Sitting of 24 July 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I am sure it would be the wish of Members, and especially of Members of former Parliaments, to pay a special and exceptional tribute in memory of a very remarkable and lovable colleague. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Therefore, I ask hon. Members, after my reading of the official notification of the death of Mr. Maxton, to rise in their places, and to stand in silence for a few moments.
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of James Maxton, Esquire, Member for the Burgh of Glasgow, Bridgeton Division, 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.
Members rose in their places, and stood in silence.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move, "That the several Amendments to the Standing
2
Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made."
SCHEDULE
Standing Order 211, page 209, line 23, at the end, insert "and nothing in those Orders shall apply to Orders within the meaning of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, being Orders in relation to which that Act applies, or to Bills to confirm such Orders."
Standing Order 225, page 219, line 4, leave out "In the following Orders," and insert "In the Orders contained in this Chapter."
Standing Order 229, page 220, line 12, after "Act," insert "whether as originally enacted or as applied by Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."
Standing Order 230, page 220, line 20, after "Act," insert "whether as originally enacted or as applied by Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."
After Standing Order 236, insert new Standing Orders 236A to 236L.
CHAPTER VIIA
Orders in relation to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, applies.
Interpretation of Chapter VIIA.—236A. In the orders contained in this Chapter the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them:
"Special Procedure Act" means the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945."
"Special Procedure Order" means an order, scheme, certificate or bye-law in relation to which the Special Procedure Act applies;
"Special Procedure Petition" means a Petition under Section 3 of the Special Procedure Act against a Special Procedure Order;
"the Chairman" means, subject to the next following Order, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons;
"the Chairmen" means, subject as aforesaid and except in the expression "chairmen's panel," the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons;
"the Minister," in relation to any Special Procedure Order, means the Minister of the Crown responsible for laying the Order before Parliament;
"applicant," in relation to any Special Procedure Order, means any person stated on the face of the order to be a person on whose application the Order is made or confirmed;
"copy," in relation to any document, means a printed or typewritten copy;
Deputy-Chairmen.—236B. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 80 (Deputy-Speaker and chairmen) relative to Public Business, the Chairman may from time to time appoint any Member of the chairmen's panel as his deputy who shall be entitled to perform his functions under the Special Procedure Act, or under the Orders contained in this Chapter.
(2) Any reference in the said Orders to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords shall be construed as including a reference to any Deputy-Chairman of Committees appointed by the House of Lords.
Laying of Orders.—236c. (1) On the day on which a Special Procedure Order is laid before this House under Section 2 of the Special Procedure Act, the Minister shall cause a copy of the Order, and of the certificate required by that Section to be laid together with the Order, to be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and shall also cause copies of the Order and certificate or statement—

(a) to be deposited at the Vote Office for the use of Members; and

(b) to be made available to any person on application to the Minister and on payment:

Provided that the requirements of paragraph (b) of this Order need not be complied with as respects copies of the Special Procedure Order if it is a Statutory Instrument of which copies are required by Section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, to be printed and sold.
(2) If on the face of any Order so laid there is stated the name and address of the person on whose application the Order is made or confirmed, that statement shall be included in all copies of the Order deposited or made available in accordance with the foregoing paragraph.
Presentation of Petitions.—236D. (1) Every Special Procedure Petition presented to this House shall be prepared and signed in strict conformity with the rules and orders of this House applicable to Petitions against Private Bills, and shall be presented by being deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office.
(2) There shall be indorsed on every Special Procedure Petition so presented—

(a) the title (as entered in the Votes) of the Special Procedure Order against which it is presented;

4

(b) a statement that it is presented as a Petition for amendment or a Petition of general objection, as the case may be; and

(c) the name and address of the Member, Party or Agent depositing it.

(3) The Petitioner shall cause—

(a) a copy of the Petition to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and another copy at the office of the Minister not later than the day following that on which the Petition was presented; and

(b) a copy of the Petition to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the applicant (if any) or to each applicant (if more than one) at his address as specified on the face of the Order not later than the day aforesaid; and

(c) copies of the Petition to be made available not later than three days from the day on which the Petition was presented, to any person on application to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Petition, and on payment.

Memorials objecting to Petitions.—236E. (1) Within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which a Special Procedure Petition is presented to this House, the Minister or any applicant may present to this House a Memorial objecting to the Petition being certified as proper to be received or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, objecting that it is a Petition of general objection, and stating specifically in either case the grounds of the objection.
(2) Every such Memorial shall be presented to this House by depositing it in the Committee and Private Bill Office.
(3) On the day on which a Memorial is so presented, the Memorialist shall cause—

(a) a copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments; and

(b) another copy thereof to be delivered or despatched by registered post, to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition.

Consideration of Petitions by Chairmen.—236F. (1) If a Memorial is duly presented to this House objecting to a Special Procedure Petition, the Chairman shall give notice in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the time and place at which the Chairmen will consider the Petition and Memorial.
(2) If no such Memorial is presented, but the Chairmen arc not satisfied that a Special Procedure Petition should be certified as proper to be received, or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, are not satisfied that it is such a Petition, the Chairman shall give notice in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the time and place at which the Chairmen will further consider the Petition.
(3) The Chairmen shall have power to determine questions of locus standi in connection with their examination of Special Procedure Petitions, and to decide as to the rights of the Petitioners to be heard upon such Petitions.
Reference of Petition to Joint Committees.— 236G. (1) Where under section 4 of the Special Procedure Act any Special Procedure

5
Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House, to a Joint Committee—

(a) the Committee of this House shall consist of three members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection;

(b) the Petitioner shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence in support of the Petition;

(c) the Minister shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Petition;

(d) the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee shall be reported to the House:

Provided that the Minister may give notice in accordance with the following paragraph that he desires that the rights conferred on him by tub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph shall be exercised by any applicant specified in the notice, and thereupon the said sub-paragraph shall have effect as if that applicant were substituted for the Minister.
(2) Any such notice shall be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition and to the applicant specified in the notice at his address as specified on the face of the Special Procedure Order, within three days after the report of the Chairmen is laid before this House under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Special Procedure Act, and copies thereof shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office and in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments within the said three days.
Counter-Petitions.—236H. (1) Where under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Special Procedure Act the Chairmen have reported that any Special Procedure Petition has been presented to this House and has been certified as a Petition for amendment and as proper to be received, a Petition (hereinafter referred to as a "Counter-Petition") may, within the period of fourteen days, beginning with the date on which the report is laid before this House, be presented to this House complaining that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition will affect the interest of the person presenting the Counter-Petition (hereinafter referred to as the "Counter-Petitioner"), and such Counter-Petition shall stand referred to the Joint Committee to whom the Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House.
(2) Any Counter-Petition presented to this House shall be presented by being deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office.
(3) There shall be indorsed on every Counter-Petition so presented—

(a) the title (as entered in the Votes) of the Special Procedure Order to which it relates; and

(b) the name and address of the Member, Party or Agent depositing it; and

(c) the name of the Member, Party or Agent who presented the Special Procedure
6
Petition to which it relates (hereinafter referred to as the "original Petitioner").

(4) Not later than the day following that on which the Counter-Petition was presented, the Counter-Petitioner shall cause—

(a) a copy thereof to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and another copy thereof to be deposited at the office of the Minister; and

(b) another copy thereof to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the original Petitioner at the address indorsed on the Special Procedure Petition; and

(c) if the Minister has given notice under the last foregoing Order that he desires that his rights shall be exercised by an applicant specified in the notice, another copy thereof to be delivered, or despatched by registered post, 'to that applicant at his address as specified on the face of the Special Procedure Order.

(5) If, on consideration of a Counter-Petition, the Joint Committee to whom the relevant Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House, are satisfied that an amendment prayed for by the Special Procedure Petition may affect the interest of the Counter-Petitioner, the Committee may allow the Counter-Petitioner to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agent, and to tender evidence against the Special Procedure Petition.
Withdrawal of Petitions and Memorials.— 2361. With regard to the withdrawal of Petitions and Memorials presented to this House under the Orders contained in this Chapter, Standing Order 173 shall apply.
Orders of Local Government Boundary Commission.—236J. In relation to any Special Procedure Order made by the Local Government Boundary Commission under the Local . Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945, the foregoing Orders contained in this Chapter shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (3) of Order 236D the reference to the office of the Minister shall include a reference to the office of the Commission;

(b) in paragraph (1) of Order 236E a reference to the Commission shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister;

(c) in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1) of Order 236G a reference to the Commission shall be substituted for the reference to the Minister, and the proviso to that paragraph and paragraph (2) of that Order shall not apply;

(d) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (4) of Order 236H the reference to the office of the Minister shall include a reference to the office of the Commission.

Extension of time.—236K. (1) If any period within which anything is required to be done under the Orders contained in this Chapter expires when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or when this House is adjourned for more than four days, it shall be extended so as to expire with the first day thereafter on which this House sits.
(2) In the case of a Special Procedure Petition presented to this House, paragraph (1) of this Order shall apply to the period of fourteen days allowed for the presentation thereof under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Special Procedure Act in like manner as it applies to a period mentioned in that paragraph.
Notice of date of operation or withdrawal of Order.—236L. (1) Any notice given by the Minister under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Special Procedure Act either determining the date on which an Order is to come into operation or withdrawing an Order shall be given by publishing the notice—

(a) in a case where the Order relates to England or Wales or any part thereof, but not to Scotland or any part thereof, in the London Gazette;

(b) in a"case where the Order relates to Scotland, or any part thereof, but not to England or Wales or any part thereof, in the Edinburgh Gazette;

(c) in any other case, both in the London Gazette and in the Edinburgh Gazette;

and, in the case of an Order relating to a particular area, in at least one newspaper circulating in that area.

(2) A copy of any such notice withdrawing an Order shall be laid before this House within four days after it is published in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order.
Standing Order 237, page 223, line 7, after "Bills," insert "or Orders."
Appendix (C) (Table of Fees), page 231, line 34, at the end, insert—
Fees to be paid in proceedings relating to a Special Procedure Order within the meaning'of Chapter VIIA.

£

s.

d.

"On the deposit of a Memorial by an applicant (other than a Government Department)…

1

0

0

For every day on which an applicant (other than a Government Department) appears before—

(1) the Chairmen… …

3

0

0

(2) a Joint Committee …

10

0

0

On the deposit of every Petition and of every Counter-Petition

2

0

0

For every day on which the Petitioners appear before the Chairmen or a Joint Committee … … …

2

0

0

For every day on which the Counter Petitioners appear before a Joint Committee …

2

0

0"

These Amendments are required following upon the passing of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act last December, which came into operation on 1st June. They have been framed in consultation with officials of another place and with representatives of Parliamentary agents and Government Departments. They are experimental, and they may have
8
to be modified in the light of experience. Meanwhile, as they are necessary to carry out what Parliament has determined, I ask the House to approve their adoption.
Captain Crookshank: We had not been informed, definitely, that this was to be taken today. As it is so near to the end of the Session, and as these Amendments cannot possibly come into effect until October, I would suggest that the matter be left over until it can be looked at more carefully.
Debate adjourned; to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CAMPBELTOWN WATER, ETC., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  NUREMBERG TRIALS
  Mr. Stokesasked the Attorney-General for what reason the crime committed at Katyn, involving the murder of 10,000 Polish officers, was not brought up at the trials at Nuremberg.
  The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. This matter was brought up, and evidence was submitted by the Soviet Prosecutor in support of the charge and by the defence. I would refer my hon. Friend to the transcript for 14th February, 1st July, and 2nd July, 1946.
  Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this Question has been repeatedly deferred at the request of the Attorney-General? In view of the fact that the matter has now been considered at Nuremberg, may I ask him why no Polish evidence was called? Why was no

  9
  particular reference made to the fact that nothing whatever was heard of any of the 10,000 murdered officers after the end of April, 1940?
  The Solicitor-General: That was entirely a matter for the parties. The prosecutors called evidence which was available and which they thought relevant. No doubt counsel for the defence did precisely the same thing.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Disturbances, Manchester
    Mr. Marplesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been called to the disturbances in which Air Force personnel were involved which took place at the Services Club in Piccadilly, Manchester, at approximately 1 a.m., on Sunday, 30th June; and if he will ensure that sufficient military police are available on these premises to prevent future disturbances.
    The Under-Seeretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Yes, Sir. I am sorry that members of the Royal Air Force should have been involved in these disturbances. We shall do all we can to see that this does not happen again, but the hon. Member will, I feel sure, realise that none of the Service Departments is responsible for these premises, which are used as a voluntary club. Of course, the Service police work with the civil police in keeping order in Manchester and other cities.
    Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the premises were not involved in the fracas, but R.A.F. personnel? Will he take adequate steps to see that R.A.F. personnel are adequately supervised by their own military police? Is he further aware that innocent bystanders, including the hon. Member for Wallasey, were involved?
    Mr. de Freitas: I was aware that the premises were not involved, but that men were. But the point, surely, is that the premises are a private club. As for the second point, I was informed that the hon. Member was there.
    Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these disturbances occur quite regularly, according to the information I received when I was on the spot? It is disgraceful that they should occur be-
    10
    tween black and white personnel, and that is what is happening.
    Mr. de Freitas: I have no information that they occur frequently. There have from time to time been complaints. There is in this particular case no evidence that the initial trouble was caused by black Service personnel.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the strength of the police in the R.A.F. is not increased as a result of this Question? The R.A.F. is quite capable of looking after itself.
    Mr. de Freitas: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that assurance.

    Overseas Tour (Reduction)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make on home leave and on the length of the overseas tour for members of the R.A.F.
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir, the Air Council have recently been considering the best arrangements both for the efficiency of the Royal Air Force and also for the sake of the men and their families. We have decided that, in present conditions, we should give up home leave from distant commands—which is costly both in men and transport—in favour of a shorter overseas tour of duty. We have discussed this with the Commanders-in-Chief overseas. They in turn have taken widespread soundings throughout their commands, where the general opinion is strongly in favour of the course we are now adopting.
    We have told the R.A.F. that from 1st October there will be no more home leave from distant commands, though the present system of compassionate home postings will continue. We have also told the Service that this change means we shall be able to bring down the overseas tour where it is now three years to two years and six months. The reduction, which will apply to both married and single men, will start on 1st October. It is bound to take some time to carry out for everyone, but should be completed by the end of this year.
    Mr. Greenwood: Will the new conditions apply to Germany, or will Germany continue to be treated as a home station?
    Mr. de Freitas: Home leave will continue, because Germany is much closer to

    11
    this country. The R.A.F. tour there will be for two years, but airmen whose families are not with them in Germany may be posted to more distant commands to complete the more normal period of two and a half years overseas. Those who complete two years in Germany will remain for six months in this country before they go further afield, but occasionally, in exceptional circumstances, they may be posted abroad sooner than that.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Undersecretary indicate what commands are included? Does he include C.M.F. and the Middle East?
    Mr. de Freitas: We are including the Mediterranean, Middle East, India, Air Command South-East Asia and men stationed in the Dominions.
    Mr. David Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, in consequence of the reduction of the overseas tour to 2½ years in the R.A.F. and the lack of accommodation for families to live with men stationed in Greece, these men are faced with a 2½ years separation from their families without any home leave; and whether he will reconsider the question of granting home leave for men placed in such circumstances.
    Mr. de Freitas: We are certainly not planning to keep the Royal Air Force as long as two and a half years more in Greece. As I have said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hey wood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), we have gone most carefully into finding the best answer to this problem for all overseas commands. The Service as a whole seems to prefer the prospect of coming home six months earlier at the end of a tour in a distant command, to a leave scheme of a fortnight a year.

    Elementary Flying Training
    Mr. Spenceasked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether it is his intention to revert to the prewar practice of using civilian flying schools, on contract, as a means of giving elementary flying instruction to a proportion of Service pilot trainees.
    Mr. de Freitas: We did not entirely give up the use of these schools during
    12
    the war, and some of them are operating today. We have, however, not yet decided what will be needed for the permanent postwar organisation of elementary flying training.
    Mr. Spence: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind the proved economy of this kind of training, and the fact that a large proportion of the pilots in the Battle of Britain did their elementary training in this way?
    Mr. de. Freitas: I will bear that in mind.
    Mr. George Ward: Will the Undersecretary give some assurance that these schools will be re-equipped as soon as possible with up-to-date machines more suitable for modern flying training than Tiger Moths?
    Mr. de Freitas: That is now under consideration.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Osborneasked the Undersecretary of State for Air why no reply has been sent to an application for redress of grievance, dated 27th February, 1946, from 1438523 Sergeant F. A. Rogers who was parachuted behind the lines in the Balkans and also behind the Japanese lines in Malaya, for which he is entitled to back promoted pay which so far has been refused.
    Mr. de Freitas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to this case, and I regret the delay in dealing with the airman's application. The inquiries I am making are not yet complete, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the Under-Secretary ginger up his Department so that these cases do not occur again? Will he bear in mind that delays make an airman's grievance almost worse?
    Mr. de Freitas: This was a particularly complicated case, because the airman concerned had been working entirely with the Army. I will see that this does not happen again.

    Turnberry—Maidens Road
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has considered the request from the Ayr County Council that the road between

    13
    Turnberry and Maidens should now be reopened completely to the public; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir. In practice, there has been no restriction on the public use of this road for some time. The official closure order will be revoked as soon as the road has been properly reinstated.

    A.T.C. Greatcoats
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many service greatcoats have been issued to A.T.C. cadets.
    Mr. de Freitas: There is nothing I can add to the reply which I gave on 10th July to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard).
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that these boys will be equipped with greatcoats for the coming winter? In view of demobilisation, there must be a great surplus of clothing. Will he look into this matter again?
    Mr. de Freitas: I will certainly look into the matter again, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the A.T.C. will be as well equipped as any other Service cadet corps.

    Redundant Aircrews (Rank Reduction)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Undersecretary of State for Air what are the reasons for the recent order reducing all non-commissioned officer aircrews above the rank of sergeant, which includes men who have done over 50 operational flights or who have been shot down three times; how many non-commissioned officers arc affected by the order; and what steps he will take to remove the sense of injustice which these non-commissioned officers feel at this order.
    Mr. de Freitas: I think the hon. Member has in mind airmen who were redundant as aircrew and who were transferred to other duties at the end of the war. We have always made it clear that N.C.O. aircrew ranks were only temporary and would have to be reviewed at the end of the war. That is what we have now done. Naturally this causes disappointment, and something like 20,000 men are concerned, though I cannot give an exact figure because of the
    14
    release programme. These men all had, as they deserved, exceptionally rapid wartime promotion, far more so than in other trades or branches, For example, they could become warrant officers within no more than two years of first getting their wings. They will, of course, keep their flying badges, and in general the aim of the measures we are taking, in these admittedly difficult circumstances, is to place them as far as possible on the same footing as aircrew who are still flying. These are complicated major changes. We are taking special steps to explain them to the Service in a non-technical way by means of a new pay form.
    Mr. Osborne: May I put this important point? Since the pay is not being altered, what is the point in reducing the rank of these men? They feel very deeply about it. They were the cream of the youth of Britain, and, if I may say so, were regarded as Churchill's heroes, but now they are the Socialist rejects.
    Mr. de Freitas: The new pay form is going out and will be published next week. I ask hon. Members not to press me on details, because we can deal with only a few points here, which may be magnified and give a wrong impression of this scheme to these 20,000 men.
    Mr. Nally: Will the Under-Secretary explain what he regards as unusual in the fact that a man who has had his wings for two years should be regarded as suitable for appointment as a warrant officer? What is curious about that?
    Mr. de Freitas: I was comparing that with ground crews. I said that, as they deserve, they got their promotion. I ask hon. Members to let us get out these new pay forms so that the Service can understand them. There are 20,000 men concerned, and we car only high-light some of the minor points here.
    Wing-Commander Millington: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that this question is causing considerable agitation among all these men who are within a month or so of demobilisation? They have served gallantly throughout the war, and a month or so before they apply for reinstatement in civil life they will have to explain why they have been demoted.
    Mr. Osborne: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Class B Release (Delay)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharpasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why offers of Class B release sent by his Department to airmen serving overseas have not only to be accepted, but the acceptances returned to his Department before instructions for release can be issued; whether he is aware of the long delay thereby frequently caused; and whether he will alter the procedure so as to enable overseas commands to take immediate action to dispatch to this country airmen who have accepted Class B release.
    Mr. de Freitas: I would be grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend could give me particulars of delay caused in this way. It must be due to a misunderstanding, because all overseas commands have instructions to take immediate steps for sending an airman home once he has accepted Class B release. The delay in the case of the airman which my hon. and gallant Friend has brought to my notice, was due to quite different causes.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he is aware of a letter, which he himself sent to me, in which he said that it was quite clear that the acceptance of Class B release must be received by the Air Ministry before authority could be given for the release of the airman?
    Mr. de Freitas: I cannot explain that divergency because the facts are as stated. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will let me see that letter.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Continental Services (Priorities)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, whether he is now in a position to announce the abolition of priorities on B.O.A.C. continental services.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): It is still necessary to maintain priority control over a percentage of the seats on the B.O.A.C. Continental Services, but the majority of the seats on all services are allocated to B.O.A.C. for commercial disposal. The services are kept under continuous review and reduc-
    16
    tions in the priority seats are made as circumstances justify.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that these priorities affect adversely the commercial value of our air services; that other countries are operating non-priority services on the same routes; and is it not time that the Department awakened to the need of a live commercial policy?
    Mr. Thomas: We are sweeping away priorities as rapidly as we can, and I would like to take the opportunity of suggesting that applicants should go to B.O.A.C. in the first instance. They may find that better.

    London—Cardiff
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, when air services will be in operation from South Wales to London and other airports in the British Isles.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: It is planned to open the air service between Cardiff and London towards the end of this year. South Wales will be linked with other aerodromes in the British Isles when the necessary aircraft and ground facilities become available.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the hon. Gentleman give further details as to how often these services will operate between London and Cardiff, and at what airport in London they will arrive?
    Mr. Thomas: The airport will in all probability be Northolt, I cannot, without notice, give the frequency of the service, but my recollection is that it is a daily service.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there are enough Welshmen in London without bringing more?
    Mr. Thomas: The object of the service is to take Englishmen to Wales.

    Atlantic Services (American Airport)
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether B.O.A.C. has now secured adequate accommodation for its Atlantic air services at La Guardia airport; and whether steps are being taken to secure such accommodation at Idlewild airport on its opening.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) on 26th June last, La Guardia airfield is very congested. I am satisfied that the American authorities concerned are making all possible efforts to meet our requirements. The accommodation available to the British Overseas Airways Corporation is similar to that allotted to other operators using the airfield.
    As regards the second part of the Question, negotiations are in progress for the provision of adequate accommodation when the Idlewild airfield comes into operation.

    London—Aberdeen
    Mr. Spenceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what types of aircraft it is proposed to use on the Aberdeen to London air service; and whether a freight as well as a passenger service is envisaged.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: It is planned to operate the service London-Edinburgh-Aberdeen with Dakota aircraft. A separate freight service is not at present envisaged, but freight within the capacity of the aircraft will be carried.
    Mr. Spence: Will the hon. Gentleman see if he cannot operate this line with British aircraft, such as the Dove?
    Mr. Thomas: In due course that will be done, but we have to use all our available aircraft at the present time.

    Channel Islands Airways
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to state the Government's policy in regard to Channel Islands Airways.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I can add nothing to the statement which I made on 8th July.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the answer mean that the Government will revise their position, and that they, realise that they have been trying to do something which is quite unconstitutional, and arc accepting the position and retracting what they have already done?
    Mr. Thomas: The Government have done nothing unconstitutional in this matter. The Imperial Parliament may
    18
    legislate for the Channel Islands, and it is customary to do so by means of Order in Council, so as to meet the wishes of the islanders. That has been done in the present case.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last 140 years no such case has occurred unless the States have first expressed their demand for such legislation? Why is he now establishing this precedent, which is absolutely contrary to everything that has been done for 600 years?
    Mr. Thomas: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will pursue his researches, he will find that he is referring to Orders in Council made in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative and is not referring to Orders in Council made under statutory authority as is the case here.
    Mr. Pritt: Did not this Government come in to make precedents?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that the Government are actually reconsidering the whole matter?
    Mr. Thomas: I have no reason to think so. Possibly the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that the Lord Chancellor has promised to make a statement tomorrow in another place.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Prime Minister whether, to avoid public confusion such as has occurred over Channel Island Airways, he will ensure that all statements made by Ministers to the House on the scope and method by which undertakings shall be brought under public control, receive the prior approval of the Cabinet.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not aware of any confusion on this matter, except possibly in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member. The negotiations now in progress with Channel Island Airways are entirely in harmony with the Government's policy on civil aviation.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on 8th July said the Channel Island Airways would be taken over; that on 15th July the Prime Minister said he had no knowledge of any such arrangement; and on 22nd July in another place

    19
    it was stated that the Government were considering again what they were going to do? Does he consider that is coordination?
    The Prime Minister: I have considered it and I have seen the correspondence with the hon. and gallant Member. It seems to me to be quite clear that the hon. and gallant Member is barking up the wrong tree.

    West Coast Air Services
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, under what statutory authority he notified, on 28th June, 1946, the Associated Airways Joint Committee that West Coast Air Services should cease operations on 1st July, 1946.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: West Coast Air Services, Limited, is one of several companies which are operating certain services under an agreement with the Minister of Civil Aviation, the Associated Airways Joint Committee acting as agents for the companies. In accordance with the clause in the agreement allowing the Minister to terminate or vary any of the services, it was arranged with the Associated Airways Joint Committee that West Coast Air Services Limited, should cease to operate the Liverpool—Dublin and London—Dublin services on 1st July and that the aircraft and crews should be diverted for use on other routes. The notification to the committee on 28th June last was in confirmation of this arrangement, and no statutory authority was necessary.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When the hon. Gentleman says "agreement," will he define the word "agreement"? A peremptory letter was sent only three days before the taking over of the company by the Ministry. A guarantee was given to this House that where such airlines were taken over it would be on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller.
    Mr. Thomas: That is an entirely different matter. Negotiations are proceeding on that basis with A.A.J.C. What is in question now is the actual operation of certain services governed by the agreement dated 1941.

    COLONIAL SERVICES (EX-SERVICEMEN)
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
    20
    he will give an assurance that ex-Service-men applying for appointments under his Department will in no way be prejudiced by the length of their war service.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Yes Sir.
    Mr. Prescottasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the average age of ex-Servicemen who have applied during the past six months for appointments under his Department; and what is the average age of those whose applications have been successful during the same period.
    Mr. George Hall: The answer to the first part of the Question is 29; and to the second part, 30½.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some ex-Servicemen who desire to serve in the Colonial Office are being rejected on the ground that they are too old? If they had been able to apply within the last six months they would not have been too old. Does he not agree that that is unfair, and will he look into these cases?
    Mr. Hall: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars of such cases, I will certainly look into them.

    PALESTINE (McNAIR REPORT)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now publish the McNair Report on Jewish education in Palestine.
    Mr. George Hall: The report will be published very shortly.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the report will be available in the Library before the Debate next week?
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can I press the right hon. Gentleman on that point?
    Mr. Hall: I am afraid that it will not be available before the Debate next week. We are doing everything that we can, but it must be published simultaneously in Palestine and in this country, and there has been some difficulty in getting copies to Palestine.
    Mr. Lindsay: I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman two months ago

    21
    asking him about this. Is there any particular reason why it should not be published simultaneously, within the next four or five days, in both countries?
    Mr. Hall: I have considered that, but at the moment it does not appear to be possible. I will, however, look at the matter again.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman try?
    Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the report condemns the extreme form of nationalist education conducted, and if it recommends a reform?
    Mr. Hall: I would prefer that the matter was left until my hon. Friend sees the report.

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the present wages of European locally-recruited teachers in Government and Government-aided schools in Malaya and Singapore; and what wage increases have been granted over the 1941 scale to meet the great increase in the cost of living;
    (2) why locally - recruited schoolteachers in Singapore and Malaya, who were not interned by the Japanese, are not to receive back pay whilst British officials there are receiving back pay in the same circumstances; and whether he will take steps to reduce the discrepancy between the wages of European and locally-recruited teachers, who at present take over 17 years' service to reach a figure slightly less than the initial wages of European teachers, their qualifications in many cases being identical
    Mr. George Hall: Male teachers who are normally university graduates, recruited from Europe for service in Government and Government-aided schools in these territories are on a scale which, expressed in sterling, ranges from £560 to £1,120 per annum. Locally-recruited male teachers with identical qualifications and duties are paid at 80 per cent. of European rates, the difference being the usual expatriation allowance granted to European officers. My hon. and learned Friend no doubt has in mind locally-
    22
    recruited male teachers who are graduates of such institutions as Raffles College, the diplomas of which are not regarded as equal to the degrees possessed by the higher paid staff. The scale for these officers ranges from £231 to £455 per annum. There is also a grade of normal class certificated teachers, male members of which are paid on a scale ranging from £182 to £420 per annum.
    A cost of living allowance of £14 per annum plus 10 per cent. of basic salary, subject to a maximum of £49 per annum, is being paid to all locally-recruited staff but not to officers recruited from Europe. The whole question of back pay during the period of occupation is now under local review with unofficial assistance.
    Mr. Pritt: Will my right hon. Friend answer the last part of Question 29 and the last part of Question 30?
    Mr. Hall: I will look into that point. The Government have been working under very great pressure since the civil administration was taken over on 1st April, but it is a point which I think ought to be looked into.
    Mr. Pritt: I was not asking him to look into the point, I was asking him to answer a question of fact—as to whether wage increases have been granted.
    Mr. Hall: That is what I am prepared to look into.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many trade union advisers are on duty in the Malayan Union and Singapore, respectively; and what progress has been made with the formation and registration of trade unions.
    Mr. George Hall: Three trade union advisers have been appointed to the Malaya service, one of whom has now been promoted to the post of industrial relations adviser in the Malaya Union. The other two are serving in Singapore and the Malaya Union respectively. I am asking the two Governors for reports on the matters raised in the second part of the Question and will write to my hon. Friend when I receive them.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: I should like to ask that, in view of the fact that there exist already in the Chinese community trade unions some thousands of years old,

    23
    no pressure will be brought to bear to compel them to accept the more immature Western model.

