and conditions in the industry that will satisfy him that he is getting real consideration for the service he is performing. If we do that, if we have the machinery in the pits and proper organisation at the pit head, together with a proper lay-out of the villages, including amenities, it will not be an unpopular industry. There is no reason why people should not be attracted to it. It is only unpopular and ugly now, because the mineowners are there.
The Reid Report cannot help but take note of that. It is one of the most valuable reports on the mining industry we have ever had, and we must speak with the highest praise of the men who constituted the Committee, particularly in view of the fact that in making their investigation into this industry they had to divest themselves of their garments of ownership and of association with ownership, and approach the whole question naked of any prejudice, but as highly technical and skilled engineers. They realised the necessity of saying this—and I wish every coalowner in the House would take note of it:
"We should like to make it clear that we have undertaken this task in our capacity as mining engineers, and that all our conclusions
124
and recommendations have been formulated from our professional viewpoint."
If they had allowed their association with the coalowners or with the ideas of coalowners to interfere with their technical examination, we should never have got the Reid Report. They make the following generalisation on the industry:
"We are satisfied, however, that throughout the industry drastic technical re-organisation is not only practicable but vitally necessary. We believe there are no coalfields nor any mines to which some or all of our recommendations could not with advantage be applied."
That comes 25 years after the Sankey Report. Never was there a stronger condemnation of any group of private profit-makers than that. There is nothing that can be said for the mineowners and their record during the past 25 years since the Sankey Commission recommended nationalisation.
Colonel Clarke: The hon. Member said that the Sankey Report recommended nationalisation. Surely that Report was divided between the three independent Members and three coalowners against the other members and the Chairman. It was not a unanimous Report.
Mr. Gallacher: The majority of the Sankey Commission recommended nationalisation, and the mineowners were successful in getting the Government to reject it. There is nothing in the record of the owners since then which deserves anything but the utmost condemnation, and this generalisation in the Reid Report should be sufficient condemnation for anybody. Yet what a parody of politics we have when we see a professed Liberal representing this Government of tattered Tories, trying to find ways and means of keeping these useless parasites, these harmful parasites, the coalowners, battened on to the mining industry. The Minister's erstwhile colleague, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander) comes out. not quite full-blooded for nationalisation though well on the way, but the one who should be giving a lead to the others in the Liberal Party is in the Government trying to hold on to the coalowners and to keep them attached to the mining industry where they only serve to hold the industry back.
The Reid Report is a thorough condemnation of the owners and a recognition of the fact that the majority of the

125
Sankey Commission was correct 25 years ago. We see in the Report the keen, clear minds of the Committee examining into the various questions that affect the industry, but when it comes to a solution, their association with the owning side of the industry affects them and they halt at the tape. All the investigations they make and all their arguments are directed towards what should be the only conclusion—nationalisation of the mines, but instead of that we get only a vague formulation that the Minister should concern himself with an administrative authority. The Report proposes an authority which should have the power to re-organise the whole industry wherever it is considered necessary, and it says:
"The existence of such an authority endowed by Parliament with really effective powers for these purposes is, we are satisfied, a cardinal necessity."
The Committee suggest that Parliament should take responsibility for organising the mining industry by giving powers to a national authority, but the Committee, after reaching that point, refuse to face the fact that if Parliament takes the responsibility for re-organising the industry, it must nationalise it in order to make a thorough job of it. We would accept the Reid Report as bringing out the weaknesses and failures of the mining industry, and as recommending measures that must be taken to bring about an industry that will provide the nation with the coal it requires; we accept all that, but we must ask the Minister and the members of the Reid Committee to accept the logic of their arguments and realise that only by the Government taking over the industry as a whole will it be possible to get the necessary technical changes down the pits and the necessary new conditions in the mining villages and mining areas. Only by such means will it be possible to give the miners the reward they are entitled to in wages and conditions for the services they are giving. Only by nationalising the mining industry will it be possible to supply the industries of the country and warm the homes of the people. That is the task which lies before whoever will be responsible for the renewal of this great industry on which all of us so much depend. I am certain that that will be the verdict of the people of this country in the Election that is taking place within the next few weeks.
7.25 p.m.
Major Braithwaite: It seems to be an irony of fate that the new Government should meet the House to-day on this controversial subject of coalmining. I deeply regret the severance of our association with the Members opposite, particularly in connection with the re-establishment of this great industry. I had hoped that we might have been able to carry on in the next few months and produce together a scheme which would take away some of the political bitterness from the delicate problems associated with the industry. I believe that the coalmining industry is a war casualty. It supplied in the early days of the war large numbers of men, who have fought gallantly in different regiments all over the world. They have been the admiration of the commanders in the various theatres, and they have played a wonderful part in the winning of the war. We lost these young men, thousands of them, at a time when the country needed an increased output of coal, which only they could have given.
Then, at the beginning of the war, we put the miners on to a six-day week. I have protested many times during the war that it is impracticable to work a mechanised coalmine for six days a week. It does not give time to cool the pit, to maintain and repair machinery, and to keep up efficiency. The result of running the six-day week with the machinery that we had has been to impair the whole efficiency of the industry. It will be a long and difficult task to get the necessary maintenance done and the machinery back to where it belongs.
Mr. Glanville: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member what effect the six-day week has on the miner?
Major Braithwaite: I am coming to that. By working six days a week underground the miner has carried through one of the hardest jobs that any section of industrialists has done during the war. I want to pay my tribute to the courage, skill and tenacity with which these men have done their work. There has been a considerable amount of discussion about absenteeism and that sort of thing, but these men had never before the war worked six days a week underground. In some of the pits the conditions are intolerable for a six-day week. The miner has played his part

127
magnificently and has produced the coal which has led us to victory.
But the country is not satisfied with the present state of affairs. It is intolerable that the coal industry should not be corrected and put right. I will not debate the merits of nationalisation or private enterprise. It does not matter a row of pins to the nation one way or the other as long as we get the coal at the right time and in sufficient quantity to keep the industries of the country going, so that they can be competitive all over the world. We need coal very badly, but it is a little unfair of Members on the other side to keep harping about the coalowners as though they were a set of lazy, indifferent, in efficient people. The success which this country has had has been built up on the solid foundations of the coal industry—
Mr. R. J. Taylor: And on the wages of the miners.
Major Braithwaite: We have produced coal over the generations. There must have been some measure of efficiency and capacity among those responsible for building up this great industry. There are many causes for the evil times on which the industry has now fallen. Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that the political elements in the mining industry have not been helpful to harmony for a very long time, I have come to the conclusion that the whole psychology of the industry is wrong. Whatever plans may be put forward by one side or the other will never be accepted by both sides. There must be some higher intervention to produce a workable plan. I think that some hon. Members opposite have been a little unfair towards the Foot Report. Mr. Foot produced a report that was very well written and very understandable. The principal theme of that report was that there should be at the head of the industry a national council for coal which would control the destiny of the industry. I accept that principle, which I think is a right one.
I think that such a national council should exist and have full authority from Parliament to do many of the things necessary to make the industry safe, sound and strong; but I want to see on that national council not only those who are running the industry but the miners as well. [Interruption.] I do not care
128
whether Mr. Foot agrees with it or not; I am putting forward my own views for what they are worth. I want to see the miners taking a responsibility. I have watched the growth of pit production committees. I have seen the way the miners have accepted responsibility, and I want to pay a tribute to the contribution the men from the pits have made on those committees towards the running of the mines during the war. If those men are taken to every level of the structure of the control of mining, I am satisfied there will be a better balanced and better run industry. There are men in the industry who could well come right to the top and join in the running of the industry as a great national enterprise. It does not make any real difference who owns the capital of the industry. I want to see within the framework of this national council some real check on efficiency. Therefore, I suggest that the pits should be operated by operating companies, unified and amalgamated in a proper way so that there will be economic units, and that the pits should pay for the privilege of operating a licence fee to the central council of 1s. per ton of coal raised. I want this 1s. per ton to be put back into the industry so that it will always be maintained in an efficient manner. Over the past 20 years only 2½d. per ton of the whole of the coal raised has gone back into new plant and development. That is not a sufficient amount to keep the industry sound and capable of carrying out its great task. One shilling a ton on the national output to-day would give the central controlling body £10,000,000 a year, which would be quite sufficient to yield them £200,000,000 of capital to put back into the industry for redevelopment on proper lines. It would then be possible to start immediately great schemes of development.
I think it was in 1942 that I told the House that if we were to maintain production at an efficient rate we would have to sink 80 new pits, and I suggested that in the South Lincolnshire area, South of the South Yorkshire area, there was virgin coal for 300 or 400 years which would yield, on a mechanised basis, 250,000,000 tons per annum if the area were properly laid out and co-ordinated. This big virgin field, which is the only one of this size left, ought to be developed immediately. The pit sinking would be a long job. As is known to the hon. Member for Gower

129
(Mr. Grenfell), whose great knowledge of the industry has been of great benefit to us, it would take a long time to sink the shafts for 50 new pits. I want the German prisoners to dig those shafts before they go back; I want them to get on with it at once, and then when the shafts have been dug, we can mechanise the pits on a reasonable basis.
Mr. Gallacher: In order to get the full advantage of the development and in order to avoid the miners who go to work there being squeezed to the smallest compass, would the hon. and gallant Member be in favour of the Government taking over control of the land in that area so that there would be the widest possible development of amenities for the miners?
Major Braithwaite: If the hon. Member will read the speech I made in 1942, he will see that I said we would have to establish new communities around the new mining area. I never want to see again segregated mining villages. I want the miners to live in places alongside other people of all trades, so that they can get a diversified view of our industrial life. Segregation has done a great deal of harm to the mentality of the miners.
Mr. J. J. Lawson: In spite of that, they become very good soldiers.
Major Braithwaite: Certainly, but the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that living in communities with all the amenities that can be offered is better than living in small villages, many of them very ugly, particularly in the part of the country which he represents.
Mr. Lawson: This is a subject which touches me on the raw. The story that the miners are half imbeciles because they live in segregated communities has been disproved.
Major Braithwaite: I regard the miners as some of the most intelligent men in the country. I made no suggestion of the sort which the hon. Member implies. I know the thought that the miners have to put into their jobs. I want to give the House some idea of how the national controlling body to which I have referred should be constituted. I would like it to be composed of three mining operators, three miners, three mem-
130
bers of the Coal Commission owning the coal for the nation, one member representing public utilities, one member representing the consuming public, and one member representing industrial fuel required by heavy industry. One thing is certain—10s. a ton will have to come off the price of coal if our heavy industries are to be efficient. We can get that, and more, by proper mechanisation and still maintain a very high level of wages, which it is only fair to do in this great industry. With regard to the financial results of mining, do hon. Members realise that the year before last, out of a total production of 200,000,000 tons, with a gross value of £360,000,000, the coalmining industry produced a net profit figure for those who had money in the industry of only £12,000,000, and at the same time the ancillary industries of electricity, gas, and so on, took away from coal a profit of £142,000,000? No one can say that those in control of the capital of the mines have had a very good financial deal.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can the hon. and gallant Member, who has great knowledge of colliery owners, say to what extent the colliery owners' investments were in the ancillary trades?
Major Braithwaite: I have only the trade returns, which are also available to the hon. Member. I do not know what their investments are, but those industries which rely fundamentally on coal for their prosperity got that vast sum in profits, while the producers of the raw material received only the small amount I have mentioned. To sum up, I want to see the industry unified into properly balanced productive units. I want to see a national council set up which will control the industry. I want to see every ton of coal put on licence to that national council, and if the recommendations of the council are not carried out, I want it to have power to revoke the licence and hand over the undertaking to someone else. I want to see put back into the industry at the earliest possible moment a sum of not less than £200,000,000 or £250,000,000. I say quite frankly that, whatever hon. Members may say about the Foot Report, the spirit of that report is national service as the basis for the control of the industry.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us from what sources he hopes to get the £200,000,000, which we agree the industry needs very badly?
Major Braithwaite: I want to see a levy of 1s. per ton, which will bring an annual revenue of £10,000,000 to the controlling body, and with that £10,000,000 they will be able to raise £200,000,000 as they require it, and loan it back to the undertakings at a low ratio of interest, and so enable the undertakings to get on with the work of providing the extra machinery and carrying out the necessary development.
Mr. Glanville: Why not get it from the people who took it out of the industry?
Major Braithwaite: It is no good attacking one another on this thing. The job has got to be done. Let us get the coal industry put right so that we place ourselves in a position to compete with other countries. Let us get the industry harmonised so that it can make a national contribution. Do not let us bicker and rake up old things which ought to be out of the way. I am bitterly disappointed, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that the National Government have not been able to last long enough to carry through a great plan of unification before splitting up. Whoever wins the General Election will have to do something in regard to this industry. It cannot remain as it is.
I would like now to say one or two words about the enterprise for which I took some measure of responsibility at the beginning of the war. My right hon. Friend who was then Secretary for Mines gave us an opportunity to dig coal with machines. We have not justified all the rather extravagant claims I made at the time; I am afraid they were extravagant because I had to make an impression in order to get something done. At any rate, what we have done has been to produce during war-time, without a single miner, nearly 17,000,000 tons of coal, quite a contribution in these difficult conditions. We have let them do all kinds of things to people's land. We have had to destroy good land and we have made a lot of unsightly heaps all over the place, which we are steadily removing, but in the main I think the House owes to the Government Departments which have been run-
132
ning the job, and those who have organised it, a debt of gratitude for the work which they have done. We did not know much about it in the early stages but we have learned a great deal.
I want to pay my tribute of thanks to the American people for sending us that great volume of machinery a year ago. We have a lot of it at work now, and I think it is going to make a contribution. As to the future, we cannot go on for ever doing that because we have nearly exhausted what we have, but there are 50,000,000 tons of this coal in the ground. We have got 17,000,000 tons and there are still 30,000,000 that we can have. I am sure our knowledge of the industry will enable us to get it at an economic price for the nation. I hope it will be continued as long as this emergency lasts. This great industry, on whose broad shoulders the whole industrial future of our island home depends, needs very wise, sane, counsellorship to bring it steadily through to a proper basis. I hope that, whatever the outcome of the General Election, the Government of the day will give the industry such attention as will make it attractive to our young men and safe to work in, and a contributory power in our industrial life which will make England greater than ever it has been.
7.47 p.m.
Dr. Morgan: I should like to deal for a few minutes with a problem of the mining industry which will exist whether that industry is under national or under private ownership. It is the question of the medical arrangements and the accident and disease rates appertaining to the industry. Both accident and disease rates are high, and there are diseases peculiar to the industry. What medical arrangements have been made, and will have to be made even under nationalisation, with regard to the medical treatment and handling of miners, with their accident and disease risk? When the Ministry was formed there was a new medical inspectorate. What the number is now we do not know, but at first there were about nine for the different districts. What is the nature of their work? Does it deal purely with safety arrangements? Has it anything to do with environment from the point of view of ventilation or humidity? Can we get any really detailed statistics of illness and accidents—I mean

133
the whole question of the health statistics of the industry as a whole.
The geological formation of the mines differs in different areas. Some with lighter coal, with great carbon content, are not so dangerous as the harder anthracite areas in Wales. The Minister has the best intentions, but he is a layman. Industrial surgery might be had to a certain extent but let him remember that industrial medicine is not taught in our schools. Up to two months ago in all the 42 schools there was not a professorship. Now, through the munificence and generosity of our industrialists, there are three teaching schools with professorships. In London there are no lectureships connected with industrial medicine. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have a list put before him to decide who these medical officers are to be. What is the machinery with regard to these most important medical appointments? Has he a Medical Appointments Board? How does he recruit and train these men, and who selects them for his appointment? Medical men do not know, and everyone who sees the appointments wonders how in the name of goodness they are made and what are the methods adopted by which they get them. Ordinary medical men who want to train for industrial medicine do not know how it is done.
There is dust in the hard coal areas, which causes diseases with a liability to tuberculosis. What arrangements are being made for the selection of a Silicosis Board? There are nearly two years' arrears of applicants waiting for examination and for compensation—a terrible outlook for the men and their wives and children. What arrangements are being made for the recruitment and training of the necessary doctors and for their proper selection and proper keeping up to date? What expert medical officers are there in the Department? The senior officer of the Silicosis Board cannot do everything. He cannot train the necessary number of men unless you take him from the Board's fob. There is also a very good doctor in the Ministry of Labour on the Pulmonary Diseases Committee, but these two doctors cannot do the whole thing. What arrangements are being made? The Colonial Office advertised for a silicosis officer for the Rhodesian mines and they offered to give him training. What is
134
being done in the way of selecting men and giving them an intensive training to meet this arrears problem, knowing that the more machinery we put into the mines the more dust and the more cases of disease there will probably be?
This is an important point medically, and it is important from the point of view of the health, and also the psychological outlook, of the miner. He is in a very dangerous occupation and he knows that he runs these risks. He hears of people who are slowly dying from them, but there are no arrangements for the proper rehabilitation of men who are in the initial stages and are likely to be affected. I am trying to infiltrate into the mind of the Department the idea that they should reorganise the whole medical aspect with a view to providing a decent medical service, not only surgical but medical rehabilitation, catching the men early, taking them away for a rest, seeing that their lungs run no risk of infection, and then bringing them back to the industry. It is not an easy problem but I cannot see any Government Department being sufficiently interested in the miners and their medical welfare to lay down machinery for the selection of these men.
The problem is important from the point of view of workmen's compensation. I have often wondered at the patience, the long-suffering and the endurance of the miners and the way they are treated when they are fighting for their compensation. Now, of course, a new Bill is proposed by which they would have partly to pay for the workmen's compensation which they are to get. I do not like the scheme. Up to the present, whether he is suffering from silicosis or any of the other conditions, the miner has had to fight, time and time again, against the very best medical opinion that the coalowners could get to prevent him from getting his compensation.
Mr. Kirkwood: I would like to get that point clear. The hon. Member said just now that the miner is placed in the position whereby the mineowners call in the best authorities in order to keep the miner from getting his rights as far as compensation is concerned. Is that correct?
Dr. Morgan: Yes, I am sorry to say, as one who has worked for the past 25 years