    Rice Production
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been made and what action has been taken to secure a. greater acreage under cultivation in British Malaya than in the past for the production of rice.
    Mr. George Hall: As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    It was the policy of the Malayan authorities before the outbreak of war with Japan to increase the rice production of the country, and production in 1940 had reached a figure of 335,000 tons. During the period of Japanese occupation the condition of rice-producing areas deteriorated and the estimated harvest for 1945–46 was only some 245,000 tons. The immediate aim of the Malaya Union Government is to restore rice production to its prewar level and a variety of measures have been taken to that end. These include irrigation, the distribution of seed to growers both for the extension of the area under cultivation and to replace unsatisfactory seeds introduced by the Japanese, the provision of fertilisers and tools and the control of the movements of working cattle as well as general propaganda to secure increased production. In addition, a grant of £38,000 for equipment has been made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the purpose of developing areas of forest land felled by the Japanese.
    More long-term projects under consideration include the increase in facilities for ploughing, the improvement of seed and fertiliser and the extension of water supplies as well as the opening of suitable new areas. The Governor of the Malaya Union has assured me that every effort is being made, including large financial provision to increase the extent and productivity of padi areas.

    Restaurants
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many State restaurants and Government shops have been opened in the Malaya Union
    24
    and the colony of Singapore; and in what towns or villages.
    Mr. George Hall: Some restaurants have been established for supplying cheap midday meals to the general public. Similar restaurants have been established in Government Departments and business premises. I am asking the Governors of the Malaya Union and Singapore for a report of the number of restaurants and I will write to the hon. Member when I receive it.

    MALTA (TAXATION)
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the proposed legislation in Malta for the imposition of an excess profits tax with retrospective effect covering a period of seven years.
    Mr. George Hall: I am not aware that it is the intention of the Malta Government to introduce any such legislation.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Gold Coast (Municipal Candidates, Deposit)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the criticism in the Gold Coast of the regulation that a municipal candidate should deposit the sum of £10 with his nomination papers, on the ground that the deposit is not returnable; and if he will take steps to have this regulation withdrawn.
    Mr. George Hall: Apart from the one Press conference, which suggested that the deposit might be larger, I understand that there has been almost no local criticism of this regulation. The regulation can only be amended by an ordinance and if there should be general dissatisfaction about its terms the remedy would lie in the hands of the unofficial majority on the new Legislative Council.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Surely it is unjust that these deposits should not be returnable, and does the right hon. Gentleman know any reason why there should be discrimination against municipal candidates there which is not imposed on municipal candidates here?
    Mr. Hall: It is an exception to the normal Colonial practice and I am taking the matter up with the Governor.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is not the whole point of constitutional advances such as have taken place in the Gold Coast that they should be enabled to settle points of this kind for themselves?
    Mr. Hall:Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the fact that this money is described as a deposit, what becomes of the money if it is not returned?
    Mr. Hall: It is paid into the Treasury.
    Mr. Silverman: A new kind of democracy?

    Nyasaland (Tree Cutting)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what prohibitions there are in Nyasaland on the felling of trees that would normally provide timber suitable for the construction of native houses; and what are the reasons for these prohibitions.
    Mr. George Hall: In State forest reserves and unalienated Crown land the cutting of trees is prohibited without prior permission. In Native trust lands, subject to certain exceptions necessary for conservation purposes, resident natives may cut trees without licence in any area for use as building material, and other natives may exercise the same right with the consent of the native authority concerned. These rules are based on the normal principles of forestry, with a view to preserving the natural resources of the country.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is the Colonial Secretary satisfied that the areas where they may cut are sufficient to provide the normal accommodation?
    Mr. Hall: I think that is the precaution I have referred to.

    Nigeria (Education)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give details of the educational programme proposed for Nigeria as part of the 10-year development plan; and whether this programme has been sanctioned by his Department.
    Mr. George Hall: The 10-year education plan for Nigeria is at present being considered here, in consultation with a representative of the Nigerian Government. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is
    26
    not therefore practicable for me to give him details at this stage, but I will do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Turton: Is it not a fact that this educational programme is being delayed by the failure of the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind on the reports of the committee on higher education?
    Mr. Hall: No, that is not so.
    Colonel Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the plan was received from the Nigerian Government?
    Mr. Hall: If my memory serves me aright, about the end of April or the beginning of May.

    SARAWAK (CONSTITUTION)
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the nine cardinal principles laid down in the preamble to the 1941 Constitution of Sarawak will be upheld as promised in the Cession Bill proceedings of the Council N:egri meeting of 17th May, 1946; or whether they will be affected by the coming changes in the constitution.
    Mr. George Hall: The nine cardinal principles have been retained in the constitution. They are in general accord with those which govern the administration of other parts of the Colonial Empire; and I see no reason why they should be affected by any future changes in the constitution.

    ARMED FORCES (REVIEW OF SENTENCES)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Prime Minister whether, now that Victory day has been celebrated in this country, all cases of detention of men serving overseas will be reviewed with the object of granting a free pardon or a reduction of sentences.
    The Prime Minister: In the Army and Royal Air Force sentences are automatically reviewed after six weeks, and again at intervals of not more than six months with a view to their remission, mitigation or suspension whenever warranted. A review is also carried out after one-third of the sentence has been served. In addition, special review boards have been set up in this country, B.A.O.R. and M.E.F.

    27
    to review sentences, and it is hoped to extend these boards to all overseas commands. Sentences by naval courts are reviewed on receipt in the Admiralty and may also be reviewed at any time on petition by the offender. The process is exactly the same for offenders serving sentences of detention or imprisonment at home or abroad. Since the conclusion of hostilities a more lenient view has been taken in reviewing sentences, and I do not think that any special action is called for on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend is considering this matter will he also consider the related point that men are sometimes kept waiting for a long time before their trial comes on, sometimes as long as five or six months, especially in Italy?
    The Prime Minister: That seems to be another question. If the hon. Member has any particular points perhaps he will put them to the responsible Service Minister.
    Mr. McGovern: Where these reviews are carried out in the way the right hon. Gentleman mentions, especially in view of the fact that the war is now over and with it the period of danger when men are highly strung and commit many offences, will he really consider on behalf of the Government making a generous gesture to wipe out most of these sentences?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a careful review, and really I do not believe in the oriental practice of a general gaol delivery to celebrate a victory.
    Mr. Peter Freeman: Is it not a fact that a general review has been made in America, and could the right hon. Gentleman not give special consideration to these cases, particularly where they are small offences and as the men concerned have been on active service?
    The PrimeMinister: These cases are under review. The hon. Member must not assume that every case is exactly the same.

    GERMANY (COUNCIL OF LABOUR, VISIT)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much public money was involved in the recent visit
    28
    to Germany by a delegation from the National Council of Labour.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): None, Sir. The cost is to be met by the National Council.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Fruit (Restricted Sale)
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Food if he will make it illegal for shopkeepers to restrict to hours, other than the normal shopping hours, the sale of certain specified fruits of which there may be only spasmodic issues.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): It would, I am sure, be wrong to attempt to regulate too closely the retailer's method of running his business.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does this answer imply that the Ministry of Food approve of the system of restricting the sale of special fruit to certain special hours, and does the Minister realise that housewives with children or those who have to go out to work, find this practice most unsatisfactory?
    Dr. Summerskill: We do not necessarily approve them, but we do not feel that this calls for another Order. We have to think carefully when making Orders, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should try to force me to accept this proposal. If we make an Order it is necessary to enforce it, and if we accepted the proposal enforcement would be very difficult.

    Bakers (Sugar)
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brownasked the Minister of Food whether he will restore the cut imposed on 2nd May in the sugar ration to the bakery trade, since it has been proved that the more sugar the confectioners have the less flour they use.
    Dr. Sunimerskill: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has already announced that the reduction in the allocation of sugar to the bakery trade will be restored as from 18th August.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Why is it necessary to wait until the end of August? Why was it not done when bread rationing started?
    Dr. Summerskill: Because the allocation period is eight weeks, and from an administrative point of view it is better to wait until that date.

    Loaf (Size)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food whether he will now cause the size of the loaf to be restored to two pounds, as the smaller loaves require 10 per cent. more labour and time to produce and the proportion of crusts and ends, being greater than in larger loaves, results in more wastage of bread.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 8th July to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère).

    Bread Rationing
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food whether he will re-assess the value of the L, M, and G coupons in order to permit single persons living alone to obtain fresh bread without depositing their coupons with a baker.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot adopt this suggestion, but he is making it possible for persons living alone, who find the G coupons awkward, to exchange them for the appropriate number of L coupons, worth one B.U. each, at any food office for periods up to 16 weeks at a time.
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Minister of Food whether machinists engaged in making blouses and dresses in light materials with electrically-driven machines are classed, under his regulations, as manual workers for the purpose of the rationing of bread.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, if employed in factories exclusively devoted to the making up of textile materials, and engaged for an average of not less than 22 hours a week on work which is not of a light or sedentary character.
    Sir S. Reed: Is the hon. Lady aware that this work is of the lightest possible character; that no garment weighs more than 2¼ lbs., and is it not really grotesque to treat those engaged in these operations as manual workers?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman will examine the schedule he will find that all these workers are not classed as manual workers.
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Food the number of calories provided by the proposed 9-ounce bread ration; and whether the bread and grain ration will still supply 45 per cent. of the total calories, as stated in Command Paper 6785, of April, 1946.
    Dr. Summerskill: The bread ration of 9 ounces will provide about 640 calories per day. The figure of 45 per cent. to which the hon. Member refers, was related to grain foods and potatoes; the percentage may be slightly less as a result of the reduced consumption of bread and flour, which is anticipated under the bread rationing scheme.
    Sir J. Lucas: Is not the hon. Lady aware that growers of potatoes will tend to withhold their stocks to try to keep their cattle alive? Has that been taken into account?
    Dr. Summerskill: We shall certainly keep an eye on the growers, but I do not believe that they are so anti-social.
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Minister of Food if he will make provision in the bread-rationing scheme to ensure that sufferers from any complaint such as diabetes, which makes it necessary for them to have a specific quantity each day, will have special consideration, irrespective of the category in which they would normally fall under the scheme.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend will consult his medical and scientific advisers to ensure that people who suffer from any complaints are not handicapped by the bread-rationing scheme. He has been advised sufferers from diabetes will find the normal arrangements adequate.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Food whether persons employed in the distributive trades performing manual work, such as warehousemen and butchers, are entitled to the extra bread ration applicable to other manual workers.
    Dr. Summerskill: Such persons will be entitled to the manual workers' ration if they are engaged in work involving shifting, loading and unloading heavy goods for an average of not less than 22 hours a week.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in butchers' shops

    31
    in London and in many parts of the country, three butchers out of eight are entitled to be regarded as doing manual labour, although they are doing precisely the same work as the other five, who cannot claim that, or whose claims are turned down? Will she re-examine the whole question?
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the hon. Lady aware that some of the people employed in warehouses do far more manual labour than other people who are classed as manual labourers?
    Dr. Summerskill: The answer to my hon. Friend is that these workers must apply to the trade union, and their case will be examined.
    Major Wyattasked the Minister of Food whether he will prevent the sale of articles made with pastry in restaurants for so long as bread rationing continues.
    Dr. Summerskill: Catering establishments will be rationed as regards bread and flour and I see no reason to prevent them from using their flour to make pastry if they wish.
    Major Wyatt: Is the hon Lady aware that, although this might only be a symbolical matter, it will give expression to a very strong feeling in many parts of the country against people who are able to eat unnecessary luxury food in restaurants?
    Dr. Summerskill: My hon. and gallant Friend must realise that pastry is not only used for jam tarts; it is used to make pies for workers.
    Mr. Perrinsasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the open-air nature of their employment, he will increase the ration of nine ounces of bread per day for insurance agents.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot do this.
    Mr. Perrins: Will the hon. Lady say whether the Minister is prepared to accept representations from the trade union organisations?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the trade unions concerned care to make representations to
    32
    us we shall certainly consider them, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that if we open the door to insurance agents we must also allow in the rent collector, the meter reader and the commercial traveller.
    Mr. Mack: While thanking the questioner for the consideration shown for members of my organisation, may I ask the hon. Lady if she is not aware that I have already communicated with her on the subject and that the answer has been delayed?
    Dr. Summerskill: I must remind the hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of knowledge of trade union matters, that we are advised on this question by the Food Advisory Committee of the T.U.C. If he likes to make further representations, his comrades will certainly consider the matter.

    Eggs
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Minister of Food how many shell eggs per ration book were issued in the period between February and May this year.
    Dr. Summerskill: From the beginning of February to the end of May this year, 28 shell eggs per ration book were issued for non-priority consumers.
    Major Lloyd: Does the hon. Lady recall that on 15th February the Minister then in charge of food definitely told the House that he intended that there should be an issue of 40 shell eggs per ration book for the period February to May? Is this just another of the many broken promises of the Government?
    Dr. Summerskill: I certainly do recall that, but, unfortunately, we are unable to control the elements or the hens.

    Bees (Sugar)
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brownasked the Minister of Food if he will restore the autumn ration of 10 lbs. of sugar per stock of bees, and thereby ensure a maximum supply of honey during 1947.
    Dr. Summerskill: On the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend proposes to authorise the customary allowance of 10 lb. of sugar per colony for the feeding of bees during the autumn and winter.

    Rabbits
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Food why so few rabbits are for sale in the retailers' shops.
    Dr. Summerskill: Rabbits are usually scarce at this time of the year because it is the breeding season in this country, and because of the prohibition of exports from Eire. Supplies coming forward from Australia and New Zealand are not sufficient to make good the shortage.
    Mr. Norman Bower: Will the hon. Lady consider increasing the supply by offering for sale some of the "rabbits" on the Government Front Bench?
    Mr. Speaker: Silly, provocative questions like that are out of place.

    Ministry Trade Experts
    Lieut.-Colonel Thorpasked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken to replace in his Department the trade experts who gave their services during the war, and have since returned to their businesses.
    Dr. Summerskill: The majority of the senior trade experts who served the Ministry during the war are still at their posts. Those who have had to return to their own firms have been replaced by others already serving in the Ministry, or by civil servants who have become sufficiently experienced to undertake the work.

    Whole Wheat
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange for a supply of whole wheat to be available for human consumption, particularly for those for whom wholemeal flour is essential for health.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is arranging for whole wheat to be available, under licence, to householders and institutions for milling into flour for human consumption, but the allowance of bread units will be correspondingly reduced. Wholemeal flour will continue to be available from the usual suppliers.

    Night Workers
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food whether he will authorise extra rations of bread and cheese to night workers or to permanent night watchmen at premises not provided with canteens.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to adopt this suggestion.
    Mr. Keeling: As night workers at such premises are obviously no less deserving of extra food than night workers at premises which have canteens, will the hon. Lady receive a deputation on this subject from night watchmen and other night workers?
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that will serve any useful purpose, because the employers of night watchmen can supply a packed meal service, as other employers do.

    Standards of Service
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience caused to housewives and other shoppers by the late arrival of fresh food, which causes uncertainty, queueing and repeated visits to shops; and what prospect there is of a return to prewar hours of arrival.
    Dr. Summerskill: Shortage of supplies, manpower, and of road and rail transport, all contribute to the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that everyone is doing his best to improve matters, and that a substantial improvement has already been achieved, but he cannot say when a return to prewar standards of service will be possible.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the hon. Lady quite sure that the later arrival under Government control is not duo in part either to the mechanism of Government control itself or to the later hour at which workers in the wholesale markets arrive at work under Government control?
    Dr. Summerskill: We have just emerged from six years of war, during which time we were not making lorries and wagons.
    Mr. Walkden: Is not the produce in fruit and vegetable markets, except for imported produce, subject to the whims, fancies and antiquities of free enterprise and, that being so, how can the Ministry of Food make any alteration so long as the ideas of the other side of the House are applied?

    Tea (Catering Establishments)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food the amount of tea expressed in ounces per person, per

    35
    week, allocated by his Department for consumption in restaurants, hotels, catering establishments, canteens and business premises.
    Dr. Summerskill: Tea is allocated to catering establishments on the basis of 1 lb. for 224 hot beverages served, and to business premises for office teas at the rate of 9 oz weekly for each 20 persons.

    Flour Store, Burton-on-Trent
    Colonel Wiggasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a considerable quantity of white flour stored in the warehouse of Messrs. W. G. Cooper & Sons, Limited, road transport contractors, Acresford Mills, Burton-on-Trent, is rapidly becoming useless, because of the failure of his Department to give instructions as to its disposal; and on how many other occasions this spoiling of flour has happened because of the failure of his Department to give adequate instructions to Messrs. Cooper & Sons, Limited.
    Dr. Summerskill: The relatively small quantity of white flour which is stored in this warehouse on behalf of two flour millers is in a satisfactory condition. On no occasion has flour spoiled because of any failure to give adequate instructions for its disposal.
    Colonel Wigg: Is the hon. Lady aware that her reply is in sharp contrast with the statements made by Mr. Cooper at a meeting in my constituency, called for another purpose, when he used the occasion to make the gravest allegations against the Ministry?
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that an invitation to that meeting was given to the hon. and gallant Member and he refused to go—
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question.
    Dr. Summerskill: As these allegations were rather serious, I think we should clear the matter up. After Mr. Cooper had made allegations at the meeting, he said, subsequently, that there were not 20 tons of flour going bad in his warehouse, but there was a considerable quantity. Interviewed later, he admitted that there were only about four tons of flour and none of it had gone bad, but some of it might do if it was left much longer. He
    36
    accused the local Press of making a mountain out of a molehill. Actually the Press were quite correct in their report of what Mr. Cooper said.
    Mr. Osborne: Is it not a fact that the words that were used at the meeting were not that the flour was rapidly becoming useless, but that it was deteriorating, and that there is a great deal of difference? I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill in this matter.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must ask questions, and not make statements.
    Colonel Wigg: Is the hon. Lady aware, as reference has been made to the meeting, that I was invited to attend, and declined to do so, and that the tactics were to announce me as a speaker although I had declined? Is she further aware that my Question was couched in terms put to me by the chairman, who is a distinguished Member of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Another Tory ramp.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must not be too prepared to run after hares.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a few minutes ago you rebuked one of my hon. Friends for putting a silly and provocative question, is it in Order for an hon. Member opposite to shout "another Tory ramp?"
    Mr. Speaker: The remark about a Tory ramp is not out of Order. If I may give the right hon. Gentleman a quotation, I would say:
    "We should never get too mealy-mouthed or frightened about little tiffs that occur in in the course of our affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2228.]
    That seems to me to be very sound advice, which was stated in the House on 12th April of this year by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
    Mr. Stanley: Would you give the same advice to my hon. Friend the Member for West Harrow (Mr. Bower), as your censoring him beforehand may have made him feel that in future he has to be too mealy-mouthed?

    Bread (Animal Food)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that about two pounds of bread, per animal, is fed daily to about 10,000 greyhounds; and if he will make clear his policy in regard to the feeding of bread to animals during the period of bread rationing.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend will let me have evidence in support of his statement I shall be glad to go into this matter. Animals may not, of course, be fed on bread unless it is unfit for human consumption.
    Mr. Sparks: As my hon. Friend has referred to bread that is unfit for human consumption, can she take any steps, in view of the bread rationing, to see that there is no bread whatever that is unfit for human consumption?
    Dr. Summerskill: We hope to do so.

    Sunday School Treats
    Mr. Perrinsasked the Minister of Food if he will consider issuing special permits enabling Sunday schools and kindred organisations to obtain supplies of bread and cakes, in addition to sugar, tea, milk and butter, etc., for the purpose of continuing the long-established practice of holding annual treats for scholars.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. The necessary arrangements have been made.

    Food Parcels (Export)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in a position to make a further statement on the despatch of food parcels to starving people abroad and, if so, whether he will give the broad outline of the scheme.
    Dr. Summerskill: I regret having to inform my hon. Friend that after careful consideration my right hon. Friend is unable at the present moment, when we are rationing our own bread, to sanction the sending of food parcels abroad. My right hon. Friend hopes that both this decision and the reason for it may be reviewed in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this answer will cause great distress among a. large number of people, and will she explain why it is necessary to have a delay, in view of the
    38
    fact that the proposal only means further self-sacrifice on the part of individuals, and no further drain on the food resources of this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend will put another Question in perhaps two months' time, he may be more satisfied with the answer.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the meantime, in those two months, many thousands of people abroad will starve and people in this country will be prevented from helping their friends in nations abroad?

    Flour Packing
    Major Wyattasked the Minister of Food whether he will make arrangements for the sale of flour in bags containing one pound and two pounds, as well as three pounds.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply on this matter given on 10th July to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor).
    Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: What will be the additional wastage resulting from the use of smaller bags?
    Dr. Summerskill: I could not say without notice.

    Haggis and Mealy Puddings
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food whether haggis and mealy puddings will remain free of points.
    Dr. Summerskill: Haggis will remain unrationed. Mealy puddings come within the definition of flour confectionery and will require the surrender of B.U. coupons.
    Mr. Spence: Will the hon. Lady consider the suet content of a mealy pudding as being a meat product and, therefore, take it oft points?
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that haggis is the great chieftain of the pudding clan, and will she see that it is done due deference?
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: What steps are being taken to increase the supply of haggis to England?
    Dr. Summerskill: This decision was not taken to prevent an uprising in Scotland,

    39
    but because haggis contains the heart, lungs and liver of sheep and is chopped up with suet, onion and oatmeal, while mealy pudding contains oatmeal and fats, and, therefore, is flour confectionery.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I congratulate the hon. Lady on having given the first real definition of haggis?

    Herring Processing
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the Herring Industry Board or otherwise, to use herring for conversion into oil, fish meal, margarine and soap; and what is being done in collaboration with other appropriate Departments to develop these industries in Aberdeen.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend has recently set up a Committee of Inquiry, on which his Department, the Scottish Home Department and the Herring Industry Board are represented, to examine the possibilities of converting herrings into oil and meal. The suitability of Aberdeen will no doubt be considered by the committee.
    Mr. Hughes: When will this committee begin work?
    Dr. Summerskill: The committee has already begun.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: Will the hon. Lady take pilchards into consideration?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady is always taking pilchards into consideration.

    Fresh Herrings and Kippers
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, at the height of the herring fishing season, it remains almost impossible to obtain fresh herrings or kippers in any provincial town or country village in Great Britain; and what steps he is taking to improve the distribution of this valuable article of food.
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement in the first part if his Question. In May, the last month for which I have detailed figures, the provinces received about 70 per cent. of the herrings, and about 80 per cent. of
    40
    the kippers, distributed through trade channels. In order to improve distribution my right hon. Friend has reduced maximum prices; is granting licences freely for new retail fish businesses; is paying for the use of refrigeration on long rail journeys; and requires kipperers to offer specified percentages of their output to inland wholesalers.
    Mr. Boothby: Will the hon. Lady give consideration to the revival of the fish hawker, who has been very badly missed in the country this year?
    Dr. Summerskill: We have given many licences this year to fish hawkers.

    BEER PRODUCTION
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the public dissatisfaction concerning the beer supplies of Birmingham, which were reduced by 50 to 75 per cent. during Victory weekend while the cut in barley supplies has been only 15 per cent., he will inquire into the widespread faulty distribution of beer.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend cannot find that supplies of beer in Birmingham were reduced during Victory weekend to the extent suggested. On the contrary, brewers and publicans, by conserving stocks, increased supplies during the period to above 85 per cent. of those in the previous year.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still dissatisfaction in Birmingham on the question of beer supplies, and that what the people there want are not figures on paper, but beer in glasses?
    Dr. Summerskill: Now that the gravity of beer is to be reduced I think my hon. Friend will find that the beer will be more thirst quenching, and that there will be more to go round.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my hon. Friend watch the beer supply position, not only in Birmingham but elsewhere, because there is a widespread feeling that supplies are being withheld with a political object behind it?
    Colonel Wiggasked the Minister of Food if he will arrange for increased sup-lies of beer to go to Dudley and

    41
    Netherton in view of the special needs of heavy manual workers engaged in chain making, mining and similar industries.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend announced yesterday that he had arranged for the brewers to produce a larger quantity of beer by reducing average gravities by 10 per cent. This will, in part, mitigate the present shortage. My right hon. Friend regrets that it would not be practicable to make special arrangements for the varying needs of different classes of workers, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. Nally: Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent an adjoining constituency where there is a far heavier percentage of workers in all the industries mentioned in the schedule? If she intends to be generous at any time will she bear in mind constituencies other than that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg)?
    Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me how to assess a degree of thirst.
    Mr. Nally: I would be happy to be used for testing purposes.

    ACTS OF VIOLENCE, PALESTINE (WHITE PAPER)
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): A White Paper, giving a statement of information relating to acts of violence in Palestine, will be available to Members at the Vote Office at 5 p.m. today. This Paper has been prepared in accordance with a promise made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Adjournment Debate on 1st July and was, of course, written before the recent outrage at the King David Hotel, Jerusalem.
    Mr. Stanley: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether copies of this Paper will be made available in America?
    Mr. Morrison: I will certainly consider that point and do the best I can.

    GREEN LINE COACHES (CHEAP FARES)
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The House will remember that on 8th July I announced the partial restoration
    42
    of cheap fares on the main line railways. I am able now to announce that about the end of September the London Passenger Transport Board will introduce the following facilities on their Green Line coach services on the basis of return journey for single fare plus one half.

    (1) Cheap day return fares to Central London on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and , Thursdays, subject to a minimum fare of 2s. These tickets will be available on coaches arriving in London after 10.30 a.m., and for return on coaches leaving London before 4.30 p.m., or after 6.30 p.m.

    (2) Cheap day return tickets from Central London on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays available on any coach on the day of issue. Minimum fare 2s.

    (3) Weekly season tickets available for six return journeys, one on each weekday, at the cost of six cheap day return fares, subject to a minimum charge of 12s., without restriction as to the time of travel.

    The scope of cheap fare facilities on the coaches is necessarily limited for the present as the margins of coach accommodation are small and the Board have no spare vehicles with which to increase the services.
    I should not be justified in introducing cheap fares generally on the Board's railways having regard to the relatively low level of their ordinary fares, but to provide for juveniles a facility parallel with that provided by the main line railways, the Board will, from 1st August, issue cheap day return tickets to juvenile parties by prior arrangement. The return fare will be single fare plus one half, subject to a minimum single fare of 9d. for accompanying adults and 4½d. for juveniles. The other conditions applying to these tickets will be similar to those applying to juvenile party tickets on the main line railways.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: During the holiday season would not the Minister consider introducing cheap fares to the holiday resorts?
    Mr. Barnes: That has already been provided for by the announcement I read in connection with the main line railways.
    Mr. Marlowe: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the cost of a return ticket to Bexley?
    Mr. Barnes: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will make inquiries he will very soon ascertain.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: As these Green Line coaches are used by a large number of people for rambling at the weekend, which is the only time when they are free, will the Minister consider extending these cheap fares to weekends at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, certainly, at the earliest possible opportunity.

COAL INDUSTRY (RELAXATION OF LABOUR CONTROLS)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of labour controls in the coalmining industry. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, who has been in touch with the employers' and workers' organisations concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has informed them that the Essential Work (Coalmining Industry) Order, 1943, will be revoked with effect from 1st September next. In view of the present position in regard to coal supplies, however, the Government do not consider that they would be justified in dispensing with all forms of labour control in the coalmining industry, and it has accordingly been decided to amend the Control of Engagement Orders, 1945 and 1946, so as to apply to men aged 18 to 50 (inclusive) in the coalmining industry. In appropriate cases this control will be enforced, where necessary, by the issue of directions under Defence Regulation 58A.
The general effect of these changes will be that from 1st September, 1946, workers will be free to leave employment at a particular colliery and colliery employers will be free to discharge workers. Those who leave or who are discharged from a particular colliery will be at liberty to find for themselves employment at other collieries and such undertakings will be free from any restriction upon the engagement of labour. Men between the ages of 18 and 50 (inclusive) whose
44
normal employment is employment in the coalmining industry or whose current unemployment books bear the industry letters S.A. will not, however, be free to take employment outside the industry otherwise than through a local office of the Ministry of Labour.
The new provision will be operated with the object of conserving the labour force of the coalmining industry. Every effort will be made by the officers of the two Departments concerned to overcome by persuasive means the objections of men who do not wish to remain in the coalmining industry and to induce them to accept suitable openings in it. It is hoped that it will be necessary to resort to compulsory measures only in very exceptional cases.
As has already been announced, ballottees, optants, and volunteers who entered the coal mines as an alternative to compulsory military service will not be held in the mines beyond the date when they will become eligible for release in accordance with the age and length of service formula applicable to Class A release from the Army. Men without previous coalmining experience who volunteered for coalmining employment and were specially released from His Majesty's Forces before the end of the war in Europe will not be held compulsorily in the industry beyond a period of six months after the date on which they would have been eligible for demobilisation in Class A had they remained in the Forces. In the case of men with previous coalmining experience who were directed back to the industry following registration under the Registration for Employment Order, the new control will be operated in such a way as to permit of the gradual release of those men who wish to leave the coalmining industry. Special consideration will also be given to the cases of new entrants to the industry, so that no one need be deterred from giving the industry a fair trial by the fear that he will be compulsorily held in it against his will.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Major Ernest Ashley Bramall, for the Borough of Bexley.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1946
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to the Coal Situation for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, namely:

  Class VI., Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power… … …

  £10

  Class X., Vote 4, Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services) … …

  £10

  £20"

  —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  3.43 p.m.

  COAL SITUATION
  Mr. Harold Macmillan: The Opposition have thought it right to exercise their traditional opportunity, by asking for this Vote on the 18th Supply Day. I think the whole Committee will recognise that it would be quite wrong if we were to part for the Recess without a Debate upon the coal position which will give the Minister an opportunity of rendering an account of his stewardship. For nearly 12 months the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been obsessed with the distant prospect of a Socialist Utopia, and it is perhaps useful and salutary for them to come down occasionally from the clouds, and to debate the present and the immediate future. All Debates in which the right hon. Gentleman takes part have a pleasing element of doubt, and even a certain speculative flavour. There is uncertainty as to what will be his mood. Sometimes he is in a conciliatory and accommodating spirit. Then he adopts the statesman's role. Sometimes the old Adam is too much for
  46
  him. In the first mood, we, on this side of the Committee, are praised by him as helpful critics. At the end of the Debates on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill he said he was grateful for "the cooperation received from all quarters of the House." That is pure Jekyll. He has another mood, and when those fits come upon him, generally at weekends—those are the dangerous times and Durham and Northumberland are specially dangerous spots; he had a very bad attack recently at Morpeth—then he puts on what he calls "the full dignity of a Cabinet Minister." On other occasions he relapses into what the Attorney-General, if he were here, would no doubt call "the language of the gutter." Then we have those elegant phrases about "impudence," "cheek," "sewage" and "disinfectants." That mood is pure, unadulterated Hyde. However, there is a certain attraction in this very uncertainty. Sunshine and showers alternate, as on an April day, and are all the more fascinating for that. I, for one, have quite fallen a victim to this almost feminine charm of the right hon. Gentleman, this pleasing inconstancy, this ravishing instability. I know his tricks so well, yet I am always captivated. Of the right hon. Gentleman we can surely say that he is a great performer and that age cannot wither him nor custom stale his infinite variety.
  Any Debate on coal must divide itself into two parts, one, the interests of those employed by the industry, the great mining community, and the other the interests of those served by the industry, the domestic and industrial consumers. Unfortunately, owing to the failure to publish the "Statistical Digest" in time for this Debate, we are deprived of the valuable information in that excellent document. All of us owe a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. and gallant Friend the former Minister of Mines, for having instituted this Digest. It gives us an enormous amount of detailed information in most useful form. Unfortunately, although the year 1944 was dealt with and published by May, 1945, at the end of July, 1946, we have not received the copy covering the year 1945. We waited until almost the last Supply Day in the hope of this information, and we are put in some difficulty by the fact that it is not available. If certain statistics I have to use are out-of-date, I must apologise to the Committee.

  47
  I would first make some mention of the human side of the problem and especially ask certain questions on the subject of accidents. The House of Commons and the nation have always been particularly sensitive and anxious about the risks inseparable from the miner's calling. Although risks are taken by many others by land, air and sea, yet the underground risk has a peculiarly moving, and even haunting, aspect. Much attention has been given to this problem for many generations and much legislation and administrative regulation devoted to it. The Committee and the public would like to be informed and reassured on the progress which is being made. The figures covering 1944 showed a very substantial decline, both absolute and also relative to the number of men employed, in the figures of killed and seriously injured. That is, no doubt, due to measures, which have long been operating and planned, at last bearing fruit. I shall be glad to have an assurance that this happy trend has continued in 1945.
  The 1944 figures showed, unfortunately, an increase in the injured and in the disabled—"disabled" being denned as disabled for three days or more—but this may be due to a continual improvement in the reporting and classification of those accidents. It may be due to the fact that older men, or a greater proportion of older men, work in the mines. I was rather concerned to see in those figures a rise from 120,000 in 1938 to 157,000 in 1944. That is in relation to underground work. The total including surface work has risen from 131,000 in 1938 to 173,000 in 1944. the Committee would be very glad to hear that 1945 had shown some improvement in this respect.
  I now pass from what I would call the human to the economic problems of the industry. The country wants to know the position and the prospects. They want to be reassured both as to the domestic consumer and the industrial consumer. If they cannot be reassured, at least they want to know the truth. They want to know what prospects there are—if any—of exports. They expect— and I am sure the Minister will not disappoint them—a full, frank and fair statement. If things are bad, let us know the worst. We want to know also what, if any, remedial measures are being taken. This is the first coal Debate I
  48
  have heard for several years, because I have been away, and I cannot help recalling the old Debates we had for nearly 20 years between the wars. It is a strange atmosphere in which I find myself, from this point of view that all my life the problem has been the apparent over-production of coal in relation to home and foreign demands. The cures we then discussed—many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will remember those Debates only too well— were to stimulate demand, both internal and external, by monetary expansion, by public works, exports, subsidies and similar measures, to reduce cut-throat competition by amalgamation, and to improve the grading and the selling of the coal. All this has been changed—not, alas, by human intelligence but by human folly; not by wisdom and virtue but by wickedness, for this new situation is the outcome of war and the aftermath of war. Then we used to talk of selling coal. Now we talk of saving coal. Then we used to talk of new uses for coal. Now we talk of new substitutes for coal. Then we talked of new markets. Now we dream only of new restrictions.
  This must be a shock to us when we reflect upon it. I remember when I was a boy the shock that came over the country when the Navy was first put upon oil instead of upon coal—and the reaction in South Wales. I still feel a shock when I am told that progress is being made in converting railway engines to burning imported oil instead of British coal. I am alarmed at the restrictions proposed or adumbrated in regard to electric power. I particularly fear the ultimate results, for these changes, once made, are not easily reversed. Markets once lost are not easily regained. But we must recognise the necessity for the devices and stratagems in our dire need, and therefore it would be useful if the right hon. Gentleman could say in his reply something of their progress. First, what progress has been made in the conversion of railway, public utility and industrial plant to oil? Secondly, what practical assistance is given to expedite these conversions and which Minister is responsible, the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry or the Ministry of Supply? Third, what financial inducement by way of writing off capital on the expenditure concerned is being granted by the Exchequer? Finally, what progress, if any, is being made with the committee

  49
  which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us recently had been set up to consider the import duty upon fuel oil? If the Minister could reply to those four points by saying that a strong, active effort is being made, it would at least make a temporary palliative of our difficulties, but it is difficult to discover and assess the real facts in this coal situation. That is one of our problems. Official and unofficial statements in this, as in many other spheres, are confusing, vacillating, fluid and often self-contradictory. Let me take the Minister's own pronouncements. They leave one in a daze. If I may quote his own words, on 21st October, 1945, he said:
  "The coal position is so grave that I am bound to ask for a greater effort."
  On 17th January, 1946, he said:
  "The fuel position is very much better than we anticipated in September."
  On 29th January we are bad again. He said—in the House— on that date:
  "… the existing position contains the elements of an industrial disaster."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 703.]
  On 22nd March his spirits have risen. He said:
  "At one time it looked as if factories would have to be closed but we have overcome the stringency owing to the fine efforts of the workers."
  On 15th April his mood changes again:
  "The coal position is still very sticky."
  On 4th June, 1946, he says:
  "I am not so alarmed about the coal position as some people."
  At this point when I and many others felt reassured, Mr. Lawther entered the lists, and a few weeks ago declared:
  "The situation contains the elements of an industrial catastrophe."
  But the Minister was equal to the occasion. In what I might call the absolute, latest stop-press news, he made a fresh revelation to the nation with greater political acumen and more experience than his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He chose a newspaper of which the Attorney-General said he had never heard but nevertheless saw fit to insult, the "News of the World." On the very Sunday following the great Bat-tersea broadcast—the great Battersea outburst—but of course on another page, there appeared an exclusive two-column special interview with the Minister in
  50
  which he exclaimed, in beautiful black type:
  "I am a super-optimist."
  With all these variations we are a little in a maze, and the public have a right to know the truth. Let us remember the story of food. The shuffling, the hesitation and the lack of candour have brought down one Minister of Food, and look like engulfing another. Let the Minister read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the moral of the food story, for the public have the right to know the truth, and in peace, as in war, the public that is taken into the Government's full confidence will always play the game in return. If we are in a mess—as I think we are—let us take counsel together as to how we are to get out of it. For that purpose I would like to put a number of questions which I hope either the Minister when he replies, or the Parliamentary Secretary when he winds up the Debate may be able to answer.
  I will first deal with output. We have only the first 26 weeks finished of 1946, and we have to compare that with the first 26 weeks of 1945. I want to be absolutely, scrupulously fair if I can be about all the factors in this matter, and if there arc factors which I have omitted, I am sure the Minister will remind me. I do not claim to be an expert on the figures, which are quite difficult to analyse. I understand there were 18,000 fewer men at work in the first 26 weeks of this year as against the first 26 weeks of last year. That would be generally regarded as the loss of about 2,250,000 tons, which nobody can help That is a loss due to the 18,000 men not being there. Against that, in the first 26 weeks of 1945 there were more holidays than in the first 26 weeks of 1946. I am in formed that the holiday loss, so to speak, of 1946 amounted to 2,600,000 tons and the holiday loss of 1945 to 4,500,000 tons. Therefore there is a gain of 2,000,000 tons. Moreover, in 1945 the wagon position was much more serious than in 1946 because of military operations and other reasons. That, I am informed, amounts to a gain on balance of about 800,000 tons. The loss from disputes was happily very low, in each year not more than about 400,000 tons. Therefore, the loss of manpower is almost exactly equated by the gain on the question of holidays and of wagons. So it is

  51
  a fair comparison to take the 26 weeks of each year, and I am informed that there is an increase of about 800,000 to 850,000 tons.
  That is the situation. If I am wrong in my analysis, I am sure the Minister will put me right, but I have done my best to make it as correct as it can be made. I have certain observations to make on that. What will the July figures show? We do not know. What are the July-December figures estimated to produce? On what figures are we working for our estimates? In the first half of the year we are not losing ground but we are not gaining ground, and for the first year of peace that is a disappointing result. I hope I shall not be thought cynical if I say that I fail to detect in any of these figures that automatic response to the inspiration of a Socialist Government, or that immediate psychological reaction to the prospect of working for a State capitalist monopoly which, we are told, would immediately lead to vastly increased production.
  I pass from output to stocks. In April, 1944, the coal distributed and in the hands of users amounted to 12,699,000 tons; in April, 1945, to 10,000,000 tons; in April, 1946, to 6,800,000 tons. That is a decline of nearly half in two years. Is that correct? Let us come to more specialised uses and stocks. There is a classification given in the figures of railways, gas and electricity. I appreciate that this classification is something more than normal—I think about 26 per cent. more than normal That is, of course, largely due to the fact that both domestic and industrial consumers are tending to take coal in the shape of electricity rather than directly into their grates or furnaces, but I am also informed that the stocks are now one-third of normal for these undertakings. Is that correct? Certain industries, including public utilities, have no doubt consumed more coal. I would like the figure of the total overall consumption of coal of all classes. Has it gone up or down in the two periods of 26 weeks under review?
  Then I pass to industrial stocks. I am informed that they are 5,000,000 tons less than at this time last year. Is that correct? In May, 1945, the stocks amounted to 4½ weeks, in May, 1946, to 2½ weeks. Is this correct? Of domestic stocks I
  52
  have no figures. I only know that I have no coal, and I do not suppose anybody else has, but I do not suppose that domestic stocks were ever very large in private houses. I would like to know, therefore, what are the merchant stock piles, which is really the figure. Can the Minister give us any information on that?
  Now I come to the effect of this position upon special industries, industries of the greatest importance to the nation. Many are living from hand to mouth. They have a week's supply. Let us take steel first. The steel output, thanks to the admirable work of the industrial leaders—whom the Government propose, as a reward for their efficiency, shortly to liquidate—has a record output, but the Minister of Supply told us only on 20th May of this year that, owing to the shortage of coal, the steel industry was working at 400,000 tons a year below capacity. Is that correct? It must be correct because it was told us by a Minister. Now the position is even worse because the supply of other raw materials, which were delaying the production of steel, is now rapidly increasing, and therefore I am informed that the potential loss is far greater than that because these other raw materials are also acting as a block now in the supply lines and the potential lines, and it is more in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 tons per year below capacity if the coal were available. At the end of June there was about two and half weeks' supply for the steel industry. Is that figure correct? I will take a small example. In the Midland area in the middle of June, a reduction of coal was imposed by the fuel authorities. I am informed that this amounts to a loss of steel products in the Midland area alone of about 4,000 tons to 5,000 tons a week. Is this correct? I turn to the chemical industry. Lord McGowan informed us on 23rd May, 1946, that owing to the coal cuts imposed on the chemical industry in January of this year, he had lost £2,500,000 sterling of chemical exports.
  Let me now turn to the other problem of quality, which is almost as important as that of quantity. Here we have a very serious situation. As regards domestic consumption, we know the quality in our own grates. You can make a crazy paving in your garden from the stuff you take out of the grate—[An HON. MEMBER: "If you have a garden."]—if

  53
  you have a garden, but if not, you can pile it up against your doorway. The damage to industrial plant is really serious because the modern boiler plants, if given the right quality of coal, work to their real planned capacity, but if they have to use bad coal they lose enormously. I am informed that the electricity industry has had to use 2,000,000 tons more coal in the year than it would have done if it had coal of prewar quality.
  I have tried to deal shortly with output and with stocks. Perhaps I might say a word on the prospects for the next six or 12 months. On the question of exports, others of my hon. and right hon. Friends who have a greater knowledge than I, will speak and I would only point out that it is a tragic thing that at this time coal exports are not possible. Coal is the most valuable export from the exchange point of view. There are many countries which will sell us their food and raw materials for coal, which will not part with them for blocked sterling. One of them is Sweden, which has just made an arrangement with Poland, so that in the last month Poland has exported an amount of coal to Sweden equal to the whole of British exports for that month. Moreover, it is the export, if it were available, which would be of the greatest assistance to the recovery of Europe. There is nothing more valuable we could do for every country in Europe, countries which I have had the good or ill fortune to serve and know in some detail. It would be the biggest possible contribution we could make to their revival, and it is therefore—I put it no higher than that—a tragic thing that at this moment we should be incapable of reviving our export of coal. For the coal industry itself, it is a tragic thing that markets should be lost just at the time when the greatest prestige and good will could be gained by filling them.
  I pass now to home needs. What is the prospect for the next six months or a year? What is the prospect for the domestic consumer this winter? Is the housewife to stand in the coal queue, as well as in every other queue, and, in addition to being ill-clothed, ill-housed and ill-fed, are we also to freeze? What is the position of the industrial consumer? Shall we see a new form of unemployment, undreamed of before, such as neither Lord Keynes nor any other mone-
  54
  tary reformer, ever thought of? An unemployment not due to lack of credit, not due to a faulty monetary policy, not due to deflation, not due to lack of demand, but an unemployment, for the first time in the history of this country, due to lack of coal? That cannot be solved by White Papers and economic plans. It can only be solved by getting more coal. What will happen if on these narrow margins on which we are working, we should— which God forbid—be subjected to some special difficulties, a very hard winter with a great deal of snow, and be put in the position of an army which, without mobility, is reduced in power; which although it may have a sufficiency of munitions to repel attacks, cannot move from one part of the front to another and has its reserves reduced below the danger point, so that there will be a crash, even if the nominal total reserve is satisfactory?
  Is it true that we are about to enter a period in which we shall be consuming coal at a greater rate than we are producing it. In other words, by decreasing what is left of our stocks, arc we about to run on a deficit basis? I would like the answer to this vital question: What is the calculated weekly deficit likely to be during the next six or nine months taking, let us say, the June figures as our estimate? Is it correct, and I believe it is correct, that that calculated deficit is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1¼ million tons, or 1½ million tons a week? If so, we are entering upon a sea of trouble. Hon. Members may have read one of the most exciting stories of war, "The Green Curve." It was a story published during the South African War, of a besieged city in which the commander watched the curve by which the eating up of his food supplies anticipated the approach of a relieving army was expected to operate. Nearer and nearer he got until finally the curve faced him with disaster. The Minister should watch the "Green Curve," if we are in that position, and we should at least be told. I have tried to analyse our output, stocks and prospects. What remedies do the Government propose?
  Mr. Srubbs: What is yours?
  Mr. Macmillan: I know that hon. Members are not yet quite accustomed to the responsibilities as well as the sweets of

  55
  office; they are still, mentally, in Opposition. But, on a Supply Day it is the long tradition of this House for the Minister to state the policy of the Government in reply to questions put to him, as I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will very capably and effectively do today. I ask what remedies do the Government propose, because it is for the Government to tell this Committee and the nation what they propose. What do they propose about recruitment of labour at home? How are they to attract men to the industry? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the opportunity of stating the position. What is the wastage? How far is it being kept in hand at the moment by the return of men from the Forces, and when is the point reached when that alleviation is expected to dry up? What is being done about juvenile recruitment? We had a statement today by the Minister of Labour. It would have been more comprehensible if we could have seen it. I think the Committee have found it difficult to take in the exact meaning of the statement. But what is the position about absenteeism to be, and what about discipline and the recruitment of foreign labour? What has happened to the Poles? What is the position about the vesting date? Is it to be September, or January? There is a rumour going round that it is to be postponed until next May.
  This interregnum when no one owns the industry—whatever one's views may be about legislation which it is not in Order now to discuss—must be frustrating to everyone. The wheels of the industry tick over, but no new plans or developments or creative energy can be put in motion. This hiatus should be shortened as much as possible now that the decision has been taken by Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree that this gap gives us the worst of both systems. What is the position about the Reid Report? What is being done to implement it? The former Minister, before he left office, started a survey of the whole of the mining industry with a view to ascertaining what steps should be taken to implement the report. Is that survey completed? What steps are being taken? What machinery is being ordered in this period of hiatus, and to whose account, to the account of the firm or of the Government? I am
  56
  informed that these firms are full of orders for mining machinery. What steps are being taken to increase capacity? During the war we did not feel content merely to say that all capacity was being used for a particular form of weapon. If it was vital, we increased the capacity. Mining machinery is vital, and should be increased.
  What is the exact position in regard to the five day week, and what is the Board's decision in the matter? If it is to be delayed until after the vesting date, is that a decision of the Board or of the Minister? We live in a state like that of Mohammed's coffin, suspended between heaven and earth. Since I believe that incentives more powerful than merely the delightful feeling of working for the Government are required, what steps can the Minister adumbrate for better rations, and better supply of consumption goods to the mining industry which, as we all know, would probably be one of the most effective means of increasing production? It would be out of Order to refer to legislation, and that is certainly not my intention, but in the last 12 months Parliament has put forward a huge output of words on the coal industry. A great deal of the time of the Minister of Fuel, and of the managements, has been taken up, and will be taken up, with all the problems arising out of the legislation within the new nationalisation schemes.
  During all this time, which should have been devoted to the practical solution of immediate problems, the energies of all concerned, and the best brains of the industry have been devoted to these other matters. These precious months have been devoured by the locusts of doctrinaire controversy. In spite of the "News of the World" this is the gloomy picture. The outlook is bleak. I am certain that the change of ownership even when it is complete will not solve the problem. In some ways it will aggravate the problem. The position is bad now. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that there is a grave danger that it will become worse. Nevertheless, since the British people are always best able to bear their burdens when asked to face them firmly, I hope the Minister, in answer to the questions I have put, will give us a full and comprehensive statement, and tell us, and the nation, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
  4.21 p.m.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): It is a very warm day and one that seems hardly appropriate for a discussion on the coal situation. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We must look ahead; the country must be fully informed of the position; they must, to use his own language, be told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and that is my intention. But if we are to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, we cannot ignore the historical background of the mining industry. It has bad traditions, extending a long way back. I will not dilate on the sordid, unseemly episodes of the past, but this can be said: If the attention now being given by this House and the public to the coal industry and all that pertains to the coal industry had been accorded over the past 25 years, we should not be faced with the present situation. It is no part of my purpose, however, to trouble the Committee on those matters. I go further and I strongly urge on hon. Members in all quarters of the House to seek to forget the past, and to concentrate on the present position and our future needs.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has, as usual, made an interesting speech. He has asked many questions, to which, in my own fashion, and in the fashion of the Parliamentary Secretary, answers will be given. He has also tried to tempt me. He has dragged in a number of red herrings. But we are not discussing red herrings; we are discussing the coal position. Such speeches as I occasionally make at weekends, which are not always related to the coal position, but are related to the political issues that confront the country—and surely I am entitled to speak of these matters, just as arc other hon. Members—have nothing to do with the case. The right hon. Gentleman twitted me with alternating in my opinion. He is quite right; of course I have done so. When I found that conditions were improving, I said so. On the other hand, when I discovered that a change for the worse had occurred, I informed the country upon the facts. What would the right hon. Gentleman have me do? He demands consistency, but consistency is no virtue when the facts are ever changing, and the position at
  58
  any particular moment determines any utterance to which I may give expression. Therefore, I am left quite cold— [Laughter.]—it is amazing how little is necessary to afford the Opposition some consolation for their present precarious political plight, but I will not enter into that. I am, I say, left quite cold, and if I may use hackneyed language, my withers are quite unwrung, when the right hon. Gentleman makes reference to the variety of statements for which I am responsible.
  It seems to me that it would serve the convenience of the Committee if I stated the facts. When the present Government took office, we discovered that the previous Government had programmed for the ensuing coal year, and that was done in March, 1945. The coal year is not a calendar year. It is defined in this way: It begins on 1st May of one year and ends at the end of April the following year. We made the discovery that the budget prepared by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) estimated requirements at 192 million tons, and that included exports, and exports included bunkering requirements. That was his estimate of what was required for the year 1945–46. On the other hand, he estimated that supplies, including opencast coal—I ask hon. Members to note that—would be in the region of 188 million tons. That represented a deficit of 4 million tons. So the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, away back in March of last year, budgeted for an estimated deficit of 4 million tons.
  I was faced with that deficit when I took office. I am not making any complaint about that. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was faced with great difficulties. That is why he estimated the deficit at 4 million tons. But another deficit appeared after I took office. It arose through no fault of mine. It was-because of the victory holidays. The official victory holidays lasted for three days. The right hon. Member for Bromley was quite right when he said it represented a loss of round about 2,750,000 tons, but, as it happened, there was a spill-over from those holidays. The men took an additional day, and in some districts two days. In consequence, we were faced with a loss of 4,000,000 tons, which represented a deficit for 1945–46 of 8;000,000 tons. It was precisely because of that deficit that

  59
  I asked for an additional 8,000,000 tons from the miners. That was the reason for the so called target. Of course we did not get the additional 8,000,000 tons of coal, but we secured another 2,000,000 tons—2,000,000 in excess of the estimate —and that was something to our advantage. It was desirable that a target figure should be presented to the country.
  What was the position in the winter of last year? We expected that because of this serious deficit of 8,000,000 tons there would be a cessation of industrial activity in some parts of the country. We knew, of course, that the domestic coal consumer would go short. That was inevitable, that was expected. It was estimated by my predecessor, and there was provided what was called the permitted ration of coal for domestic consumers. In fact, we discovered during the winter, in spite of the grim prospects and gloomy forebodings, that hardly any factories were closed down. A few factories suspended operations for a day or two and there were one or two cases in which they were unable to find fuel, and as a result were closed down for a rather longer period. But there was a minimum of industrial loss last winter in spite of the deficit. That was largely due to the efficient and scientific method of distribution employed by the officers of my Department and fortified, I readily admit, by the merchants outside. That was fortunate. We managed to survive the winter. It was a narrow squeak, there is no doubt about that, but we got through. I agree that during the period I alternated in my opinion. It seemed at one time that we were going to get through, and then it appeared as if we were going to be stuck and that bottlenecks would arise. We managed to get through, and that was certainly an achievement.
  I want the Committee to face the budget for this year beginning on the 1st May, the budget for 1946–47. We were left at the end of the coal year with distributed stocks amounting to 6,800,000 tons. That was a low figure. In the previous year it had been 10,100,000 tons. Therefore, there was a deficit on the distributed stocks, stocks available for the electricity, gas and water undertakings, coal merchants, and the like, railway companies, and so on, of about 3,500,000 tons. That is how we began this year. The estimate of stocks at pit banks and
  60
  open cast dumps is about 2,100,000 tons. What do we expect to derive from deep mined output—not opencast but deep mined output? We expect 177,000,000 tons. That is what we expect on the present rate of production. We expect there will be an output of about 8,500,000 tons from opencast operations and about 400,000 tons from briquetting. That is an addition, an accretion, which is a very useful one, attributable to the briquetting operations where slurry and waste dump coal is being utilised. That gives us an estimated supply position of 194,800,000 tons, including, of course, the distributed stocks available at the beginning of the year. What do we expect our requirements to be? After all, that is the crux of the problem. Inland consumption is estimated to reach 188,000,000 tons, something in excess of the consumption last year. Exports, including foreign bunkers, bunker depots abroad, will amount to 8,200,000 tons. We expect our distributed stocks at the end of the year to be pretty much what they were at the' beginning, that is to say 6,800,000 tons—
  Major Lloyd-George: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 177,000,000 tons for deep mined coal and then he made the total up to 194,000,000 tons for the year, which included the distributed stocks. Is not that the output by itself, without distributed stocks?
  Mr. Shinwell: No, I am afraid that includes the distributed stocks. The output is not as high as that. I wish it was. It would make all the difference in the world. Six million tons would just make up the difference, as I think I shall be able to show. I want to complete the requirements side of the picture. There will be available for exports—the export figure is not 8,000,000 tons alone; it is round about 9,500,000 tons—but there will be available from previous years' production and stocks at pit banks and opencast dumps almost 2,000,000 tons. That is the picture. The question we have to ask ourselves, indeed the question the country is entitled to ask and to which we have to find the answer, is, "How are we going to bridge the deficit?" Our estimate of the stock position at the beginning of the winter is about 11,000,000 tons. That is about 5,000,000 tons less than is necessary to provide safety. On

  61
  the present rate of production, plus what is available, we expect that the stock position will be 11,000,000 tons. It ought to be 16,000,000 tons. If danger is to be avoided, if we are to provide for continued industrial activity—and everybody is encouraged by this industrial activity; we do not want any cessation of that and we certainly do not want unemployment —we must have 16,000,000 tons at the beginning of the winter unless, of course, there are certain other conditions obtaining, to which I will make reference later.
  How is it to be made up? We expect an addition to opencast production of 1½ million tons. I shall tell the Committee why. It is because there has been an acceleration of output on the opencast sites. We have adopted new methods of contracting. We have made arrangements with the contractors about the use of machinery, and, in some cases, they are purchasing machinery, and, as a result, it is better looked after. In consequence, we expect, and there is no reason to assume that our expectations will not be fulfilled, another 1½ million tons.
  Now I come to fuel oil, upon which the right hon. Gentleman asked me some questions. I realised some time ago that it would be necessary to effect a measure of conversion from coal burning to fuel oil, if we were to survive next winter. We entered into negotiations with industrial concerns, and, in particular, with the railway companies, and I am very glad to say that, so far as one company is concerned—the Great Western Railway —they have already effected the conversion of 10 locomotives, and are in process of converting, I think, round about another 40. I want to pay my tribute to the Great Western Railway for its enterprise and assistance in this matter. Of course, it is not easy to induce privately-owned undertakings to convert, first, because it is costly. There is the cost of the equipment, and, in addition, it is recognised that burning fuel oil will be more costly than burning coal. We are in negotiation with the Treasury on the question of the duty. We have discovered that there are some difficulties in the way —questions affecting the Inland Revenue —but the negotiations are proceeding, and I have reason to believe that we shall overcome the objections. At any rate, we are going to make a strenuous effort.
  62
  I want to assist industrial undertakings and railway companies in every way I possibly can to effect this conversion.
  Our estimate is that, if all goes well— and we are being fortified in this regard by the Ministry of Supply, who are doing everything they possibly can to secure the equipment, and we have got a No. 1 priority for equipment of that kind—our estimate is that we can save 3,000,000 tons of coal. The use of 2,000,000 tons of fuel oil will represent a saving of 3,000,000 tons of coal, and that, of course, must be put to the credit side of the picture. We also expect, as a result of improved distribution, that we shall be able to save about 1½ million tons, and there is estimated to be a saving, due to less benzole recovery at gasworks, amounting to about a million tons.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the Minister indicate how he proposes to save 1½ million tons by better distribution?
  Mr. Shinwell: It is related to the distribution of our stocks at the end of the winter. If, as a result of improved distribution, we can effect a lower stock position at the end of the coal year, but with advantage to the coal merchants and the general consumer, we shall effect a saving on that head. I must be quite frank with the Committee. This is not additional production, I agree, and I am not suggesting that it is. I will come to the question of production in a moment, but what we have to do, when budgeting for the future, is to consider not only output but consumption, and that is what I am trying to do.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: It would clear the situation if the right hon. Gentleman answered one question. Does he really mean that he is budgeting for coming out of next winter with a stock position lower by 1½ million tons?
  Mr. Shinwell: Yes, coming out of the winter with a lower stock position, but not to such an extent that we need be apprehensive about the supplies to coal merchants. Now I come to the question of fuel efficiency. This is a subject upon which one may dilate for quite a time, but I do not propose to weary the Committee. I can say that, as a result of the efforts made by my Department in the sphere of fuel efficiency, we have already effected considerable savings in consumption, and perhaps the Committee would

  63
  be interested to know that, during the war, industrial coal consumption decreased by four and half million tons as a result of fuel efficiency. We are continuing our activities in that direction.
  Now I come to the question of manpower—whether it is possible to step up our manpower in time to secure an additional output in the coming winter. On this subject of manpower, I am bound to say that it is a very distressing story. There was a time when we had more than a million men employed in this industry-When I took office, the number of men employed was, I think, 704,000. At the beginning of this year it was 698,000. There has been a considerable reduction over a period of months, partly due to excessive wastage. Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that the rate of wastage in the industry last year was as great as 70,000 a year. That is a most amazing situation, attributable to many causes. In fact, it is very difficult to recover from the effect of such ravages in a short time. In addition, the manpower employed in the industry for two or three years has been of the older type. The bulk of the labour employed in the industry is over the age of 40. It has been improved somewhat in recent months as the result of the return of men from the Forces—and, by the way, that is not a recurring intake. We shall not get many in future. It has been of great assistance to have had these men in recent months, and they have improved the situation a good deal. We have had to turn our attention to the subject of recruitment, and, as a result of the concentrated efforts of my Department, assisted by various other Government Departments and by the National Union of Mineworkers and others concerned with the industry, we have improved the position by about 4,000 intake, since the beginning of the year. I admit that that is not satisfactory.
  What is the reason for all this? The fact is that the industry has been written down far too long. There has been constant disparagement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am asked why. For obvious reasons, it was an unattractive industry and, for a long period, it was an underpaid industry. It was a dangerous industry, and there were other unattractive features which I need not mention but which are
  64
  obvious to hon. Members who are acquainted with this subject. May I say, in passing, since the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about it, that, as regards the accident rate, and in particular, the mortality rate, there has been a considerable decline. The right hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, may be interested to know that the fatal accident rate for 1945 was the lowest on record in this country. I need not go into details; that general statement should suffice. There has been a considerable improvement.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? As very little has been done to implement the Forster Report, can he indicate the concrete steps which he is taking to get these 4,000 recruits, and, roughly, what age are they?
  Mr. Shinwell: We have got these 4,000 recruits. There are youths and boys among them, men returning from the Forces and men who are coming into the mining industry from other industries. But that is the excess of intake over wastage. We find that there has been a much larger number entering the industry since the beginning of the year, comprising a considerable variety.
  Mr. Lindsay: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what are the concrete steps which Mr. Newsome and others are taking?
  Mr. Shinwell: I shall be pleased to do so. We recognise that, as regards boys, we have to make the industry more attractive. The boys have to be trained. We have to provide training facilities and qualified instructors capable of training the boys. In addition, we have, in some quarters, to secure the active services of the teaching profession, who are rendering every possible assistance in order to induce boys to come in. Moreover, we are doing what we can to improve the mechanisation training position. We have a training centre in Sheffield which is now being fully utilised, and, because it is being fully utilised, we have in contemplation the setting up of another training centre in the north—perhaps, in Scotland. In time, I think that we shall require seven of these mechanisation training centres. It is a fact that boys are more attracted to the mining industry if they are going to use machines, and if they are going to become mechanics,