135
on the question of industrial medicine and dealt with a whole series of workmen's compensation cases in every aspect, that my experience has been that the forces of the owners and the industrialists of this country, whether they are coal-owners or not, have been in the past—though they are getting a bit better now—perfectly disgraceful from the point of view of fighting the poor suffering, wounded man or the medically disabled man so far as concerns compensation. They fight him along the road, inch by inch, going to every possible expense to beat him in the courts. I have seen applicants for workmen's compensation being absolutely bulldozed when examined by so-called specialists on behalf of insurance companies. In the courts they have been led to give answers which would invalidate their claims. Steps should be taken against men who, to my knowledge, deliberately make mistakes with regard to medical diagnosis which, if they were taken before a proper medical board, would prove that they had made false statements with regard to the men.
I know the Mines Department has not much to do with this, but there is the question of medical referees. I would like the Minister, if possible, to promise that this whole subject will be considered from the points of view of the medical handling of cases in mines; of his medical inspectors ensuring that when accidents happen roads are made free so that the badly wounded workman can get out of the mine easily; of giving him adequate first-aid treatment as soon as he comes out of the mines; of getting him into the hospital and rehabilitation centres. I want this not only in the dramatic cases of the surgically injured but, for medical cases which come on insidiously and quietly but more dangerously. Could not the Minister enliven the members, of the Medical Research Council and undertake some medical researches himself? Some years ago a very interesting medical paper was written in collaboration with a well known tuberculosis expert, Professor Lyle Cummins. He got one of his lady assistants to examine some of the retired miners in one of the mining villages in Wales. They were coughing. On examination of their sputum, these men were proved to be old cases of tuberculosis.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I would remind hon. Members that this is a Debate on coal. I am aware of the necessity for dealing with health, but we ought not to go too closely into the question of health and health insurance. I do not want to limit the Debate, but we should keep it to coal.
Dr. Morgan: With great respect, I am not touching the question of health insurance at all.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should have said compensation. The hon. Gentleman was touching on that, and I was afraid he was going right off the subject of coal altogether. I do not want to limit him too much, but in a Debate of this nature we should keep it to a coal issue.
Dr. Morgan: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was only going into workmen's compensation in relation to the mining industry and from the point of view of health. I am asking the Minister to review the whole medical arrangements from the point of view of the medical officers, the inspectorate and the method by which research is to be carried out. I am pointing out that research was carried out on coalminers at a time when it was said that coal dust would not produce disease and when, in fact, it had so damaged the lungs of these old miners that it was found from their sputum that it was the cause of tuberculosis. It was then said they were suffering from a benign tuberculosis. I have heard of a malignant tuberculosis; I have certainly not heard of a benign tuberculosis. I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your courtesy in allowing me to say what I wished to say. Medical aspects in relation to Debates of this kind are sometimes too much neglected, and I hope that as a result of these few words of mine the mine workers who are helpless under these conditions will receive some consideration from the Minister.
8.8 p.m.
Sir Adam Maitland: I do not often intervene in a Debate about coal, because I have some financial interest in the industry. I want to make that perfectly clear and that I have not intervened in the past because one has always felt that, however sincere one's intentions, there may be at the back of

137
the minds of hon. Members some thought that there is some ulterior motive which is not in accordance with the national interest. In view of the remarks which have been made earlier in the day with regard to those who are interested in colliery ownerships and direction, it is with great temerity that I rise. I ask the House to accept my assurance that, although what I say may arise from a knowledge of the industry, it is said solely with a regard to what is likely to be in the best national interest.
I hope I shall not be regarded as provocative when I say this, but in the past—and to some extent there has been evidence of it to-day—I have always felt that in the coal Debates a great many extravagant and incorrect remarks were made which were badly interpreted outside and led the public to believe that matters in the coal industry generally were, in fact, even worse than they were. There are two instances which I can give to-day. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), whom I am glad to see in the Chamber, in that jocular manner which we all appreciate but which in cold print conveys a completely different meaning, made an accusation about the Ministry of Food, and he said a collier was going down the mine and getting coal on dry bread. To paint a picture of that kind, and to assume that that is the general state of affairs, is completely wrong.
I am glad to pay my tribute to the Minister of Food, who has been very considerate to the mineworkers, even in the most difficult days of shortage of food. In the most up-to-date mines there are facilities for miners to get additional sustenance they may require, but it is also true that many miners do not want to take anything in the nature of a heavy meal when they are in the pit. Therefore, I can tell the House of a case of a colliery where there is sufficient food for, say, 1,000 workmen, but we may find that only 100 or 200 partake of it.
Mr. S. O. Davies rose—
Sir A. Maitland: May I finish what I am trying to say? My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) knows that what I am saying is not exaggerated, as he knows of the particular district to which I am referring.
Mr. S. O. Davies: The hon. Member has exhorted the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) not to exaggerate, but surely he cannot mean what he says, that the whole of the subsistence that the miner needs can be found for him at the colliery? Perhaps he would moderate that statement.
Sir A. Maitland: I did not say that. The hon. Member for Hemsworth stated that he was sorry the Minister of Food was not present because he wanted to talk to him. In my own opinion the Minister of Food has done a good job of work, and has been very considerate to the mining community.
Mr. G. Griffiths: I am sorry, but I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member was referring to this matter.
Sir A. Maitland: If the hon. Member wants to talk to me privately I shall be very glad to repeat and explain what I said in his absence. Another thing happened, connected with the interpretation being put upon the Reid Committee Report. The hon. Member for Hemsworth, again in a jocular way, made a statement which might be considered very unfair, taken literally. He said that Members of the Committee were all associated with large colliery undertakings and that they just wanted to merge other collieries together with their own. That is not true, and I want to correct the hon. Member's observation by saying that that is an inaccuracy that ought not to pass unchallenged.
Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the hon. Member tell me one member of the Committee who is not connected with a big concern?
Sir A. Maitland: Yes. There may be others, but I can name one, Mr. Crofts, the managing director of Chatterley-Whitfield Collieries. They have an output of something like 400,000 or 500,000 tons per annum, it may be more, and, as I happen to know, are not at all interested in the kind of thing which the hon. Member suggests they want to do. The Minister, this House and the country owe a very great debt of gratitude to these gentlemen for their magnificent report. It is not a political report. It does not consider the same issues that were raised by the Sankey Commission and the Samuel Commission. The terms of reference of this Committee were:

139
"To examine the present technique of coal production from coal face to wagon, and to advise what technical changes are necessary in order to bring the industry to a state of full technical efficiency."
They have done that, They were candid enough to say—and for this I give them great credit—that they went about their task as skilled engineers, determined to report to the best of their ability as to the most improved methods of mining and ways in which mechanisation would help the industry. They say frankly that they have themselves practised various methods which they now condemn and that they have come to the conclusion, as a result of their joint deliberations, that their recommendations are better than the methods which they themselves may indeed have practised.
When we talk about criticisms which are made in the report I would like to make an observation. This is a technical report, prepared by technical people as to the existing condition of things. It is objectively made and is not concerned with who was responsible in the past for whatever failure may have happened. They were concerned with how the industry could best be worked in the future. I would like to say this. Whatever industry it might be, even the Post Office or any nationally administered organisation, if a committee of experts were set up to make a report about it objectively, not biased by any consideration except what was in the national interest, I do not think one of them would come out unscathed. Some of the Government Departments I could mention would not come out of it so worthily as does the coalmining industry. The Committee say in their report:
"When we come, therefore, as we must, to point out the mistakes which were made in these early years of the coalmining industry, let us beware of merely being wise after the event, or of withholding the meed of praise due to a great race of men, employers, mining engineers, workmen and machinery makers alike. For whatever their faults, they were fit to rank with the greatest of Britain's industrial pioneers."
I am sure that is right. That is the kind of spirit in which we should read the report. It is not a condemnation of things in the past but an effort to determine how things can be improved in the future by lessons to be learned from experience at home and abroad.
140
My hon. Friends on the Labour side have, I think, wedded themselves to a theory and I believe they make a profound mistake in saying that the solution of all the troubles of the coalmining industry and the cause of all its struggles, will be settled by nationalisation. One of the grievances used to be that coal royalties were owned by private people and it used to be stated that unification of royalties, would allay the feeling of resentment. Well, royalties have been unified. I will ask my hon. Friends one question, without going into the merits or demerits of the case. It is: Has output in fact been increased now that the case which used to be made against the private ownership of royalties has gone? I suggest that hon. Members make a mistake in assuming that a mere change of ownership will create a new spirit in the mine-workers of this country.
There is something much deeper than that. I recognise, as one who is intimately connected with the industry, that in matters of negotiation the coalowner has always somehow seemed to be in the wrong in the public mind. I do not know whether this may be due to faulty publicity or a misunderstanding or misstatement of the coalowners' position, but they are men who are very deeply concerned—and I know quite a number of them—about the welfare of their mining people. Furthermore, I have myself attended production committees, and I have never heard all the bickering which is sometimes referred to in this House. I have, on occasions when it has been a question as to how much a man should be fined for being an absentee, known the men's representatives to have been much more severe than the manager and his representatives.
With regard to pit production committees as a whole, I believe that they are capable of very useful work. I do not take the view that a miner or any other artisan should be divorced from management. I take the view that the workmanship on the one hand and the managerial functions on the other are quite distinct and that the respective responsibilities are different, but because of that I would not say that the miner must never come into the board room. I hope that it maybe possible in the greater scheme which may be evolved that he should do so. This is a problem with which we have to deal.

141
What would happen would be that the workmen's representative in the board room would become the ambassador of the employers in relation to the troubles with which they were faced.
I welcome the suggestion that there should be more direct and personal and intimate contact between both sides of the industry. My hon. Friends talk about nationalisation. I will make another concession. The State has not only the right but the responsibility to take an interest in how our coal is won. The State is now the owner of the coal. The hon. Member for Hemsworth said the State paid £100,000,000 for it. The actual figure was £66,500,000, and the State made a very good bargain out of it. Therefore the State has not only the right but the duty to see that that coal is worked in the best interests of the nation, for whom the State is the trustee. Therefore, I say, bring the State into consultation, but whatever you do do not make the State the final arbiter. If there is one industry in the world in which adventure, enterprise and initiative are necessary it is the coal industry.
My hon. Friends say they will socialise industries one by one. May I give them this friendly advice? Do not start with coal, because it is the one industry which the State will mess up even more than it is messed up to-day. Can anyone imagine anyone in Whitehall going to a place and saying, "Let us sink a shaft here, let us run the risk of expenditure to the extent of £200,000 or £500,000"? Will there be people in Whitehall with the courage to do that, when they know that people in Westminster are ready to criticise them? The result will be masterly inactivity, and nothing will be done. It would be good for my hon. Friends not to be too much involved in, and carried away by, this idea that the nationalisation of coal will be a solution of the coal industry's troubles. If I thought that it would be, both my hands would go up for nationalisation here and now. I honestly believe that it will not be the solution to the troubles of the coal industry. So I was glad to hear what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had to say to-day.
In passing may I say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman undertook a very difficult task, and both he and his predecessor, with whom I had some contacts, have had a frightfully difficult job
142
to do. They were handicapped in the first instance from the, early days of war by the ruinous diminution of the man-power in the mines. We have never recovered from that. Something else has happened too. It is no use merely saying that there has been absenteeism on the one hand and inefficient management on the other. There has been such a diminution in personnel that it has not been possible to carry on the ordinary development work which is an essential part of normal mining operations. There is also the fact that machinery, which it has not been possible properly to repair and to maintain, has broken down more frequently than would have happened in ordinary circumstances. War conditions generally have hit the coal industry to a very marked degree. Having some little knowledge of some of the circumstances, I believe we can be very thankful that by and large we have come out of these troubles so well. I include all sections of the industry when I say that. They have all done their utmost, under difficult circumstances, to play their part in the national effort.
I hope that these new suggestions which are to be made by the fight hon. and gallant Gentleman will have regard to the state of the realities not only of the men who win the coal, not only the coal owner, who is not really acting in a personal capacity. It is a mistake to assume that there is only one terrible person, who is concerned only with profits, because as a rule there are a good many shareholders, in most colliery undertakings, and if there are profits made the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also very much interested. One of the things the Chancellor would like to see would be not diminished, but increased profits, because the State is in the happy position of taking 10s. in the £ of all profits and having no responsibility for losses. As one interested in the coal industry, I believe that the consuming public to-day have been very patient. They have had to put up with bad coal; coal of a very inferior quality, and it has been difficult for many public undertakings to carry on in their normal fashion. They have, in fact, recognised the difficulties and not made complaints even when they were justified in making them. We do not want an industry in which masters and men can control prices. Therefore, I say that the consumer must come into this matter too. I conclude by paying a tribute to the work which

143
the Minister of Fuel and Power and his predecessor at the Ministry of Mines and their officers have done in a very difficult period in the life of our country.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Collindridge: It occurs to me that the proceedings during Question Time will quite likely have more interest for the country in the Press tomorrow than this Debate to-night, if these empty benches are any indication. Some time, I hope very soon, we shall have, not merely in the House, but in the country, much more interest in this problem of coal than to-day, for of a surety we cannot, unless we have solved this problem of coal, give to our industries that expansionist outlook which we all must have if we are to raise the standard of life of our people. Candidly, as one who has taken part in these Debates on previous occasions, and who has listened with respect to the Minister on many occasions, I thought he made to-day a most doleful speech, holding out scarcely any hope for the country that this problem was to be dealt with to any extent. He mentioned a number of Reports that have been sent into his Department quite recently for consideration.
I am sure the country is, if I may use the term, really "fed to the teeth" with Reports on which so little is done. When the Minister remarked to-day that miners' wages had advanced, I wondered whether he considered how low those wages were before the war. In my own county of Yorkshire, one of the largest coal-producing counties, the lowest wage before the war for people working round the pits was 7s. 9d. a day, with an average working week—occasioned then not by absenteeism, but by the depression in the industry—of four days. After the last war the wage paid to the lowest-paid worker in Yorkshire was 18s. 2d. a day, with a six-days' working week. The decline in conditions had brought about the state of things that I have mentioned. Was it any wonder that, when an opportunity came for miners' boys to work elsewhere, there was that trek to other industries? When the Minister was discussing how wages had improved, he should have mentioned how low they were before the war.
A lot of discussion has centred on the Reid Report. The Minister, naturally,
144
eulogised a good deal of the Report, as we do ourselves. If you approve of the Report you should have regard to the question of who is responsible for the troubles in the industry. A few Members who have said that they were interested in the mining industry have taken part in this Debate, and I think the tone of their speeches, and particularly that of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland), has been commendable. I do not agree with all the points he made, but the tone of his speech was good. The Minister, however, failed to pin the responsibility for the conditions mentioned in the Reid Report on those who ought to bear it. We have not had any declaration today that the miners were the cause of the conditions that the Reid Report cites. The hon. Member for Faversham said that we were wedded to a theory: I think that he and the other coalowners are not wedded to a theory, but are married to a practice. The wrongs of that practice cause dire results, not merely to the industry but to the nation. Unless we can have a ready flow of coal to industry, we cannot make much progress. One or two coal-owner Members had said that they envisaged some control board at least on which miners' representatives could sit, but the Minister did not follow that idea. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) and the hon. Member for Faversham have given the impression that they, as individuals, stand for that principle; but let us be honest and straight, and say that the party to which they belong, and to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given his support, do not adopt any idea of that kind. The country, with the opportunity of voting on these matters in a few weeks' time, should have regard to that fact.
It will not be sufficient to quote the speech of a Conservative Member of this House: what matters is the policy outlined by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and we have had it made crystal clear that at no stage are the miners to sit on any board of control. Indeed, as I listened to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I thought how peculiar is the situation with which we are confronted. The party to which he gives support is crying out loudly for the abolition of control, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests to the mining industry some form of control. Is anything more inconsistent? It is a sad commentary upon

145
those who have hitherto run the industry, the coalowners, that in a few weeks' time a Government which will go to the country calling "No control" is to impose control on a set of industrialists of that description. I worked in the mining industry for over 30 years, and I have seen at my pithead a position which was general. If any of the miners made suggestions to the owners about methods of working, a ready reply came, that miners were not paid for thinking: we were paid for working—work of an arduous nature, by brawn and muscle. It is sad to think that these people, in sole control, as they were at that time, are going to be allowed by the Government plan still to control this much troubled industry.
The Minister, I thought, sought to please the House by pointing out that the problem of the ownership of the mineral royalties was now over, and that the State now had the ownership. I wondered what posterity would say about a House of Commons which could allow the commodity basis to be publicly owned, and yet allow the industry upon which the nation so much depends to be consigned to the bad administration that we have had. This has to be said in the interests of the people who have helped to give us the right to say these things in the House of Commons. History reveals the stark fact that you cannot do without the miners but that you can do without the mineowners. Was there ever a state of things existing in any other country like we have existing now? This island home of ours is practically built on coal. It must be a genius who in a situation like that, can produce a shortage of coal, and yet we have that now, and, listening to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's scheme for the future, it is apparent that we are likely to have it in future, too.
I am going to make a few practical suggestions, and I hope that, instead of the hesitancy of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he said he could not disclose, at this juncture, where the finance was to come from for these schemes of improvement, we are going to have more ready remedies coming from his Department. The fact is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been at the Ministry of Fuel and Power since 1942, and the output of coal has progressively declined. I am not suggest-
146
ing that the fault is his, but, at the same time, the Department must be judged on the results that have been achieved. Some time ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman what progress was being made in transporting miners to their work inside the mines. I have done this job. I have walked from the shaft bottom, 600 yards down. Going down was no effort, because we descended by the cage, but I have travelled along low galleries and roadways, sometimes only about three feet high, for an hour before striking the first effort in the work that I was to do as a miner. I felt neither mentally nor physically fitted to give of my best after an ordeal of that description, and you faced the exacting nature of the work at the coalface with the knowledge that you had that journey to do again before you got to the shaft bottom. All this was calculated to set back the actual results. I have been out of the pit for a few years now. I came from the pit to Parliament seven years ago, and I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that a good many pits in this country have got those conditions to-day. Surely, in all conscience, we should be saying to the owners, who, we gather, have got in their minds a new orientation of things, that these schemes for transporting the miners inside the mine should be made effective without delay.
We are suffering sadly in our mines from lack of materials. I assure this House, as one who is in his division every week-end and who has in his division men from a score of pits, that one frequently hears complaints of waiting periods in mines due to lack of the necessary materials required to carry on this job of coal-cutting. Mechanised mining requires these things much more than the old methods. The cycle of operations in a mine where eight-hour shifts are worked means that if one shift is delayed, due to a breakdown when the necessary replacements are not available, it encroaches on the other shift, and you may, consequently, have a hold-up in actual production. I also want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will concern himself with the speedy bringing back of miners from the Forces. It would help us if we could get men who were miners returned from the various theatres of war, for they could produce the necessary materials to shorten the war with Japan. I am hoping, too, that when these men do come back they

147
will have a little better welcome than one man had at a colliery in my own home town. This man, going back to his old colliery and doing the very job that he did before he donned khaki, had his wages cut to the extent of 2s. 3d. per shift by the colliery company, because he was receiving a pension. A strike resulted. I admit that the strike was wrong, and that the men should have used the machinery for reinstatement introduced by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Labour. But is it wrong, in a moment of provocation caused by the mineowners, to show some kind of loyalty to a friend who has come back from the horrors of war as this man did? Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman express his displeasure—merely as mildly as that—with the colliery company, as an indication that he did not support this treatment of a serving man, and I hope that it would deter others who might be prepared to follow that awful example? There was no response from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to that idea. Let me assure the House that that fact created a very bad impression concerning the overlooking influence of the Minister of Fuel and Power in the industry.
With regard to the financing of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's schemes of reorganisation, we in the mining industry, in the normal way of things, must be concerned over the capital cost of any reorganisation scheme, in view of the disturbance that takes place and the fact of the capital cost having to be borne partly by the miners as well as by the mine-owners. We therefore urge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make up his mind without delay on this question. It is a factor which must be considered in the national interest. Too long have we been confined, in the localities of the kind in which I live, to this idea of one industry in the district, with no avenue of work for our womenfolk, and, as a consequence, the one income going into the home has often had a dire effect upon that home, particularly in times of stress.
May I conclude on this note? I admit, frankly, that the phase on which I now touch does not come within the purview of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's activities, except that, as I am sure he will appreciate, we have a system of mining in Britain now in which our miners
148
cannot continue so long in years as they formerly did. The ravages of the industry and the stress and strain are such that there is a contraction of the working life of the average miner. That should warrant increased wages while the work is being done or, better still, an earlier pension. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will feel inclined, and I say this with respect, when his colleagues in the Cabinet are demanding, as they are, coal and still more coal, to tell them some of the difficulties that we are having to meet on this matter of pensions. On this matter of pensions, it is reasonable to put before the Chancellor that it should be done by means of some contribution from the State as well as from industry. I was in New South Wales, Australia, last year—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am rather doubtful if this can be dealt with under this Order.
Mr. Collindridge: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was merely trying to point out that the scheme in Australia is of such a character that miners, mineowners and the State make it possible for miners to be pensioned at 60, and you have more men coming into the industry in consequence. But I have finished with that, and I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope that the humble contribution I have made will be regarded as being in the interests of the industry and the nation as a whole.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The Debate has covered a wide range and has dealt with the past, present and future of the coal industry. It has, like many other coal. Debates, been notable for speeches from Members who, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge), have given many years of service to the industry either in the form of work in the mine or as mineowners. I want to turn the attention of the House for a few minutes rather to the problem of domestic supplies. It is, after all, a more immediate problem than the other, though one is connected with the other. The supply question in the home is going to affect everybody during the coming winter. We are almost at Midsummer Day and the position is really a very serious one.