  65
  than if they are going to be ordinary miners. There has certainly been some improvement as the result of the efforts of Mr. Newsome and the recruitment staff, but I am not satisfied with the present position. Far from it. We have to consider what other steps are required in order to induce young men to come into the industry and, in particular, to induce parents to advise them to come into the industry.
  That brings me to the question: What attractions do we propose to offer to the industry in the future? The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me about the five day week. I have been in favour of the five day week for a long time, and have been quite frank in my statements about it to the country. The present position is that the Government have accepted, in principle, as I stated in the House quite recently, the five day week, but it must be associated with production. In other words, we must get production and conditions associated with the application of the five day week. The principles are now being hammered out, first between the National Union of Mineworkers and my Department and, secondly, between the National Union of Mineworkers, based on a report by my Department, and the National Coal Board. I am pleased to inform the House that the National Coal Board have already met the National Union of Mineworkers, not necessarily on this subject, but in order to have a preliminary canter in the kind of consultations and co-operation that will be necessary between these bodies in the future. I believe that that augurs well for the success of the industry in the future.
  I would add that it is quite clear that the industry must be made more attractive. We cannot ask boys to go into the industry if there is to be insecurity, if wages are to come down, and, in particular, if there is to be neglect of the welfare arrangements which are so essential to this industry because of the isolated position of so many of the mining communities. All these things have to be dealt with. In connection with the question of welfare, I should like to tell the Committee that, recently, we made a change, as a result of the Bill which the House accepted and which is now an Act of Parliament, in the welfare position. Sir Frederick Sykes, who was formerly chairman of the Miners' Welfare Commission, has now resigned, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to him for the valu-
  66
  able work he did for the Commission and for the mining community.
  I now come to the question of foreign labour. There has been a lot of nonsense talked about the use of foreign labour. Wild statements have been made by the newspapers and by other people. What are the facts? We were ready to avail ourselves of any kind of labour in order to step up production, provided that labour was sufficiently trained and expert to produce the coal. But there is no use talking of introducing green labour into the mining industry. Green labour has to be trained, and it takes time to train men. What is the shortage we experience in the mining industry as regards labour? It is not surface labour—in fact, we discovered recently that there is redundancy as regards surface labour—and, in the measure that improvements are effected on the surface, fewer men will be required there. More men, however, are required at the face. We want trained expert coal getters, and they are not available. We have tried every possible means to up-grade men. First, we have tried to induce men working in other parts of the pit— on the haulage, at loading points and doing other jobs—to accept upgrading and to go and work at the face. Many are reluctant to do so. Managers, also, are reluctant to upgrade men. We are now dealing with that matter as effectively as we can, and we hope, now that the National Coal Board is duly constituted, that they will be able to bring pressure to bear on the managements in the industry or, if it is not yet opportune to bring pressure that they will use their influence with the industry in order to upgrade men. We must have more men at the coal face, and have them as soon as possible.
  That brings me to the subject of Poles. We have conducted a very careful analysis into the possibility of employing Polish labour. The other week somebody said that we could employ 40,000 Poles. That is just wild talk. There are, of course, more than 40,000 Poles in this country, but they are not miners. In fact, some who are miners are reluctant to enter the British mining industry. After a close analysis, we have discovered that there are 200 Poles who are willing to enter the industry. That does not rule out the possibility of attracting a fairly large number, which may ran to 1,000, 2,000 or even 3,000, who may be willing to present

  67
  themselves for training. But I beg hon. Members to note that these men have not only to be trained for work in the pits; they have to be taught English. We cannot have men working in the pits who are unable to speak English and, therefore, are unable to understand the safety regulations. That would be dangerous. We have been asked whether the National Union of Mineworkers have stood in the way of the employment of Polish labour. Naturally, the National Union of Mineworkers wish to safeguard the interests of their members, and they demanded that if Poles in large numbers— not a matter of 200 or so—were to be employed, they would expect, them, first, to become members of the trade union, which is quite a proper demand, and, secondly, that, in the event of redundancy—and there may be redundancy in the industry some day—the Poles should go first, and should not be employed to the detriment of the British miner. These matters are under discussion, but I am satisfied that we shall overcome any difficulty that presents itself. Finally, on the question of recruitment, we are likely to secure the services of a fairly large amount of labour from elsewhere, not necessarily foreign labour, which is ready to be trained, and we propose to make that labour available to the industry as early as possible.
  I come now to the question of what is to happen in the industry, first, next winter, and, secondly, in the future. I must speak in the frankest possible terms. I look to the men of the industry to make up the estimated deficit this coming winter of five million tons. That is all I ask. What are the prospects? In the month of May the average weekly output was 3,700,000 tons. That was, on the average, an excellent output It has since declined, but that is due to the holiday periods. The miners in most parts of the coalfields are on holiday, with the result that we have lost 200,000, 300,000, and in one week 400,000 tons of coal. But that is inevitable. We expect, with the full resumption of work after the holidays, providing we can maintain the labour supply, that we can step up the production again, at any rate, to 3·7. If we do that, plus an estimate of over 200,000 tons of opencast, we think that we may get through
  68
  the winter, but I repeat that it is necessary for the men to give every possible assistance in making up the leeway; otherwise, I am bound to admit to the Committee that there may be some stoppages in industrial undertakings in the course of the winter. I am as anxious to avoid a cessation of activity in that regard as any hon. Member in the Committee.
  There is a further point in connection with this matter. We have now secured the full and wholehearted cooperation of the National Union of Mineworkers in the sphere of recruitment. Previously they were not too anxious to assist us, for reasons into which I need not enter, but which, no doubt, are familiar to hon. Members. They have now expressed their willingness to cooperate with us in order to bring as many people into the industry as possible, and if there is some stepping up of the manpower position I am satisfied that we can get out of the wood.
  There is another aspect of this matter which will face us in the coming winter, to which I must direct attention. That is the question of consumption. We are consuming at the present time more coal than we have ever done in the history of this country. I. am speaking of coal for inland consumption. Exports and bunkering needs apart, for inland consumption our estimated requirements this year are in excess of anything we. have known. That is a fact of which the Committee must take notice. What is the position with regard to gas and electricity? It is much more serious than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley indicated. He spoke about an increase in the electricity demand of 26 per cent., but I will give the Committee the actual figures.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: I said last year: The right hon. Gentleman has not published his document.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman says that we have not published the document. The reason is that there are a great number of additional statistics relating to petroleum—
  Mr. Macmillan: I apologise. I did the best I could to get my figures accurate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not charge me with inaccuracy.
  Mr. Shinwell: No.
  Mr. Macmillan: I was giving the only figures that were available to me.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a monthly statistical digest in which all these figures appear, and it is available at the Vote Office. But apart from that, the annual return is not published at the moment because we are adding a great many figures concerning the petroleum position, and those are not ready. First, the estimated inland consumption will amount to 188 million tons. That is the highest figure that we have known. As regards the public utilities and industry, they will consume more coal than in any non-war year since 1923 or, indeed, since 1913. If one excludes the war years, the consumption by public utility undertakings is higher than anything that we have yet experienced. For example, gas consumption in the present coal year is 23,700,000 tons. That is the highest in history. Today it is running at a rate 24 per cent. higher than in 1938. As regards electricity, the consumption is 26,300,000 tons, which is 2,300,000 tons higher than in 1945, and 76 per cent. higher than in 1938. That is a most amazing increase, and it is very largely responsible for the present position in which we find ourselves. If I gave an example expressed in unit consumption relating to electricity, what do we find? The Committee may be interested in these figures. In 1922 we consumed in the domestic sphere 370 million units, in 1938 5,360 million units; in 1944, 7,799 million units, and in I945 8,848 million units. This year we expect it to be in excess of that figure.
  Mr. Macmillan: That is largely because we are not using coal.
  Mr. Shinwell: As I pointed out, the total inland coal consumption of 188 million tons is in excess of any figure which we have yet known.
  Mr. Macmillan: By how much?
  Mr. Shinwell: It is higher, at any rate. In the face of the present output position, naturally we are presented with great difficulties and great problems. In spite of all I have said, with the prospects of fuel efficiency, of conversion of coal to fuel oil, of opencast production in excess of last year, the stepping up of manpower, and, over and above all that—and
  70
  to this I attach the highest importance— a better atmosphere in the industry, I think we can get through. At any rate, we are going to make a real attempt to do so.
  The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the new set-up. He said that we had been obsessed during the past I2 months because of nationalisation. He is quite wrong. In spite of the difficulties associated with getting the Bill through the House, we have been devoting ourselves assiduously to the immediate tasks that were in hand, but at the same time we must have regard to the future position. The right hon. Gentleman has asked about the Reid Report and mechanisation. I can only give him a very short answer, because I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee any longer than is necessary. The National Coal Board are now constituted. They have got to plan. But before they plan they must be able to take the persons employed in the industry—men and technicians—into their confidence. That is essential. They must have before them the plans prepared by the various colliery undertakings. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) is well aware of what I mean. He himself has presented plans. These plans cannot be immediately applied; it takes time; but I can tell the Committee that there is every prospect of success, because wherever mechanisation has been applied—and hon. Members who are associated with the mining industry are well aware of these facts—there has been an actual increase in the output. I need not go into the figures, but they are available. There is no doubt about the effect of mechanisation. I believe— and I think there is every reason for this belief—that as a result of the new dispensation and the new atmosphere in the industry resulting from the operation of the Coal Board, we shall get the output we want.
  I am bound to admit that as far as exports are concerned, it will take some time before we can recover our export trade. No one regrets that more than I do. I agree with the economic analysis with which the right hon. Gentleman furnished us. I am familiar with all that, as he knows. I have used the same language myself many times when I sat on the opposite benches, and I continue to use the same language now. I agree

  71
  with him entirely that we must step up our export trade in order to pay for imports. In the meantime, we cannot do it, and we are being inundated by applications and frantic appeals by various other countries demanding coal. I would be only too glad to comply with their requests, but I am unable to do so. I beg hon. Members to understand this. If I am faced with a situation in which I have to make a choice between keeping our own factories and public utilities running or exporting, then obviously I must consider the home position first. I must do so until such time as I see an opportunity for stepping up exports. I give hon. Members this assurance: As soon as I see that opportunity, as soon as I see a likelihood of more output, then those countries who need our coal, who are old customers of ours and whom we want to be customers in the future, will be given the treatment to which they are entitled.
  That is the general position. I say one other thing before sitting down. I make no complaint because the Opposition have raised this matter. They were perfectly entitled to do so. I am glad they have done so, because it has enabled me to put the facts before the country. Whether the prospects are grim or otherwise, it is better that the public should be fully apprised of the position. Over and above that, it is just as well that we—and hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not execpted from what I am now about to say—should place some measure of responsibility on the men in the industry.
  Mr. William Foster: Not only on the miners, but on the colliery owners.
  Mr. Shinwell: We now have a situation quite different from that which existed in the past. There are glowing prospects for improvement in this much battered and harassed industry. We are trying to escape from the horrors of the past. That is the purpose of us all; there is not an hon. Member in this Committee who desires a return to the bad old conditions, in whatever quarter of the Committee he may sit. I agree that the management will have to cooperate. Unfortunately, there are cases—and I am bound to say this—were both men and managers refuse to cooperate. In the case of the men, there are far too many unofficial strikes,
  72
  as a result of which i have had to take drastic action, with the full consent of the men's organisations. Equally in the case of the managers who, very often, refuse to cooperate. I am hoping for an improvement in the situation. Whenever I find sufficient evidence to convict a manager of not cooperating, the matter is being dealt with.
  If we are all anxious to escape from the sordid position with which we were so familiar in the past, if we want to build up this industry and make it a real going concern, one that can minister to the national needs, both industrial and domestic, I am bound to say that to achieve those ends we must have cooperation from everybody concerned. The only complaint I have to make is that the right hon. Gentleman sought to acquit himself of not having presented any constructive proposals, on the ground that it was not the duty of the Opposition so to do. I remind the Committee, first, that when hon. Members on this side sat on the benches opposite we frequently availed ourselves of the opportunities afforded to us of presenting constructive proposals.
  Mr. Macmillan: Not on a Supply Day.
  Mr. Shinwell: Even on a Supply Day.
  Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman would have been out of Order.
  Mr. Shinwell: I repeat, even on a Supply Day. However, I will not enter into that. Why should we have a controversy about what may be regarded as a minor point? There is much more in this matter than that. Are we interested in the future of this industry, or are we not? That is the question. Or, are we merely concerned with dialectics and polemics? I am as much addicted to polemics and dialectics as the right hon. Gentleman, as he well knows. The position is much too grave for that sort of thing. We have to get out of the wood, We have to assist our industrial recovery.
  Last, but not least, if this industry under the new organisation proves to be a failure, if we do not secure the coal we need, if we fail to use the coal efficiently and scientifically according to the national needs, and if we fail to step up exports in due course, then it will be a bad look out for the whole country. It is not merely a matter for the Government, or the Opposition: It is a matter

  73
  for the whole nation. That is what we are anxious to avoid. So far as I am concerned, whatever I may say at week-ends, when I must have a little pleasure and relaxation, at any rate within the Department, with the good offices of my officials—some of the ablest men in the Civil Service—with the afcle assistance of my Parliamentary Secretary, and with the cooperation of hon. Members—and they have been wholehearted in that cooperation; I have very little criticism to troubles about—I will do my level best to build up this industry, so long as I am in the Department, to make it a real national asset.
  Colonel Lancaster: Before the Minister sits down, there is one question to which he did not refer. My right hon. Friend asked him specifically whether at this moment we were travelling at a weekly deficit of between a quarter and a half million tons. Despite all the figures the Minister has given in reply, he has not answered that question. On the answer to that question depends whether or not we get through this winter. Are we travelling at that deficit at this moment? In the figures the Minister has given us, does he see any prospect of getting out of that position? He has not given that reply, and that is what we want to hear.
  Mr. Shinwell: It is quite impossible at the present moment to give an accurate estimate, because of the holiday situation. If I were to take the month of May as an example, I would say we were overcoming that difficulty, and were not experiencing anything in the nature of a deficit. However, I am not satisfied that that can be maintained. We must get the additional output from opencast coal and step up manpower in the industry in order to secure that. I may be in a better position to judge, and will be only too willing to tell the Committee, when we come to mid-September or the beginning of October.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Mr. Bowen.
  Mr. John McKay: On a point of Order. Before the hon. Member speaks, is it possible to put a question to the Minister?
  The Deputy-Chairman: No. I have called upon an hon. Member to speak. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr.
  74
  McKay) will have an equal opportunfty with other hon. Members of catching the eye of the Chairman. It is better that we should proceed by debate rather than by question and answer.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Bowen: While I am sure we all welcome the wholehearted assurances which the Minister gave us in his closing remarks, at the same time, we fee] little relief from our general anxiety about the immediate prospects of the fuel situation in this country, about the coal industry, and particularly about the export trade as a whole. I was one of those who did not oppose the nationalisation of the mines, because I sincerely hoped that that step would do much to put on one side what the Minister referred to, namely, the unfortunate history of the relationship between the employees and employers in the coal industry; that it would have a salutary psychological effect on all persons employed in the industry, and, in particular, on the recruitment situation. So far, I would suggest, nothing has occurred to indicate that my hopes were well-founded. In fact, there are many factors and much evidence to indicate the contrary. It is an industry which, in contrast to many of our basic industries, is not faced with the problem of a shortage of raw materials, and is not faced with a problem of not having ready home and overseas markets. Despite that situation, the coal industry today is in a desperate plight because if cannot maintain the prewar production level. By reason of that fact, which certainly has not been concealed by the Minister, our whole national economy and the organisation of our whole industrial structure are in danger, the housewife is in danger of being faced with yet another hardship in the coming winter. As the right hon. Gentleman has frankly said, the response to his appeal for new recruits and for greater production by the men in the industry has been poor, and I should like hon. Members of the Committee to ask themselves why this has been so. What does it indicate?
  Mr. Blyton: There is an answer.
  Mr. Bowen: Yes, and I will attempt to provide that answer in a moment. I have here the figures of production per manshift in South Wales for the first three months of 1939 and the first three months of 1946. Comparing March, 1939, and

  75
  March, 1946, for example, there is a drop of over 20 per cent. in production per manshift, and the position with regard to June, as it appears from the figures I have seen today, is worse, I think this applies to the whole of the country, but it certainly applies to South Wales. For the 42 weeks up to 13th July the Minister fixed a very modest target, and during those 43 weeks the target has only been exceeded twice. On both those occasions it was a week preceding a holiday—the V-day holiday and the Christmas holiday. As the Minister himself has indicated, I do not think anything is to be gained by casting aspersions or making attacks. I do not think that is the remedy, but I do say, as a young man and in fairness to the older men in the industry, that I think the real trouble in regard to poor production figures is the action—or rather the inaction—of the men under 30 in the industry. For example, in South Wales more than half the wilful absenteeism is on the part of men under 30 years of age. The absenteeism of men under 30 is three times as great as that of men over 40.
  This is no time for recriminations against the workers, and I do not see any useful purpose in recriminations in respect of what the owners might or might not have done 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but if this position is to be remedied—and that is the only practical point for us to consider—we must ask what different conditions we are to created I suggest that the first essential is to create a state of affairs in which the miners have faith in the Minister, and in the Coal Board. I infer, from the present figures relating to production and recruitment, an absence of that faith and confidence in the present administration on the part of the workers in the mining industry, Whatever the reasons for that may be, I am sure the Minister is conscious of it himself, and his assurances that he will work towards establishing "a better atmosphere in the industry"—that was the phrase he used— is the key to the whole problem. Reorganisation and mechanisation can do little if we do not get a finer and better spirit of cooperation in the industry as a whole. The Minister has referred to the five-day week, and I should like him, I hope in the very near future, to tell us that his own personal views on that matter will be implemeated. The miners have indicated that if they are given a
  76
  five-day week they will guarantee to maintain the production level. If he would give them a five-day week it would be an act of faith on the Minister's part which, I think, would prove well based.
  Reference has been made earlier this afternoon to the position with regard to the Essential Work Order. I myself would have much preferred the change to be more drastic. I believe that one of the difficulties in the way of recruitment in the industry is the fact that workers in it are tied to it. It is certainly a substantial discouragement to young men coming into the industry that even now they are to be tied to it, to the industry if not to a particular colliery. Another aspect of the matter has also been touched on, and from my conversations with many miners in South Wales I feel it is an important part of the problem, namely, the absence of consumer goods in the shops on which the colliers can spend their money once they have earned it. I have met men who do not work more than two shifts a week, and when I have asked them why, the reply has been, "Why should we? The money we get from our two or three shifts is as much as we can spend, and we have never been brought up to save."
  Mr. Watkins: They have never had anything to save.
  Mr. Bowen: Whether they had or had not anything to save in the past, they certainly have now, and their attitude at present—I do not blame them for it—is, "Why should we earn more than we are able to spend at the present moment?" The obvious remedy is to provide consumer goods on which they can expend the extra money they could earn if they chose.
  I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer, but a reference was made to the difficulties with regard to the machinery of the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Fuel and Power and I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what means there are for coordinating the activities of those two Departments in so far as they relate to the mining industry. In his final remarks the Minister referred to the future. I believe that if we get the right atmosphere in the industry our present problems will prove to be purely temporary. It is somewhat sad to recollect

  77
  that hardly 10 years ago we were talking in terms of 20 million tons of exports, and the "back to coal" campaign was at its height. I do hope that while he is taking these drastic, necessary and urgent steps to meet the problems of the moment, the Minister will bear in mind our future prospects with regard to the export trade. These steps, taken to substitute coal for oil at the moment, should be regarded as only temporary steps. I say that as one who represents a South Wales constituency. The plight in the docks in South Wales is very largely the result of the coal situation. I sincerely hope that when the right hon. Gentleman carries out these measures he will bear in mind that, if the results of his activities are what he wishes, and what we all wish them to be, then the coal trade will once more make a very substantial contribution to the whole of our export trade, and provide a very valuable form of employment, not only for people in the coal industry itself, but for many thousands of other British workers.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr.TomSmith: From whatever angle one may look at the coal position in this country today, one will not find much happiness, so far as the immediate future is concerned. The figures given by the Minister of Fuel and Power, showing that we are producing at the rate of 177,000,000 tons deep mine coal, show that that is about 7,000,000 tons less than we were producing last year at this time. There is no doubt that the basic cause of it all today lies in our manpower position. I would say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) that, when he is dealing with output per manshift in districts like South Wales, contrasting present output with that of a few years ago, he must remember one or two things. There is a big waste in the South Wales coalfield due to the prevalence of the diseases of silicosis and pneumoconiosis on that coalfield.
  The manpower position, generally, is rather worse than the Minister of Fuel and Power made out. Quite frankly, although I am no pessimist by nature, I am not too optimistic about future prospects. As the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" shows, it is true that, in the first three months of this year, there is an excess of about 4,000 entrants over those who went out, but one must not forget one thing—that 11,144
  78
  persons have come out of His Majesty's Forces, and that will not recur in the next three months or other months ahead. It is also true to say that there are men from other industries who will not again be recruits for the coal industry. Today we have, I should say, not more than 640,000 effective workers in the mining industry; which is the lowest figure in the history of the industry for at least 70 years; and one cannot look forward with any degree of optimism to the prospects this coming winter.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), in opening this Debate, rather twitted the Minister of Fuel and Power by saying that here was an opportunity for him to give an account of his stewardship. He also said that during the war the problem was to get rid of coal, and that that was the opposite to the problem we have to consider now. I would put this to the right hon. Gentleman: that were the Opposition in power today, and if we had had at this Box, since the General Election, a Conservative Minister of Fuel and Power, the position would be no better than it is now, because these factors are factors beyond the control of the present Minister of Fuel and Power, or of any other single individual.
  I agree with the Minister of Fuel and Power in saying that we have to forget the past and have to look to the future. The prosperity of this nation has been built up largely on coal. Unless we can maintain a sufficient output of coal in the future, England's position as an industrial nation will be weakened, and none of us wants to see. that. Therefore, all of us must be concerned with the prospects for the future. Personally, I am one who believes that mining is a man's job, and I was more than pleased to hear the Minister of Fuel and Power say that this industry has been run down too much. I remember saying that, year after year in the House of Commons, when some people did not agree with me. I have always believed mining is a man's job, and have absolutely refused to believe that miners were lower in intelligence than anybody else. We have always believed that we are as good as the best, but not better. A great deal of the trouble in this country has been caused by the constant badgering of those who are in the industry.
  I have participated in the campaign for increased production. I will tell the Com-

  79
  mittee one of the faults of that campaign. It is worth considering here. Along with my colleagues, I was addressing a meeting of a production committee. We were telling both sides of the industry what the coal position was, showing them the seriousness of the situation, giving them actual figures. To my surprise, I was told in the Press the next morning that the output was going up. I could not reconcile that statement with what we had told the production committee. That sort of thing had much to do with the stopping of the campaign for 8,000,000 tons. Moreover, I wish those who are urging people to work inside the pits would not tell people from the platforms that their sons would not work in the pits, if they had their way. That sort of thing does more harm than anything else. Economic necessity used to drive people into the mining industry
  Mr. Oldfield: Nothing else did.
  Mr. T. Smith: There was no alternative industry. We used to have men coming from Ireland, coming straight to the pit-yard, asking for jobs down the pits without training; and they turned out to be good mineworkers. I started my life in the pits—I was just under 16 years of age—by pony driving for some of the Irishmen, who were some of the strongest men I ever met, and who did good work. But it was economic necessity that drove them there; and if we are to do what is right in the future, we have to put the industry into a decent position. I believe we can. This is the right time. We have now got the pits under the control of the National Coal Board. I believe that this is the time to get the restoration of confidence; this is the time to appeal for cooperation—managerial, technical, and manual—in the interests of the country, and of all those sections of the industry themselves, in order to get maximum output. I honestly believe we can get it, if we only show the right spirit.
  I say, without the slightest hesitation, that for many years, both on the platform and in this House, in the pits and elsewhere, we have advocated the nationalisation of the mines. We have been participants in that campaign. We recognised it in those days, not as an ideological doctrinaire aim, but as a means towards an
  80
  end. a means towards getting better circumstances. We preached it. Today we have got it. Personally, I want to see it made a success. I want to see these things we talked about, and almost dreamed about, come true; and I believe all this can be done.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley asked about the accident rate. It will be pleasant for everybody concerned, in this Committee and in the industry, to know that the tendency has been for the rate of fatal accidents in the mining industry to decrease. There is no one particular set of persons responsible for that. There has been cooperation with regard to roof control; that has been more than justified by the results. There has been research with regard to the prevention of accidents. It has done a marvellous job of work. We are pleased to know the tendency is in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley also spoke about the minor accidents, and gave a figure of 170,000 men out of work for three days a week. There are other causes for this which, perhaps, would not appear to some people. In the old days, when we had a man off with nystagmus, dermatitis, or some other kind of industrial disease, the compensation rates were so low that he was often driven back to work before he should have returned. Poverty drove him back. Large numbers of men have returned to work sooner than they should have done, because they could not live on the rates which were paid. During the war, wages have been higher and the compensation paid has been better, and there has been a tendency among the men to get better before returning to work. I admit that the figure of 170,000 is an increase compared with a few years ago, and that it is responsible for some of the reduced output, but one must have regard to the reasons why the figure has increased.
  There is bound to be a new Mines Bill. Under nationalisation the miners expect to see pits made more safe. I believe that the man who works underground has the right to know that everything is being done which can be done to make the pit as safe as possible, and to give the best standard of conditions. All of us would like to see a five-day week, and I believe that it will be accomplished. One has to remember that there are difficulties when talking about a five-day week. We can-

  81
  not close down a pit on Friday night and leave it to look after itself until Monday morning. Someone has to be there. I believe that the National Union of Mine-workers and the Coal Board will be able to bring about a satisfactory solution.
  The prospects cannot be too good for the coming winter. We all have to hope for the best. I think I can say that the campaign for fuel efficiency has more than justified what was expected of it. It has to be continued. An economy campaign will have to be kept going through the winter. During the last two or three years we had a large amount of wood fuel stocks. We had a good deal of those stocks during the lifetime of the Coalition Government. I think we had 100,000 tons as a kind of cushion against a bad winter. The country is entitled to know what is the position in regard to wood fuel. What arrangements have been made with the local authorities for liberating this fuel, and what arrangements have been made with the merchants for distributing it? The Minister should give a reply to this question so that the public will be aware of what they are entitled to in the event of coal being too scarce.
  The next Debate we have on the Estimates of the Ministry of Fuel and Power will, perhaps, take quite a different turn. It will be an account of what the National Coal Board have done, and no doubt we shall have many questions as to why something has not taken place, and why something else has. I am one who believes that the National Coal Board have a very great task before them. I believe that their great advantage lies in the long-term policy. I know that they will do all they can on the short-term policy. Upon our shoulders rests the responsibility to try and make this nationalisation a success. I say to my right hon. Friend that whatever we can do to help, and whatever cooperation we can give, we shall do it gladly, because we have at heart the best interests of this great industry.
  5.45 P.m.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) had to say about the campaign for the saving of coal —I intended in any event to refer to that aspect. The remarks of the Minister struck me in this way. He was telling us that, in the face of great difficulty and in
  82
  the face of this extremely cold and depressing situation, the picture was one which we could just tolerate having to look at over the next few months and that it was one which he could not improve or make more pleasant to our eyes during these months, The picture was also one which could not be looked at, if we were to begin to think in terms of exports. That is one of the most grim pictures which any Minister responsible for the fuel industry has ever had to present to the House. I would say that it is more grim from the point of view of this Committee and the country than any picture, at any time, in the history of the coal trade. A sort of negative horror appears to have grown into the situation, which is so foreign to the whole of our approach to the coal problem that we are even now unprepared to meet it.
  I was rather sceptical when the Minister used the argument that he could save 1½ million tons of coal by reducing stocks at the end of the winter; that a the end of the winter period we would come out with 1½ million tons less, but the balance of the stocks would be so generally distributed that the security of the consumer and user would be as good as, if not better than, it is at the present time. It is a little difficult to believe that such a step is possible. I do not want to be more depressing than I need be. I want to put some hope and some work into this to put it right, but it seems to me that we should face these hard facts. If the Minister had told the Committee that he was going to reduce stocks in the course of the winter by 1½ million tons, and that he believed by redistributing the balance of stocks he would still retain safety, would the Committee have treated that statement quite so calmly? Let us face it squarely. Let us realise that we are reducing our working capita] for the ensuing 12 months. The Minister cannot do the same thing for the next period. With the very bad stock position which exists today, at best we shall have 1½ million tons less in stock than the Minister would have had at the end of the period.
  I consider that far more should be done, something far more drastic, on the question of saving fuel. I know that a lot of posters are being scattered about the country, and that there are notices in every newspaper, but we want something far more drastic, something which will

  83
  grip the people's imagination. I do not believe that this Debate will help to get it under the people's skin. We shall not get it under the people's skin unless they are reminded of the position every day of the week. An hon. Member opposite is inclined to smile, which seems to imply that he does not wish to get it under the people's skin, but unless every individual in the country is prepared to help in the coming months, we shall be in trouble. This is not a laughing matter. If Members just grin at this, they are not helping the country. This is not a party matter. This is a matter in which every Member of every party and every individual in the country has to play his part.
  I admit that the Government are in a difficult position. We have had some amazing appeals in different forms during the war years, and it is difficult to follow that sort of thing with the people in their present moods. Cannot some means be devised by which a more pungent use can be made of the wireless, for instance, on this matter of saving fuel? There is another way of saving fuel and that is by installing up-to-date fuel saving equipment in houses. At this stage of house building, I am not going to say that that would be a very drastic saving; but how far has the Minister gone with his Department in putting pressure on the Ministry of Supply, and other people interested, to see that priority is given for the use of modern fuel-saving devices and equipment in houses? There have been very rapid developments in fuel-saving devices, and not only could fuel be saved in that way, but a lower grade and cheaper fuel could be used. Unless pressure is put on, however, the equipment will not be produced in time. If we are to provide this country with houses, let us equip them with fuel-saving equipment and devices. I hope that the Minister will look into that matter and give us some sort of indication of what is being done in that direction.
  As a user of coal—there are no pits in my constituency—I believe a great deal more could be done to save fuel by a better allocation of the kinds of fuel that are available among special types of fuel users in industry. One hears of a particular industry needing a particular type of fuel and not being able to get it, and yet the very fuel in demand by that industry is available only a few miles away. That seems to hint at the fact that the
  84
  allocations of different types of fuel are not working smoothly, and that if the allocations worked more smoothly, and the right type of fuel could be got by industries, a saving would result. I would ask the Minister to see that every care is taken to ensure that, wherever possible, the right type of fuel is sent to the right type of industry, for while modern, high efficiency, solid fuel burning plant is very economical with the right fuel, it is very uneconomical with the wrong type of fuel, even if it works at all.
  Then, again, the use of coal in the agriculture districts raises a very wide issue. I understand that there are in existence area committees which allocate fuel to different types of users, and that the whole of the Southern, South-Eastern and Western parts of the country are very largely under the control of a committee as regards distribution. Equally, I understand that the allocation of fuel to the electricity and gas companies is governed by a special committee. I would like to ask exactly what is the structure of these control committees and advisory committees, and, who, in fact, finally settles the priority as to who is to get what. I am particularly interested in one aspect of this matter. It may be that the consumption of fuel and power in the agricultural districts is not regarded as being so important as it is in the bigger centres of population. I would like to remind the Minister that, during the past few years, owing to the shortage of labour, large numbers of milking and other machines have been put into farms. These machines are driven, in the majority of cases, by electricity. If there is to be difficulty in the supply of electricity, we shall not get milk, and I cannot imagine any other winter when it will be more essential that we should get milk, than it will be this winter. It is no use saying that if the machine does not work we must milk by hand. The labour is just not there. These machines were installed because the labour was not there, and we cannot switch back. I would like that aspect of the matter borne very carefully in mind, and I think that it may be necessary to reconsider what fuel should be allocated to the electricity companies. Unless we ensure that an adequate supply of electricity is available in the rural areas, milk, among other things, will not be available.

  85
  Finally, may I say that we have only been looking at this matter so far on a very short-term basis. Let us punch over this idea of the necessity of saving coal. Let us do something more; let us get it into the public mind, so that it is realised that unless we can get the coal industry going as a whole—and that some of the finest men in the country are working at a job of which they may well be proud —the country is going to suffer dire disaster. Not only have we to get sufficient production to keep our own industries going for our own livelihood, but we must get sufficient to keep the flow of exports and imports going through this country. It is not enough to keep our own industries going. If this country is to live at all, we must import, and encourage those imports by exports, and in that, coal plays a vital part. I beg the Minister to put these issues before the country, just as fairly and squarely as he has given us the figures this afternoon. The people must know the truth.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. T. J. Brooks: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this Debate. I want to speak on matters which are rather different from those raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) although I appreciate the importance of the questions to which he referred. The Coal Industry Bill provides for the taking over of ancillary industries with the collieries, and I want to deal with that matter in connection with the saving of coal. The Minister has a great task before him, and he requires all the support and help we can give him in taking over this vital industry. I think that we have to try to create a new spirit, and give a little more credit to the personnel in the industry. Encouragement, in the shape of good wages and conditions, will give better results. This industry has been a Cinderella in the past. It is in a better position today, and we hope that there will be even bigger improvements in the future. Coal is our richest asset. It provides for our industries, railways and factories, and it generates our electricity. It can be transformed into thousands of by-products from dyes to plastics. It is the lifeblood that courses through the veins of all our industrial life. How long shall we continue to waste this valuable
  86
  product? It is a national disgrace in my submission to have allowed this precious mineral to be wasted all these years. It has been won from the earth with great skill by both management and men and at great loss of both life and limb. Past Governments, coalowners and managements have been very remiss in allowing this wastage to go on.
  It is estimated today that over 2 million tons of small coal is left in the pits every year, because it does not pay commercially to bring it out. It is also dangerous to leave it in the pits. Practical men, having had many years below the ground at the coalface, know what the dangers are, such as combustion, and this small coal has the same chemical properties as the larger coal, in proportion. Let us not forget that 80 per cent. of our electricity is generated by small coal. It may be information to hon. Members that 85 per cent. of our total output is burned in its raw state, which is a standing disgrace to our country today. If arrangements were made to process all the coal produced, this enormous wastage could be stopped and we should have a great saving in both health and property for the nation. It is estimated that three-quarters of a million tons of smoke and soot are emitted annually from the railways and industry. Furthermore 35 million tons of coal are burned and used for domestic purposes. Think of the damage to the crops in our fields, in our gardens, in our parks and also the loss of yield, the increase of rickets, respiratory diseases, loss of daylight and ultra-violet light, loss of visibility and the deterioration of buildings and materials—all through the burning of this very great asset of the nation. None of us can estimate the great loss to the nation from these things. There is the extra amount of cleaning and laundry, and the extra amount of labour involved in the home. Who can gauge the illness and disease that we may get from air pollution?
  In my travels to and from this House each week I notice a number of places— in particular I will mention Sheffield— which are built at or near the pitheads. I know something of the conditions in those places, and I often think of the hard work the women have to clean up the dirt coming from the pitheads. In Sheffield thousands of houses are built around the industry, and the people living in them

  87
  are breathing in this awful filth all day. Why should we be compelled to build and staff hospitals to deal with the effects of a cause which we could and must remedy? We are really submerged in filth of our own making. Over every town anyone can see the pall of smoke which the people have to breathe to the great detriment of the nation's health. We cannot estimate the serious consequences of the air pollution by coal.
  If we could take these derivatives from coal, we could supply the plastics required by all manner of industry—because this is the plastic age—such as engineering, aeroplanes, motor cars, refrigerators, radio sets, shop fittings, and synthetic rubber. Even silk stockings and nylons can be obtained from coal. In 1937, we are told, the gas industry sold 86,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia for fertilising purposes on our land, benzole, road tar, pitch, creosote, disinfectant, paint, varnishes, dyes, perfumes, drugs, and even explosives. Chemists have made more than 2,000 substances from coal tar with unlimited number of uses. Why should we go on wasting this valuable material? We could still supply the necessary motive power to industry in the shape of gas and electricity from coal. The same applies to the homes of the people, eliminating the drudgery and work our women folk particularly in the industrial areas have to do.
  We cannot afford the sentimental pleasure of a cheerful coal fire, particularly in the position in which we are today. I mention that even at the expense of differing with people who think we have no right to take away this joy and pleasure from the fireside. The fact remains that today we cannot afford this luxury. We must provide better devices to give cheaper and better fuel and light to the home. This process can be done at the pithead. The filth can be left there, and warmth and light supplied through pipes to industry and the homes, saving millions every year in transport. Just think of that for one moment—the transport of coal from one place to another, and then dragging of it upstairs to tenements; the dangers in the streets which this transport involves and so forth. All of this could be saved. Then there are exports which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. We want exports, but we are using up a great deal of shipping room by send-
  88
  ing out coal in its raw state, whereas if we took the derivatives from coal, it would be much better and we would get a greater return for it. This industry provides employment in research work for the most accomplished scientists and a great deal more must be spent on it. Very little has been spent so far. Let us take science away from the bondage of money and harness it to the service of mankind. If we do that we shall do a great deal more good.
  I want to appeal to Members of this House, leaders in the industry, colliery proprietors, and big financiers to stop decrying the industry. It has been done in the past even by Members on this side, including myself, unconsciously, and that is having its effect today. Let us think a little more of the industry, and of the men in it. We have some great technicians, and a fine body of people who comprise the office staff, a staff which is very badly paid. Further; we can and must harness atomic power to the industry. By doing that we shall not do away with the need for coal. We shall still need all the derivatives we can get from it, and which could be used to set up half a dozen excellent industries. Without manual labour and drudgery, power of wealth is removed. The period of gestation is practically over. We have been born into a new freedom. The sunlight at last is beginning to penetrate the darkness, and everyone must do his best to help the Minister to work his new Act.
  6.12 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I am sure that the Committee value very much the instructive speech which we have just had from the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. T. J. Brooks), and that we have all derived great benefit from what he has told us. I think, however, that he painted a rather gloomy picture of a mining village. I live not very far from one, and I know a good many others in my part of the country, and people do not seem entirely cast down by the dirt and unpleasantness of their surroundings, as he seemed to suggest. However, exaggeration is the soul of argument, and I do not in the least object to what the hon. Member said—
  Mr. Brooks: I did not exaggerate. I know the conditions, and I say that some

  89
  of the people living near pits are living in conditions which are shocking in these enlightened days.
  Sir C. Headlam: Well, that is not my experience. I have taken part in a great many coal Debates during my time as a Member of the House of Commons, and I do not recollect one which has been conducted in a more amiable manner than today's Debate. I was glad to hear the Minister in one of his less aggressive moods, because I sympathise with him in his difficult task which he had to explain to the Committee. He has a very hard job ahead of him, and I do not think he attempted to minimise it. We all of us shall have to go through a hard time in the next six months, especially in the coming winter, and everything that can be done must be done to improve the industry, and increase the production of coal.
  So far as I could gather, the announcement made by the Minister of Labour today was satisfactory. I have not had an opportunity of reading it yet, and absorbing its lull meaning, but I am certain that the removal of the Essential Work Order from the pits should be of great assistance in the production of coal. I say this because I realise that this Order, which has been in operation all through the war, has caused considerable difficulties in pits, as those who are familiar with its working know. Its removal, therefore, and the freedom which will be given for men to move and to be moved to other pits, will be of great advantage. I was a little depressed, however, by what the Minister of Fuel and Power said about the export of coal. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that there was no likelihood of that being possible for some time. That is one of the most serious announcements which he had to make. Unless we can begin to export coal quickly, and secure the foreign markets which are available, we shall find that, just as we did after the last war, others will gain those markets because we have not been able to do. anything. I am, therefore, anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should keep his mind fixed on the export side of our coal trade. Everything must be done, as soon as possible, to promote the export of coal. From what the Minister said I am sure he shares that opinion with me, and with everybody else who knows anything about these matters.
  90
  I was glad to hear about the establishment of a five-day week. I believe that will have a good effect in the industry, if it can be brought about. Five days a week in a pit is enough for any man, and if that is recognised it will lead, I believe, to far less absenteeism. An hon. Member, whose constituency I forget for the moment, emphasised the necessity for production of more consumer goods in the shops, especially in mining villages. I know full well how difficult it is nowadays for the people of mining villages easily to get away to neighbouring towns to purchase necessary requirements. I hope the Minister will use his influence with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and ask him to be a little more anxious and willing to have a larger distribution of consumer goods in the shops. That would do more to make our people satisfied, and ready to bear the heavy loads they have to bear. The Minister and Members opposite have impressed upon us that the nationalisation of the pits will bring us into a new world so far as the coal industry is concerned, that it will being about a much better feeling among workers, and that we shall be free, possibly for ever, from the troubles we have had in the past. There is no one in the Committee who is more anxious than I that that should be the case. I have always preached the necessity for a good spirit in the industry and I have pointed out, time after time, that it is no use living in the past and dwelling upon grievances. I have urged that we must live in the present, that we must appreciate that it is infinitely better than the past, and that we must determine that the future shall be still better than the present. I preached that before the nationalisation of the mines took place.
  If we can secure that better spirit I am convinced that it will bring great benefit to the coal industry. There is plenty of coal, and there should be plenty of workers, but it is only if they will work that the coal can be obtained. If the miners themselves are satisfied with the new arrangements, if the Coal Board works properly and gives satisfaction to the men, I presume that the Miners' Federation will do all that they can to keep the peace among their followers. But I warn the Committee that there are influences at work at the moment, which arc for ever fomenting trouble, and which even the leaders of the miners cannot con-

  91
  trol. Some of these leaders have told me so themselves. I therefore beg all Members that are interested in the coal industry to bear that in mind, and not to be too optimistic about the results of the nationalisation programme. I am afraid I have never found that people are any more anxious to work hard for the State than for private owners. I hope the reverse may be the case with regard to the coal industry. I believe there is a chance, b,ut do not let us be too certain. Let us realise that difficulties are likely to arise in the same way as they have arisen in the past, that local customs are very difficult to get over, and that when anything is done to upset them, there is likely to be trouble. Hon. Members who are connected with mining districts know this as well as I do, but I warn them not to be too optimistic, and to realise that they will have to keep their people in good order in the future, just as they have done in the past. I believe that if there is peace in the coal industry there will be a flow of new workers into the mines.
  A great deal has been said in the past about the dangers of the pits, and colliers have often said to me that nothing on earth would induce them to allow their sons to go into the pits, for various reasons—the danger, the want of good pay, troubles with the owners, and also anxiety that their children should get on in the world better than they have done themselves. Now, we are told, there are new openings for miners to get to the top of the tree in the industry. Let that be an inducement to men to come into the industry. I believe it will be, if that is really to be the case. Therefore, although I do not honestly believe we are going to have an El Dorado under nationalisation, although I believe that there are many difficulties ahead of us, yet I wish the new scheme the greatest success, and I am certain that hon. Members on this side of the Committee, although they have opposed the scheme of nationalisation, will do their best to assist the Minister in working it now that it is the law.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. Holmes: I want to strike rather a different note from that which has been struck in the Debate so far. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who opened the Debate, made a speech which was
  92
  throughout a sort of condemnation of the Minister. His words inferred that all the blame was on the Minister, although he said that he did not want to indulge in any recriminations. I felt that it was a case of Satan rebuking sin. The same thing applies to another hon. Member who, having said that he did not want to offer any recriminations, immediately made a tirade about absenteeism. I want to make no recriminations. Probably I know as well as anybody in the Committee the conditions and difficulties of the mining industry. I do not sympathise or commiserate with the Minister; I congratulate him on being on the verge of a great opportunity, and I wish to tell him that he will get the cooperation of the rank and file in the industry.
  I often tell the story of a chap who used to be a collier with me. If I filled 12 trucks, he filled 11, and if I filled 11 he filled 10. I asked him why he did not fill the last one, and he replied that if he did so, it would benefit the royalty owner. I could not rub that idea out of his head. When royalties were taken over by the State, he started to fill the same number as I did. The right hon. Member for Bromley quoted a verse of poetry. As far as the past is concerned, I only want to say that it is
  "Better by far you should forget and smile, Than that you should remember and be sad."
  I am prepared to forget the past and to smile. I came to the House directly from an executive position in the mining industry. A day before taking my seat in the House, at half-past three in the morning, I was called out to make an inspection of a fatal accident in a colliery. It took me an hour, walking in a creeping position, to get to the scene of the accident, and I had to crawl on my stomach the last 60 yards. It is not possible to get the best results from the mines in those conditions. I give that as only one instance.
  There is no immediate approach to the coal problem. The immediate situation can be met by pulling the plums from the lowest branches, and by organising 'the pits for the next few months so as to get the best production. The general approach must be from the point of view of a longterm policy. After many years of close examination and with a knowledge of what machine mining means, I say that the industry can be reorganised

  93
  to give the output required with 500,000 men; but it has to be reorganised. The managerial and technical staff, with whom I have been in close contact, now have a different approach. They feel that they are free now, as they never have been before, to expound their ideas and show initiative. I went into the colliery in 1901, and I have worked in the industry all my life. For 25 years I had an executive position in a big trade union branch, and during those 25 years I never saw the board of directors. Is it to be wondered that there is no cooperation?
  I have examined the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill very carefully, and there is one point I want to see watched particularly. I want the Coal Board to get together the best possible organisation. I want the Regional Boards to function in the best possible manner. But the most important cooperation and coordination must be done in the pits. Unless there is cooperation and coordination there, we shall not be able to get it anywhere. I want to see welfare or liaison officers constantly on the spot and able to bring about close liaison between management and men. We have heard references to unofficial strikes. Nobody has stood out against them more than I have. I have always said to the men, "There is proper trade union machinery to meet any situations that arise." Many incidents that have arisen could have been avoided if there had been a proper approach by the management.
  With regard to the situation generally, there is one aspect that must not be forgotten. There has been in recent months a close survey of seams, and we shall be receiving the reports of those surveys. There are in the Library two books, one entitled "Planning for the Future," and the other written by Sir Richard Redmayne—neither of them Socialist documents—which put the coal industry in a proper light. We are losing our best seams. We are faced with the prospect of demands for increased production from deteriorating seams. A week before I came to this House, I spent something like four days in a pit where my back touched the roof when I was creeping. Men have to work under those conditions; it can be done and some of the best production in the country is from thin seams with machine mining. I am asking the Minister to approach the problem from that point of view but I
  94
  urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to remember that we have not an El Dorado before us. The El Dorado has passed, so far as the coalmining industry is concerned, because the best seams have been worked. The peak output was in 1913 and it has deteriorated ever since. At that time the Doncaster and Barnsley areas were working the finest steam coal seams of any in the country, but the Barnsley area is now completely worked out.
  It is on the basis of working these thin seams that we have to face the future unless scientists can develop ways and means of working down a pit 1,000 yards deep. Those who watch the Press will know that recently boring for oil has been going on at Gringley, Nottinghamshire, and that coal was discovered, but at a depth at which it is not possible to work it with present methods. The seams are no good unless they can be worked on by some proper method. In Yorkshire we have discovered seams where men have been working in a temperature of 80 degrees, day in and day out, with the consequent strain upon them. I ask the Minister to watch the position from that point of view, remembering that the thinner seams can only be worked by mechanisation.
  To return to the question of labour and recruitment, I would add that I sat on an advisory committee for a while, and I have said, until I am sick of saying it, that the coal industry has been too much in the Press. If we had been able to keep it out of the Press to a greater extent, it would have been an advantage. The effect of what has appeared in the Press has been to keep people from the mines. There is an approach to this problem to which I have drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The management and men of a big colliery concern had a meeting with a schoolmaster, as the result of which they decided to take a group of young boys down the pit in order to allow them to see the good side and the bad side, to judge the prospects of the industry and the opportunities for semi-skilled workers —electricians, borers, and so on—and to see for themselves the system of training and welfare arrangements. They have been down that mine and according to the last report 23 of 28 boys who went on a tour of inspection opted for the pits.

  95
  If we can get that kind of spirit we shall do something.
  There is one point which has not been mentioned this afternoon, and on which I am rather worried. I understand that the Essential Work Order is to be revoked on 1st September. I hope that does not mean that the guaranteed week will also go.
  Mr. Shinwell: No.
  Mr. Holmes: I am very glad about that because while I know something about the good and the bad side of the Essential Work Order, I think the miner is entitled to some security and I am very satisfied with that assurance from the Minister. We have a great future before us and I am asking that through the various channels right down to the pit-mouth where it really does matter, there shall be the closest co-operation.
  6.34 p.m.
  Major Lloyd George: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) except to underline one thing he said with regard to a liaison officer or some official who could ensure close cooperation in the pit itself. It is my experience, and I am sure it is the experience of the Minister, that a very large number of disputes occur, the cause of which neither the union nor the owners seem to know. A great deal of this is due, I suppose, to frayed tempers and tired people, and I heartily agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be some method through which closer cooperation might be achieved—personnel officer, management, or whatever it may be called. I am sure it could only lead to better relations.
  Let me say that any one who studies the figures of coal production and consumption can only regard the position which faces us at this moment as extremely serious. It has certainly not appeared less serious as the result of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. He referred to the budget I had prepared before I left in February, 1945. On the whole the output was roughly what I suggested, although down, and whilst it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that this month consumption is higher than it has ever been, I am bound to say that there was only one month during the last coal year,
  96
  when coal consumption was above the year before. So, taking it altogether, consumption during the last year was down also, but there are very significant increases in the figures of consumption about which I will have to say something later.
  I would point out at the beginning that the history of the industry during the recent war, as in the first world war, is one of continued decline in output, although it has to be said for the war just ended that whilst the number of men engaged was considerably lower than at the beginning—and in the first war there were actually more—the output in this last war decreased appreciably less than it did in 1914–18. Despite the decrease which we have suffered in annual production, we were able to maintain an ever-increasing war effort, and I think it is true to say that it was done without inflicting any undue hardship upon our people. Inconvenience, yes, but I do not think it could be said generally that it inflicted great hardship. In 1942, when I first became Minister there was a gap between the estimated production and the estimated consumption of, at first, 14 million tons. That was reduced to 11 million, a gap which had to be bridged. This was done through a very greatly increased distribution system, control, and, largely, through fuel economy.
  I think that the Ministry of Fuel and Power, who are responsible almost entirely for putting this scheme into operation, deserve a great deal of credit. In particular I should like to extend my thanks to one who is, I am glad to see, a Member of the present Government and who was responsible for collating the information without which it would have been impossible to carry out this work. By efficiency and economy we were able to bridge the gap, but as the war progressed, it became increasingly clear that there was a limit to what could be done, both in distribution and economy, owing to the shortage of labour and materials —particularly the material necessary to make the instruments, without which it was really impossible to put efficient fuel consumption into effect. That limit was, I thought, well in sight by the beginning of the last year. I was also afraid that with the end of hostilities the enthusiasm for fuel economy would not be quite so great as it had been during the war years.

  97
  I was able to close the gap, because, as far as economy was concerned, I was practically in virgin territory. The right hon. Gentleman is not so fortunate; he has a gap, as he indicated this afternoon, and the only short-term method of filling that gap is, I suggest, man-power in the mines of this country.
  Reference has been made this afternoon to improving the conditions under which men arc employed in our mines. It is only fair that I should point out that, despite the fact that we were engaged in a very great war, never at any time did I lose sight of the necessity of making this industry as attractive as possible, so as to interest men in it after the war. We had the wages agreement, and the Sheffield plan was started to encourage youth to take an interest in the machines that are to count so much in the future of the industry. Rehabilitation centres were set up and a great deal was done during the war to make the industry more attractive. That is only the short-term policy. The long-term policy can only mean reorganisation of the industry, as suggested in the Reid Report.
  I was particularly anxious with regard to stocks at the beginning of last year. The indications were that we should finish the winter with 10 million tons, as we practically did, but my advisers warned me that that was really below the limit for safely. I want the Committee to observe that figure of 10 million tons and to remember it, in view of what the Minister said this afternoon. The cessation of hostilities made the building up of stocks extremely difficult, for reasons to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. We succeeded in putting 3,500,000 tons, I think, into stock during the summer of last year. The right hon. Gentleman, during his first winter, was fortunate, as I was in my first winter, in the weather. A very good thing it was for all of us that it was so. Even with the comparatively mild winter, we finished with just over 6,000,000 tons in stock, more than 3,000,000 tons below the figure I was advised was the safety limit.
  There are one or two questions I would like to ask, and it is important that we should get the answers. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to let the country have all the facts He said that he expected to put 5,000,000 tons into stock this summer. I hope he does. We have varied between 3,000,000 and 6,000,000 tons put into stock in the
  98
  summer months. I think the right hon. Gentleman is a trifle optimistic in his 5,000,000 tons, in view of the increased consumption at this time of the year. If he gets his 5,000,000, he will start the winter with 11,500,000 tons. He got rid of 7,000,000 tons last winter, a comparatively mild winter. The indication is that consumption will be considerably increased in certain directions this winter. If the right hon. Gentleman disposes of only 7,000,000 tons as he did last year, he will finish the winter with 4,500,000 tons in stock. Does he, or does any of his advisers, think that is a position that we can face with safety? If he does not get his 5,000,000 tons, the figure may be below 4,000,000 tons. That will mean that the coal will be unevenly distributed and that scores of public utilities and industries will be put out. I knew that the public utility consumption was very greatly increased, but the right hon. Gentleman has made it seem even worse than I thought it was The gas companies today have just over two weeks' supply. If they put 1,000,000 tons into stock between now and the end of October, which will be quite an achievement, they will get up to four weeks' stock. In other words, they will begin the winter with four weeks' supply of coal. That will be the average.
  Is that considered safe? The electricity stock position at the moment is just over two weeks. If those stocks are to be got up to four weeks, about 1,000,000 tons will need to be put into stock. What are the prospects of that being done? Even when it is done, the undertakings will have just four weeks' supply at the beginning of the winter. Is that considered safe by the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman? Those are the significant increases to which I referred just now. In many other directions consumption is down, but in public utilities and other industries it is significantly up. That is not due altogether to increased industrial consumption. It is very important that we should realise why it has gone up. I suggest that hon. Members might have a good look at this very excellent book which I have here, when they will see the house coal position for this year, compared with what it was three or four years ago. The stocks of house coal are low. Disposals of house coal from the merchants account for about 200,000 tons per week

  99
  less than they did in 1942 and 1943. In my judgment, that is the explanation of the tremendous increase in the consumption of gas and electricity at the present time. People will have warmth and cooking, if the means are to hand. Nobody can blame them.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am anxious to understand what he is trying to imply. I would remind him, as I reminded his right hon. friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Mac-millan), that the overall consumption is in fact very much higher this year than it was last year. It is the highest at any time yet recorded.
  Major Lloyd George: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures. Since last May, apart from one month, the total household consumption for 1945 was down.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am not quarrelling with the right hon. and gallant Member's interpretation of the statistical record. It is true, as he suggests, that there has been a reduction in household consumption, but there has been an overall increase in consumption, and there has been a transference—
  Mr. H. Macmillan: How many tons?
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to finish the point? —of consumption from house coal to electricity and gas. That is true, but the overall consumption is much in excess of anything—
  Mr. Macmillan: By how much?
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman wants to know how much. My answer will apply also to the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), who was speaking of consumption in the year 1945–46, for which year he was partly responsible. The inland consumption was 178,000,000 tons, including exports. My estimate of inland consumption this year is 188,000,000 tons, 10,000,000 tons more, in the coal year beginning next April. That 10,000,000 tons of inland consumption is the difference that I have to meet.
  Major Lloyd George: I hope it is some consolation to the right hon. Gentleman to recall that my estimate of consumption in
  100
  that year was 191,000,000 tons. I hope that he will have the same good fortune of being well out in his estimate.
  Mr. Shinwell: We do not want to be at variance on the facts. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman budgeted for 192,000,000 tons, which excluded exports. That is the point.
  Mr. Macmillan: One hundred and eighty-seven million tons with exports.
  Major Lloyd George: My estimates of consumption all excluded exports. For my estimate of home consumption I had 187.8 million tons which it is quite fair to call 188 million tons. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be just as fortunate as I was in being out in his estimate. As the same people made it, he might be just as lucky. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be unable to understand what I was driving at. I am sorry. I was trying to point out—and nothing that he has said has altered it—that it is because of the decrease in the consumption of domestic fuel, that there is this tremendous increase in the consumption of gas and electricity. People are not going to be cold. I have had experience of that myself. One of the great difficulties of rationing—on which the right hon. Gentleman was very keen at one time but of which I have heard nothing today—
  Mr. Shinwell: I did not say so.
  Major Lloyd George: Oh, yes, the right hon. Gentleman did. In 1942 he was very keen indeed about it when I was not introducing it. Being now in a position of greater responsibility and less freedom, as they say, the right hon. Gentleman has come to the conclusion that it is not quite such an easy matter as it appeared to be in 1942. It is, in fact, practically impossible. This position with regard to public utility authorities is very serious. The right hon. Gentleman has changed the policy regarding stocking of coal. What is the purpose of this? The main purpose of the policy of allocation of coal to domestic consumers was for merchants to hold back in their stocks about 10 per cent. and to deliver the rest. The basis of that policy was that in the summer months, with better conditions for transport and so forth, it was wiser to distribute the stocks to those who had the

  101
  accommodation, within the allocation allowed, so as to release in the winter the whole labour and transport force to supply the little men—of whom there are 400,000 in London—who have to have a cwt. of coal delivered each week. The trouble in the winter months in London previously has not been any shortage of coal, but the difficulty of delivering in bad weather. It is a mistake to use labour at the moment to stack up merchants' yards, when it would be far better to have delivery of the coal to its proper destination within the limits the right hon. Gentleman has laid down. That releases the labour force, or most of it, during the winter months for supplying people who must be supplied once a week with small quantities—
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. We are not holding up stocks. They are being distributed to coal merchants and the coal merchants are distributing them to the consumers.
  Major Lloyd George: But there is a change. What about the right hon. Gentleman's announcement in the Press not so long ago that the merchants had to hold far more in stock? The change is a mistake. These little men suffer in the winter months because of their weekly necessity for coal.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I explain this point? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is well aware that when he was in office it was necessary to have Government dumps of coal. Well, they are going. They are practically gone. That is why we have to have a certain reserve in the hands of the coal merchants although they are permitted to provide consumers up to a reasonable amount.
  Major Lloyd George: I sincerely hope that if we have bad weather this winter, the right hon. Gentleman will have the necessary labour and transport available. In London that will be one of the most difficult problems the Minister will have to face. We were talking about the tremendous increase in the consumption of electricity and gas. Owing to war conditions much plant has been damaged. Owing to shortage of labour and materials the repair and maintenance of that plant is far in arrears. We had indications of that last winter and the winter before that. During the peak load periods many stations in various parts of Britain had
  102
  to cut off the load. The position this winter will be very much more serious owing to the increased consumption. What priority does the Minister get for labour and materials in order to speed up the work of maintenance and repair? It is a matter with which I was always in difficulty during the war, and if more labour and materials had been available far more plants could have been in operation. With the tremendous increases in consumption which the Minister has referred to, I am afraid that he will get the shedding of load very much earlier than last year, which will not be a very great help.
  One word about fuel economy. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the economy campaign? Today he spoke very seriously but, if he will forgive me for saying so, some of his speeches have not been of great assistance towards fuel economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) suggested that the right hon. Gentleman made a speech one week saying one thing, and another next week saying something else. The Minister said that he must inform the House as the position changes. But the position in regard to coal does not change every fortnight. If we had to have changes every fortnight we would be in a very difficult position in a short time. The Minister said this in London quite recently. Does he think this is a help?
  "I recognise that the industry is passing through great difficulty at the present moment —the difficulty of coal supplies—but I am not so alarmed about coal supplies as some people. One might imagine from what one reads in the papers that we are getting no coal at all. We are getting quite a lot of coal."
  I cannot believe that that speech is going to bring the urgency of the position home to vast numbers of people in this country.
  Mr. Shinwell: I must protest against this sort of thing. First about the dates of the speeches which disclose alternating opinions, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) gave the dates and they were not so close together—
  Mr. H. Macmillan: There were three weeks between them.
  Mr. Shinwell: As regards the speech to which the right hon. and gallant Member has referred, what I was pointing out— and it is very necessary to point this out— is that there are people talking, not only