149
This Debate is primarily concerned with the Coal Charges Order, and as far as I can gather few seem to object to that Order, except the pensioner on a fixed rate who always suffers from these additions to his expenditure. One can only hope that in this connection the assistance boards will deal favourably and leniently with those upon whom this extra charge would be a burden. The only other complaints that I have had are these. It is said, "Could not the amount have been 3s. 4d. a ton instead of 3s. 6d. and then we could have paid the 2d. a week on our bag of coal instead of 2½d., as it is now in some districts?" There seems to be great objection to that extra halfpenny, not on the ground of expense, but because it is difficult to bother with the extra halfpenny, and it would have been so much easier if it had been the round figure of 2d.
I want now to refer to the supply for the coming winter. In the North Western area with which I am primarily concerned, which lies near the Pennine Range, the supplies for the coming winter are quite inadequate. They are not really enough to maintain the people in health, not to mention comfort, and I am nervous about the health position in those districts during the coming winter. This may seem to those who live in the South to be an exaggeration, but I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that such is not the case. There is a great gulf, and it seems to get greater every year, between the weather in that part of the country and in the South. As one who knows both very well, I can vouch for that fact. The position up there is totally different. The rain comes down day after day, summer and winter, and even when it does clear up, the roads do not dry like they do in the South. The clouds remain overhanging, the darkness remains, and the dampness remains for days and days and weeks on end, and together with that there is the piercing cold, in the winter at any rate, which accompanies a damp atmosphere. The walls in the houses are damp, the furniture is gradually ruined and the houses themselves gradually deteriorate. A good deal of this has happened during the last three or four years. But the main question is the health of the people. After a long war there have been the continual strain, the lack of food and the shortage of clothing and of blankets
150
which will all add to the difficult position in the coming winter.
I do wish that a larger difference could have been made between the allocation to the South and that to this particular area of the North, even if possibly the whole of the North of England and Scotland would have had to be included. The East coast however is very much dryer than the North Western area. Is it really the best that the Ministry can do? Could not some of the supplies have been cut from our export trade? Little has been said to-day about the export trade which is being done at the present time. I do not know whether the Minister can enlighten us on that point. I wonder if it might have been possible to send rather less coal abroad just now—although we all know the great need there is for that coal—and to do a little more for the districts I have mentioned.
I would also refer to the anomalies in distribution, and this is certainly an equally difficult and important point at the moment. We are told that during the summer months we must fill up our cellars, and, if possible, get in supplies for the winter. But supplies during even the summer months have been woefully short of the maximum permitted amount, and in such a position, how can anyone save up for the winter? I know one firm of coal merchants who have an allocation of more than 100 tons a week. During the present month of May, for two weeks, they have received something in the neighbourhood of 85 tons, but during another week they only received 65 tons and, therefore, some of their customers have had to go short. These customers are naturally very annoyed. But it is really not on the merchants that they should put all the blame. The merchants have done, and are doing, a good job; they are doing their best under these conditions but, like the shopkeeper, who gets blamed whenever there is a shortage of anything in the shops, they get the blame.
As regards this particular firm no alternative supply was available; at any rate, they were not allowed to draw on any available alternative supply. Although, I believe, the situation was partly due to a fire which took place in the South Yorkshire colliery which was supplying them, nevertheless, one would have thought that alternative supplies could have been found for them. We are not talking now-

151
of a village or even of a small town away in a rural area; we are talking of the industrial towns close to the Lancashire coalfields and not very far away from the great South Yorkshire coalfield. It should not be so difficult to obtain coal when it is fairly near at hand. We have heard to-day about open-cast coal. This particular firm was also told that they would receive five tons of open-cast coal a week. That was last November. So far they have not received any such coal.
In another district in my constituency they were 125 tons short in the month ending 19th May. That was the town about which I asked my right hon. Friend a question just before the Whitsun Recess and in his reply he said that it was due primarily to hard weather conditions last winter which made it impossible for merchants locally to remove the coal and get it to householders. That is hotly denied and the statement has been resented, I am told, by these merchants, who have stated in proof that no demurrage charges whatever had to be paid in that particular town during that period. The position really is a serious one in this town. Last winter there was not even enough coal to provide the amount necessary for doctors' certificates for those who were sick. There was no dump there, and, finally, they were allowed to share in a dump which was open some little distance away. Recently, 100 tons of coal were stocked in a mill in the town, but orders have just been given, apparently, for that coal to be distributed throughout the region. That again has caused considerable feeling, as that 100 tons would have been a most valuable asset during the coming months.
Last winter the dumps saved the situation but they may not be there this year and they certainly will not be available in any size to save the situation again. A super-human effort, if one can call it so, really is demanded now of the Ministry. I know the Minister is doing his best, and I am not saying this in criticism of the Minister himself, but I think the Department as a whole have never realised the position in this North-Western area. I am quite certain that they have nothing like sufficient knowledge of it. Every local authority in my constituency—and there are half a dozen—has written to me expressing the gravest apprehension at the position. It applies throughout the
152
area and I urge the Minister, if he can, to make a personal investigation into this particular district. Perhaps, if he is in Manchester, as he no doubt will be at some early date, he could come over to my constituency and spend a short time there. It is but a 20-minute journey by car from Manchester. Then he could have a talk, not with a view to being met with criticism, but with a view to discussing the situation with the local authorities concerned and seeing how best the problem could be solved.
Meanwhile I urge the Ministry to concentrate every possible effort to avoid the serious difficulties which occurred last winter. Would it not be possible to guarantee the maximum permitted quantities which are allowed for each consumer? That would go a long way towards raising hopes and assuaging the nervousness which has been created, if a guarantee could be given by the Minister that the maximum permitted allocation for each householder would be available by the time winter arrives. If something on those lines could be done, I can assure him that it would go far towards solving the present difficulties and would create more confidence in districts which have been so badly hit.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. S. O. Davies: I have listened to most of the speeches to-day, and I have been very much interested in the contributions which have been made from the Government benches. Reflecting a little on those contributions, I want to say that it is not a happy reflection. The Minister started off on the same old text, which Government spokesmen have used during the last generation in this House. From my own personal experience the text adopted by our most modern Minister for Mines has invariably been that which I heard from the coalowners, not only a generation ago, but considerably longer than that. May I say, with all the kindliness in the world, that the speech made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to-day will not increase the output of coal in this country even if every word of it were implemented during the next 12 months? To-morrow, we shall read in the newspapers that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that output is too low, and costs too high. There is nothing new in that. That is the ancient slogan of the coalowning interests in this country,

153
which has been uttered many times by the stalwart and persistent defenders of those coalowners in this House.
Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that any of the suggestions he has made will alter the content of that slogan? He cannot imagine that the rather pretentiously constructed ideas he has put forward to-day will effect the output of coal. A great deal of capital has been made out of the Reid Report. May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give us a single suggestion or recommendation in the Reid Report that has not been made in this country for the last quarter of a century? For instance, an hon. Gentleman to-day placed considerable emphasis upon the improved methods of mining coal as suggested by the Reid Committee. One of those methods is that by adopting the long wall method of mining coal by far the most economical one would be what is known as long wall retreating. That suggestion has been placed before the House to-day as if it were brand new.
In my very early youth I remember sitting for my first examination in what was called the Science and Art of Coalmining. I was a lad of about 15, with three long years of experience in the coalmines, and I remember distinctly the first question on that elementary examination paper was, "Describe the comparative advantages of long wall retreating and long wall advancing." This is a hoary question that was set to youths in those days, when it was scientifically obvious to a colliery boy of 14 or 15 that if the avidity of private ownership for immediate returns after a shaft had been sunk were ignored, the driving of the main roadway to the boundaries and taking the long wall face back to the shaft bottom, was by far the most economical method. We now get it in the Reid Report, and an hon. Gentleman puts it across the Floor of the House to-day as if it were a wonderful 20th century discovery. It was old in my very young days. As the result of comparing examination papers of years before, I knew that this grand old question would come up again, and I was ready for it with all my technical and scientific knowledge at 15 years of age.
We heard to-day an admission by a man who is very much interested in coal on the owners' side that one of the doubts
154
he had in amalgamating a large number of colliery undertakings was whether we had the technically efficient men who were highly qualified enough to do that job of work. What an admission with respect to one of the oldest large-scale industries in the country, and one of the oldest industries on a large scale in the world, that, with all the wealth that has been taken out of the industry, there is a fear that the coalowners have not taken sufficient intelligent interest in industry to produce the type of man who is mentally and otherwise equipped, to run these new changes in the industry. One of the most pathetic aspects of the Minister's speech was that he did not show the faintest glimmer of an understanding that the mining industry is now ripe—belatedly so—for a technical and a technological revolution.. No concrete suggestion has been made to-day that there may be a far more intelligent way of utilising coal. The Minister's speech was scientifically barren, ridiculously and unpardonably so. Do not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his advisers know that during the last 20 years a new science has arisen in regard to coal? In matters of that kind the Mines Department is unpardonably ignorant or criminally negligent with respect to one of the most precious assets of this little island of ours. Apparently it has not the slightest appreciation of the great technical changes that are awaiting us. Amalgamations will effect nothing. In South Wales we know what amalgamations and combines mean. More than half of our steam coal, two-thirds of the coal in South Wales, is being handled by one concern; I say deliberately and with regret, mishandled in a disgraceful fashion, having regard to the great deal of scientific research that has been done in regard to coal.
All the splendid scientific discoveries that have been made over a quarter of a century prove that the method of mining and using coal to-day is the last word in unpardonable wastage, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not prepared, and is probably afraid, to put an end to that wastefulness. May I tell him a few well known facts, a few things which the collier boys in our coalfields know to be facts? In almost every seam of coal in Britain the solids can be completely converted into gases and liquids. Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman

155
put this question to an independent unprejudiced technologist or scientist: what percentage of the scientifically low values of coal is being extracted from that coal? There are distinguished research scholars in this country who will answer the question. In all probability there is not a person in this country whose opinion would be worth considering who would not tell the Minister that at the present time the country is not getting more than 30 per cent. of the known values in that coal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to continue this criminal wastefulness which has characterised the mining and utilisation of coal in this country.
Hon. Members may smile. I saw comparable smiles on that side of the House when collieries were wantonly abandoned and completely ruined in the inter-war period, precisely because of the policy adopted by those who smiled quite as happily in those days as they smile to-day when our national asset is being misused. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made his bed and has chosen his associates. They will bring him far more regrets than any pleasure that he will ever derive from them and from the mishandling of coal. The attitude of his Ministry in regard to the subject-matter of this Debate is criminally and un-pardonably wanton. Before many months the truth of what has been repeated over and over again from this side will come home to him. Unless he shows courage to grapple with the matter in the way it obviously ought to be grappled with, and ceases using the great potentialities of his Department just to cater for the hunger for miserable profits, it will end in the destruction of this great asset, which the country cannot afford.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Lawson: This Debate has concerned not only the miner but the mineowner, and it very much concerns the citizen who has to pay the higher price for coal which is reflected in this Order. In addition, even with the higher price during last winter they were not able to get the coal they needed. An hon. Member opposite pointed out that this is midsummer. It is just as well that he reminded us of that fact because I was not aware of it myself. I should think that, even though it is midsummer, there
156
are people who would be very thankful for some coal. The average citizen cannot too often be reminded of some very elementary facts connected with the shortage of coal. There is a tendency to give the impression that the miner is to blame for that shortage. I live in a mining area and, knowing something of present-day facts, as well as having had long years of experience, I think a great deal of credit is due to the miners for the fact that on the whole we have kept such a level of output and served the needs of the country during this crisis through which we have passed.
It cannot be too often emphasised that in the main the most supple and strong of the younger men were taken away for the Forces in the early stages of the war. The key men were taken away, and I have heard serving Members in this House pay the same tribute to those men as was paid during the last war. But that does not explain what it means to lose these younger men from the mines. I read somewhere something about its being easier for someone to go through the eye of a needle—I do not know, but perhaps it was a coal owner—and a young miner has sometimes almost to perform that miracle. He has to be supple, swift and strong to an extent that cannot be understood anywhere outside a mine. I have seen all classes of work, and the average person outside a mine does not believe it until he sees it. An hon. Member spoke about working in a two-foot seam. That is not an uncommon thing at all. The Reid Report has suggested schemes of transporting men more quickly and easily to the coal face. The miner will be pleased when that is done, because not the least of his work is to walk to the coal face. I believe the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been down several mines, and I think he will agree that when he has gone along these lower seams to the coal face, the experience of walking with his chin tapping on his knees is one that has to be experienced to be believed. Those young men were taken away, and some of the older men who were driven out of the industry years before the war have had to go back. You cannot repair that kind of thing so easily.
Another factor is that the meat ration has been so low during the war. A miner cannot do heavy work unless he gets

157
plenty of meat. There is no doubt about that. I knew what was the right food when I was in a mine, and I could not have been satisfied without a good meal of meat. The miners cannot get it now. The Minister says that they do not always visit the canteens: I think that is right. I have been told by men recently that the canteens are all right for something light but they do not make up for a good meal. The pies are sometimes rather too light. That matter will have to be attended to in the long run, because mining is a wearying business for men who have in work in low seams. There is another factor about canteens, which is that the men like to have a bath and then go home to get a good meal.
Although one gives these explanations, the country asks, and has a right to ask after the long and stormy history of this industry and the revelations which have been made by the men who have examined it technically recently, What is the matter with this industry?
The miner is a good citizen on the whole. He goes into the Forces, where he is reckoned to be steady and not undisciplined, and makes an intelligent soldier capable of doing a good job; but when he gets back to the mines he becomes a curious kind of creature to the public. We hear criticisms about him. An hon. Member said from a back bench opposite that the miner was all right in his own community, when he had not been out into the world. That is what they say and is the regular explanation in some circles nowadays. I have seen it in journals of fairly good standing. The miner is an intelligent, hardy and self-controlled citizen. He must be so in his village, because he is so esteemed when he comes out of it to take his place in the Forces.
Coal produces power for the whole of industry and light and warmth for the average citizen, but those are almost the least of the things which coal represents. There are hundreds, and perhaps there are now thousands, of new uses for coal looming upon the horizon. It is generally agreed that whether it is supplying the needs of the ordinary citizen or those of industry, this commodity called coal means almost life and death to this country in the years to come. It is a great pity that we are compelled to have these Debates at a time like this, when we
158
should be bracing ourselves for the task which will be so necessary in the coming years. When we should be bracing ourselves in a spirit of optimism and, if you like, courage and heroism, it is a pay that we should have to spend hours almost in gloom, when dealing with the prime industry of this country. We cannot get boys for it. That is a very serious matter. When one asks why they will not go in, people say they will not do so because they are educated. I never have encouraged anyone to think that mining is an employment which is beneath their dignity. I cannot believe that the men of the industry in which my father spent the greater part of his life, in which millions of men in this country of the most courageous and finest type have spent their lives, have been creatures of a lower type, who were simply there because they were ignorant. I did what I could to get what little education was possible, and I deliberately went back to the industry after I had got some education.
What is the matter with the industry that boys will not go into the mines? The Dutch coalfield is much less than ours, but the boys go into the Dutch mines. I would advise every Member who can get hold of it to read page 22 of the Reid Report in the section dealing with Holland. All the details are given. No boy goes into the mine until he is 18 years old, but he has been educated and trained for the four years as a miner, and why should he not have been? It is a great craft, a highly skilled craft. It took people a long time to understand that, and I am not so sure that it is accepted yet. One has to be almost brought up with the coal to know what we call its nature, to speak of coal as a sailor speaks of a ship and call it "she," to know just the moods and the nature of the coal, how it is connected with the roof above, and so forth. Incidentally, I heard someone speak about the kind of coal that people were getting—mixed up with stone and other rubbish. I have seen some of that coal in London lately, and I do not believe that it comes from the pit at all. There are rubbish heaps around the pits, and I believe that someone has been taking that stuff from them. I would advise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make an investigation into where that stuff comes from. This Report speaks of the training that is given to the Dutch boys. This is a very illuminating page, and I think that the