  103
  outside but in this House, as if we were producing no coal at all. I was referring to the month of May. So far from having produced no coal at all during that month —to say which is an insult to the men in the industry—we had produced on an average 3,700,000 tons weekly Taking that alongside more than 200,000 tons of opencast coal, it is a lot.
  Major Lloyd George: Nobody ever suggests that no coal was produced. I am trying to get into the right hon. Gentleman's mind that he is not really conveying to the people of this country a sense of the urgency of this present position. As to his speech, the question of what is meant by "lots of coal" makes no difference. The impression given in that speech of his is, "I am not so alarmed about coal supplies as some people are." The right hon. Gentleman ought to be more alarmed than anybody else, because he knows more about it. The interview which I saw in the newspaper referred to just now, in which he called himself a super-optimist, was all very well, but the right hon. Gentleman was giving the impression that things really were not too bad at all. How can he expect the public to realise the seriousness of the position if he, as the Minister, gives the impression that it is not too bad?
  What is the Minister doing about opencast coal? Here again, I am sorry to have to say it, his figures are quite misleading. In the interview to which I have just referred, the Minister said that we had produced one week 220,000 tons of opencast coal, which was more than ever produced before. According to his own statistical tables, that is not true. That has been exceeded. In two weeks in the previous year, 241,000 and 239,000 tons were produced. That is from the Minister's own paper and it is an official figure. As a matter of fact, less opencast coal was produced last year by well over one million tons—
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to say that. The opencast figure for last year was in excess of the previous year.
  Major Lloyd George: I am very sorry. I am speaking subject to correction. The figure is, I believe, 9,300,000 tons compared with 7,800,000 or 7,500,000 for the year before. I am open to correction, and
  104
  my statement will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If I am wrong I will certainly withdraw it. The fact of the matter is that it was actually less last year than the year before. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that? One of our difficulties in the war was that we had to take secondhand machinery from America. It was not good machinery. Now that the war is over, why cannot we get better machinery that will produce far more opencast coal than before? We were constantly being held up by breakdowns. For days on end machines could not be utilised because they were the second best. Why should not we, now that the war is over, get the best machines, which produce far more coal than those we had to put up with during the war? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that?
  The fact of the matter is that in this question of fuel, as in so many other questions, the Government are not putting first things first. Too much time has been spent on politics and too little time on the immediately pressing, urgent question of providing fuel for this country at the present time. I have never blamed the Minister, as he knows perfectly well, for the position he found when he arrived, nor would I dream of doing so; it was nothing whatever to do with him. However, I do blame the Minister about this, that he must have been fully aware of the seriousness of the position the first day he arrived. He had a report—
  Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.
  Major Lloyd George: Well, the figures were there for him, supplied by myself, to decide on what was to be done in the longterm. The last words were, as I have said before, "No time is to be lost." What has he done? The Minister has devoted most of his time during the last few months to drafting a Bill and piloting it through this House. I cannot discuss it here, but to say it is a bad Bill is putting it mildly. He himself said when he spoke at Bournemouth that they had very little guidance in detail, so that when they came to legislation and detail they had to improvise in the light of circumstances. He did not improvise in the light of circumstances because of meagre information in the Ministry; he had all the information necessary from the Reid Report and if, there and then, he had put this Bill on one side for the time being and concentrated all his

  105
  energies and those of his staff in putting the Reid Report into operation, we might have had some results by now. At least the position would have been no worse. The Bill has not led to greater output. As everybody knows, the output is going down. Do not be misled by the output per man shift; that is purely a mathematical calculation. The real test is, what is the output of each man each year? That is down this year, as it was every other year before.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is no good constantly appealing to the men. I think to some extent that is right, but better conditions are vital. The Minister referred to the five-day week. An agreement was reached two years ago, clause 4 of which said that in no circumstances, until the agreement came to an end, would there be any alteration in payment. Does the conceding of the. five-day week destroy that agreement, because it is an agreement that the miners of this country hold in high value. The five-day week must mean an alteration in payment. That is a very important point which should be cleared up, because we had an agreement to keep that payment for four years. I should be grateful for an answer to that question by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  There is one point I can make to the Minister which I think will help. I believe that he could find an incentive for greater output. Miners' wages today are better than they have ever been in this country, but the tragic part about it is that when there were plenty of goods in the shops, they had very little money with which to buy them; now, they have the money, there is nothing to buy with it except one thing—leisure—and that is being bought on an increasing scale at present, because the wages are good enough to enable a man to purchase leisure and still maintain a fairly good standard of life. Now a great export drive is being conducted by the Government. Coal is almost our greatest single export. My right hon. Friend referred this afternoon to the tremendous advantage it would be in the Argentine and in Scandinavian countries for getting wood and food. I believe that while it is true that everything should be concentrated on export, it would be an indirect but valuable contribution to export if more consumer goods were made available to the miners of this country. I believe it would be an incentive for
  106
  them to produce more coal, and I hope the Government will give that very serious consideration.
  Finally, I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the seriousness of the position with which we shall be faced this winter. We may very easily have serious breakdowns in our public utility undertakings; we may have industries going under, with consequent hardship and unemployment for our people. All I would beg the Minister to do is to continue to keep the House of Commons fully informed of the facts of the situation so that whatever action may be necessary can be taken in time.
  7.7 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: I would say that all of us on this side of the Committee, when the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) began speaking, listened to what he had to say with interest and respect. He was giving a very grave analysis of the situation. His material was, perhaps, not novel but we cannot be reminded too often of what are our production problems. But what is really astonishing is that with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's association with the mining industry, which presumably must have brought some knowledge of the miners, he should, in a later part of his speech, scold the Minister of Fuel and Power for having in this first year of a Labour Government, spent a great deal of Parliamentary time in the constitutional processes of nationalising the coalmines. Was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really serious?
  Major Lloyd George: Yes, very.
  Miss Lee: Does he not know that far from too much politics having been introduced into this situation this year, there has been rather too little politics— [Laughter.]—yes, politics in the best sense of the word? Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that if we had not nationalised the mines of this country, we would have had a general strike in all probability; that the miners simply would not have tolerated any further postponement of their legitimate hopes of a more prosperous and more dignified relationship between themselves and their industry? I see the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) smiling. He also had a good time earlier

  107
  in the Debate, and none of us grudge him his fun in scolding the Minister and saying several times over that the miners were not enjoying working for a nationalised industry as much as we had led him to believe. I am not going back into the past, but do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really know what the situation is at this moment in many of the coalfields? Do they know the game that many of the managements are playing, not only with the men, but with the men's households and with the whole amenities of the mining districts? I was very glad that the American Ambassador was at Durham the other day, because there he would see a great optimistic body of men who mean to make a success of this industry. But there is a dichotomy in their soul at this moment. I can give one or two instances of what is going on, and of the niggling, last-hour behaviour and conduct of the old owners. In part of my constituency, on the Chase, a really serious effort was made during the war to stop gas fumes from the coal tips, because the illumination at night was a risk to national security. How do the miners and their wives feel now that the national security problem is ended, and nothing like the same effort is being made to stop the irritating and unpleasant burning of these coal tips? I have tried to bring the matter to the Ministry, but we are still only becoming responsible for the pits. It is remarkable that while the miner has been chided again and again in this Debate today—
  Major Lloyd George: I did not chide the miners.
  Miss Lee: All the sins of the Debate do not rest on the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke.
  Mjr. H. Macmillan: Neither did I.
  Miss Lee: Yes, indirectly. We have been asked what discipline would be applied to the men, but no one has asked what discipline has been applied, or should be applied, to many managements who are cheeseparing at the expense of the miner, and the mining community. No doubt, if they get an opportunity later on, they will think it splendid to be able to say that the industry, as run by the Coal Board, has been extravagant on certain items on which they have been able to save. The miners are very human people. They can be persuaded to make
  108
  the most enormous efforts for their industry, and their nation. The Minister has left the Committee, but I know that what I am saying will be brought to his notice. There are certain dangers in the present situation. From every quarter of the Committee there is a complete awareness of the need for the technical reorganisation of the industry. The Minister said with pride that he was being given number one priority by the Ministry of Supply for new technical machinery for the mines. I have not yet heard that number one priority is being given in doing certain things quickly to improve the amenities of mining communities. It is the time factor of which I am afraid. We will do it all in time; we will do it once the Coal Board gets into operation, but at present a number of things could be done. I have mentioned the nuisance of the coal tips. Another example: We had to beg the Ministry to intervene for us with some of the collieries which were not taking the precautions they could to minimise subsidence affecting houses and other buildings. I do not wish to elaborate that point, but I can give instance after instance where there is up to the last minute of coalowner control a callous disregard for the amenities of the mining community.
  Our own Government begin to carry these responsibilities, and will carry them well. I beg them to convey to the Coal Board that mining is a highly technical operation, but at the same time it is a highly human operation, and that the problems of the mining community have to be looked at as a whole. For instance, Lord Hyndley has caused me considerable embarrassment—[Laughter.]—not personally—by a speech he made the other day in discussing the Chase coalfields. He said something which gave the impression that some of the collieries would have to be closed down. Immediately following that there were banner headlines in the newspapers, which caused dismay and alarm in the mining community. In the clubs where the men gather they were talking about this, and young fellows, coming back from the Forces wondering if they would settle down in the traditional industry, or go elsewhere, came back to this atmosphere of unrest. I have the greatest sympathy with any technical expert who is so absorbed with the technical side of his job that he forgets the personal side, and

  109
  that is why I beg the Minister not to under-estimate the value of certain points which I am putting to him, and which I have put before. Some of us do not presume to be technical experts, but we do know the social needs of mining communities. Incidentally, as this has not been a very cheerful Committee, I think we are overdoing the dirge note. When I go from London to Cannock Chase, I find that although there are black spots, there is also lovely countryside—
  Mr. Murray: And lovely people.
  Miss Lee: And lovely people. But there are lovely people even in London. I am not trying to make any easy demagogic point. What I ask the Committee to do is to look at mining life as a whole. The mining village is near to the fields and, if the miner has a normal week—the five-day week is absolutely essential—and has time for hobbies, he can have a very much better environment than many working folk living in large cities or dreary suburbs outside large cities. In the meantime we have to keep the men we have in the coalfields. The Minister was good enough to give me an explanation of the speech of Lord Hyndley. I handed that letter personally to the Press, who were at a meeting I addressed on this subject, because it was of great moment to our people. I am not suggesting that the Pressmen there did not do their best to see that it got the same publicity in reassuring the miners of the Chase as did the original statement, but that did not happen. It is very important when re-planning our mining industry that we should watch these points.
  "The Economist," in a recent issue, was saying that we must not become local advocates insisting that the situation in our own areas will always be the same. That is not the position at all, but if there have to be readjustments, it is not just the mining problem but the whole environment problem which has to be looked at. If we could get the five-day week it would mean that on a Friday night the family would have the luxury of feeling that the alarm clock would not be going off early next morning, and they would have a clear day. The rhythm of the mining life means that on a Saturday they need a bit of fun and, maybe, the mother and youngsters can go to the
  110
  neighbouring town. There is time to go to a theatre and throw one's energies around carelessly. Then there is the Sunday when one may have a gentler kind of day. In terms of the health of the miner, I am absolutely convinced that a five-day week need not necessarily lead to a reduction in output. I think indeed it will increase output.
  But it has to come quickly, and it has to be linked up with other things, so that we do not find the impression in the mind of the mining community that the Government are having to be nagged by hon. Members opposite, because hon. Members opposite, and particularly their representatives back in the constituencies, are now asking for things to be done, even before the property is vested in the Coal Board, saying that they are urgent and cannot wait. That is creating a good deal of misunderstanding.
  Another problem about which I am deeply concerned, and which I want handled quickly, as much for my right hon. Friend's sake as for the sake of the country and the mining community, is that of dealing with certain aspects of subsidence in the mining areas. I suggest to the Minister that the most difficult thing in the world is retrospective justice. Therefore, if he will send a commission round the country, each of us in our own constituencies can advise and guide them quickly where there is a situation that violates the collier's sense of fair play. These may seem rather trivial points to this Committee, but I can assure hon. Members that they add up to what makes the psychology of a mining community. One instance, again in my own area, is that of 20 old miners belonging to a veterans' club who came to see me the other day. They said they wanted a club of their own. They had a room which they were allowed to use in a community centre, but there was not enough space, and it was not their own. That, too, may seem very trivial, but the care of the old evokes the chivalry of the young as well as satisfying the old.
  Our people can be made happy if they see certain specific things happening, if they can see that there has not only been a technical change of ownership in the mining industry but that we are concerned with their old people, that they are being given priority. Just as there are priorities for machinery there should be priority for

  111
  housing, hospitals, certain foods and consumer goods, and also priorities for certain clubs and social amenities. It may be thought that the miner is putting his price too high. He has to put it very high indeed if he is to counterbalance anything like the average of what his price was when hon. Members opposite were in control of this country. I am not raising these points in any spirit of opposition to the Minister today. We all know his difficulties. We all know that he is only recently in control. But I am convinced that if we lose no time about certain social amenities that affect the miner's home and his life, then, if he is an old man, he will feel that at last he is being properly cared for and respected. If he is a young fellow he will be able to bring his young woman into the coal mining area with pride, they will weigh up the advantages of settling down into the traditional life of a mining community, where there is good comradeship and local groups large enough to enable a sports group to be formed, or for singing or whatever recreation or activity one wishes to follow.
  I do not take the view that mining need continue to be the Cinderella industry of this country. In a sane society it gives any man great pride—every miner in this House bears testimony to it—to be working at something which is absolutely essential. If we will combine, in these next weeks and months, the concern for technical efficiency in the industry, which we all share, with a concern for the happiness, comfort and amenities of the mining community, I am by no means as pessimistic as many hon. Members here have sounded about the future of the industry.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Baker White: I realise very deeply the sincerity of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) in speaking on this matter. If I deal with facts, figures and statistics, I hope that she will realise that my sincerity is not any less than hers. There is probably no industry in the world so set about with facts, figures and statistics as is the mining industry, but there is one figure from which one can never escape—the tonnage of commercially disposable coal that comes out of the pits week by week and month by month. I obtained from the Ministry
  112
  their latest figure, an output of 3,117,000 tons of commercially disposable coal for the week ended 6th July. They have also given me the figure for the comparable week of 1938— 3,787,000 tons. That means that, by and large, week by week, we are getting something between 500,000 and 600,000 tons of coal less out of the pits than we were before the war and as the Minister has pointed out, the demand is much higher than it was then.
  I wish to refer to a subject which I know is unpopular, that of absenteeism, voluntary and involuntary. I recognise that avoidable absenteeism is a psychological problem, with a hundred and one factors in it, ranging from food to football. It has to be tackled, whether the industry is nationalised or not, as a psychological problem. In the week ended 6th July, avoidable absenteeism at the coalface was 8.11 per cent. No calculation has been made, in the lifetime of this Government, of what absenteeism means when translated into tons of coal. But a careful estimate was made, in the lifetime of the Coalition Government, that 6.8 per cent. voluntary absenteeism at the coalface meant an annual loss of output amounting to 15 million tons. On that basis 8.11 per cent. means an annual loss of output of 17.8 million tons. To take avoidable and unavoidable absenteeism at the coalface, the figure in the week ended 6th July was 14.76 per cent., that is 32 million tons a year. That is the amount which would be obtained if we achieved Utopia, an impossible state, in which there was no avoidable or unavoidable absenteeism. I wish again to emphasise that avoidable absenteeism at the rate of 8.11 per cent. means a loss of 17.8 million tons of coal a year.
  I wish to touch on the question of exports. I fully realise the situation in which the Minister finds himself, but I wonder if the Committee realise how serious and how tragic are the results of our inability to export coal. In the first half of 1938 we sent abroad just under 18 million tons of coal. In the first half of this year we sent abroad 2,470,000 tons, most of it low grade coal. What is the effect? Let us take the Argentine. In the first half of 1938 we sent there over 1 million tons of coal. In the first half of this year we did not send the Argentine one solitary ton. The Argentine today is burning her maize, the maize

  113
  for which our farmers are crying out, because they have not got any coal. What is even more tragic is that farmers in Kent and elsewhere are using as a fertiliser vegetable ash which is imported from the Argentine; it is burnt maize. In the first half of 1938 we imported over 8,000,000 cwts. of maize from the Argentine. In the first half of this year we imported 1,164,000 cwts.
  Let us turn to Sweden. For housing purposes we are crying out for timber. Those of us who are connected with horticulture and agriculture also want timber to make decent containers in order to market our produce. We cannot get it. In the first half of this year we sent to Sweden just over 2,000 tons of coal; in the corresponding period of 1938 we sent 1,327,000 tons. What is the effect of that? I will give one figure, that in relation to pit props. In the first half of this year Sweden was able to send us 814 piled cubic fathoms of pit props. In the first half of 1938 she sent us over 20,000 piled cubic fathoms. Sweden cannot send us more timber. She is burning it because we cannot give her the coal. We sent to Egypt in the first half of 1938, 788,000 tons of coal. We did not send a solitary ton during the first half of this year. We got from the Egyptians 157,000 tons of cotton seed oil during the first half of 1938. This year we have not had one ton. Egypt sent us 124,000 tons of feeding stuffs for our animals during the first six months of 1938. This year she was able to send us just over 11,000 tons. Why? She is burning her cotton seed cake because we cannot give her the coal. We have a mission in Egypt today trying to sell locomotives to the Egyptians, but we are not in a position to give them coal in order to make the locomotives function.
  We sent nearly 1,500,000 tons of coal to Denmark during the first half of 1938; this year we sent 332,000 tons. Most of the heavy boiler plant in Denmark was supplied by British manufacturers and built to burn British coal. Danish industry is being retarded in its recovery by our inability to supply coal. That is having an adverse effect upon the food supplies which Denmark send to this country. Danes with whom I have fairly close contact say that, unless we do something more about the coal, sooner or later, probably sooner, they will have to go to the
  114
  Russians and do a barter deal with Danish food for Russian coal.
  The Minister referred to the question of unofficial strikes. I know this is an unpopular subject, but I think we ought to face up to the figures. In the first five months of 1946 there were 978 stoppages of work in the whole of industry. Of that number 592 took place in the mining industry. The stoppages involved 108,000 workers and resulted in a loss of 227,000 working days. During the same period of 1945, there were 473 stoppages. Figures show that strikes are becoming more frequent but shorter in duration and involving a smaller number of men per strike. We cannot get away from the fact that unofficial strikes are the barometer of discipline, and that there were 119 more strikes in the mining industry in the first half of this year than there were during the same period of last year. I commend this point-to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. Two regiments with which I had the great honour to come into contact during the war were the Durham Light Infantry and the Northumberland Fusiliers. There are very few regiments in the British Army, not excluding my own, who have a finer fighting record and a finer standard of discipline in the field. That is not only the effect of Army training. There is a psychological problem which has not yet been solved. I refer to the discipline of the young miner.
  I now come to the question of the recruitment of labour for the mines. I have endeavoured in a small but very humble way to play some part in the recruiting campaign in the county of Kent. In Kent we can offer amenities which are probably better than those in other fields in the country. Recently the Minister opened at Betteshanger what is probably the finest and certainly the newest training school for boys in the mining industry. It has been brought home to me again and again that we can go out from this House and make speeches, we can have propaganda films and campaigns, but the real recruiting sergeant for the mining industry is the miner himself. The position was just the same in the Territorial Army before the war. The men themselves brought in the recruits. The finest recruiting sergeants were the riflemen, the private soldiers, and the sappers. The real recruiting sergeant of the mining industry is the miner himself. That is why I hope that a small minority

  115
  of miners will read the Minister's words and forget the past. It is a small minority of miners who go about abusing their own industry and it is they who are listened to.
  I will give one example of what I mean. I was in a public house the other night and there was a miner there. He said, "Send my sons into the industry? Of course not; not likely." I know for a fact that that man has three sons who are already in the industry. We had just the same state of affairs in the Army. We had men who went about telling the girls the awful things that would happen to them if they joined the A.T.S. I beg of these very few miners that they should forget the past and realise the future which awaits their industry. The mining industry has a very high degree of comradeship. Let it have as well a very high degree of esprit de corps. If it does not, we must recognise the fact that if output continues to fall and coal becomes scarcer and dearer, sooner or later, with the achievements of science, coal will become an obsolescent fuel.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Brown: It was not my intention to intervene in this Debate and I would not have done so had it not been for one or two of the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite. We have been advised from time to time by various speakers to try to forget the past. Almost following upon those words they tell us something of the past which awakens our thoughts of days gone by. I know the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) will pardon me if I do not follow him in the arguments he advanced about the importance of exporting coal in order that we might secure the commodities which are essential for home consumption. I would remind him that there was a time when hon. Members opposite, or at least hon. Members of the same school of thought or the same political philosophy, were importing coal into this country in order to bring down the wages of the miner. It is well that we should remind them of what happened in those days and how hon. Members opposite drove the miner down to the lowest possible depths of poverty in 1922, 1923, and 1924, culminating in the great strike or lockout of 1926. That was due to the fact that the school of thought that is now
  116
  advocating the exportation of coal was importing coal into this country to bring down the wages of the miners. I will leave that matter, and will only say that it is as well that those hon. Members should be reminded of the things that happened in the past.
  I want to follow the line of argument which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who stressed the importance of the Minister dealing with the very important and vital subject of subsidence in our mining villages. In my judgment, this matter has been treated too lightly by Governments of the past, and our own Government will scan over it very lightly unless we are constantly prodding the Department to give some attention to this vital matter. I know that the Committee will forgive me if I give one or two illustrations which I gave in Committee upstairs when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill was under consideration. Fifty years ago, in my constituency, there occurred, caused by mining subsidence, the collapse of two houses. All the inhabitants, the furniutre and equipment went down, and not a particle of furniture or a body has been recovered. In order that those people should have the decency of what we call a consecrated funeral, the ground in which they were buried due to mining subsidence was consecrated. Their bodies have never been recovered. That is the effect of mining subsidence in a mining village.
  Twelve months ago last April, in the same constituency, there was a subsidence which swallowed up one railway engine, 13 wagons and the driver. Neither the railway engine, nor the wagons nor the driver have been recovered, and that piece of land has also been consecrated, and there the driver's body rests, with the railway engine and wagons. Last September, a retired servant of one of our authorities spent £1,200 on the purchase of a house. She had the assurances of all the experts who were available that there was no danger from mining subsidence. "You are all right," they said, "you are secure." Within three months of her entering that house, after spending £1,200 upon it, the whole place collapsed. I mention these points in order to bring the attention of the Ministry, the industry and this Committee to the very great importance of dealing with mining subsidence.

  117
  Speaking as a practical miner with 35 years' experience underground, I believe that, if proper methods were adopted in the mining of coal in this country, subsidence would be reduced to an almost negligible amount, but, as long as we are prepared to extract coal without paying due regard to the effect which that extraction will have on the township in which it takes place, so long shall we have these dangers arising from mining subsidence. I could tell the Committee a long and weary story of what it has meant to the local authority in my district. In my judgment, the rates of the local authorities in the mining areas are far in excess of what they ought to be, and I find, on close analysis, that the excess is due to the fact that they have got to bear financial burdens upon their sewers, gas and water mains which have been damaged largely as a result of mining subsidence. I know that the Minister has promised the appointment of a committee to go into this question, but we have had committees and commissions in the past, and I say that the time has long gone by when we ought to apply those methods. We ought to get down to it and say to the mining constituencies and to the nation at large that we will set to work to put an end to the colossal damage that is being done by mining subsidence.
  May I mention one point about improvements in the industry? I know the long-term policy of the Government under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, and that is not the point I want to discuss now. I want to refer to what I would call the short-term policy. I was very much impressed with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who opened the Debate, and who stressed four points. He touched upon the human aspect, the output aspect, the stocks in hand for domestic purposes and the industrial stocks—four very important elements—but the technique has changed today in comparison with that of some years ago. We have never had the human aspect put first before the House. It always came last, but, today, we have had the human aspect put first, and it is a rather remarkable change in the technique of the Opposition.
  I want to say a word or two about transport. I live in a mining constituency, and the transport facilities
  118
  which are now provided for our men, who have to travel long distances, are ancient and out of cate. May I tell the Committee that there are men in my constituency who have to rise as early as 4.45 a.m. in order to get to their work to be able to start at 7 a.m.? They have to board four or five different buses before they reach the colliery, and, when they get there, they have to walk a distance of between two and a-half and three miles underground. It takes some of these men longer to get to their work, and from their work, than it takes me to get from my constituency to this House. The matter of transport is of vital importance in order to improve the conditions now prevailing in the coalfields. Hon. Members who have not witnessed the conditions which I have described may ask why it is necessary for these men to travel such distances.
  The constituency adjoining mine includes a coalfield which is becoming worked out. In 1919 and 1920, we had 19 or 20 pits in full commission, employing 10,000 men and boys. Today, we have not a wheel turning. There are the effects—19 or 20 pits gone out of commission, and not a new shaft has been sunk, and 10,000 men and boys are being compelled to migrate, or, at least, travel considerable distances in order to earn their livelihood. Why are these men compelled to do that? It is because they have not been provided with the proper transport facilities which are expected by the ordinary man; and I want to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the provision of better transport facilities in order to ease the burden of long periods of travelling now being experienced by these men, and not only on the surface, but underground. Even when our men get to the pit, they have to walk two and a-half or three miles underground, perhaps in a stooping position. We cannot expect men to give of their best at the coalface after a journey like that.
  The hon. Member who spoke last made reference to avoidable absenteesim. How can we expect men to give of their best at the coalface when they have lost about one-half of their energy in travelling to their work? Therefore, I beg the Minister, in his consideration of these points, to see to it that, first, there shall be an approach to the subsidence question quickly and, second, that there shall be a definite approach to the minimising or

  119
  abolition of the subsidence which is now occurring on our minefields. I am hopeful that, if we can approach this question in the spirit and with the attitude of mind with which we should approach it, not only can we produce the coal which our nation needs, but we can make the lives of our miners and their families happier than they have ever been before in the history of the mining industry.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Jennings: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) who put his case, particularly with regard to subsidence, in a very human way. If he will forgive me for saying so, I listened to the same story in the Standing Committee and I believe that no hon. Member in any part of the Committee could fail to have sympathy with regard to the occurrences about which he spoke. That is the spirit I would like to see engendered in all hon. Members because of the picture which the right hon. Gentleman painted this afternoon with regard to this great industry. I say "great industry" because I have lived. in a mining county for 50 years. I was very glad to hear an hon. Friend refer to the Durham Light Infantry, and I felt a little tinge of pride about having served with them in the last war.
  I know that there are faults on both sides in this particular industry. Some people may blame one side and some the other. Sometimes the blame is placed on one particular section without any attempt being made to find out the correctness of the facts. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) mentioned things which were going on in her area with regard to fumes, and pinpricks with regard to managements. I feel that she could not have made out a better case for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) in his plea to the Minister this afternoon to hasten the vesting date. Let us get this period of suspense done away with, because it is doing the industry endless harm. For instance, the hon. Lady mentioned these irritations. Is not that likely to cause some dissatisfaction? Are the owners—
  Miss Lee: If the assumption for what the hon. Gentleman is now saying is that there is not sufficient kindliness in the present
  120
  managements to do things until they are forced to do them, that is his assumption and not mine.
  Mr. Jennings: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. I am grateful to her for the interruption because it affords me an opportunity to ease her mind on the matter. These things go to support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley that the vesting date should be hastened, and that the miners should not be left in suspense any longer than can be helped. It is not good for the miners, and it is not good for the owners. A better case could not have been made out.
  I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend raise the question of the export trade. For many years the coal barges on the rivers Tarn and Weir have brought in the coal which was exported to the Scandinavian countries. Durham and Northumberland have, very largely, lived on this export trade, and it is a very sad thing that they should not be exporting coal and bringing back foodstuffs to this country. I would point out to the Minister that, economically, this is a very serious matter for this country. If we are to lose our coal exporting trade permanently, we are going to be in a very serious economic position. I cannot think of anything to replace that great export trade which we enjoyed before the war. It is a most serious position, and I ask the Minister to give full consideration to it.
  I have a dual interest in this matter because I represent a constituency whose inhabitants earn their livelihood in the Sheffield steel industry. The one thing which concerns me is the economic position of the coalfields today. We get a drop in output and a lessening of our export trade Anybody knows that when there is a drop in production, the costs must be increased because the ratio must be increased. There are two or, perhaps, three things which can be done. I will give an example of two. An endeavour can be made to cut down administrative charges or expenses in order to lessen costs, or there can be an increase in the selling price of the commodity. This industry is in a very bad position, and I am sure that nobody will dispute that fact. Although we are attempting to better the immediate position, we are approaching it in the manner of "any port in a storm" and "Do

  121
  whatever you can.'" I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) who said that manpower is the immediate answer to the problem. It always was and always will be. What the Minister has to do, by hook or by crook, is to get as many people back into the industry as he can. As my right hon. and gallant Friend suggested, let the men realise that they can earn good wages and that there is something in the shops for them to buy, and they will work, and encourage others to go into the industry.
  Mr. Simmons: Like 1926.
  Mr. Jennings: I could say a good deal about 1926, and the hon. Member for West Birmingham would not shine over it. However, I do not wish to be drawn into any party controversy because I feel that this is a matter which must be kept out of party politics. The position is too serious for that. But I do feel that this Government have to think again. If the answer to the problem of the Minister of Fuel and Power regarding manpower is the putting of more consumer goods into the shops, then the present policy of the Government has to be reversed. That is essential. Further, with regard to the uneconomic situation in the coalfields, I am apprehensive that, in the near future, we shall have to face a rise in the price of coal. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the Minister did say in a speech made elsewhere that there will have to be an increase in the price of electricity. That, I believe, goes also for gas. If my steelworks have to pay more for their coal, it will increase the cost of the steel. The result will be to lose further steel export trade That is a very serious prospect. I would rather take almost any step than add to the cost of our steel which we require so badly for export markets. There is an additional point. If the consumer is to be asked to pay more for coal, I suggest that the housewife has just about enough to bear at present without having to pay more for her coal—that is, when she gets it, because it is not often that she does get it.
  That brings me to my last point. Last winter we had a serious situation in Sheffield owing to the shortage of coal. Transport difficulties played a big part in that shortage. There is plenty of time between now and the winter in which to organise
  122
  and cooperate more with other sections where further cooperation is needed, so that there will be no bottleneck and the coal distributors will get their proper supplies and will be able to supply the householders. If we have a hard winter and we get an extreme coal shortage, as appears possible, there will be some terrible heartburning in the country. The responsibility is that of the Government. The Government have brought in this Coal Nationalisation Bill at a most inopportune time, and the Bill has not given one ton more of coal.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: It is a bit early yet.
  Mr. Jennings: We cannot wait for ever. Some of the promises of the party opposite take a long time to materialise. If it takes as long as the housing promises, it will not be fulfilled until the very dim and distant future. The responsibility is that of the Minister and the Government, and if they fail, I hope they get a life sentence.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. D. J. Williams: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of making some observations in this Debate. I say that for three reasons First of all, I have spent most of my working life in the mining industry in many of the British coalfields, and I have experienced in my own life most of the vicissitudes through which this industry has passed during the last 30 years. Secondly, coalmining is the principal industry in my constituency where 10,000 miners and their families are directly dependent on it as their only industry. The future of this industry, therefore, is a matter of very serious concern to all of them. Thirdly, coal is, and must remain for a long time, the foundation of our national economy, notwithstanding atomic energy. Without coal this country cannot possibly survive as an industrial nation, and certainly cannot survive as a modern world Power. Coal is a very important raw material. Indeed, it is our only important raw material. For the last half century and more coal has provided one of the chief exports, and these exports have paid for the imports, which have made possible the standard of living of the British people. Without coal Britain could not maintain a quarter of her present population. Without coal our industries would wither, our towns and

  123
  cities would decay and our population would decline.
  It is a truism to say that modern Britain was built on coal. What wool was in our national, economy from the 14th to the 18th centuries, coal became in the 18th and 19th centuries. It became our staple industry and trade. I have heard it said once that the Woolsack in another place should be replaced by a coal sack. That was many years ago in the spacious days of "King Coal." I am wondering whether we could afford the luxury of an ornamental sack of coal in these days of stringencies, and I have little doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister would long since have turned his attention to that sack and added it to his dwindling stocks. I gather from some of his recent speeches that Wentworth Hall is not the only place where he would like to turn loose his bulldozers.
  The mining industry is faced with a number of very serious problems. I have only time to deal with two; namely, technical reorganisation and manpower. Those are the fundamental problems of the industry. If we fail to solve those we fail in everything. All the Amendments laboriously moved by right hon. and hon. Members opposite and all the Amendments from another place will avail us nothing unless we can solve the problems of the technical reorganisation of the mining industry and get new recruits into it. I appreciate that these two problems are very closely connected, but I would also stress that they are, in essence, two different problems. There is a tendency to confuse them and to misunderstand their exact relationship. I have heard it argued that if we had sufficient new machines in the industry we could solve the problems of mechanisation and of manpower. It has also been argued that if we had machinery in the industry, that in itself would make the mines attractive and would attract new labour. I very much doubt whether either of those arguments will bear objective analysis. First of all, machines in themselves do not provide an attraction for labour. Today in the British coalfield, in the districts which are most highly organised, there is the same reluctance on the part of the youngsters to enter the industry as there is in my own district which technically is the most
  124
  backward in Britain. Secondly, however much machinery we can get in the next five years it will need men to operate it; all the machinery we can get—and I hope we get quite a lot as a result of the American Loan—will need at least 800,000 people in the mining industry. That is over 100,000 more than we have at present, and the number is decreasing every day.
  I now come to the technical side of the mining industry. This is in a positively alarming state. If is the legacy left by so-called free enterprise to the Coal Board and to the nation. In the last 25 years there has been absolute technical stagnation in the British mining industry, and a sort of technical paralysis has overtaken the industry. Between the two wars not a single piece of new technique was introduced into British mining. I agree there were extensions of existing technical processes, but everything that we had in 1940 we also had in 1920. That is surely a condemnation of the anarchy and the mischievous, malicious mismanagement which operated in the mining industry for the whole period between the two wars. I have no time at my disposal to deal with the alarming decline that took place in this industry between the two wars. May I give one reason why the technical situation in the mining industry is so deplorably serious? All sorts of reasons are given from time to time—mechanical difficulties, geological difficulties, and human difficulties.
  I suggest that the main reason for the technical stagnation of the mining industry is that for 25 years labour was too cheap. Any economist will say that in every industry where labour is cheap there is no inducement to introduce new mechanisation, new processes and new machinery. On more than one occasion in the course of the last six months or so I have heard complaints about the high price of coal. Coal is dear today because colliers were cheap yesterday. That would not have been the Case if we had been able to maintain reasonable, sensible and civilised standards of living for the miners in the mining industry, and if the owners had been compelled to introduce far more machinery and far more up-to-date mechanical processes of every kind. The job of the Coal Board today is of colossal dimensions. It is not simply a question of introducing a few coalface machines here and there.

  125
  For quite a while now the tendency has been to concentrate on face machinery, and to neglect the equally important feature of transport. I know of collieries in my own district where there has been considerable face mechanisation, but the underground haulage system is in precisely the same condition mechanically as it was 50 years ago. Physically the roads are far worse, because they have been neglected; repairs have been neglected; timber men and repairers have not been put in to keep the roads in good condition, for the simple reason that a horse needs far more space in which to travel than a rope.
  I now wish to make a few suggestions to the Minister for dealing with this problem. There is the problem of manpower, which is very serious, especially in my own district. The decrease of personnel in the British mining industry has been quoted time after time. Last year in my own village, in three collieries, we lost men at the rate of one every day: 350 men came out of those collieries in 12 months through pneumoconiosis and silicosis. Last year 9,000 miners from South Wales applied to the medical board for a certificate of suspension; 5,000 certificates were granted. I understand that already up to May of this year there had been 3,000 further applications to the medical board, and we expect another 7,000 by the end of the year. This problem is very grave. It is important for the welfare of the miner after he leaves the pit, and important for the future of the men who will not go into the pit until this problem is solved.
  There are three aspects of this problem. First, there is the technical aspect, the question of introducing and applying preventive measures to reduce the incidence of dust disease. Some progress has been made in this respect, but it is far from adequate. Second, there is the medical aspect, the question of treatment and, if possible, cure. However, I am advised by all the medical men who have examined this problem in South Wales that so far medical science knows of no cure. It is true that at the moment certain experiments are being conducted in Llandough hospital, but they are in an embryonic stage. It will take medical science quite a long time to find a cure for this dread disease. The third aspect of the problem, which I stress, is the
  126
  social side. In South Wales at the moment we have about 25,000 people who have been suspended from the mining industry because of this dust disease. They cannot return to the mines, and in most of the valleys of South Wales there is no alternative employment.
  Six months ago my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set up a working party under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) to investigate this problem, and to make recommendations. It was my privilege to serve on that committee, and I am a party to the report. We recommended that immediately in these remote and isolated valleys in South Wales the Government themselves should establish a number of factories in order to employ these people. That has a very important bearing on the problem of recruitment for the mining industry. So long as these people have no alternative employment nobody will go into the mining industry in South Wales. The mothers will warn the children that the fate of their fathers awaits them if they go into the mines. I have seen all the appalling tragedy attached to this problem. I have seen men of splendid physique fading away and declining, and dying in the prime of life. There are thousands of young men in South Wales of 30 and 35 years of age for whom there is no employment. I urge my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to get together on this matter, and to get these factories started in order to provide employment for these people, to provide new inducement for young lads to enter the mining industry.
  In the present state of suspense in the mining industry we face a very critical coal situation next winter. I urge the Minister to bring forward, with the greatest possible expediency, the vesting date when the Coal Board takes over. I had made a note to say something similar to a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), namely, that the mining industry now is suspended, like Mohamet's coffin, between the giving up of responsibility by the coal owners and the assuming of responsibility by the Coal Board. In other words, we have an industry that has a body without a head.. The result is that there is no planning; no

  127
  arrangement is being made for what is to be done tomorrow, because nobody knows what will happen tomorrow. I believe this is vital for the future of this industry. It may be possible to run a capitalist society without a plan, but it is not possible to run a colliery without a plan. If we do not have a plan for the next year we will have disaster and catastrophe. At the moment nobody is planning. I do urge that the Coal Board should take over the running of the mining industry with the maximum speed.
  I hope the first act of the Coal Board will be a dramatic act; an act which will have tremendous psychological repercussions in the mining industry. As its first act it should give the miners a five-day week as a token payment of good will; in effect, telling the miners: "Here we are, a new organisation, a new management, based on new principles. The first thing we do is to give you something to show that we are concerned, as nobody in this industry in the past has been, with the welfare and the future of the miners themselves." The principle of the five day week is already found in the industry. We have it in South Wales, in the "bonus shift" system for the afternoon shift workmen. A man works five, and he gets six shifts. If he loses a shift he loses two. I believe that this would be of tremendous psychological value amongst the miners. I am perfectly satisfied that is would remove some of the headaches about absenteeism which are worrying people on the opposite benches. With proper organisation and systematic mechanisation, a five day week would mean a tremendous increase in coal production, and that after all is our main problem.
  I would like to make one last suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power on a subject I raised some time ago in a Question. It is that in order to bring this industry into line with modern needs it must be mechanised from the ground floor upwards. To do that we need machinery, and to operate that machinery we need men who understand the machines. You cannot put a man of 50 years of age, who has been handling a pick and shovel all his life, in charge of an American power loader tomorrow morning. I suggested some time ago to my right hon. Friend that he
  128
  should select a representative deputation of miners from all over the British coalfields and send them to visit American mines, to see how machinery is operated there. We have sent technicians over there, we have sent welfare workers and ambitious managers. Now I suggest we should send some miners. I believe that if we do that we shall bring a new spirit into the mining industry. The miners will feel, for the first time, that the Government are interested in them, and are anxious to use their experience and knowledge. I believe that with such a new attitude we shall put the mining industry on its feet once more, and it will become a solid and sound foundation for the new Britain we are anxious to build.
  8.22 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I wish to speak for a few minutes on three points only. In the first place, I am raising again the point concerning consumer goods. After all, we have now got the nationalisation of the coal mines, and it is no use going back again to 1926 or 1906; we had better confine our attention to 1946, and things as they are today. For a start I think that everybody in the country realises the seriousness of the position in the coal industry and, with a view to attracting men into the industry and to getting them to work when they are there, we should like to see a bit of weightage in the coalmining districts—that is to say, there should be even more consumer goods in the shops up there, there should be even better houses built, and new houses built more quickly, because we know that the country depends in the first place upon the coal industry. Everybody in the country would be only too glad to see the miner get a square deal, and a good deal, immediately.
  It is no use saying hard words about the Minister of Fuel and Power. We must turn over, in our own minds, what we would do, if we were dictators to the coal industry, as he is. Perhaps I should not say "dictator," because that might be a breach of Privilege. I should say "master," as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General said in his speech that "he is the master of the country now." The first thing I would do would be to give better houses, better transport and more consumer goods in the shops in the coalmining areas. The other point I want to raise is concerned

  129
  with quality as against quantity. I have received several letters from my own constituency about the quality of coal supplied to Northern Ireland. I will quote only one, which I received this morning from Shaw's Bridge, a place in County Down. A lady there writes to me:
  "Dear Sir,
  Seeing there is to be a Debate on coal next Wednesday, would it be possible for you to draw the attention of the Minister of Fuel to the inferior type of coal sent to Northern Ireland? On July 8th I received a quarter ton, supposed to be Grade II, which cost me £1 is. 11d., but which was only steam coal suitable for a furnace and entirely unsuitable for a house. After trying daily for a week without success, not to mention the waste of sticks, oil, etc., to light a fire, I went down the following Monday to complain to the coal merchant. One of the head men told me that this was a cargo they had received from North Wales by the s.s. "Oliver", and admitted it was only steam coal. It seems they have told the Coal Control Board about this, but the Control Board have said that it had to be given out as Grade II to their customers. This sort of thing is really a scandal. This gentleman wanted me to go round to the coal office and complain, which I did, but they said all they could do was to allow me a quarter of a ton to burn the bad stuff up. This second quarter ton cost me £1 2S. 2d. How the working people are going to live if every other week, there is an increase on things like coal I do not know."
  I would only point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that it cannot be economy to send steam coal to people to use as household coal, or to send household coal to be used in a boiler. I suggest that that is one of the things he might draw attention to, now that he is the master of the coal industry at last.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: We have heard sufficient today to warrant the Opposition desiring to turn in their seats and ask forgiveness for all the things they did not do, and all the things they ought to have done, to avert the tragedy which has been brought home to us today more than ever before in the history of the country. I do not want to deal at length with the past. Scratching old sores will not do a bit of good, it will only make the sore bleed and become more inflamed. I was particularly interested in two speeches today, one by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and one by the hon. Member for the Hallam division (Mr. Jennings). They wanted three or four things to be done. The hon. Member for Hallam complained about housewives not having coal
  130
  and about there being no coal for export. He wants it to be exported, he wants it in the housewives' cellars, and at the same time he wants it in the steel works in Sheffield. He cannot have it all ways. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because there is not sufficient.
  I want to say a few words about the wastage of coal in the steel industry. I would like the hon. Member for Hallam particularly to go with me this weekend; I could take him to places in his own constituency and show him furnaces, under private enterprise, where thousands of cubic feet of gas are being wasted. If he would go with me to my constituency, I could take him into iron works where raw coal is blazing away on the hearths of furnaces, with natural draught, burning away to blazes. Then there is the question of exports. The hon. Member wants us to export coal, to send away this raw material which it is so vitally necessary to keep at home—at the moment at all events—to create all those many things which he wants to put into the shops so that the miner can spend his money. He cannot have it all ways. The problem is one of the correct and proper distribution at the moment, having regard to all the factors.
  Much has been said today about the history of the industry. I think everybody is agreed that the right and proper thing has at long last been done, except that the date should be brought forward, so that the Board can get on with its job. I want to say just a word about the spirit of the industry. Hon. Members opposite know that I come from the great steel industry. I have slogged and slaved, just as a miner does, for 32 years in front of a steel furnace, and I know something about sweat and hard work. I can claim for my industry, despite what may have been said in the Debate on the steel industry, that there always was a good spirit of cooperation between men and management. We got round the table, and discussed our problems together, whatever we thought about each other; and there was always a decent relationship, and that is important. I think that it is the spirit of the miners that requires to be encouraged. I have heard it alleged that the miner is fond of his whippet and racing and so forth. Why should he not be? I have heard it alleged that he would give a chop to his dog. I have heard all sorts of allegations about loss of time and absenteeism.

  131
  I am not in favour of absenteeism in any industry. There has been, following the war, time lost, and that could have been avoided; but men were tired, very tired. The victory celebration days were occasions when we lost coal production that we could not afford to lose, but they celebrated a victory without which we should have lost the country in which the coal is situated. Those are things that ought to be taken into account.
  I want, as a practical working fellow who has come into this Chamber, to make my appeal to the miners, and, particularly, to the young fellows in the industry, to put their backs into this job, to create a spirit of comradeship, a spirit in which they can say, "This is our job, and the future of Britain depends on it." I appeal to them to forget the past. Recrimination will not do—although it is a good thing sometimes to remind our hon. Friends opposite how the conditions which pertain today came about; and that was that in times past things were not done that should have been done. But we have to face up to the position as it is, not as it was, and the position in which we are in this industry is a parlous one. Every industry, and the steel industry, in particular, will want coal this winter. I do not want hon. Gentlemen opposite to be able to say later on when debating steel that we should have done better if the miners had given us more coal. There is nobody more adroit in picking up that sort of point than hon. Gentlemen opposite. They will pick up points like that, and use them. Therefore, I make my appeal to the boys in the coalmining industry, to the men coming back from the Forces, to put their backs into the job. It is not easy to come back from the Forces, from that way of life in which they had a straight stance, and now to bend and crouch at the coalface. I do not speak as a miner, but I have seen miners at work. I have seen negro miners at work in America during the war, and since the war I have had the opportunity of seeing the German workers, underfed as they are, producing more coal in the Ruhr coalfield, because of better mechanisation.
  What we must do is to give the miner the feeling that he is the most important citizen in the country, and not the least important, as he has been made to feel in
  132
  the past. I remember, as a boy, standing on the quayside at Port Talbot in South Wales and seeing reparations coal being brought in, while our miners were standing idly about the streets. From the Minister, downwards, all of us, including the Opposition, should get into our minds that there are bad miners and bad managers, but that, generally speaking, the men in the coal industry are honest-to-God fellows who want to see this country's future safeguarded. Some people have said that coal is our most important asset. It is not our only asset. There are the industries of ore, clay and limestone, and so on; but our coal industry is vitally important, and I hope that, as a result of this Debate, all of us will go to our constituencies and mix with the miners, encouraging them to work so that this country can be made what it cannot be without their efforts, and what it ought to be—the finest country under the sun.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I think most hon. Members will agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones). I could not, however, myself resist the thought that, had he and his friends been actuated by those motives and those ideas in the earlier part of this century, we should not be discussing the mining industry in so parlous a state as it is at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not my desire to pursue that point, but to try to bring into focus the main problems of this industry to which, I feel, too little attention has been given during this Debate. We have certain basic conditions. Production in 1945 was 170 million tons, and 240 million tons in 1937. There are approximately 70,000 fewer people in the industry than at that time, and output per man shift at the coalface was 60 cwt. in 1937, compared with 54 cwt. today. In 1937 absenteeism stood at 7 per cent., and today it is 17 per cent.
  These are the basic facts on which this industry rests, and from which we have to proceed. The plain argument against the Minister of Fuel and Power is that he has not proceeded anywhere. He has told us nothing about what he intends to do with this industry. We have heard nothing of the future plans, and nothing about the means by which he intends to put this industry on a sound footing. What is the effect of the present position? It means that trade is in grave danger

  133
  of dislocation. It even means that trade has been dislocated. I resent very much the attempt of the Minister to assume that the stoppages in industry last winter were very few. It was very much worse than the Minister tried to make out. Let us think for a moment of the large number of industries which draw upon gas supplies. Think how many days last winter the supply of gas was at half pressure or even less, and how many working hours were lost as a consequence of this failure or partial failure of gas supplies. The Minister is doing a disservice if he attempts to underrate the loss industry suffered last year as a result of the failure of supplies.
  Is not the housewife entitled to some consideration in this matter of coal? There is a tendency on the part of hon. Members opposite to underrate the consumer as being of no importance at all [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh,"] I think that is true. The present position and cost of coal is a matter of serious moment to many people in the country who have to burn coal domestically. I want hon. Members opposite, who are supposed to have sympathy for those people not very well off, to think of the position of aged women living on their own in one room, who have to buy a bag of coal at a price two and a half times higher than it was before the war, and then find that a considerable percentage of the coal cannot be burnt. That is a very damaging and difficult situation for thousands of elderly women. They are entitled to some consideration from the mining industry.
  The danger of a failure or partial failure of supplies will make more likely the possibility of inflation during the winter. If we have a partial suspension of fuel supplies it will add very materially to the costs of production. It is essential that we get over this difficulty and proceed to a basic plan for managing and developing the industry. It is remarkable that the Government seem to combine successfully all the disadvantages of control with none of its advantages. They produce a scheme of nationalisation and give us no effective control, or effective planning. I want the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to answer one or two specific questions, because many people, miners, users and the general public, will not be able to make certain decisions unless they are sure of the future of the industry. I want to ask him when he expects to restore the
  134
  output per manshift to what may be considered the normal level; when he proposes to restore the quality of fuel to its proper level? That is a important factor.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power has made great play about the amount of extra fuel consumed by public utility concerns. I suggest that a considerable percentage of that increase is accounted for by the poor quality of the fuel supplied, and what, in fact, we are getting is coal produced as saleable coal, which, in ordinary circumstances, would not be so regarded. What is the plan for carrying out the Reid Report? What steps have the Ministry taken to overcome such fundamental bottlenecks, in putting the scheme into operation, as the short supply of castings and electrical switchgear? It takes nearly 12 months to get the switchgear delivered, and unless some improvement is made we are going to be in a very difficult position. What is the estimated annual production for the next five years? That is very important for people to know. What do the Government intend to do about the price level? Is it the intention of the Government to maintain the price of coal at its present level, or do they foresee a reduction in price?
  How far is the policy of switching over to fuel oil to be proceeded with? I have never seen such a slipshod method adopted by a Minister before as the present Minister of Fuel and Power has adopted on the question of fuel oil. He has given no undertaking to the industry or to the nation as to the extent to which he intends this conversion to take place. Surely, if people are to enter into this conversion with any degree of confidence, they must be fully aware of the Government's intention in regard to the industry, of what the production is to be in the next five years, and whether they will have the advantage of cheap coal or whether fuel oil is to be the more desirable alternative. The Government have given no indication as to the extent to which they desire this conversion to take place, and no idea of the set up of the industry during the next five years. How does the Minister propose to get over the difficulty of carrying out the recommendations of the Reid Report, which will of necessity involve the use of labour which otherwise would be devoted to mining proper? As far as I can see,

  135
  the implementation of these recommendations would take away from mining proper a large proportion of its labour. I ask the Minister to tell us how he proposes to overcome that difficulty.
  Something has been said today about the human element, and I think very rightly, because I believe that the British miner is still the best miner in the world —and I say that in spite of the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I believe the British worker, in the main, is the be3t worker in the world, and that if he is treated in a proper manner we shall get very good results from him. I am not going to say that the policy of the owners of the mining industry has always been, an enlightened one. I do not suggest that for one moment. I want to see a better feeling widespread in the industry. I have been very grieved to find that the Government have taken what I consider to be an adverse step in connection with the miners' welfare. We had previously a Miners' Welfare Commission, which was a virtually independent body. Now they have chained it to the Coal Board. They have put as its chairman a member of the Coal Board. I think that that is a most undesirable precedent. If a man is charged with the job of developing the miners' welfare, he should be completely untrammelled without any association with the Board. He should be free to fight for the miners without any restriction at all. It would be a good thing in the interests of the miners themselves and of the Government, too, if they reconsidered the position and gave to the welfare organisation a completely independent status.
  I want to end by saying that I think there is a need in this industry, as there is need in all industries in this country, to give the workers the impression of having a higher status. A great deal of the ill feeling and the suspicion is due to the fact that the worker does not feel he has a sufficient share in the enterprise. There is a greater danger of that idea and suspicion developing under a highly centralised control like the Coal Board than under the control of individual companies. I am certain that hon. Members opposite will see this danger develop week after week, month after month and year after year, and they would do well to devote a good deal of their time and attention to seeing how far they can work in these
  136
  two conflicting elements, that is to say, a real interest in the industry by the workers, combined with an unfortunate centralised control, because we have to remember that if this industry and this process fail then this country will be faced with disaster.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Pryde: I listened today to the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) courageously leading his ragged army to attack and to each disciple on the opposite benches, and what was impressed upon me was the fact that they were talking on a subject that was absolutely foreign to them. Speaking personally,. I worked in the pits in Scotland from St. Patrick's Day, 1904, until on 12th July, 1945, the miners elected me to come here. It can be said then that I covered the period from the system of hand cutting coal to the machine age. I listened to the Minister of Fuel and Power telling us in as few short words as possible where the industry had got to at the present time. It was so unlike the right hon. Gentleman to. tell us to forget'. Forget Hartley. Wellington, the Haig, the Moira, Senhynydd and Gresford in England, to mention only a few, and remember in Scotland, Mauricewood, Udston High, Blantyre, The Redding, Portland, Donibristle, Low Valleyfield, Polton and New Battle. We may not forget, but we may forgive. We may forget 1921 and we may forgive 1926, but hon. Members opposite must remember that private ownership is responsible for the condition of the British coal mining industry today. It is not private enterprise, for there never was any enterprise in it.
  Colonel Clarke: Tonight we have been discussing the great shortage of coal, and may I remind the hon. Member that under private enterprise in 1913 we produced 200 million tons of coal, including what went abroad?
  Mr. Pryde: I will cover not only that period but the period from 1210 to the present day if the hon. and gallant Member wishes, because I come from the oldest coal mining district in Britain, where the first charter was granted to the monks of Battle Abbey, in 1210. These things are impressed and burned into our brains, for we know the history and

  137
  economics of our industry. I have here a little black book. An hon. Member said he hoped that the men who composed the Coal Board would get a life sentence if they failed. There is sufficient evidence in this book to give those Members who represent vested interests in coal, not a life sentence, but an execution. In this book, there is the evidence which was submitted, and admitted, at the Samuel Commission. On that evidence, the private ownership of the coal industry stands condemned for ever. Here is the life story of the Scottish Miners' Union. In 1546, there was founded the first coal-owners' organisation in Scotland, by a woman. It was not until recent years that Fallhouse Wilson, a weaver of Ayrshire, organised the Scottish miners. Here is a book which was the property of the late Robert Smillie, containing his photograph. It tells us that between 1873 and 1913, 47,000 miners were lost in the pits of Scotland, not counting men who were disabled for life by injury. The book tells us that, in 1906, the price of coal, sold f.o.b., was 5s. 9d. per ton. These are the conditions to which Members opposite would like to go back. We are never going back to those conditions. In Lanarkshire we gave you as much as 36 tons per man, at one colliery. In the Lothians, we gave you as much as 20 tons per man. We gave you our blood and you, in turn, gave us victimisation and poor houses. As far back as 1908, Mr. Daniel de Leon, the great American economist, demonstrated that there was only one way to attract labour to industry—to offer the inducement of shorter hours and better conditions. You failed to do that.
  Mr. Drayson: On a point of Order. Did you do all this, Mr. Beaumont?
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I have refrained from correcting the hon. Member because I did not wish to disturb his discourse. He is, of course, out of Order in ascribing these deeds to me.
  Mr. Pryde: You shut down collieries which can be reopened again on an economic basis. In my own district, 12 collieries were shut, and only one small one reopened. In 1926, you inflicted upon us a levy of 3d. per ton in order to finance the rehabilitation of the industry in Scotland, but no new pits were sunk.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I can. stand some things, but I am not going to be accused of that. The hon. Member must cease blaming me. I assure him I am not responsible.
  Mr. Pryde: The vested interests of coal, as represented by Members opposite, are responsible for the condition of the coal industry today. More men are employed today on underground transport than ever before. It is no wonder that coal is an uneconomic prospect, because it has always been sold, in international markets, under its economic value. The miner has been the sufferer in consequence.
  The Reid Report has been mentioned. There is not one thing in the Reid Report which is unknown to the mining community. We know all about the technique of coal extraction, we know which methods are best, cheapest and most economical. The Reid Report admits that hundreds of millions of pounds must be poured into the coal industry in this country in order to restore it again to economic health. Are we to give these hundreds of millions of tons to the private owners who have brought the industry into this condition? Certainly not. The nation must finance the industry, as only the nation can finance it, in order once more to restore coal to the position it has always occupied in the national economy.
  In 1913, 97 million tons of coal, including bunkers, were shipped from these islands to be exchanged on the international markets and to bring back to this country the foodstuffs necessary to give a higher standard of living to our people. Those days have gone for ever. Suppose that the Coal Board begins now to make new borings and sinkings; the coal age will have passed by the time the Coal Board, with all the labour at its disposal, is able again to bring the industry back to the peak position of 1913. But for 40 years at least, atomic energy or not, coal will be king.
  I am positive that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power is the man for the job. I appeal to the Minister to apply Socialist economics to the coal industry, to shorten the working day, to give the miners a five-day week, to concentrate upon giving them more new houses. He must see to it that the gap which was created between 1921 and 1933 is filled. In those years the drawers and

  139
  fillers below ground were displaced, and there was a gap between the apprentices coming into the industry and the strippers. That gap can only be filled by training, as in Holland and Germany. What could be done in Nazi Germany can be done in democratic Britain. The people in the mining industry must be given better housing conditions, and more safety measures must be taken in the mines. I am glad that during the last year there has been a lowering of the accident rate in the industry, and my right hon. Friend the Minister must see that that continues in future. I conclude by appealing to hon. Members opposite not to sabotage the work of the Coal Board, but to second in the country the efforts of a man who has demonstrated since 1924 that he knows the scientific approach to the coalmining problem of this country.
  8.59 p.m.
  Major Peter Roberts: I have listened to this Debate with very great interest. Apart from some very interesting remarks about fuel oil, practically the whole of the Debate has been centred round the problem of coal, and therefore, I hope I shall be forgiven if I address most of my remarks to that subject. Most hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the new Coal Board. I wish to say that hon. Members on this side, although they may have been opposed to the setting up of that Board, will wish it well now that it has been set up I must, however, point out to the hon. Member for South Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) that it may well be that the Coal Board will have to shut down pits, and I think it is dangerous to suggest that that is a bad practice. We must remember that the Coal Board will have two advantages over the owners. One is that they will have a great monopoly which the owners have not; secondly, they will have the backing of over £150 million of Government money, and I think we must realise that in the hands of wise and good administration, this must have some effect. Our point is that with constructive criticism, we shall try to assist the Coal Board, but I would say that behind the main issue in this Debate I have noticed something far more sinister—the question of coal supplies for next winter which is looming up.
  The Minister's speech at the beginning of the Debate contained a certain amount
  140
  of optimism and complacency, but when I heard the more experienced speech—if I may say so—of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) I began to see the light more clearly. I thought figures given were rather complicated, but I have done my best to bring them down to rock bottom, although I do not think that a responsible Minister having the facts before him as he has should at this time make the assumption that he will obtain an increase of coal from the collieries this year over last year. If I may make a reasonable and, I think, wise assumption, I believe it would be on the safe side to say that output from the mines will be the same as last year, and in that case the figures are these. The requirements for last year were 187 million tons, which included 5 million tons of stock; the requirement for this year, as the Minister has said, is 196 million tons. Making the assumption which I do, that the amount of coal obtained will be the same as that which was raised last year, and allowing an extra 2 million tons for increased opencast and other methods, then we find that the Minister will have to take 12 million tons out of stock, in order to obtain the required 196 million tons. Those are the figures.
  We know that the Minister started the year with 15 million tons in stock, so that it is likely that at the end of the year there will be only 3 million or 4 million tons. The latter figure was mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke and, on the assumptions at the time, the Minister agreed with it. If that is so, it is clear, on the assumptions I have made, that by about March of next year our stocks may be down almost to zero, and that is the danger point. The Minister took into account stocks on the pit bank and so on, which I did not think was quite fair, but being as just as possible, and assuming that we do not obtain any increased production, I can see the danger point being March of next year. I accuse the Minister most seriously of showing too much complacency, a point stressed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke and also brought out very clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) in his very excellent opening speech. Surely we must appreciate, as has been said by many hon. Members