159
gentlemen who have written it are entitled to a vote of thanks. They say:
"The training scheme, which is designed to inculcate the feeling that those who have gone through it are among the élite, has had the effect of ensuring a more than adequate supply of properly trained recruits to the industry."
"A more than adequate supply." I know that there is something being done about training, but it is not being done in anything like the comprehensive way that is mentioned here. Boys now leave school at 14—the age will become 15, and soon, I hope, 16. Thank God, they do not go in at 12, as we used to do. But you have not only to make new conditions; the boy is not merely educating himself, he is living in a new world technically, and much broader and more sweeping views ought to be taken in preparing the workman for his work in the coming years.
There is another factor, and you cannot banish it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it was no good going into the past, but, unfortunately, the present is rooted in the past. The 10 years we had in Wales and in Durham before the war broke the faith of whole communities in their industry. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) has gone, because I should have liked to compliment him on a more than usually well-informed speech. But the dulcet tones in which he spoke of the coalowners would have moved me very much if I had not known something of their record over the past 30 or 40 years. I am not speaking about them personally: there are good and bad men among them, just as there are among workmen. But the hon. Member pointed out that output had gone down in spite of the fact that royalties had been nationalised. We have given reasons for the output going down, but the Report points out that it was a very good thing for the mining industry that the royalties were nationalised. Indeed, it became absolutely inevitable, in view of the state of the trade. We had proposed that the royalties should be nationalised for long years, and the coalowners opposed that nationalisation.
I can conceive that the day might come when, if the country did not accept Labour as the Government of the day, the very facts of the industry might compel
160
ven a Conservative Government to nationalise the mining industry. This is not a theoretical question; it is a matter of dealing with something that is vital to the life of this nation. All that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us to-day is a Central Board—I think he calls it—and concentration. There is nothing new about that. That is a proposal that has been talked of before this House and in the country for long years, and I must say that it sounded very much like the Foot plan. I know the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to let the coalowners be the sole people on the Central Board. I gather that the Foot plan was to nationalise the mining industry for the coalowners, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did a little better than that, in that it is going to be a Government-appointed Central Board. I am telling the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that that will not meet the needs of the hour. I think there is only one thing that is going to meet this problem. It has to be met in a bold and courageous way, with vision big enough to realise the big things that are coming. The only means by which we can deal with this industry are means whereby the people and the country shall use it as a service for the nation, treating its human elements at their full value, as well as its mechanical elements. When the nation does that, I am telling this House and the country there will be no lack of men or boys for the mining industry. We shall get men ultimately, who will have pride in their industry and restore that ancient pride of workmanship which this country needs, not only in mining but in all the other industries.
Major Lloyd George rose—
Mr. Mainwaring: Since the Minister has already spoken, and I understand that he is entitled to speak again only with the consent of the House, I want to challenge the consent of the House being granted to the Minister at this stage, and I do so, apologising to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as one Welshman to another.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is mistaken. The Minister has the right to reply on the Motion.
Mr. Mainwaring: Is not this exempted Business?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but the right of reply is allowed by the Standing Orders on a Motion of this sort.
9.50 p.m.
Major Lloyd George: I am sure my hon. Friend and the rest of the House will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who would have been happy to reply, has been in office only something under 48 hours, and, while he has had a great deal of experience in office, obviously, on a matter as complicated as this, he rightly prefers that I should deal with the specific points raised in this Debate, which are very technical in some respects. I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) said about the mining community of this country. Since I have been in my office, and indeed for many years before that in my own part of the world, I have come into contact with that community, and there is no one who has a greater admiration for them than myself. I agree with a great deal of what he was saying with regard to their service from the Service where I have had experience of them. I understood him to say that I was rather indicating that the miners were solely responsible for the shortage of output, but there is nothing that I have said to-day or at any other time which could possibly bear that interpretation. I said that most of them had done as good a job as any, but that there were many cases where that was not so. I agree with him that the key men were taken away, and they were the men who were in the most productive age group in the industry.
There is another point—that of nutrition. I have the greatest sympathy with the miners on this matter. I came into contact with the question before I came to this Ministry, when I was in the Ministry of Food, and we devised a method by which we were able to give miners who did extra work some extra rations. It was that which gave a fillip to the canteen system. That system had been started earlier but it was enormously increased. I must say, with some experience of the matter, that while my hon. Friend talks about the lightness of the meals—and I gather some doubt was also expressed as to their content—I can assure him that the canteens provide really first-class meals with the highest possible rationing.
162
The fact still remains that a very small percentage, in some cases, take advantage of the canteen. I fully appreciate the custom of the miner who prefers to have his food at home, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to face realities. The position at the moment is very difficult with regard to food supplies, and this is purely an attempt to extend to a body of men, who do heavy physical work, some little addition. While we all appreciate the custom which makes them prefer to have food at home, if it is a question of a shortage of food, I do not think it is too much to ask that advantage should be taken of these very excellent facilities, where they are provided.
Mr. Glanville: May I put this proposition to the Minister? There are several collieries where they have no pit-head baths. The men come out of the pits with bundles of clothes under their arm and wet clothes on their bodies. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect them to take food in canteens in that condition?
Major Lloyd George: Of course, I do not. I said that this was an attempt to meet the need. I realise that there are several pits in the country without pit-head baths and I appreciate the difficulty there. But at mines with excellent bath facilities and some of the finest canteens, only 25 and 30 per cent. of the miners take advantage of the canteen facilities. [An Hon. Member: "They will not."] It is all very well to say that they will not, but in the present situation of the nation I say that advantage should be taken of this facility. That is all I ask.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) raised some interesting points about medical services. This is a matter in which I have been keenly interested since I went into the Ministry, and it is one on which the Government laid down part of their policy in the White Paper. The hon. Member will appreciate that there has been and is a serious shortage of medical men, but, even so, we have been able to make a start—and I do not put it higher than that. We have another doctor at headquarters and another in each region and we hope they will study local conditions, disease incidents and things of that sort, which they have been asked to investigate. We are co-operating closely with the Medical Research Council

163
on the question of the arrears in the examinations of men in the terrible diseases of pneumoconiosis and silicosis. We were faced with the difficult problem of getting more medical men, men with a certain type of knowledge to deal with the problem. I was greatly assisted in this by my right hon. and learned Friend the late Minister of National Insurance, and we have been able to double the panels working on these pneumoconiosis cases. At the head of the panel is a man experienced in these diseases, and he trains the new man under him. I have the loan, for a certain time at any rate, of a radiological unit which, I hope, will also help very much in that matter. I fully agree with what my hon. Friend opposite said about the need for training in schools in connection with these various industrial diseases. We have made a start, and I intend to pursue the matter as much as I can
Questions were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) about the supply of coal. Obviously, the position does not get any easier with the serious decrease in output, but since the war we have used the method of building up stocks for emergency use. Those stocks were used when the emergency arose, and it is our purpose to build up supplies of fuel during the summer to as high a level as the supply position will permit, and by all other means in our power, especially by the supply of wood. I hope there will be a substantial increase in the wood supply this year, although the difficulty there is transport and labour, as in so many cases the wood lies in remote areas. We have, however, made arrangements to increase considerably the stocks of wood. My hon. Friend the Member for Royton talked about the difficulty of stocking in summer, and about allocations not being fulfilled in his area. The reason there was a serious fire, which has been referred to already, in a colliery which had a very substantial output, and it takes a little time to readjust the source of supply, particularly when the period coincides with the Whitsun Recess and also with V-E Day, which gave us its quota of interruptions. But I can assure him that that will speedily be put right.
164
I cannot say that this Debate has been very different from any other Debates to which I have listened in this House. I was accused, apparently, by a good many of my hon. Friends opposite of being rather doleful. Well, I do not know whether they think that the coal industry presents a particularly happy picture at the present time or not. I was also told that I simply said what everyone has known for the last 25 years. I was told that I said the industry was slowing down. Well, is it not? [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course it is, and whose fault is it?"] I am not discussing at the moment whose fault it is. I was trying to state the facts in my speech. One hon. Gentleman went further and said that I did not seem to be very concerned. I take the strongest exception to that remark. I would say this to him, that I am quite prepared to put my record of achievements to the industry and particularly to those who work within the industry, and to show that in no other period since the mining industry was started has there been—
Mr. Mainwaring: What a challenge.
Major Lloyd George: I make that challenge now. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the miner has had a fairly good deal since this Ministry was formed? I would suggest to him that the miner has had as good terms since this Ministry has come into being as at any time.
Mr. Grenfell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to interrogate me, but what I want to know is, has he done all that is intended to be done for the miners?
Major Lloyd George Major Lloyd George: That is not the point.
Mr. Grenfell: Yes, it is.
Major Lloyd George: No, that is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Grenfell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman—
Hon. Members: Order.
Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman has made his observations and I am entitled to reply to them. The hon. Gentleman said that I was not very concerned, and I said that I resent that state-

165
ment, because I am very much concerned. What shows my concern is what has happened since I have been in office. When he asks me whether that is all I propose to do, he must know perfectly well that it is not. At any rate we have made, if I may say so, at least as good an advance as has been made in any other period I can remember. I am quite content to leave it at that. The hon. Gentleman talked about safety, and said that the record of this country compared very unfavourably with that of almost any other country in Europe. I do not accept that. As far as Holland is concerned, I agree, but Holland has a very small coalfield. I have not the figures here but I am quite prepared to compare this country with Germany, and other countries in Europe, in regard to safety. May I say, further, that in wartime, as my hon. Friend knows, safety conditions sometimes deteriorate but I have been able to announce—and nobody was more pleased than I—that for this last year we have had the lowest record of fatal accidents in the whole history—
Mr. Grenfell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not put into my mouth suggestions which I did not make. I was not referring to him when I was dealing with the question of safety. I said that the problem of safety has to be tackled by his Department. I did say that I was three years on the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines and the evidence there showed that far greater steps had been taken towards improved safety on the Continent, in countries such as France, Belgium, and Germany, than had ever been taken here. Do not let the Minister quarrel with me on this. Let him look up the reports in his own Department.
Major Lloyd George: I am not quarrelling with my hon. Friend but he is rather inclined to make statements of that sort.
Mr. Grenfell: I resent that remark most strongly.
Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend was pleased to make his statements to me, and he must listen to what I want to say in reply. He made a statement which I resented, and I am replying to it. He made a statement with regard to safety, and I am prepared to look at Hansard to see whether I am right in the impression that he said we, as a country, were behind
166
other countries in Europe. That is a statement I cannot accept.
Mr. Grenfell: The Minister must take what I said. He cannot make accusations against me without quoting my words. I said that the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines went into this fully, and the evidence was that safety conditions had been vastly improved in other countries compared with ours. The Minister really must look at the Report, and if he finds I am right, I hope he will apologise.
Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend knows very well that if I find that I had got the wrong impression I will apologise. The impression I got from his remarks was that we were really behind all other countries in Europe, and I cannot accept that, except with regard to Holland, a smaller country where the conditions are different. There is a tremendous lot to be done in regard to safety in mines, and my hon. Friend knows that a great deal was in preparation before the war and that I had given an undertaking that as soon as conditions permit it will be proceeded with, as we regard this as one of the most important things in conjunction with the Reid Report.
In the speeches to-day I have been told that there is nothing new in what I propose to do. May I say without offence that I have heard nothing new in any speeches from the other side to-day. I have been in the House nearly 25 years, and I have heard the same speeches on this subject, on and off, during that time. I do not blame hon. Gentlemen for having a rehearsal for the other performance that is coming on later. The tact remains that what they had to offer was nationalisation. I said earlier that the electorate would decide who were to be the owners of the mines. May I put this to hon. Gentlemen who have said that we propose nothing. What has been done has not been done in a haphazard way. The first thing I decided to be essential was that there should be security for a reasonable period after the war, at any rate for those engaged in the mining industry, to an adequate wage. The result of that was that we eventually got the four years' agreement, which was accepted by both sides in the industry, and which the Government are going to back. The pur-

167
pose of that was to start with a period of comparative tranquillity, during which we could commence the work of reconstruction.
Having got that achieved, the next thing was to think out what should be done. It is all very well to say that all these things have been said over and over again. I have heard hon. Gentlemen on the other side say that they are sick of reading reports. That may be, but what matters is what it is proposed to do after a report has been made. Suppose hon. Gentlemen were to carry their proposal for nationalisation; what is the first thing they would have to do? It would have to implement the recommendations of the Reid Report. No one will deny that it is essential to raise output of coal in this country as the only practical method of bringing the price down to such a level as will enable us to compete in markets abroad and enable our own industries to get the power they need at the lowest possible price. It is agreed on all sides that the only possible way of doing that is by reducing the prices, and it is further agreed by all thinking people that the only way to reduce the prices is to increase the efficiency of the industry. After all, there is a limit to what the human hand can achieve unaided. One of the great things we have learned in this war is that, while you may have an increase in cutters and conveyors, it is essential to have an increase in mechanical shovels in order to aid the men as much as possible. Therefore, I repeat the first thing that would have to be done with a policy of nationalisation would be to take steps to implement this Report.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Not at all.
Major Lloyd George: I am quite prepared to accept the views of seven engineers who are at least as good as any engineers that can be found in this country.
Mt. S. O. Davies: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not talking about engineers. He is talking about economics.
Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member is getting a little mixed. At the moment I am talking about the practical steps that would have to be taken to increase technical efficiency. That is going to be done by some sort of work underground
168
—by better winding, better shafts, or better roadways, so as to move away as expeditiously as possible the coal that is acquired at the face by better machinery. I suggest that, whatever the ownership of the industry is, speaking by and large, the recommendations of this Report would have to be carried out. What the Government propose to do is this. There has been an inquiry. I do not think that in their heart of hearts hon. Members in any part of the House can do other than agree that a very great contribution towards a solution of the difficulties of this industry has been made. Apparently the only thing that lies between us is who should be the owners of the mines. All I can say is that this is a matter for the electorate, and if this Government is returned, it will be to carry out this plan; and I can only repeat the words which I used this afternoon—we shall provide the necessary sanctions for making sure that the essential recommendations contained in the Reid Report are carried through.
Mr. J. Griffiths: This is a very important matter. We began the Debate on a Coal Charges Order, and the Minister has taken advantage of this to put forward the Government's policy. This is probably the last Debate on this subject that we shall have before the country decides. The Minister says that the Reid Report must be implemented. That is agreed. The fact is that the coal-owners have not carried out this job; if they had, there would have been no need for the Reid Report. The Minister says there must be sanctions. He also says that the job can be done by private enterprise. If private enterprise can do the job, why have sanctions?
Major Lloyd George: That is rather beside the point. Various methods have been tried in this industry, and there has been a great deal of talk in the industry for a great number of years. I came into it only three years ago. I am not concerned with what has gone on before, except to the extent that we must learn some lessons from what has gone before. The Government accept the Report of the Committee as that of men who are competent to express an opinion. They have come to the conclusion that in the national interest something of this sort must be carried out, and they will take steps to carry it out. If amalgamation cannot be done voluntarily, it will be done com-

169
pulsorily. I need say no more than that the Government are determined to take whatever steps are necessary to put this Report into operation. If the hon. Gentleman expects me to give full details, which I could do on the Second Reading of a Bill, I can only say it is not possible at this stage. I have stated the Government's intentions, and the Government will implement what I have said to-day.
Mr. Bernard Taylor: Have not the coal-owners defied Governments in the past?
Major Lloyd George: If they broke the law, I assume action would be taken. The Government mean what they say and that is what they propose to do. I am sorry it was thought that I went rather wide, but the last time we had a discussion I kept to the actual charge and got into hot water fordoing so. At any rate, I have taken the opportunity to give as much information as I could as to the past and as to what we propose to do in the future. I am certain that, whatever the ownership of the industry may be, we have got to do something of this sort if we are to make it the foundation of the economic life of the country.
10.16 p.m.
Mr. Mainwaring: One thing is certain. The whole country is deeply interested in the mining industry and its immediate future. The Minister says he has given as much information about the Government's plans as he can. He means that he has given as much information as he cares to give, which is nothing. The fact is that the country is left with as little knowledge and as little planning as it had at the outbreak of the war, and we are going forward into the future with as little knowledge and care about the well-being of the country as we have shown at any time in the past. The Minister says the miners have had as square a deal as they have ever had. As a matter of fact they have only had that which could not be withheld from them, so let the Ministry take no credit for that.
About nutrition and canteens, how many times did we warn the Government that the miners would not use the canteens? The Government preferred to give, not coupons to the miners in their homes but meat supplies to all kinds of canteens. We warned them against it.
170
Why, then, complain that the men have failed to use the canteens? It is lack of insight and foresight on the part of the Ministry of Food that has led to this position. To complain about it to-day is adding insult to injury. In my experience there are two subjects about which the most uninformed opinion governs the House. One is finance, and the other is mining. Frankly, I do not know of any other two subjects upon which uninformed opinion influences this House so much.
Dr. Morgan: Medicine.
Mr. Mainwaring: That is not a matter for the House. That is for the professions, and they know little about it. During this Debate I have listened to some complaints about quantities of coal distributed in the North, South, East and West, and in some way hon. Members seemed to assume that there are disparities between North, South, East and West in this country. I represent a mining area, and I am here to tell the House that no part of this country suffers from a scarcity of coal more than does the Rhondda. Thousands of homes in the Rhondda, the richest mining valley in the world, have had to maintain themselves for 24 hours a day on 16 lbs. of coal. There is no electricity or gas, and for 24 hours a day they have to try to keep a fire going with 16 lbs. of coal. And this is called organisation. This is a mystery of fuel and power, not a Ministry of Fuel and Power.
Sir Herbert Wragg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to ask him whether the Rhondda miners get no free coal or coal at reduced prices. In Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire the miner gets a ton a month in the winter in addition to his basic ration, and he has so much coal that he sells it to other people.
Mr. Mainwaring: I do not object to that question. I am not speaking merely for the miner employed in the Rhondda but for the 20,000 munition workers outside the mines—20,000 men and women in the Rhondda who work in munition factories and ordnance factories of all kinds, who have no other form of fuel. They have to depend on 65 lbs. of coal per week. That is the allotted quota for working men and women in the Rhondda this

171
week to provide for all their needs, to cook all their food and to provide baths—but they never get a bath unless they are on coal work.
People talk about prices. There have been broadcast in this country complaints about the recent increase in the price of coal to consumers in this country. Let me as a miner say to hon. Members in this House and to the community in general: You have no right to cheap coal. A short while ago my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) reminded this House of the terrible toll of life in the anthracite district of South Wales, resulting from silicosis. I grieve to say to this House that anthracite takes second place to-day. The Rhondda is the greatest death pit in the world. Pneumoconiosis and silicosis take 1,200 lives per year in the coalfields of this country; they are mainly in South Wales, and the highest percentage is from my division. Hundreds of men to-night are waiting for medical boards to examine them, and hon. Members in this House complain that the price of coal is too high. There are dozens of men dying in my division to-night. You do not talk about the social cost of coal. You talk about that miserly, mean price per ton in the markets of the country. I am losing dozens of my fellow-miners every day and every week, while the country is talking about the price of coal and the cost of administration. They are having their coal too cheap. They are not paying for coal at its proper cost. I say to them: "You are burning men's lives and souls in your grates, and yet you are complaining that it costs too much."
What the Minister proposes is miserly and puny. The mining industry will laugh to-morrow at this attempt to justify this mystery of fuel and power. If the next Government of this country were to be decided by the mining industry of this country, I could tell hon. Members what it would be. It would not be a Tory, a Liberal, a Common Wealth or a Nationalist Government; it would be a Mining Government, a government of the mining population.
Sir H. Wragg: It is a good job we are not all miners, then.
Mr. Mainwaring: It would be an intelligent Government, anyhow.
Sir H. Wragg: That is questionable, judging from the hon. Member's speech.
Mr. Mainwaring: The Minister's reply to-night was inadequate. He said that underlying the Debate was the question of nationalisation or private ownership. I venture to put to the House the point that, if the plea the Minister put forward is that nationalisation must prove itself superior to private ownership, then equally private ownership must prove itself superior to nationalisation, if the Minister has decided that the former is to continue. It is by increased efficiency that either one or other system will justify itself. Up to now, all that the Minister can decide is that there is continued decline under private ownership. At what stage will he convince himself that it is time to make a change?
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): What about America?
Mr. Mainwaring: They are running in the same direction. As a matter of fact, the Minister fails to appreciate what has been known to some of us, and has been mentioned in this House, that the tendency in the mining industry is for the average age of the workers to increase. There are no boys coming into it now. Recently the Minister came to my Divison and asked a very large audience whether any of them would send their boys into the industry; no one would. Why? Because there is no security in it. Whoever starts in the industry to-day cannot say that he will be there in five years from now. In South Wales the personnel of the industry has declined in the last 25 years from 270,000 to 100,000. How long are the 100,000 to remain? Down, down, down—that is the history and the record of private ownership. Mark this—I think my fellow miners here would join with me in saying this—we were proud of our job as miners. Never were men prouder of their craft than we. Whatever may be the dangers of the mines, they never frightened us. They may frighten a good many other people in this House, but not us. We dared. We faced the danger, and we did so proudly. But that is no reason why we should send our sons there, when we do not know if they will be there in a year's time.
The mining industry offers no prospect of a career. What is the use of talking

173
about sending boys with secondary school education and advanced education into the pits? You cannot even say they will be there six months hence. Pits are closing down; the mining industry to-day is closing down. In the last 25 years no more than three new collieries have been opened in South Wales. In the last 30 years nearly 30 pits have closed, and in South Wales three have opened in 25 years—and they talk about private ownership and maintaining coal supplies!
The country is faced with the most critical situation imaginable in the next 50 years in regard to coal. If you talk about the future of this nation, what is the good of talking in terms of five, or ten, or 20 years? When we talk about the security and prosperity of Britain we ought to talk in terms of centuries. Here we have private coalowners quite satisfied to allow existing mines to exhaust themselves and die away, and the supply of coal to diminish and disappear. The facts are there. Ask the Minister himself. He is bound to confirm my statement. We are up against the fact that a decision must be made. Either we are going to rely on private ownership and gradually allow this nation to become bankrupt from the standpoint of supplies of coal, which is the necessary basis of the industrial prosperity of Britain, or the nation itself must take the matter in hand. No longer is it a question of whether you can administer one pit or a dozen, on the basis of national ownership as against private ownership. The question that faces the country is whether the mining industry itself is going to continue to exist and develop in private ownership. We are here to inform the House that there is no basis on which the mining industry can be maintained and developed, except that of the nationalisation of the industry. That is the issue.
Mr. Craven-Ellis: Would the hon. Member outline how this improvement can be brought about by nationalisation?
Mr. Mainwaring: Yes, I can well reply to the hon. Member by referring him to the Foot Plan, the very plan put forward by the coalowners, who calmly ask this nation to put our national credit at the disposal of the private coalowner to develop the industry for private profit. When the credit of the country has to be
174
expended for profit, I think we should spend our credit at least for public profit.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That the Coal (Charges) (Amendment)(No. 1) Order, 1945, dated 25th April, 1945, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 1st May, be approved."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Twelfth Resolutions [Ways and Means] reported, and agreed to, 3rd May, and Resolution [National Debt (Permanent Annual Charge)] reported, and agreed to, 3rd May, read.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Deputy-Chairman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Peake.
  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL,
  "to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the Public Revenue and the National Debt," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY COMMISSION) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Local Government Boundary Commission and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Commission established under the said Act and the salaries, fees and allowances of the members of the Commission and the secretary, officers and servants of the Commission."
  Resolution agreed to.

  LIABILITIES (WAR TIME ADJUSTMENT (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the arrangement or the adjustment and settlement of the affairs of persons in Scotland financially affected by war circumstances it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the remuneration and expenses of trustees to whom remits may be made by the Court under the said Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

  ACQUISITION OF LAND
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move,
  "That the Acquisition of Land (Valuation for Supplemental Compensation) Regulations, 1945, a copy of which was presented on 10th April, be annulled: "
  With so many new faces on the Government Front Bench, I would say that this is not an unfriendly Prayer—not in all respects at any rate. I regard it as a legacy which has come to the new Government from the old Coalition Government. I understand that the Select Committee which was appointed by this House to investigate, to "vet," all Orders in Council has reported unfavourably about this Statutory Rule and Order. I understand further that the Department concerned furnished the Select Committee with an explanatory memorandum and that the Select Committee could not understand the explanatory memorandum. How is this House to understand an Order in Council which is not intelligible to the Committee specially deputed by this House to deal with such matters? No explanatory memorandum has been produced in this House and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasnry why it is that with such a complicated Order, no explantory memorandum has been supplied.
  Reading the Order, I find in paragraph 2 that for 28 lines there is no full stop. We all like a breathing space, and a full stop, I was told when I was at school, is a breathing space. I would challenge my right hon. Friend to read paragraph 2 without drawing a breath and, having read it without any full stop or breathing space, to tell us what it meant. Paragraph 3 is not very much better, because
  176
  there are 19 lines without any full stop. For a small fee—I am probably out of order in saying "a small fee"—but for a kindly smile, or little encouragement, I will guarantee to redraft paragraph 2 with six and probably 12 full stops—provided the Minister will tell me what it means—so that Members will be able to understand it. I have read it very carefully and at the moment I cannot conceive what it means. Far be it from me, of little intelligence, to complain about the wording of an Order in Council. But I have discussed this with various of my hon. Friends and they have fortified me. They also cannot understand what paragraph 2 means, or indeed several of the other paragraphs. Unless we get some reasonable explanation from my right hon. Friend to-night, I suggest that he should withdraw this Order in Council; that he should see to it that those who are intended to be benefited by the quite unintelligible provisions contained therein shall not lose by the withdrawal of the Order and that he should reintroduce the Order written in good honest English language.
  10.47 p.m.
  Sir Herbert Williams: I think that the House should consider this document very carefully. It starts off:
  "The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury in exercise of the powers conferred on them by subsection (2) of section sixty of the Town and Country Planning Act, and of all other powers enabling them in that behalf"
  —words which incidentaly have no significance at all. It is the practice of draftsmen to put in words which have no meaning of any kind whatever, to imply that they have powers that they do not really possess. May I repeat those words:
  "Of all other powers enabling them in that behalf."
  These words ought not to appear in any Order of this kind. It is only the Ministry of Food which uses these words—plus the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. These are perfectly stupid words which appear in a great many documents, because unless they come under the Royal Prerogative and not in a Statute, they have no meaning of any kind whatever. The Ministry of Food stick them into every Order they produce. I asked Questions when I sat on the now totally unoccupied Bench opposite—I assume that the

  177
  Opposition have gone off electioneering. I think I had better go over there and take their place.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Gentleman cannot leave his place in the middle of a speech. I should have to rule him out of Order.
  Sir H. Williams: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought it a good opportunity, as we have no Member of the Labour Party present. I should have thought that they would be interested in the acquisition of land; they used to be interested in that subject. I am very grateful to see that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) has now returned because we used to fire watch together. But he decorates the benches opposite entirely alone. I agree that he decorates them, but it is unfortunate that the rest of his Party are not present when we are discussing a document which socialises the land of Britain. Apparently, however, his Party are no longer interested.
  The real reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) moved this Motion is this. Here is a document which is so unintelligible that the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders came to the conclusion that they could not understand it. Acting in accordance with their powers they asked for an explanation from the Department concerned. They could not understand the explanation. Now this has the effect of an Act of Parliament. A Select Committee of this House have said they did not understand this document. A Select Committee of this House after receiving the evidence of the Department concerned still say they do not understand this document. Is this document to go out to the world to be interpreted, I do not know by what court of justice—it may be the county courts, it may be the High Court, it may be the Court of Appeal, it may be the other place in its judicial capacity—on the basis that a number of Members of this House drawn from all political parties have reported that they could not understand it? Do I understand that the Financial Secretary is going to ask us to accept this document?
  As far as I can understand it—and my understanding of it is not too good—certain people in whom I am interested may
  178
  be prejudiced if it is not carried to-night. But that is no reason for bad legislation. It is monstrous that the people responsible for drafting documents should be incapable of drafting documents in language which can be understood, not by the mass outside but by whom? By 12 of our colleagues—and we are not too unintelligent in this House. Twelve of our colleagues have said that they do not understand what this means and after having had the explanatory memorandum from the Treasury or from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, they have said they do not understand it either. I think it absolutely monstrous that Ministers should be willing to put forward documents which they do not understand, and which a Select Committee of this House fail to understand, even after they have had an explanatory memorandum from the officials concerned. This document is dated 31st March, 1945, and is signed by L. R. Pym and William John, two Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury. One of them has been sacked since he signed the document. After all the other Pym had a good name. We walk along the corridors here and see a reminder of the occasion when the then Speaker addressed certain words to his then Majesty, when Pym, Hampden and the others escaped by boat—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This speech is becoming more and more irrelevant.
  Sir H. Williams: After all, I am entitled, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I find a document signed by certain names, to consider what is the reputability—I think that is the right phrase—of the signatories to the document.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but the hon. Member cannot go back to the time of Charles II.
  Sir H. Williams: I do not know whether it was Charles II or Charles I. I think it was Charles I. However, I leave out Pym, but as I say William John has been sacked since he signed the document. He did not resign; his boss resigned and he was sacked in consequence. Here is a document which the Select Committee of this House of Commons have said they did not understand. Here is a document which is completely unintelligible. It has been submitted to a Select Committee of this House on which

  179
  all Parties were serving. What was their report printed in our Proceedings the following day? We did not understand it; we have asked for an explanation. This is the last occasion on which it will appear before us because, automatically, it comes into operation to-morrow. It may be a good or a bad Order. I am not concerned with that. But should we consent to the passage into law of Statutory Rules and Orders which nobody understands? I hope my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, can explain what it is all about.
  10.57 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I am not altogether surprised that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) has raised this matter, because these Regulations undoubtedly are of a very complex nature; but the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who followed him fell into more than one error in the course of his remarks. He said, for example, that these Regulations would come into force to-morrow unless the House did something about them. The fact is that these Regulations have been in force now for 39 days.
  Sir H. Williams: What I said was—or what I implied was—that they would have effect of law to-morrow. I hope I am not wrong, because if we carry the Prayer to-night, they will not be law to-morrow morning.
  Mr. Peake: If we were to carry the Prayer to-night it is perfectly true they would no longer be law; but they have, in fact, been law for 39 days, and this is the fortieth day—
  Sir H. Williams: I know that.
  Mr. Peake: This is the fortieth day since they were laid before the House. The hon. Member said the Select Committee whose duty it is to scrutinise all Regulations and other instruments which come before the House, or which may be prayed against by the House, had stated that they could not understand these Regulations. I think that is putting it a little too high, because the report of the Select Committee was that in their opinion these Regulations called for elucidation.
  Mr. Taylor: I think there is probably a Member of the Select Committee here. If there is, perhaps he could enlighten the House on what the Select Committee thought about this Order?
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I believe I am the only member of the Select Committee present. I think my right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying we did not report in the words used by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), because our terms of reference would not allow that. But I think it can be seen that the effect was that it was extremely difficult for the members of the Select Committee to understand the wording, and we did feel it needed the attention of the House, accordingly.
  Mr. Peake: Perhaps I may explain that the powers under the Town and Country Planning Act for the making of these Regulations is contained in Section 60 (11), which says the Treasury may make regulations
  "prescribing the manner in which any evaluation required for the purpose of the determination of a claim for the payment of a sum under either the last preceding sections has to be made."
  Parliament, I think, must take some responsibility for the form in which the legislation is pased. There is not the slightest doubt that Sections 58 and 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act are of an excessively complicated nature. Let me explain what these two Sections were intended to do. They were intended to give something over and above the 1939 value to the owner-occupier who is compulsorily expropriated. The House in its wisdom determined that the proper supplement to give to owner-occupiers compulsorily expropriated under the Act was something not exceeding 30 per cent. of the 1939 value. But the House decided this: that the owner-occupier should get 30 per cent. in excess of the 1939 value on the value of his building, but excluding the value of the site, and it therefore becomes necessary to make two valuations before you can ascertain what the owner-occupier's interest is. You must make a valuation of the building plus the site and then of the site by itself, and then subtract the latter valuation from the first.
  The matter is even more complicated than that. If all these owner-occupiers

  181
  owned the freehold of their houses the matter would be comparatively simple. But the House went further and said that leaseholders must be compensated also on the basis of getting the 30 per cent. increase on the 1939 value of their leasehold interests. Therefore, of course, a much more difficult complication is involved, because the leaseholder's interest depends upon the amount of rent he is paying and the relationship of that rent to the annual value of the house. If you occupy a house at a rental of £20 a year and the annual value is £100 a year, you have a very substantial interest. If, on the other hand, you are paying £100 a year by way of rent and the annual value of the house is £80 you have, in fact, got something which looks like a liability. With regard to these leasehold interests you have to take into consideration the term of years for which the tenant is entitled to hold the premises.
  The Treasury were confronted with an exceedingly difficult task in drawing up these regulations. As a matter of fact this is a case where the matter is of such complexity that rather than put it in the Statute itself, the House decided deliberately that it should be left to the Regulations to provide for it. We have done our best to make these Regulations as clear as possible, but we were confronted with these difficulties which I have described to the House, and which, I am sure, the House will appreciate. I have myself read through these Regulations more than once. I agree that they are difficult to follow, but I do not believe they are in fact unintelligible. I believe that after three or four readings it is possible to master these Regulations, and I believe that they state the position clearly and definitely. I am fairly confident that expert valuers and people of that sort who have to operate these Regulations will be able to interpret them.
  It is true that we furnished an explanatory memorandum to the Scrutiny Committee. I should have thought that that memorandum would have been of substantial assistance to them. I am prepared to make this offer to hon. Members who raised the matter that I will supply them or any other hon. Member interested with a copy of the memorandum.
  Sir H. Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he understands the memorandum he has offered to supply
  182
  to us, having regard to the fact that the Select Committee could not understand it at all?
  Mr. Peake: I will confess that, in one particular, the explanatory memorandum rather baffled me, but I will see that in the copies furnished to my hon. Friends a further notice is appended dealing with this rather baffling point and I am quite sure that anything which is intelligible to me, will be equally intelligible to my hon. Friends who have raised this question.
  May I in conclusion say that it would be a pity for the House to annul these regulations? These are the regulations which enable these small people, these owner-occupiers, to get something over and above the 1939 value. These regulations have in fact been operative already for something like six weeks, for 39 days, I think, excluding Sundays, and if we were to annul the regulations we would be prejudicing for the future the rights of owner-occupiers to the supplements provided for by the regulations. From all aspects, and particularly from the electoral aspect of the matter, it would be a pity, I think, to give large numbers of owner-occupiers a serious grievance at the present time. I, therefore, hope that my hon. Friends will not press their Prayer to the point of prejudicing the position of these owner-occupiers at the present time. I will, however, furnish them, as I have promised, with the explanatory memorandum.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: It is always a difficult matter at a late hour in the evening, to make a speech on a document which is said to have no meaning at all. It is also difficult to say whether an hon. Member is relevant or not when he is speaking on a document which calls for elucidation, but I really think with the best will in the world towards my right hon. Friend that he is not to be congratulated either on these regulations, or upon his attempt to explain to the House that which he ultimately admitted is incapable of explanation. I rise only for the purpose of registering a protest—which I know will be disregarded—against the form in which legislation and Statutory Orders which deal with the question of valuation of land have come to be cast. My right hon. Friend was anxious to persuade the

  183
  House that there was some peculiar mystery about the valuation of land. I challenge that view of the matter.
  Mr. Peake: There is peculiar mystery in this case because this is the first time Parliament has ever said "You must try to value a building apart from the value of its site."
  Mr. Hutchinson: I took down what my right hon. Friend said in his first speech about this. What he said was that we have decided that the owner-occupier was to receive 30 per cent. on the building, but excluding the value of the land. I should have thought that that, in itself, was a comparatively simple proposition. I am not prepared to accept that a competent surveyor cannot say what is the value of the building and I am equally not persuaded that he is unable to say what is the value of the land.
  I believe the surveyors are quite able to perform these operations of valuation, and I cannot see why it is necessary to produce a document of this nature in order to tell an expert valuer how to carry out these two perfectly simple forms of valuation. That is exactly the point on which I desire to protest. We have got into a bad habit in this House—or the Departments have got us into a bad habit—of trying to lay down in terms which are much too precise, exactly how a particular valuation is to be made. I believe that is unnecessary, and I believe that it needlessly complicates the whole business of arriving at these valuations. After all, the person who has to make the valuation is the expert valuer appointed by the Treasury itself, and I am sure we shall never get ourselves really free from this sort of Statutory Order, until we are prepared to leave a great deal more to the discretion of the official arbitrators than we are prepared to do at the present time.
  Another thing about which I desire to say something in relation to this type of Order, is the method of arriving at a value by stating that the value shall be the difference between two hypothetical values.
  Mr. Peake: My hon. and learned Friend is really quite wrong. This is the basis laid down by the Statute on which the Treasury had to take action.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really must interfere. The hon. and learned Member and the right hon. Gentleman are going very wide of the Order.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I hope that I shall remain in Order. I had been pointing out that under two of the sections of this Order, the valuations are fixed as to the difference between two theoretical values and the most complicated language is used to express how these theoretical values are to be determined. It was against that method of legislation that I was endeavouring to make my protest. I do not intend to detain the House unduly at this late hour and I know that the protest I make will probably be unavailing. I had better be brief.
  The only other matter to which I desire to call attention is the matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr.Taylor) referred to—the number of lines there in paragraph 2 and I think in paragraph 3, in which no full stop is to be found. I do not complain so much about the absence of full stops, but I complain much more about the absence of any punctuation at all.
  Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether the hon. and learned Member means the absence of any Member of the Labour Party except one?
  Mr. Hutchinson: He is a full stop. I am dealing with commas and semi-colons and dashes and dots. In paragraph 4 I counted up at least 14½ lines containing about 168 words with no punctuation of any kind, I spend a very large part of my life in reading Acts of Parliament and Statutory Orders. I cannot recall having read any paragraph or section of a Statutory Order of that length, in which no punctuation of any kind occurs. But when I find it, I cannot resist the conclusion that the draftsmen, for whom I have the greatest respect, as we all have in this House, have perhaps been suffering from the consequences of great strain at present placed upon them. But I am by no means convinced that we ought not to look into this matter again and see whether we cannot sent out instructions from Parliament to have these documents drafted in a more intelligible form.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Mathers: Before we part with this matter—and I do not know whether those responsible for the Prayer

  185
  intend to withdraw it—I think we are entitled to say to the right hon. Gentleman who explained this Order that we are indebted to him for making the position clear. My regret in connection with his explanation is that not one word of it was heard by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) who was engaged in conversation with other Members during the whole period when that explanation was being given, notwithstanding his simulated indignation about the matter which caused the Prayer to be put down—
  Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether the Labour Party could be in conversation with anybody else?
  Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member for South Croydon has made a charge against a number of my friends for having had the good sense to leave the Chamber rather than listen to what he had to say. I think the discourtesy of being absent from the Chamber is less than that of failing to listen to an explanation which has been asked for, and which has been given by a Minister.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have allowed these conversations about absent Members to go on for a long while. I think it had better not go any further.
  Mr. Mathers: I am glad to have had your Ruling in that matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But I did want to say that I think we are indebted to the Minister for the explanation he has given which allows us with a perfectly clear conscience to set aside the Prayer that has been moved. I have got from the exchanges that took place a clear impression that the complaint was not so much about the Order itself as about the explanatory memorandum which sought to explain the Order.
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think we are indebted to the hon. Member who raised this question. No one objects to the Order itself, but I think there is real ground for objecting to an Order being unintelligible even after very careful examination, and unintelligible even to some members of the legal profession with great experience. We have had a delightful speech from the Financial Secretary in which, with remarkable lucidity, he has explained the extreme
  186
  lack of lucidity of the basis of the complaint. I do hope he will go a little further than the generous promise he made that he would supply a number of Members with a copy of this memorandum. A great mass of the British public are interested. All those persons who have land or houses, or who are tenants of houses, who may have compensation, ought to have an opportunity of getting the explanation that is promised to a few. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not consider making available, either the memorandum in question or the further memorandum he has promised to explain that memorandum, or some alternative memorandum, which would make a little more intelligible to the ordinary man an Order which is no doubt entirely right in its intention, but exceedingly difficult to understand.
  11.19 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I make no apology for having raised this question to-night. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers)—the only Labour Member present—to the fact that it is the duty of individual Members to scrutinise Statutory Rules and Orders in this House. They have the force of law. I have two complaints to make. One is that there was no explanatory memorandum furnished to the House; and the other is about the drafting. I hope to-night's Debate will be a lesson to the draftsmen of the Treasury who drafted this particular Order. We did have an explanation—I cannot say it was a lucid one—from my right hon. Friend, and as it is so late, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS PRESTIGE (BELGIUM)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
  11.21 p.m.
  Commander King-Hall: I feel I cannot allow this House to adjourn on this first day of the new Government without asking His Majesty's Government

  187
  whether they are aware of certain information I have and of which they should be aware. In brief, it is this. I have just returned from a visit to Belgium which I was asked to undertake by the Foreign Office to lecture to people in Belgium on the work of the British Parliament during the war. In the course of that visit, I had the honour of being entertained by the President of the Belgian Senate and the President of the Belgian House of Commons. I met a large number of Belgian deputies. I was entirely overcome by the immense reputation which this hon. House has earned in the minds of the Belgians by its conduct during the war. It is impossible to exaggerate the reputation and prestige which this House now enjoys in Belgium. The second point of which I wish to inform the Government is this—that in both Belgium and France I found it was practically impossible to make any person in all the different classes to whom I spoke
  188
  understand what on earth was happening in Great Britain, where, apparently, the Government which had kept together for five years was now breaking up and its members were attacking each other from political platforms. All I wish the Government to know is this, that it appeared to be causing the greatest alarm and despondency among those millions of people on the Continent of Europe who are looking to this country for leadership, and who believe this country is the only stable and fixed point, the only anchor, in a world of chaos in which they feel they do not know what is going to happen from one week to the next. If we have a repetition of the scene we had at Question Time to-day, their alarm and despondency will be still further increased.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
  Contracts (Review)
  Contracts (Review)
  Determination of Profits (Crown Assets)
  Determination of Profits (Crown Assets)
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Income Tax (Prisoners of War)
  Income Tax (Prisoners of War)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Personal Presents (Taxation)
  Personal Presents (Taxation)
  War Savings Certificates (Adopted Children)
  War Savings Certificates (Adopted Children)
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXTRA DUTIES)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXTRA DUTIES)
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTIES (RENTALS)
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTIES (RENTALS)
  WAR DAMAGE ACT
  WAR DAMAGE ACT
  WAR GRATUITIES
  WAR GRATUITIES
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR
  BRITISH CITIZENS (RUSSIAN WIVES)
  BRITISH CITIZENS (RUSSIAN WIVES)
  GERMANY (ALLIED POLICY)
  GERMANY (ALLIED POLICY)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Personnel, Far East (Age Limit)
  Personnel, Far East (Age Limit)
  Leave Pay
  Leave Pay
  Victory Marches
  Victory Marches
  DE-RATING
  DE-RATING
  POLISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  POLISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  ELECTORAL REFORM (LEGISLATION)
  ELECTORAL REFORM (LEGISLATION)
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (ARBITRATION AWARD)
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (ARBITRATION AWARD)
  GERMAN WORKERS (CONDITIONS)
  GERMAN WORKERS (CONDITIONS)
  COST OF LIVING INDEX
  COST OF LIVING INDEX
  BRITISH DOMINIONS (ASSISTED MIGRATION)
  BRITISH DOMINIONS (ASSISTED MIGRATION)
  SERVICE VOTERS
  SERVICE VOTERS
  WAR MEDALS AND DECORATIONS
  WAR MEDALS AND DECORATIONS
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Ice Cream
  Ice Cream
  Oatmeal (Delivery Charges)
  Oatmeal (Delivery Charges)
POST OFFICE
  Air Letter Forms
  Air Letter Forms
  Victory Stamp Cancelling Die
  Victory Stamp Cancelling Die
INDIA
  Industrial Policy
  Industrial Policy
  Constitution (Proposals)
  Constitution (Proposals)
  Viceroy's London Visit (Statement)
  Viceroy's London Visit (Statement)
AGRICULTURE
  Allotments, Cheshire
  Allotments, Cheshire
  Land Settlement Schemes
  Land Settlement Schemes
  Farm Implements
  Farm Implements
  MOTOR CARS (OFFICIAL ADVICE)
  MOTOR CARS (OFFICIAL ADVICE)
  RAILWAY STAFFS (PENSIONS)
  RAILWAY STAFFS (PENSIONS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Combs
  Combs
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Supplementary Clothing Coupons
  Supplementary Clothing Coupons
  DOMINION FORCES (SICK AND WOUNDED PERSONNEL)
  DOMINION FORCES (SICK AND WOUNDED PERSONNEL)
  MAURITIUS (VACCINATION AND INOCULATION)
  MAURITIUS (VACCINATION AND INOCULATION)
BRITISH ARMY
  Overseas Service (Home Leave)
  Overseas Service (Home Leave)
  Nursing Services (Midwives)
  Nursing Services (Midwives)
  Middlesex Yeomanry (Badges)
  Middlesex Yeomanry (Badges)
  Discharged Officers (Civilian Clothing)
  Discharged Officers (Civilian Clothing)
  R.A.O.C. Depot, Chilwell (Passes)
  R.A.O.C. Depot, Chilwell (Passes)
  Home Guard (Casualties)
  Home Guard (Casualties)
  Prisoners of War (Pay Advances)
  Prisoners of War (Pay Advances)
  Channel Islands (Leave Visits)
  Channel Islands (Leave Visits)
  German Generals (Guards of Honour)
  German Generals (Guards of Honour)
  Tax Free Parcels
  Tax Free Parcels
  Middle East and Palestine (Bank Guarantees)
  Middle East and Palestine (Bank Guarantees)
  Drugs (Administration)
  Drugs (Administration)
  EVACUATED TROOPS AND CIVILIANS (PERSONAL EFFECTS)
  EVACUATED TROOPS AND CIVILIANS (PERSONAL EFFECTS)
  GERMAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
  GERMAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS
RELEASE AND RESETTLEMENT
  Army Signaller
  Army Signaller
  Coal Miners
  Coal Miners
  BOUNDARY COMMISSION (ORDER IN COUNCIL)
  BOUNDARY COMMISSION (ORDER IN COUNCIL)
HOUSING
  Private Enterprise (Conditions)
  Private Enterprise (Conditions)
  Hutments, Kent
  Hutments, Kent
SCOTLAND
  Building Licence Limit (Scotland)
  Building Licence Limit (Scotland)
  Miners' Coal (Reduced Prices)
  Miners' Coal (Reduced Prices)
  ARTS COURSES (STUDENTS, DEFERMENT)
  ARTS COURSES (STUDENTS, DEFERMENT)
  GREAT POWERS (MEETING)
  GREAT POWERS (MEETING)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at two of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Earl of Wilton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name I must direct your Lordships' attention to the fact that instead of having the Coalition Government, which has for the last five years been the expression of national unity, and which has brought this country and the Empire, under the inspired leadership of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, through the greatest dangers which they have ever faced, your Lordships meet to-day a new Government. It is still under the leadership of my right honourable friend Mr. Churchill, and I hope that it will command the confidence of your Lordships' House.
Further, we are faced with the prospect of a Dissolution of the present Parliament on the 15th of next month. That means that, even if we sit five days a week next week and the week after, we have at the most only fourteen days (assuming that we shall have business for the coming Friday, which I believe is highly unlikely, as the Bills will not have come from another place by that time), in which to complete a very formidable legislative programme. I have consulted the leaders of the Parties opposite, the noble Lords, Lord Addison and Lord Samuel, and, as I have learned to expect from them, they have promised me their most cordial co-operation in getting the necessary legislation through the House as expeditiously as possible. I am afraid, however, that we shall require for this purpose all the time that is available, and I hope that I may ask those of your Lordships
234
who still have Motions on the Paper after the present week to be good enough to postpone them until the new Parliament shall have met, unless it transpires that we get through the necessary business of the House earlier than one might perhaps expect.
I regret greatly to trespass on your Lordships' time. Some of the Bills, however, are absolutely necessary in order that the Government may go on. There are certain Bills on which some of us have spent a large amount of time during the last twelve months in trying to get them into legislative shape, and if it is possible to pass them as a monument to a Coalition Government which has been a very good Government, it will be a matter of gratification both to those of us who are now in the Government and to those of my noble friends who now sit on the Opposition Benches. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for the remainder of the Session, and that Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Woolton).
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, it has become a custom at the end of Parliaments for members to be confronted with Motions of this character, and we accept them with such resignation as we can command. The noble Lord has been good enough to show me a list of the Bills which it is hoped it will be possible to pass through all their stages, and he will meet with no obstructive attitude on this side of the House. At the same time, there are one or two Motions which my noble friends will be anxious to have an opportunity to discuss, and which I mentioned to the noble Lord this morning. One Motion in particular which we think should be discussed is that which deals with the position with regard to the supply of fish. We shall want to have an occasion for discussing that if possible; otherwise the noble Lord can be assured that we are exceedingly reasonable people.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I have nothing to add, except to express concurrence with the course proposed by the Government. Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word on the Family Allowances Bill.

235
It is more a House of Commons Bill than a House of Lords Bill, but I am sure that it will be welcomed by your Lordships' House, and I hope that it will not miscarry in the circumstances of the moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WELSH CHURCH (BURIAL GROUNDS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

CLEARING OFFICE (TURKEY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1945.
Order, dated 15th May, 1945, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1945:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WATER BILL.
2.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on the departure, to our great regret, of the
236
noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to the Benches opposite, my noble friend Lord Munster should have moved the Second Reading of this rather complicated measure; but the noble Earl had a political engagement of long standing which he found it difficult to throw over, and therefore it falls to me to move the Second Reading We have seen a good deal lately in the newspapers of the word "caretaker." In a sense I am the caretaker for the day of this particular Bill, and I would inform your Lordships that on the future stages the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will be in his place and able to take the Bill. As your Lordships will see, the Bill is rather a long one, consisting of sixty-three clauses and five Schedules, of which one, the Third Schedule, is almost a Bill in itself. It deals with a not very exhilarating, but a very important element in our daily life. The Bill follows very closely the proposals in the White Paper, Cmd. 6515, published in April last year, which no doubt your Lordships have studied and with which you are familiar. A very large part of this Bill, including the Third Schedule, has already, in a way, been passed by this House in the Bills of 1939 and 1943. These passed this House, as your Lordships may remember, but were held up in another place and never became Acts.
The Bill deals with two main matters: first of all the conservation and use of water supply and water resources; and secondly, the improvement of administration of the supply. This Bill is very necessary because up to now the only large Acts dealing nationally with water have been the Act of nearly a hundred years ago, 1847, and its successor of 1863. The position of the Act of 1847, which is generally, I think, commonly known as the "Waterworks Code," is that it is not an Act which works of itself but which becomes operative when it is incorporated, with of course any necessary adaptations, in the special Act of any particular undertaking. The Act of 1863 added a few clauses to the Code but up to to-day there has been no general revision of the Code by any Act of Parliament.
This new Code is based on the Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, which has now sat for some years under the Chairmanship of my noble friend the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord

237
Milne, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, because I should like to take this opportunity of saying how very much indebted the Houses of Parliament and the country are to my noble friend and his Committee for their untiring labours. That Report formed the basis of the Water Undertakings Bills of 1939 and 1943, to which I referred just now, which were passed by this House but for which no time could be found in another place. So that the first object, I might say, of this Bill is to clear up the present old and, as it were, untidy Code, and to adapt it to modern conditions in a general Act, instead of in a series of special and local Acts.
To turn to the Bill, your Lordships will see that it is divided into five Parts with five Schedules, to one of which I have already referred. Part I lays on the Minister the duty of providing in England and Wales adequate water supplies, and in Clause 2 it makes permanent the Central Advisory Water Committee, to which I referred just now. Part II deals with local organization of water supplies, and includes two important clauses—Clause 9, which facilitates amalgamations of undertakers in the interests of greater efficiency, and provides for compulsory contributions, where necessary; and Clause 13, which sets out the default powers of the Minister in relation to companies and other statutory undertakers. Part III, which is, in a way, the most interesting Part of the Bill, deals with the conservation and protection of water resources and the prevention of waste. Clause 14 enables the Minister, if he thinks that special measures are required to conserve water in any area, to make an Order defining this area, and in that case a licence is afterwards required to sink any new well or to enlarge any existing well in that particular area. Part IV enables statutory undertakers to construct works, purchase land, and obtain a supply of water, and to deal with various matters incidental to the carrying on of their undertakings. Part V deals with matters of machinery, definitions, and so forth. I might mention here Clauses 24, 25 and 26, in which provision is made for water undertakers to acquire and hold land by agreement or compulsorily and to acquire water rights. Another important clause is Clause 37, which lays on undertakers the duty of supplying water for new
238
houses. Clause 40 empowers the Minister to revise water rates and charges.
I think I have said enough about the purpose and details of this Bill, which is rather a complicated measure, and I am of opinion that the full explanation of its clauses and Schedules and its various provisions in the present congested state of business would entail too long a draft on your Lordships' time and patience. As the Minister said in another place, this country is greatly indebted to water undertakers of past years who have provided safe and ample water supplies for our cities and towns, whereby we have for many years now avoided the dangers of cholera, typhoid and such-like diseases. But His Majesty's Government are fully aware that one-third of the houses in our countryside are still without a piped water supply; and they are also aware of the very large demand, which increases from year to year and almost from month to month, both for domestic and industrial uses, besides a very largely increased demand for agricultural purposes.
This Bill received a very exhaustive examination in another place, including twelve days in a Standing Committee. I very much hope that the House will give a favourable reception to it and will be prepared to take the remaining stages at possibly shorter notice than is usually allowed, in view of what I think is probably a general agreement that the Bill is both useful and necessary and should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment. I should like at this stage to pay a tribute to the Department and also to the Parliamentary draftsman because I really think—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that they have produced in this Bill a very clear and concise measure, and one in which there is very little of a type of legislation to which your Lordships particularly object, that is, legislation by reference. In conclusion, I would say that the Bill provides the framework to ensure that the development of our water supplies will at all events keep pace with our needs, and I confidently recommend it to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
2.21 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like in the first place to associate myself with the noble Lord's expression of regret

239
that my noble friend Lord Listowel was not, as he had prepared himself no doubt, provided with the opportunity of moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is one of those accidents of political life which unfortunately occur from time to time, and he and I share our regrets in common. I notice that the noble Lord, in concluding his statement, referred to this Bill as "clear and concise." Well, all I have to say is that the noble Lord may be satisfied with this Bill as being clear and concise, but to a mind like mine it appears exceedingly complicated and difficult. I have done my best to study this Bill—in fact I spent quite a long time on it, and I am not unused to studying Bills—but it seemed to me to be an exceedingly complicated one. I am glad he referred to the Third Schedule. I hope that members of the House will have taken the trouble to look at the Third Schedule. It is a potentous affair. It is, in fact, another Bill and there is in it a very considerable amount of legislation by reference over which the noble Lord skated so gently.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: If the noble Lord will permit me, may I point out that in my remarks I did say that the Third Schedule was like another Bill?
LORD ADDISON: I was agreeing with you there. It was to the matter of legislation by reference that I was attaching a note of interrogation. I do not know whether other noble Lords know the Public Health Acts by heart, but I do not, and it would require a considerable amount of research in the Library of this House to ascertain what the alterations are. They may not be exceedingly far-reaching, but I will take them as good. I understand the position with regard to the Bill and that it may not, in the Parliamentary emergency, be possible to give as much time in the Committee stage as we should otherwise wish to have. We must acquiesce in that because it is a Bill, I am sure, that must be passed into law—we agree as to that. But it is an exceedingly complicated Bill and, in spite of the simplicity of the noble Lord's description, I am sure that if we were to take the Bill in Committee that would be the unanimous opinion of the House.
I do not myself share the enthusiasm which I have seen displayed for the Bill in some quarters. It does not establish
240
a national water authority. It establishes a Central Advisory Committee, which has power to advise the Minister and to make suggestions but has not the power to do anything. There will be a certain amalgamation of water undertakings, which is exceedingly desirable, but I think it is fair to say that it does not approach anything in the form of a national water authority able to take cognizance of our water supplies and resources and use them rationally. We shall still have an enormous number of local or district water undertakings functioning as best they can, and there will not be the co-ordination of the management of our national water resources which, if we were not prejudiced by existing legislation, any rational set of people would set about creating.
However, it is a Bill which tries to make the best of the situation and will no doubt, in due course, lead to considerable amalgamations and harmonization of our water undertakings. Let us hope so. But I would not be too sanguine even about the rapidity of that, because if noble Lords will examine the Bill they will see that it is beset with hearings, appeals, notices and all the rest of it, and whoever else may do well out of this Bill the legal fraternity will. That prophecy you can make with complete confidence. The opportunities for objection, litigation and hearings are exceedingly numerous.
Having said that, I still would not fail to render tribute to the general purpose of the Bill, though it is not the duty, so far as I can see, except possibly at prohibitive expense, to supply our countryside with water as it ought to be supplied. It is true that new buildings will have to have a water supply, under Clause 37, but the owner may be required each year to pay specified sums, and noble Lords, I am sure, will be aware of the enormous cost that is involved in our country areas at present in obtaining adequate water supplies in a large number of cases. The noble Lord told us that one third of our houses in the country were not supplied with a piped water supply. It makes the supply of water almost prohibitive if the charge for pipes and so forth is to be placed upon the individual or group of individuals concerned. The charge should be distributed on a wide regional basis, and it should be made the duty of an authority to supply the countryside

241
with water. Well, we have not got that yet and this Bill does not get us there except at what I think will prove to be prohibitive expense. We get plenty of water from one year's end to another in this country, and it ought to be possible, by distributing the charge equally over the whole of the community, to supply every group of habitations in the country with an adequate water supply. That is a physical possibility and it ought to be done. I do not think it will be done very quickly under this Bill, except, as I say, at rather high cost.
There are two minor matters to which perhaps the noble Lord will give thought between now and the Committee stage and which I have been asked to mention. In the Bill as it was introduced in another place there was a repetition of what is commonly known as the Birmingham Clause, which authorizes people to walk about on catchment areas so long is they behave themselves properly. It is quite reasonable that they should be allowed to do so. For some reason which I cannot understand at all, in the Committee stage in the other House the operative part of the clause as it was then introduced was dropped, so that it is not certain, as the Bill stands at present, that in this case the right may not be taken away. I think we ought to see that that is safeguarded, and in Committee my noble friend Lord Winster will move an Amendment which raises the point. We shall only be seeking to put back into the Bill the words that were in it when it was introduced in another place, so there is nothing excessive about the Amendment. We want to restore the clause to its previous condition so far as that particular power is concerned.
Another matter to which my attention has been called is that in some of these cases where boreholes for new works are made, water may be drained from areas of people who now have a water supply of their own. They may be deprived of their water supply. Those are cases where adequate provision should be made to make up to them what they have lost. In country districts that may be exceedingly important. What the people want who are deprived of water in those circumstances is an alternative supply of water, and that is what they ought to get. That is the point which I know others will mention and which I think
242
ought to receive attention on the Committee stage. And there is one other point. I am informed that in some areas the extent of pollution that has been allowed to arise during the war period is very excessive, and although the authorities here have certain powers against pollution I certainly think the adequacy of those powers requires investigation. I only mention these more or less Committee points to give the noble Lord some notice of-the matters that may be raised. Generally, however, we shall seek to assist in the passage of the Bill.
2.30 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I desire to say a very few words about this Bill, because I think on the whole the House is in agreement with it and feels it is most desirable that it should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment. It certainly is a very considerable step forward in dealing with a problem that is of vital importance to the whole country and especially to the countryside. I cannot help sharing with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, who has just sat down, the view that this is not likely to be the last word on the subject. The noble Lord referred to the fact, now well known, that only a third of our rural cottages at the moment have an adequate water supply. This Bill will undoubtedly lead to an increase of that one-third to a very much higher proportion, but I am sceptical as to whether it is going to take us up to the 100 per cent. we all desire to get and which indeed was promised to us some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in what then struck me as a most admirable but rather optimistic speech.
I think it is a pity that we cannot have rather longer for the consideration of this Bill because undoubtedly it does raise most serious issues. On the other hand, matters for which noble Lords on this Bench are not entirely responsible have intervened and we must all try to work in with the position that has arisen. But there is one real point I want to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, has already touched upon it briefly, but it might be useful to the House if I gave noble Lords notice now of an Amendment that I intend to put down. The point is very simple. Under Clause 14 power is given to the Minister to make orders defining areas in which after definition

243
no one may bore for water without a licence. That is obviously right so far as it goes but it may well be, as the noble Lord said, that in certain specific cases an undertaker may go into an area which may be defined under Clause 14, and the undertaker may make full use of all the water there, thus depriving existing users of their water supply. The noble Lord referred to owners of existing wells. I had in my mind such undertakings as, say, watercress growers. I mention them particularly because I know they will command the instant sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, whose neighbours are so intimately concerned in this very important little agricultural industry and I have no doubt when he replies he will tell me he is able at once to put all my fears at rest.
What I want to suggest in my Amendment is that an undertaker in such a case should have to make himself responsible for the provision of an alternative supply. There may be certain instances where that will be impossible, in which case money compensation should be paid to the existing user. I think we should all agree that money compensation is in fact a very poor form of compensation. We want the alternative supply, but in some cases it may well be that the national interest has to override the interest of the existing user and that an alternative supply cannot be provided. Then I propose that money compensation should be paid. That is the only point I want to mention and I do so now in order that His Majesty's Government may have an opportunity of considering it before the Committee stage is reached.
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I will take up your Lordships' time for a very few minutes only. I desire in the first place to express my sympathy with the noble Lord who has just sat down on the particular Amendment which he is proposing to move, and also to say that I entirely agree with him that a Bill which is admittedly of such complexity and which involves such very long views for the future, is one which should not in normal circumstances be rushed through by Government, caretaker or otherwise. It is so very easy, speaking as a humble Cross Bencher, to approve the popular arid legitimate purpose behind this Bill. I have been a protagonist,
244
not only in the dictionary and classical sense of the word but in the accepted Fleet Street sense of the word, of water supplies for many years now, and I realize fully how necessary this Bill is. At the same time there is probably nothing which will affect our future more seriously than hasty water legislation. To my mind, in spite of Part III of the Bill, which deals with water conservation, some safeguards are required. It has always been thoroughly understood as a convention of your Lordships' House that with the expert knowledge of particular members of your Lordships' House coupled with the long and sagacious view which they are able to take on matters of this kind, this type of Bill should have the very closest and most careful consideration in this House as well as in another place. While I am fully aware that twelve days were spent in Committee in another place, perusal of certain days of the Report in Hansard of that Committee stage has not given me full confidence that the issues were thoroughly understood or that the technique was mastered.
There is another point in Clause 13 which I wish to mention. There is so much opportunity in this Bill for legislation (which we have had again and again) by the good intention of the Minister. We are always ready to praise the Minister of the moment but the Minister of tomorrow and the Government behind him—I am not making any Party aspersions in any sense or any implication—may be an entirely different matter. I do not think we can legislate by the good intention of a Minister. That is one of the very serious faults I have to find in this Bill. Again—I think it is in Clause 3 of the Bill—there is machinery set up for regional water boards or area water boards for advice. There you will find local authorities and the statutory water undertakers have been mentioned as being the people, other than the Chairman whom the Minister will appoint, who will advise. In the long run the greatest harm that can be done through carelessness of water usage will be on the countryside itself, to the agriculture and the forestry of the country, and to all the people who gain their living thereby. Nobody is mentioned to give advice from their point of view.
It is such a long-term affair that I myself feel that the result will be that harm is done before you can really realize

245
what has happened. It is only at the end of ten, fifteen or twenty years that you see the damage done and by that time all the other interests have become so definitely implanted that you may be in very great danger of producing almost an ecological cataclysm in the countryside without knowing it. I only wish on Second Reading to say by way of warning that I think, in spite of good intentions and in spite of the great deal of good that may be accomplished, we are very seriously endangering the future by not giving this matter the full consideration which ordinarily would be given.
2.40 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am extremely obliged for the generally favourable reception given to this Bill. The noble Lord opposite, as he was bound to do I chink now that we have got back to Party Government, rather damned it with faint praise, but I do not take back what I said, that it is a simple, well-drafted Bill. The noble Lord seemed to infer that I did not understand every word of the Bill. Probably I do not, but I have read it as well as I could and I have read many worse Bills. I still stick to my opinion that the draftsmanship is excellent. I have taken note of the Amendments which the noble Lord said would be brought forward on the Committee stage. I am much obliged also for the remarks made by the noble Earls, Lord De La Warr and Lord Portsmouth. If it had been possible we should have liked to have given more time to this Bill but, as the noble Lord who is leading the House said at the beginning of our proceedings, we are very pressed fur time with the Dissolution coming or June if; and with the best will in the world we cannot give as much as we should like to give to this measure. I do not think, however, we are doing too badly. We are putting down the Committee stage for next Monday and with our congested programme I do not think that is too bad.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3aand passed.

CONTROL OF GERMAN WAR INVENTIONS.
2.43 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative in proposing to the Allied Governments the inclusion in the terms imposed upon Germany of an Article providing that a permanent Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists should be established to examine and control, and if necessary to prohibit the use by Germany of, any scientific discovery or invention considered dangerous to the safety of mankind; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to think that this Motion speaks for itself. I would suggest that the Prime Minister's last war review speaks for it even more loudly. In the last war the ingenious barbarians sprang gas upon us. That was a prelude. There was an insufficient answer to that. In this war we have had the V1 and the V2. There was only a still more insufficient answer to the V1, and the V2 found no answer at all, or rather it would be fairer to say that the answer was the same as for V3, the multiple long-range artillery described by the Prime Minister which was destined to endow us with five shells per minute. The remedy found was the old-fashioned one of conquering the sites—that is to say, the answer of infantry and not of science. Even that remedy will not always be available, because ranges increase and sites recede. Indeed, the ranges, in a very short while, may be almost unlimited. Even with short ranges we were very nearly too late. If the V1 and the V2 had been brought into action one year sooner they would probably have made an end of this island, and if they had 'been brought in some years sooner, that is at the beginning of the war, they might

247
well have meant the end of civilization. Therefore, in dealing with a nation that is periodically homicidal, I think no precaution is excessive.
All precautions are indispensable, because without them I think the end might well be the end of an American fairy story which we read when we were very young. No doubt that story was written with an inkling of Reno because they lived happy ever after for quite a little while. I say that because destructive science has got out of hand. German science, like German religion, German economics, German pedagogy, has been very largely militarized and unless we keep a firm hand on it we shall very likely have the V10 in less than ten years. It is not my purpose to paint lurid pictures of cities dissolved by pressing a button, though I suppose that is now within the bounds of possibility. We have had one lesson and it will be our own fault if we have another.
I have said that this Motion speaks for itself, but there is one point which I think needs a little explanation. This Motion is destined not only to control German science, but to control the grant by any country, Allied, neutral or ex-neutral, of permission to Germany to use any apparatus or device, or discovery, or invention of a potentially dangerous character, developed elsewhere. I lay stress on the necessity of this multilateral assent. Your Lordships will see that that makes the ground a great deal wider, because if that is accepted it means that no nations in future shall have secrets from each other in this lethal sphere. I feel that is very necessary and I press this multilateral aspect because after the last war a great number of the Allies and the neutrals in varying degrees took part in the re-arming and financing of our late enemies. We want no more of the unilateral. I submit that science must be linked for self-preservation and not destruction. I submit that we can afford no other solution except that of pooling. We have already a very happy example of pooling between the British Commonwealth and the United States. That takes place among the combined Chiefs of Staff. I suggest we might carry that further and that all-in pooling for all in the future should be brought about through the Military Staffs Committee which is to advise the new Security Council.
What exactly does all this involve? It involves a good deal, and I submit that a good deal is a good deal better than another raw deal. It involves control of all German laboratories, both industrial and university. That in turn involves the use of an extensive and intensive intelligence service which must be drawn from all the Allies. I mention that particularly because your Lordships will remember that twice in this House I have spoken against the idea of a quadruple monopoly, if I may so put it. I think that very happy results would follow in the field of intelligence if it were inter-allied, because you could draw upon very valuable resources. It would be most inadvisable to ignore them. I want intelligence to be linked in exactly the same way as science. Over and above that we should have, I think, a body of civil inspectors on the lines recently suggested by the President of Harvard University, Dr. Conant. And I would like to take that a bit further and suggest that this civil inspectorate might, in due course, become a world inspectorate in order to guard against development, or over-development, of secret devices. I am very well aware that no clause of this kind has yet figured in any treaty. That is all the more reason why it should figure in the present one, or rather in the ultimate one. The failure of past settlements, I submit, makes it necessary that we should contemplate innovations. There will always be need for new measures in a new world so long as man's destructive ingenuity outruns at its present prodigious pace his ability to eliminate his more primitive elements.
I have seen that, according to a Notice on the Paper, there is to be a discussion in this House to-morrow on "directed missiles," and I am not sure whether what has been said earlier to-day involves withdrawal of that Motion or not. But I should be very sorry if the noble Lord who is to put that Motion were to find that, by reason of anything I have said to-day, part of his thunder had been, I will not say stolen, but accidentally anticipated. I will say this: I believe, in all sincerity, that the Motion which I am putting is one of the most important factors in relation to the future, perhaps the most important one. If something on these lines be not accepted, I would predict, with the same absolute certainty with which I predicted this war, that in

249
a short while the nations may find themselves engaging in secret armaments races of a far more terrifying character than any of their overt or semi-overt predecessors. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am taking an over-grave view of this matter, but I think it only right that the House should know that a Motion on exactly similar lines is going to be introduced very shortly into the Parliaments of a number of our Continental Allies. I hope, therefore, that we shall give them a good lead to-day. Other minds that speak with some authority are also moving on the same lines. For example, the well-known American expert Mr. Fielding Elliot. He has recently written an admirable article entitled Science and Foreign Policy which follows very much on these lines. I will submit to your Lordships his conclusion on this matter; if you think the words are exaggerated I would ask you to bear in mind that they are his and not mine. He says that
"failing a solution on these lines the human race and all its works will be wiped out in blood and fire."
I beg to move for Papers.
2.54 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I find myself in the pleasant position of agreeing with practically everything that has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord. That, I hope, will be as refreshing to him as it is to me. We have not always seen eye to eye, but I think that to-day he is, if he will allow me to say so, batting on a very good wicket. My noble friends on these Benches ask me to express our point of view concerning the undoubtedly most important subject which Lord Vansittart has introduced to your Lordships this afternoon. I presume that his Motion should be read as including Japan in the future. I imagine that he desires that there should be set up immediately an Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists to deal with Germany, and I hope that Lord Cherwell, who, I understand, is going to reply for the Government, will be able to give us some useful and satisfactory information about that matter this afternoon.
I hope and believe that as soon as we are in a position to do it the same procedure will be applied to Japan. I understand that in the last phases of the European campaign, our German enemies were careful to fit out some long-range submarines
250
and send them to Japan laden with plans and blueprints for various secret weapons. They also sent to Japan a number of key designers and some of the most brilliant German inventors employed by the Messerschmitt outfit. I sincerely hope that these submarines were intercepted, but the Germans no doubt made earlier attempts to get information to Japan for the purpose of further mischief, and I dare say that some, at any rate, of it managed to get to Japan before the last phase of the war. The Japanese are very good imitators. I do not think that they are very good initiators or inventors, but if the Germans have shown them the way they will develop these devilish implements, which have been described by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, to our hurt and discomfort. Certainly in the future I presume there will be some sort of scientific control over Japanese laboratories and chemical works and schools of invention exercised as proposed with regard to Germany.
I understand that I have interpreted the noble Lord's views aright so far. I also understand him to propose that in future the discoveries of this kind, and other far-reaching scientific discoveries, should be published to the world. That is an idealistic proposal. We have the same sort of thing, of course, with regard to medical discoveries. For many years now any surgeon or physician discovering a new cure, a new drug, or a new method has been in honour bound to publish it to the world—and always does so—for the use of the profession of healing in all nations. Could not that system be extended to other scientific discoveries, some of which, of course, have a high commercial value? This would be admirable if it can be done. We could have a permanent committee on awards to inventors not only for a war but in peace-time, and remunerate inventors of useful discoveries suitably instead of leaving them to wrestle with city sharks and financiers in endeavours to get their inventions exploited. Sometimes, I believe, it is the city people who win in these struggles, and sometimes it is the inventors. I think that Lord Cherwell will agree that the rewards for inventors would be better under a system of public awards. Could knowledge of these inventions be pooled and made available for industry all over the world? I know that my noble friends on this side

251
of the House would support that. It is idealistic, but I hope that we shall do it and that we shall be able to persuade other nations to do the same.
I have here a most interesting report from the American Office of War Information dated as long ago as May 6, 1943, in which is described the activities of the Custodian of Enemy Properties in the United States. I do not know if my noble friend Lord Vansittart is aware of this information but, even by the date which I have mentioned, the American Custodian, who appears to be most active and most efficient in rounding up enemy properties and interests in the United States, was able to report that he had a total of 41,077 patents, patents pending and patent applications owned by enemy nationals and nationals of enemy-occupied countries, covering inventions in every field of applied science. These have all been vested in and are now under the control of the Custodian. He goes on to explain how he had many of the German nationals in the United States who were posing as scientists and technicians arrested for being, undoubtedly, agents of the Nazi Party and so on. Indeed, the Custodian of Enemy Property in the United States seems to have done a very good job, and I have no doubt that the similar Department here acted promptly, and I hope ruthlessly, in the same way. I should like to ask whether we obtained the information gathered in that way in the United States and whether we communicated to the United States the information which we discovered in rounding up German patents and German undertakings in this country, because that would be a beginning of this pooling which would be helpful for the future.
With regard to the future of German science: I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, accepts the probability that there will be scientific research going on in Germany at some time in the future. There will be chemists working in laboratories and engineers delving into scientific developments. I do not see how that can be avoided. I have heard the proposal put forward that no German university should be allowed to teach anything but the Classics and ancient languages, and that no chemists or engineers or metallurgists should be allowed to graduate in Germany. I do not think that that is Practicable; I think that that is as Utopian
252
as the Morgenthau plan for confining Germany to agriculture and pastoral pursuits, and I presume that Lord Vansittart does not think that that is practicable either. I do not think that you can prevent the young Germans of the future, if they are so minded, from experimenting and carrying out researches and trying to develop new inventions and new discoveries; and I am glad to hear from his speech that Lord Vansittart recognizes that. There is no reason, however, why we should not keep an eye on them and control them, and that is broadly the proposal which the noble Lord makes.
The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, would, however, like to have a worldwide inspectorate, so that we could be informed in time of dangerous discoveries which could be turned to dangerous uses against the whole of humanity. I do not know what the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, are on that. I have watched the proceedings at San Francisco very carefully, and have seen all sorts of proposals for the world-wide regulation of labour conditions and so on, but I have not seen any proposal for a world-wide inspectorate of scientific discovery. It could be done, and it might be done if the nations draw closer and closer together in co-operating for peaceable purposes and for their common good and advantage; but I think that a good deal of public education will be required in advance. The proposal shocks even me, and I am an internationalist in these matters, in peace-time at any rate.
There are two further observations which I should like to make. First, I detected symptoms of a small mistake in Lord Vansittart's brilliant argument—the idea that it is the sudden acquisition of some frightful new weapon which encourages wars. With great respect, I do not think that that is the case. I do not think that wars are made because someone discovers some terribly lethal poison gas or a new kind of rocket. I believe that wars come from quite different causes; at any rate I think it is very doubtful whether the fact that the Germans thought that they had some wonderful new weapons encouraged them to go into this war. They went into this war for quite other purposes, and the fact that they had weapons like the magnetic mine and the acoustic mine (which we had eighteen or twenty years before them)

253
was only incidental. It is not the discovery of new weapons or new appliances which makes wars. I am sure I carry the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, with me when I say that. You can blame the scientists for allowing their talents to be prostituted for the use of the war-makers, but you cannot blame the scientists for making the wars. It is the war-makers who make the wars, and they coerce or persuade or bribe the scientists into helping them. You may say, "More shame to the scientists," but there it is.
My last observation is this. I hope that Lord Vansittart's proposal is going to be put into force very quickly, and that it will have the most powerful support of the Governments of the great Allies; because the danger which I see—and I dare say that Lord Vansittart, with his wide knowledge of this question, shares my apprehension—is that certain big busines interests in the United States and in this country, who have been very glad in the past to work hand in glove with leaders of the German cartels and monopolies, will, after a time, when things have settled down, seek to make friends again with their old associates. There have been bitter complaints already in the American Congress of the revelation that certain of the leading cartels in the United States were deliberately preserving the interests of their opposite numbers, so to speak, in Germany in certain overseas markets; and, as surely as we are in this Chamber, in a little time, unless prevented, these same big business interests, who have no prejudices and no patriotism where money-making is concerned, will endeavour once more to make the same sort of arrangements with the German scientists, the German inventors, and the German financiers who exploit the inventions and scientific discoveries, as before. That is the danger. If Lord Vansittart's proposed Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists will stop that kind of thing and prevent the making of new arrangements between the old cartels—the machinery is still in existence in Switzerland for some of these arrangements, and could be brought into use at once—I believe that one of the possible causes of a future revival, underground and in secret, of German war-making power can be avoided.
3.10 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD CHERWELL): My Lords, Lord Vansittart has gone, if I may say so, a good deal
254
beyond the terms of his Motion in making his proposals for an inspectorate for all the nations of the world; and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has also divagated from the original terms in discussing matters of patent law and cartels and so forth. I think Lord Vansittart will know his old Department well enough to be sure that they will not wish me to enter into such very delicate questions at short notice, and I do not think that I should be prepared at this stage to say anything about the patent difficulties and other questions arising out of international cartels which were raised by Lord Strabolgi. I trust that your Lordships will be content if I keep to the terms of the Motion, which referred to an Inter-Allied Committee of Scientists who were to see that new scientific discoveries and inventions were not exploited by Germany.
I am sure that every member of this House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, for the unwearying determination which he displays in endeavouring to stop every loophole whereby Germany might evade the disarmament clauses of the final settlement. The loophole on which he has cast his bull's-eye to-day is certainly not one that we wish to neglect; but frankly I am not so concerned about the extent of the danger as he is, nor am I entirely convinced that the method which he proposes for dealing with it is the right one, but perhaps this is because the noble Lord and I attach somewhat different meanings to the word "science." I, and I think most of my colleagues, draw a distinction between pure science and its applications, which we prefer to describe as engineering. Now in pure science, from whose discoveries of course new methods in engineering often—indeed ultimately always—derive, Germany, far from being ahead, is in my view definitely behind the leading Allied Powers. Forty, thirty or indeed twenty years ago this was not true. The German universities could vie with any centres of learning in the world. But when they decided to expel all the Jews and the half-Jews and quarter-Jews or anybody who had married a member of one of these unhappy categories, it was amazing what an exodus occurred.
Göttingen, for instance, which had led the world in my own subject of physics and in mathematics, sank within a year below the level of even a second-rate uni-

255
versity, and the same sort of thing happened in almost all the university laboratories in Germany. The Nazis, of course, retaliated by pillorying modern physics as a Jewish excrescence on the true Aryan outlook and promoting good party members with a smattering of the subject to the vacant posts. As a result, not only has the subject made no progress, but very few young men capable of lifting it again to a civilized level have been trained.
It may be asked, as I think Lord Vansittart suggested, what about the various new weapons the Germans have produced, their Radar and other devices with which we have become only too painfully well acquainted. It is, I think, fair to say that not one of these weapons involved any new scientific principle. They were creditable engineering achievementh very suitable to the purpose for which they were intended, but nothing more. The reason for this is quite simple. Despite their failure to appreciate learning and their preference for the coarse, rude material aspects of life, the Nazis had enough sense to realize the importance of engineering. German engineering has for long been of a very high standard, due, I believe, largely to their methods of training. They have long realized that engineering cannot be treated just as an appendage in an ordinary university. All the ancillary subjects have to be taught with a bias towards technical applications. When the Nazis came into power there were no fewer than ten Politechnica with 1,600 professors and lecturers and 20,000 students. These Politechnica ranked in every way as equal to the universities, their degrees counted socially and otherwise as of equal status, and nobody who was aiming at an engineering degree would have dreamt of going anywhere else. Arriving from school with a sound knowledge of elementary mathematics, physics and chemistry, it is not surprising that engineers of the highest possible grade were turned out in vast numbers after three or four years of this intensive training.
Whether the crude materialistic outlook we deplore in Germany is in any way connected with this type of education I need not examine, but there is no doubt that they produce in this way large numbers of men capable of turning their hands to any technical problem and providing
256
an adequate and very often an ingenious solution to it. Take, for instance, the case of Radar. Everybody had known for fifty years that a metal object scatters electro-magnetic waves. When it became urgent to detect aircraft at night many nations applied this principle to the problem, and Radar naturally resulted. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested, that our Radar is ahead of the Germans', but it would have been strange indeed if the very competent German engineers had not produced something workable, and indeed, as our air crews would agree, something by no means despicable.
I venture these preliminary observations because I think they have some bearing on the Motion brought before us by the noble Lord. He wishes us to prohibit "the use by Germany of any scientific discovery or invention considered dangerous to the safety of mankind." At what stage would the scientific committee have been expected to intervene, say, in the case of wireless waves? When Clerk Maxwell predicted them more than sixty years ago; or when Hertz proved then existence a few years later; or when Marconi showed that they could be put to commercial use; or when they were employed to save ships at sea at the beginning of this century; or when they gave us broadcasting twenty years ago? It is very difficult when a new discovery is made to foresee whether it will be used at all and, if so, whether it will be beneficial or dangerous to mankind. Who would have forecast when Elster and Geitel found—in 1887, I think it was—that a negatively charged plate of zinc lost its power under the influence of ultra-violet light, that this would have any practical importance? And who could have foreseen whether the beneficial developments would outweigh the harmful ones? On the one hand, of course, the talking films, which many low-brows at any rate would be sorry to forgo, derived from this particular discovery; on the other hand, this discovery lies at the root of almost every modern instrument for measuring the velocity of shells or bullets, a knowledge of which contributes greatly to the improvement of guns and rifles. Such instances could be multiplied indefinitely, but I hope I have said enough to show that this question is a very difficult one, which it is impossible to answer out of hand.

257
But I am anxious not to leave the impression that we do not realize its importance. The noble Lord last year made in this House the important suggestion that scientists should be associated with planning our methods for controlling German industry. His Majesty's Government appointed a committee of scientists not only to advise about this but also to consider the whole question of the future of German scientific research. I am told that their preliminary conclusions will shortly be ready, and the Government will certainly give the greatest weight to them. But obviously these proposals must be discussed with our Allies, who have ideas of their own on these subjects, and we hope that a common policy will be agreed. For some time now a scientific and technical staff has been attached to the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force—your Lordships will recognize Shaef under this imposing title—and they are there in order to examine and control German activities in these fields.
All German activities, including, of course, their scientific work, are and will be subject to a control by the occupying Powers exercised through the Control Commission. I am confident that so long as the control is maintained there will be little to fear from the recrudescence of German science or the misapplication of scientific discoveries. As to the long-term control, it would, I think, be premature for His Majesty's Government to undertake at this moment to make any specific proposals to the Allies to be embodied in the final peace terms. It is difficult to-day to form any impression of what Germany will look like when peace comes to be signed and what kind of permanent control will be the most convenient and effective. But the Government most certainly intend to ensure that scientists will continue to play their full part not only in disarming Germany but in guarding against any future dangers from that quarter. The long-term arrangements for preventing German secret rearmament have many aspects. The control of scientific research is only one of them and clearly all the controls must be worked out so as to fit altogether to form a coherent whole. I hope I have said enough to convince the noble, Lord that our objectives are the same and that we fully intend to take such steps as may be found most efficacious to achieve the aims
258
he has in mind, even though I am riot able to promise to-day to adopt the exact measures he has proposed. I trust, therefore, he will be satisfied with this assurance, and in the circumstances will not press the Motion on the Paper.
3.20 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his support. One part of my proposals he seemed to think a little too idealistic and I therefore would just like to say a few words explaining it in a little greater detail. It would obviously be no good at all preventing the Germans from developing lethal weapons at home if they could get them from abroad very easily. Your Lordships will remember that after the last war, for example, Krupps took immediate refuge in Bofors in Sweden, and that during the pre-war period Doenitz established an experimental submarine station in Spain and other makers of lethal devices resorted to the Netherlands, and so on. It would be no good whatever preventing manufacture of these things in Germany if they could get them elsewhere.
Lord Strabolgi mentioned that there had been 40,000 applications for patents in the United States. That is perfectly true. That happens to be an Allied country. But during the past year there were 8,000 similar applications in Sweden alone, and if you are going to prevent the Germans from getting, either from Allied or neutral countries, the same kind of devices which we shall be endeavouring to stop them developing at home, it follows that the Allies and neutral countries, in consulting whether those devices shall be permitted, will have to reveal those secrets to each other. That is where my proposal is a practical one. They would have to do that to enforce the prohibition in Germany. It follows automatically. That is very different from the impression I perhaps erroneously conveyed to the noble Lord that I wished those secrets all to be published to the world. I think there must be international consultation on them; that will follow automatically.
Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said, I naturally should accept entirely his definition of the distinction between science and engineering. I also should not wish for a moment to challenge his description of the very low level to which the Germans have debased their

259
science. On the other hand, it has produced some exceedingly unpleasant and lethal surprises. I also fully understand that on a very complicated subject like this the noble Lord cannot give me an answer offhand as to whether the specific measure that I have been recommending will be adopted or not. I am quite content that he should bring it to the attention of the Government as a very important recommendation among many others; and, as I pointed out when speaking earlier, the same recommendation is going to be made to other Allied Governments. Therefore this proposal, having thus been put into the pool, will come to their conjoint knowledge. If he will assure me to-day that it will receive full attention from the competent authorities, I should be the last person to press him to give a decision "off the bat" to-day. If I am correct in my interpretation, I shall therefore have great pleasure in withdrawing my Motion, reserving to myself naturally the right to revert to the subject again at some later date in the hope of being able to elicit some more definite answer.
LORD CHERWELL: I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance that this will be brought before the competent authorities.
LORD VANSITTART: In that case I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Motion to-day.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TREATMENT OF HOSTILE GERMANS.
3.24 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what it is proposed to do when Germans take hostile action in areas under British control; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate my noble friend Lord Woolton in becoming Lord President of the Council, and may I also say I welcome it from the national point of view? Under the Lord President come the three great research departments of Industrial and Scientific Research, Medical Research and Agricultural Research. Some of the Lord Presidents have not been very much interested in those subjects, but I am quite certain that my
260
noble friend is interested in them and will give them all the support and assistance which they will so much need in the days to come.
I need not detain your Lordships long over the Motion I have put upon the Paper. From the Press it would appear that at present the Germans are being very docile in their ways and are giving no trouble to Allied troops, but I have heard reports from those who are serving at the front that that is not quite universal even now and that some Germans are beginning to be somewhat complacent and, in one or two cases, even cheeky. I am one of those who expect that the occupation of Germany will go on for a very long time indeed, and therefore it is quite impossible that there will be no incidents during that long time of the occupation of Germany by British and other Allied troops. Now when any hostile act took place in the countries which Germany overran, Germany took hostages, and when an incident occurred she shot them or, in some cases, she even wiped out a Whole village and its inhabitants, as she did at Lidice. Of course that is quite impossible for the Allies; we cannot do anything of that kind.
Are we, then, to do nothing? Are we to allow British troops to be shot and British military equipment to be damaged? Of course, where the instigator is caught then the answer is perfectly simple: while Germany remains under military law no doubt the perpetrator will be summarily shot and any house from which he snipes will be destroyed. Similarly, when the civil administration comes into being I imagine that there, again, the perpetrator, when caught, will be tried and will be given a very severe punishment. But what if the perpetrator is not caught? Supposing somebody murders one of our men or cuts the tyres of our vehicles in the place where they are parked at night, are we then to do nothing at all? I suggest that if we do nothing the Germans, so far from thinking that that is kindliness, will simply look upon it as weakness and those incidents will increase very greatly in number. Then what are we to do?
May I make a suggestion to your Lordships? I am taking a case of which perhaps some of your Lordships would not approve—the time of the Black-and-Tan trouble in Ireland. A young officer in the Regular Army was sent with his

261
platoon to a town and was there quartered. He sent for the leading Sinn Feiners and said to them: "I am not the least interested in your politics and I have nothing whatever to do with them. I am simply sent here to keep order, and order I am going to keep. If any act is perpetrated against either me or my men or against any Government property, I shall burn three of your houses, and I shall settle which those houses are to be when the time comes." Nothing happened for some days, and then the constabulary barracks were set on fire and destroyed. The next day that young officer walked down with his platoon to the Sinn Fein Club. He sent a party inside. They piled the furniture on the billiard table and set fire to it and stood round until it was destroyed. The Sinn Feiners came and complained bitterly about the action he had taken, and his reply was: "I warned you I should destroy three houses and you are very lucky to have had only one destroyed. The next time it happens it will be three." The result of that drastic action was that there was not a sign of any kind of breaking of the law in that town until the platoon was withdrawn. They had absolute peace and orderliness and no further incident occurred. But see what happened. The Government of that day threatened that young officer with court martial, and he very nearly was court martialled.
Now I suggest that the same sort of action—three houses to be destroyed—should be the punishment proclaimed as being that which we shall inflict in Germany in any case where we do not manage to catch the perpetrator himself. Your Lordships will realize that the German population will, in many cases, know who the perpetrator was. In other cases they will know that a stranger has come into the area, a man about whom there are considerable doubts, possibly a previous S.S. man or one of those Hitler youths who have imbibed the doctrines of Nazism since they were tiny tots. They will know that that man is there for mischief. Are they going to tell the Allied forces of a stranger whom they had better investigate as appearing in their area or are they going to house him and take his side? If, my Lords, it is realized that the punishment will come on them, on any one of them and they do not know which it will be, then they will notify our authorities that they had better look up
262
a certain individual or a certain house and make the necessary inquiries to see that all is well. Then they will be on our side and those instances will be few; but if we do not do something of that kind those instances are likely to be many.
I speak to both sides in the House in this matter. As I said, I am one of those who hope that Germany will be occupied by the Allied forces for a very long time to come, longer than even the youngest of your Lordships will see brought to an end during his lifetime. Therefore it may be within that long period that Labour might find itself in power. They, too, I suggest have got to take this drastic action. It is for the Government themselves to declare that that is the policy of the Government. It is not fair to leave it to the military authorities or those who are controlling Germany at the time. They may feel that they will be put in exactly the same position as that young officer and threatened with court martial. I submit to your Lordships that if it is made quite clear to Germany now that the policy of His Majesty's Government is that any action which is taken against British troops or British equipment will be severely punished in some such way as I have said, then those instances will be few, but if it is merely said that that must be left to the military authorities on the spot I submit to your Lordships that that is not really taking a full sense of responbility. I go further and say that that would be lacking in courage because that may mean that not the lives of those in the British Government but the lives of British troops, who are acting under their orders and fulfilling the duties which are laid upon them by His Majesty's Government, will be imperilled. I submit that what I state in my Motion is necessary in order that Germany realize that she has been beaten, and that she has to be dealt with with severity although with justice. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
3.34 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, your Lordship's will allow me in the first place I am sure to thank the noble Earl for the very kindly things he said at the beginning of his speech when he welcomed me to an office he himself has adorned. If he will allow me to say so, it was his influence when he was Lord President of the Council and was interested in scien-

263
tific research that first helped me so considerably when I was Minister of Food to use the scientific resources of this Government. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the welcome he gave me and I hope I shall fulfil the duties of the office as adequately as he did.
As to the subject raised to-day, I am not quite sure whether I am going to give complete satisfaction to the noble Earl. I thought I was going to be able to do so until I heard his speech. Quite obviously I cannot from these Benches deal with hypothetical questions as to what might happen. Let me say this, however, that there is no tendency and no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of any softening regarding the treatment of Germans, particularly of Germans who as he indicated may proceed to try to inflict damage on British troops. The instrument of surrender governs the relations of the Allied authorities with Germany. It in no way hampers the Allies in dealing with such cases as the noble Earl has in mind. The terms of surrender empower the Allied representatives in the case of the failure of the German authorities or of the German people to fulfil the obligations imposed upon them to take whatever action is considered necessary. The Allied authorities have therefore a completely free hand. They are restricted only by the usages and customs of war which we have observed throughout the war. The Allied authorities will, therefore, be as free to deal with the situation envisaged by the noble Earl as any military commander is in the midst of battle. I hope that that reply will satisfy your Lordships. I hope it will satisfy the noble Earl too, but I am not quite sure that it will. All I can say is that that is as far at this stage as I can go.
3.36 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think on the whole I am satisfied with my noble friend's answer. It depends very much on what is meant by the "usages of war." That is a very elastic term, as all your Lordships know. But I trust that it will be made quite clear to the German people that that is also the policy of His Majesty's Government and of His Majesty's Opposition as well, and that it will be made clear in the speeches to be made in various places throughout the country in future. I imagine there are no Papers to be laid and I only put that
264
down in order that I might have the right of reply. Therefore with your Lordships' leave I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on February 28 last discharged and the Bill committed.
JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the one hundred and seventy-sixth Volume of the Journals, 7th and 8th George VI, 1943–44, with an Index, was ready for delivery; read and ordered to lie on the Table, and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journal have been delivered.
  COAST GUARD SERVICE.
  COAST GUARD SERVICE.