  141
  in the Debate, the serious danger to our industrial foundation if this is allowed to happen.
  The Minister has agreed to give all available information, and I hope that he may not give it too late. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley likened the Minister to the late Minister of Food, and that is an example the Minister must take to heart. It is no use coining down to this House and giving the facts when it is too late; we must have them early. That will assist the industry in planning ahead with production. From Members on all sides of the Committee we have heard about the needs of the consumer and the exporter. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) stressed the needs of agriculture, while the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) emphasised the exporters' needs, as did the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) and the hon. Member for the Hallam division of Sheffield (Mr. Jennings). They all stressed the need for coal. If there is to be a cut downwards, we should know now on whom that cut will fall. That point was mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke.
  If we compare inland consumption in 1939 with what it has been in the first half of 1946, we find that more coal has been consumed in the latter period. If we compare 1940 with 1946, the totals are practically the same, but public utility companies have taken considerably more. The domestic consumer has had to take considerably less. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to buy electric heaters and to put electric light in our houses, may be able to use a certain amount of electricity or gas, but the reduction has hit most hardly the poor people who rely, in their single rooms, upon the kitchen cooker and the coal fire. It is on the domestic consumer that the sacrifice has fallen most hardly, and particularly upon the poorer section of the community. The Parliamentary Secretary should tell us when he replies whether he can now give an undertaking that the domestic consumers of coal will not have their supply cut down this winter. On that basis we ought to be able to do some form of planning.
  The Debate started with a mention of the Coal Board, and then there was a reference to the ominous future outlook for the
  142
  winter, but the main theme of the Debate has been, What is the Minister proposing to do? Practically all hon. Members have mentioned the labour situation as the crux of the problem. That was done by the Minister himself, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who said there was not enough in the shops. The point was taken up also by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam, and the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams). I suggest that the criticism of the Minister is that he has treated this matter with far too much complacency. That is the main argument against his attitude, not only in the House but outside. He went down to Morpeth on 13th July, and said:
  "Asa result of nationalisation we shall produce roal in sufficient quantities and of the right quality."
  One can almost hear the words rolling oft his tongue. In an interview with that great organ of impartiality the "Daily Herald" he said:
  "I guarantee 30 years of work without unemployment in the mines."
  It is most dangerous for the Minister, with the position as it is, to go about the country suggesting that, as if by a miracle, nationalisation, in itself, will solve our coal production problem. It is almost as though the Minister were to stand in front of a throne, on the steps of which are the nine members of the Coal Board looking up at him. He looks out beyond them over a sea of officials. He waves a finger on the vesting date, over sunstrewn meadows, and colliers come wheeling coal out in barrows. That may be an exaggerated picture, but if it drives home my point that is all I want it to do.
  The point is that it is complacency to say that nationalisation, by itself, is going to solve our coal problem this year, and it is most dangerous. The Minister of Health, who seems to be vying not only with the Minister of Fuel and Power but with the Attorney-General to see who can make the most dignified speech from their country platforms at the weekends, made a great attack on the coalowners. The Minister today could not help using the word "sordid." The hon. Member for South Midlothian and others have suggested that, on the vesting date, there will be some change of personnel which will

  143
  have an immediate effect. I most sincerely say that that is a very dangerous thing. We know perfectly well the people who have really been running the industry over a great number of years. They are the managing directors. The shareholders themselves have very little say at an annual meeting. The majority of those managing directors are going into the Coal Board as officials. They will be there after the vesting date just as they are now, and the miner will see exactly the same bosses, the same managers and the same managing directors. If hon. Members opposite say there will be some change of personnel, they will bring disillusionment in two or three months to the miners and will not help us get an increase in the amount of coal.
  While the Minister is lulling certain sections of the industry into complacency, what about the managements? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley stressed this point very well. At this stage if one goes into a colliery office one hears, "What are you doing about Stage 1? What are you doing about Stage 2? What expert witnesses have you got? What is the valuation? What is the arbitration doing?" The real executive heads of the industry are in secret conclave with the Minister in London at this moment instead of getting on with the job and producing coal. That is not all the story. The Minister has mentioned the question of the Polish miners. He only mentioned the question of Polish miners who were in the Polish Forces. He did not mention the question of Irish labour. In the present really serious position, the Minister should accept any form of assistance which he can get wherever it may come from. He should not talk about scraping the barrel, or whatever his words were. I say definitely that the miners of this country would not take up a "dog in the manger" attitude, and say that they would not have those people working with them, if they realised that to do so would mean unemployment for people in other industries. If it was put to them properly, and with proper safeguards, that difficulty would not arise. The alternative is that these people may go to France. They did so after the last war. There have been other examples of people coming into this country—the Huguenots, the Dutch—and we should not turn away this present help.
  144
  The story does not end there, on the question of the Minister's complacency. There is the question of the five-day week. That has been agreed in principle by the Minister and several hon. Members have mentioned it. My personal view—and I stress that it is my personal view—is that where it can be proved by a colliery that the five-day week will produce more coal, that is a method whereby we can help ourselves this winter. I will elaborate that. If we take the figures of 1938, which are those for before the war, and for 1945, which are those for after the war, the drop in output of coal is 24 per cent. of sales. How is that accounted for? Manpower, we know, has dropped 9 per cent. approximately between those times. The output per man shift at the coalface has also dropped by something over 3 per cent., but that does not allow for the whole 24 per cent. The answer is a rise of absenteeism at the coalface, in one of the largest areas of Yorkshire from 11 per cent. in 1938 to 24 per cent. in 1945, and over the whole country, as we learned today, of 18 per cent.
  What is the cause of that? I know hon. Members opposite have mentioned it. It is a long slog six days a week for six years working underground. I myself have to go to the coalface. I know what it is like crawling on my stomach with my back scratching along the top of the roof, going down a 150 yard face and then getting into a small stint, working cut off by a moving belt for six or seven hours. To do that six days a week for six years is harder labour than working five days a week at the Ministry of Fuel and Power. It must be recognised that before the war we had a quota system where the pits had to pay one or two days a week. We also had slack times in the summer, especially house-coal pits. I am not arguing whether or not a five day week should have been introduced then, but they did not work six days a week, and it is a physical impossibility to do it for six days a week for six years. The answer is that they have not. The laws of nature work it out. We have absenteeism at the pits of anything between 18 per cent. and 24 per cent., and that means, in point of fact, that the miner is taking one day off a week. In other words we have a five-day week operating now. But what about the production side of it—the colliery manager who has to keep his pit open six days a week? These men do not take time off

  145
  evenly. They may come in one day and the next day some of the key men do not turn up. As hon. Members opposite know, mechanised mining now needs possibly on one face 90 men working over three shifts to produce coal on one shift. If key men do not turn up on one shift it means that the whole face does not get working at the next shift. How nice it would be if everybody agreed to be absent on Saturday but all turned up on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. You would not only have the same amount of coal, but more coal.
  My criticism—and this is a most serious criticism—is that the Minister will not allow pits which could prove that they could get more coal to introduce a five day week straight away. I agree quite frankly that, from the miners' point of view, there must be an assurance that the men will be no worse off under the new scheme than they were under the old. I think they would agree that it would be a great advantage to have it agreed that a five-day week working underground is as good as a five and a half day week working in an office. That would be something. I do not want this to be tied up with an increase in wages, which is an entirely different matter from the five-day week. I know the Yorkshire miners fairly well. From their point of view, they would not object if it were introduced in one or two pits where it could be proved to be a success, so building up a great deal of experience for the other pits. I see no reason why we should have this Socialist levelling down, and all having to wait until the thing can go through at once. We want coal, and I assure the Minister he can get coal if he will allow these pits who can prove to his satisfaction that they can get more coal, to start the five day week straight away.
  There is one idea, which possibly the Minister will not like, but I am bound to put it to him because there is no serious answer to the problem which I have already placed before him—that is, that there is an underlying motive why he will not accept a five-day week now where it can be proved that the pit will produce more coal. I suggest that he realises it perfectly well—the signs are there for all to see—and that he is holding it up until after the vesting date so that he can say to the Coal Board, "You can now go ahead with it and you will get all the
  146
  advantage." If that is so, I suggest that it is political dishonesty, and if he is going to deny it, let him do so, so that we can see where we are. I suggest that where we see crass stupidity we may find an underlying motive; if there is no underlying motive, then perhaps we can leave it as just crass stupidity.
  The Parliamentary Secretary is, I understand, to reply. I wish to say quite sincerely that I think that, since he has been at the Ministry, he has 'been a good influence. We remember the old days when the Minister used to burst out sometimes, but since the Parliamentary Secretary has been by his side, he has been much more restrained. That fact is shown all the more clearly when the Minister goes away from the Parliamentary Secretary into the country. He rather reverts to his old standard then. I sincerely think the Parliamentary Secretary has the interests of the industry at heart, and I hope that his influence at the Ministry will grow. I wish to put to him the main criticisms of the Minister which have arisen cut of the Debate. Unless we can get more information—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley put a lot of pertinent questions which were not answered—until we get those answers there is no sufficient or proper evidence to show whether we are going to have suitable and proper supplies of coal during the winter. This is imperilling the very foundations, not only of the coal industry, but of the industries dependent upon it. The Minister is creating a cloud of complacency in the industry. I meet it when I go about in the coalfields. It is the attitude of, "Do not let us bother, nationalisation is all we want. Let us wait until the vesting date, and everything will be all right." That is a most dangerous attitude to take up. Unfortunately, the Minister rings the changes, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. Sometimes he is quite reasonable, but then back he goes, and we have this complacency. We have to see that the miners do not get the idea that a miracle is going to take place on the vesting date.
  The Minister is forcing the executives of the coal industry to go into the questions of arbitration and regulations, when they should be left unfettered to get on with the reconstruction of the industry. The Minister has not accepted with the alacrity with which he should the help of all people who could come into the mines. I thought

  147
  it extraordinary when he said that management and men did not want to be graded up. I can assure him that we are grading people up every day and we are glad to do it. Yorkshiremen are glad to be graded up, and they want to get to the coal face. They do not like messing about in the haulage.. The Minister is doing the greatest injustice to the industry of which he is to take control when he says that the men do not want to be graded up. We have men in the haulages who can go to the coal face if they are released by Irish or Polish labour.
  Lastly, I seriously condemn his procrastination over the five-day week where it could be proved to increase coal output. On him through his restrictive administration and lack of sense of the dignity of his office, will be the responsibility, if this winter we do not get sufficient coal. He will not put first things first, and listen to the reasonable and practical views of people on his own side as well as outside the House. He looks over his shoulder to theories and procrastinations instead of to the first job of getting coal. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to move for a reduction in the Minister's salary.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): The hon. and gallant Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Major Roberts) has let his imagination run riot this evening. In fact, I would never previously have credited him with such imagination. I must dispose straight away of the flattering, almost embarrassing, remarks he made about myself, and the apparent influence which I have on my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend has many qualities, and those who know him will agree that one of them is that he is essentially a man who knows his own mind. In my time I have tried to influence a number of people, and I find him rather a hard nut to crack. One, other thing I would say—I will deal with the other criticisms later—is that the last word that could be applied to him is complacency. He is the least complacent man I have ever met. It is ridiculous to describe his attitude to the grave problems which face us as a result of the coal situation, which he described in his statesman-
  148
  like and massive speech this afternoon, as complacent.
  Later, in the fairly limited time available, I shall respond to the rather provocative remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall, and deal with the major questions which he has raised. But before I do that I hope that the Committee will agree that some more attention should be paid to other important aspects of this problem, particularly the subject of the health and welfare of the miners. Many speeches have been made this evening, but relatively few, in fact rather surprisingly few, on this subject.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: None by the Minister.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The Minister deliberately left this subject to me. He spoke for a long time, and it is only reasonable to leave the Parliamentary Secretary something to say. It is a most important matter, and as has been said, we on this side of the Committee are delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman putting it forward first, for a change. However, I do not wish for the moment to have a violent debating exchange with the right hon. Gentleman.
  I want to deal with the facts of the situation. This is important, not only for its own sake, not only because of the direct losses of output we suffer in this industry as a result of accidents and ill health, but also because of the serious consequences they have on recruitment, and also because of the effects they have in wastage—the number of persons leaving the industry. May I remind the Committee that in 1942 the net wastage from sickness and disablement was 20,000 men? In 1945, the figure had risen to 40,000. It reached its peak in the second half of 1945, with a figure of 23,000. I am glad to say that in the first six months of this year the figure has fallen in a satisfactory manner, and the total net wastage from these causes was only some 11,000 to 12,000 in that period.
  Let me turn first to safety. The right hon. Gentleman asked for some information on that, and my right hon. Friend told him what is indeed the case, that the fatal accident rate per thousand in 1945 was the lowest ever. The actual figure was .8 per thousand in that year. If we look back over the preceding years it was

  149
  ·9 per thousand in 1944, I per thousand in 1943, 1.2 per thousand in 1942 and 1.3 per thousand in 1941. That is a substantial reduction, on which, I think, all those concerned should be congratulated. It is not a matter for complacency, certainly not, but it is a matter for quiet satisfaction at what has been achieved. I would mention, in this connection, the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who had a great deal to do with this work when he was at the Ministry. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) will agree with me that my hon. Friend did splendid work in getting these figures down. The right hon. Gentleman asked me the figures for minor injuries. I am afraid that they are not yet available. I can give him the figures for the serious injuries. I am glad to say they also show a reduction from about 2,500, in 1944, to 2,300, in 1945.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the figures comparable with those shown in Table 30?
  Mr. Gaitskell: They are not yet available.
  Mr. Macmillan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the trend?
  Mr. Gaitskell: We think the trend is satisfactory because of the figures I have just given concerning the more serious accidents. Analysis of the causes of fatal accidents shows that over half of them are due to falls of ground and something like a quarter to haulage and transport accidents. That analysis suggests where the path for further advance lies. We are not nowadays suffering the same risks from explosions as I think we once did; we are suffering primarily from these two factors. Clearly, any reform in this field starts from the great Royal Commission Report with which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) was associated and of which Commission he was a very prominent member. The Royal Commission recommended legislation. We know that must come, but I should be out of Order if I discussed it today.
  I want to tell the Committee of the progress we have been trying to make recently by administrative Orders under the 1911 Act, and to show where we are
  150
  going. Of course, these Orders are made in the closest consultation with both sides of the industry and we have just published three general regulations in draft. The first deals with lighting, and introduces a most important change. It is a change of consequence which I know my hon. Friends who have had much more experience than I have will appreciate. The regulation introduces compulsory mains lighting on roadways. There is behind this a long history of controversy but it suggests to my mind that here is an important step forward towards diminishing the number of haulage accidents, because clearly the lighter the roadway, the less the danger. The second deals with ventilation and provides for the systematic sampling of air so as not to exceed one per cent. of gas which is the maximum figure where electricity or shot firing are concerned. The third deals with the very important matter of ground for the support of workings and lays down certain general rules to be applied which hitherto have been specific and not general.
  On the subject of safety I wish to say two other things. First, while some technical changes may intensify the danger of accidents, I feel that the changes which are to be carried out, which were recommended in the Reid Report, in the direction of bigger and better roadways, should make a very substantial improvement in the rate of haulage accidents. If we can get better lighting, firmer surfaces and above all altogether more space; then I think we shall have made a great advance. The second point is that I believe that the National Coal Board has certain other advantages in addition to those so ably presented by the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall. The Coal Board can take a long view. Instead of the management bothering all the time to try to keep down costs, to save here and to pinch there, it is in a position of looking at the whole picture broadly and saying, "Is not it worth while from the point of view of goodwill and in order to keep the accident rate down, to take more trouble to see the whole situation is more secure and safe than it has been?" What we can be certain of is that the National Coal Board will introduce the practices of the best employers in the industry today. To do that will mark a very great advance in this sphere.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of accidents, I would like to say I am very grateful for the information he has given on the topic which I ventured to raise. It is now six months since the end of the last year. Could he tell me when it is likely that he will be able to publish the relevant figure to which I have referred? Will it be before the House goes into recess? Can he give any estimate? It is six months after the end of the year, and, surely, the statistics ought to be available?
  Mr. Gaitskell: They are not available 'in the sense that I was not able to get them from the Department. Whether they are available if the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I do not know.
  Mr. Macmillan: I raised the question because I know how good the Departments are, and I am sure that the figures could have been made available in time. If I raised the question at half-past three, they could have had them here by half-past nine. It does seem to me, that six months is a very long time to wait for statistics of this kind.
  Mr. Gaitskell: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, we shall see what can be done. May I now turn to the question of health, which is no less important than that of safety. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams), in a very eloquent speech, referred to the appalling diseases of pneumoconiosis and silicosis, and I am well aware of the great concern which exists in particular among hon. Members on this side of the Committee—though, no doubt, there are some others as well—from the South Wales area about the situation there. It is grave; I make no bones about that. The figures show an increase in the number of certified cases—the hon. Member for Neath quoted some of them—from 1,126, in 1943 to 5,139 in 1945, for South Wales only. The figure for 1946 will probably not be very much lower. Of course, South Wales provides 87 per cent. of the cases in the country as a whole, and it is primarily there that the problem arises. What is the Ministry doing about it? First, we are doing what we can in the direction of research, and we have set up a clinic, where Dr. Fletcher; one of the most brilliant young medical scientists is experi-
  152
  menting and treating cases sent to him by the local doctors, with whom he is working in the closest contact. Part of his job is not merely to cure, so far as that is possible, and I agree that there are difficulties about this, but also to prevent, and, particularly, to try to find means of detecting the disease at the right point before it gets too bad.
  That brings me to the sphere of prevention, and here, certainly, we have quite a favourable account to give, In South Wales, in 99 per cent. of the pits, dust prevention measures of some kind or other are in operation, and 800 miles of steel pipes, for the sole purpose of providing water to deal with dust, have been laid down. I need not trouble the Committee with the various ways by which we are trying to deal with this matter. I agree that the position is not entirely satisfactory. These measures are not ideal, but they are an enormous improvement, and we have a number of witnesses, some of them leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers, who have testified to the satisfactory work done. Professor Jones, of Cardiff, has stated in public that no boy entering the industry with a clean bill of health need fear contracting pneumoconiosis or silicosis. That is an important step forward, and it should be emphasised, because we do not want people to be put off entering the industry by fear of these diseases. I warn the Committee that cases certified for compensation will not diminish for some years, because it takes some years before the disease comes to the light. Even when we do get further heavy figures, as we shall do this year, we must not suppose that nothing has been done. On the contrary, we have, in this sphere of prevention, taken very active steps.
  Lastly, on the question of the rehabilitation of those suffering from this disease, the Minister is very much aware of the concern which is felt in all quarters of the Committee about this situation. As the Committee probably knows, the responsibility for dealing with this is primarily that of the President of the Board of Trade. He has agreed to implement the recommendations of the report prepared by the hon. Member for Gower and his working party, and plans to build factories, specifically for the purpose of employing persons disabled in this way, are now in hand. Work has started on some of them, sites have been approved for all of them, and I am sure he will be

  153
  pushing on with that work as fast as possible.
  Lastly, may I say a word about welfare before we come to the rather more controversial issues? I wish, particularly, to single out one feature of it because I think it is of particular importance today, and that is the canteen situation. Up to the war, canteens, in the proper sense of the word, were virtually unknown at collieries. All that existed were snack bars in connection with pithead baths. But, in 1941, as part of the policy carried out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was Minister of Labour, canteens were introduced into the industry by the Miners' Welfare Commission. So successful was this policy —and full credit is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, who was very much concerned with it—that in—
  Mr. H. Macmillan: What. about the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George)?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. If the right hon. Gentleman is so petulant about it, I am prepared to include the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke. He certainly deserves credit for this. At the moment there are only 17,000 colliery workers without canteens of any kind. That is a considerable achievement. When my right hon. Friend took office, he was not entirely satisfied with the position, and he adopted two measures. First, he appointed some canteen officers to find out why canteens were not more popular in the industry and collected suggestions for improving them. Secondly, he secured authority from the Treasury to carry out the necessary improvements. Since then, one other thing has happened about which I want to tell the Committee. We have called in some of the expert advisers from the Ministry of Food, who have had a great deal to do with the British Restaurants, and we have had a survey made. This survey, which I have just seen myself, shows that there is need for very considerable improvement, that in over 500 canteens the buildings are unsatisfactory, that equipment is unsatisfactory, that there is a great shortage of storage equipment and cloakroom accommodation for staffs, and so on. We are now going to carry out a programme of improving the canteens
  154
  as far as we can. We shall begin with the black spots in every region and carry out the programme systematically as materials and labour become available.
  Having told the Committee a little of what I believe is a very important part of the Ministry's work, I now come back to what are, perhaps, the major issues which have been raised in the Debate. My right hon. Friend disclosed to the Committee, with complete frankness, exactly what the position was. Complaint has been made by several hon. Members that they did not hear of it sooner. The Opposition could have chosen a Supply Day earlier had they wanted to and the speech could have been made earlier, but it is usual for statements of this kind to be made to the House of Commons, and rightly so. There are a number of points in connection with the figures given by my right hon. Friend which I must try and clear up because, seriously, I could not follow what the hon. and gallant Member for Eccleshall was getting at, and I am afraid there must have been some confusion. Therefore, may I once more try and make the position completely clear? First, the actual figures for the coal year beginning 1st May, 1945, were.: deep mined coal, 173,000,000; opencast, 8 million; resulting in a total of 181 million. Inland consumption was 178 million, and exports, including foreign bunkers, was 8.8 million. The total, therefore, was 186.8 million. It is, therefore, clear that there was during that year an excess of consumption over production to the extent of 5 million. Part of that 5 million was due to a reduction in the stocks at pit banks and opencast dumps, which, perhaps, is not so important. It was said that we should not have brought it in. I do not mind, but it happens to be in the Statistical Digest, and, therefore, I think it was right to include it; part of it was due to a reduction of about 3½ million in distributed stocks. That is the position for last year.
  What is the position for this year? It is an estimate of what we think the future will yield. We estimate deep mine production for the current coal year, 1946– 47, at 177 million. We estimate opencast production at 8.5 million, and we also estimate a slight increase in briquettes of .4 million, so that with opencast production we can say 9 million, totalling 186 million. This is a point that I want again to make very clear. We have

  155
  to estimate inland consumption at 188 million, which is 10 million more than last year. For export we estimate 8.2 million —very much the same as last year— making in all 196 million and showing, therefore, to start with, a deficit of 10 million. Following the normal procedure in a budget statement, my right hon. Friend then proceeded to consider how the deficit could be closed, and he made the following proposals which will be operated. First, there is the proposal to save coal by conversion to fuel oil—a saving which he estimates at 3 million tons of coal. I think it was the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) who asked how far we were going in that direction. Here is the answer; it was given by my right hon. Friend. Further, by going deeper in opencast mining and by getting additional machinery, which we certainly need badly for the purpose, we think that within this year we can get another 1½ million. Finally, we think that we can get some further economies in the use of coal for gas purposes amounting in all to something like another 1 million. That still leaves us with a deficit of 5 million tons; that is what my right hon. Friend said, and that is the position today.
  But I must remind the Committee that this is on the assumption that there will be a continuous fall in manpower in the industry. We have taken a reasonably gloomy view of that, as I think we were right to do. I hope that we can get additional labour in the industry and, although I do not think we can ask domestic consumers to make any further economies, I think we can and should ask industrial consumers to make further economies in their own interest. They have made very substantial economies in the past—my right hon. Friend referred to them—but our experts tell us that there is still room for a great deal of improvement in this way. I would like to ask all firms who use coal for industrial purposes to make quite certain, in their own interest, that they cannot effect any further economies. It reduces their costs and it helps the country. I hope that I have made sufficiently clear precisely what the figures are.
  Major Roberts: As I see it, therefore, the assumption is we will get 5 million tons more from the deep mines during the next year. All I was saying was, assuming that does not happen, we shall be down a
  156
  further 5 million, which will bring the stocks down to the 4 million about which I was talking in the first place, giving a danger signal in March.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Nobody denies that the position is serious and grave. The Minister made that perfectly clear. We have not heard any very constructive suggestions from the Opposition on this matter. They have asked, as they are entitled to, a lot of questions, but no serious constructive ideas have come forward. I presume they have not got any. Nobody doubts that there is a perfectly satisfactory longterm solution to this problem. We, on this side of the Committee at any rate, know that nationalisation will achieve the results we want; it will achieve them quicker and more certainly than any conceivable scheme which may have been put forward from the other side of the Committee. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke said —and I was astonished to hear him say it—that the Minister should not have bothered with nationalisation, but should have hurried on with the Reid Report. What did the Reid Report state? It said that these reforms cannot be carried out with the present organisation of the industry. If the present organisation of the industry has to be changed an Act of Parliament is necessary. We would never have got compulsory amalgamation without an Act of Parliament, and that Act of Parliament would have raised precisely the same valuation problems, which would have had to be settled before amalgamation could be carried through; whereas, in the case of nationalisation, compensation can go on, but the Coal Board will take over, That is the essential difference. Do hon. Members opposite really suppose that if they had been in office, and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke had been in charge—or perhaps he would have been promoted to another place—or somebody else, maybe the right hon, and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crooksbank)—
  Captain Crookshank: I have done four years there already.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Everybody knows the staying capacity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Do hon. Members opposite really suppose that if they had

  157
  been in office, and had decided on some curious half-way-house scheme, of dual control plus compulsory amalgamation in the sky, the miners of this country would have produced more coal for them? When hon. Members opposite stand up and say that we have wasted time with nationalisation they seem to forget that if nationalisation were not now on the Statute Book we would have far more trouble in the coalfields. The short-run difficulties are great. However, it has been said before from this side of the Committee, and it must be said again: they are legacies from the past. There can be no question of that. Why is it that people will not go into this industry? What did the Forster Committee say on this? I am not inventing this out of my own mind. The first thing the Forster Committee, an impartial body, mentioned was, that the black record of the industry—black not merely for industrial distress, but for insecurity and low wages; a story that is so sickeningly familiar in its history between the two wars—tended to keep back recruitment. If the changes we are now making had been made in 1926, when the Samuel Commission was appointed, or earlier when the Sankey Commission reported in favour of them, we would have a very different story to tell today. There it is. Unfortunately we were not in power in those days, and hon. Members did not then think in the same way as some of them do now.
  Let us look for a moment at the question of production.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the question which I put earlier, namely, what is really the structure of the different committees and advisory bodies on the final distribution of fuel, because there is the problem of fixing the priorities?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot do that in the short time available. I know the answer, and I will tell the hon. Member himself. There is nothing very peculiar about it; there are these area committees, as he suggested.
  In the few minutes that remain I want to refer to various suggestions which have been made as to how we could reduce absenteeism. Of one thing I am quite
  158
  certain, and that is that we shall not reduce absenteeism by treating the miners like delinquent children, that is far too common even now—and making a moral issue of it. Somebody said that they were buying leisure. Why should they not buy leisure? Does anybody think the worse of a journalist who, because he happens to be rather well paid for his articles, writes fewer articles? Does anybody think the worse of a barrister who takes fewer cases because he happens to be getting more pay for each? Of course not. There is nothing immoral about it. It is a preference, and they are perfectly entitled to make their choice. The hon. Member for Ecclesall spoke admirably in favour of the five-day week, in principle, but we cannot bring that into operation in one pit or colliery without raising the whole of the wages issue, unless he proposes that their earnings shall be reduced. As soon as it is agreed that earnings must be maintained, the whole of the wages question is raised. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke implied that, and he is perfectly right. There is no getting away from that difficulty.
  We have had a Debate sometimes highly coloured, sometimes calm, sometimes very sober and sometimes more excited. I do not want to end on a particularly controversial note, because the situation is grave and I prefer to follow the line adopted by a number of hon. Members in the earlier stages of the Debate. We need now, from all in the industry, a particular effort. We need from managements a drive to increase output; we ask them to spend a little time, at least, away from those considerations of valuation that we have heard about and pay a little attention to their pits until they are handed over to the National Coal Board. We ask them to be prepared to accept untrained labour and train it. There are no more trained miners available, and we must use untrained labour. There must be better training facilities. We ask them to take every possible step to have good relations in the pits. Finally, we ask the men, faced with an infinitely brighter future than that to which they have previously been able to look forward, to attend regularly at their work, to put their backs into it, and to give us. the coal we need this winter.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, "That Item Class VI, Vote 6, be reduced by £5 in respect of the salary of the Minister of Fuel and Power."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 292.

  Division No. 270.

  AYES.

  10.0 p.m.

  Agnew Cmdr. P. G.

  Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Nicholson, G.

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Harris, H. Wilson

  Osborne, C.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. 0.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Headlam, Lieul.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Beechman. N. A.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Ponsonby, Col C. E.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Birch, Nigel

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Boles' Lt -Col D. C. (Wells)

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Read, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bessom A. C.

  Hurd, A.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. j. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'brgh W.)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow. C.)

  Roberts, Mai. P. G (Ecclesall)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Jennings, R.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n Wtd'n)

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt-odr. Hon. L. W.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Carson, E.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Challen, C.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Channon, H.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Cot. G.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P dd'fn, S.)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Teeling, William

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.

  Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Turton, R. H.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  MacKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Dodds-Parker, A D.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrlth)

  MacLeod, Oapt. J.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)

  Watt, Sir G. S- Harvie

  Eccles, D. M.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Whetley, Colonel M. J.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Maitland, Comdr J. W.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Fletcher W. (Bury)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Marples, A. E.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fraser, Maj H. C. P. (Stone)

  Medlicott, F.

  York, C.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Patrick)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Morrison, Rt Hn. w. S (Cirencoster)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Mr. Studholme and

  Grimston, R. V.

  Neven-Spsnce, Sir B.

  Major Conant

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Buchanan, G.

  Davies, S 0 (Merthyr)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Burden, T. W.

  Deer, G.

  Anderson, F. (Whilehaven)

  Burke, W. A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Delargy, Captain H J

  Austin, H. L.

  Callaghan, James

  Diamond, J.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Dobbie, W

  Ayles, W. H.

  Champion. A. J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.

  Chater, D.

  Donovan, T.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Balfour, A.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Dugdale, J (W Bromwich)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Cluse, W. S.

  Dumpleton, C W

  Barstow, P. G.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Durbin, E. F. M

  Barton, C.

  Cooks, F. S.

  Dye, S.

  Battley, J. R.

  Coilick, P.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Collindridge, F.

  Edelman, M.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Collins, V. J.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Berry, H.

  Colman, Miss G M.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

  Cook, T. F.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'wall, N W.)

  Evans. S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Binns, J.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Farthing, W. J.

  Blylon, W. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Botlomley, A, G.

  Crawley, A.

  Follick, M.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Foot, M. M.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Daggar, G.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Daines, P.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Brook D. (Halifax)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  McAllister, G.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Gibbins, J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Gibson, C. W.

  McGovern, J.

  Shaekleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Gilzean, A.

  Mack, J. D.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  McLeavy, F.

  Shurmer, P.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Macpherson T. (Romford)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Grey, C F.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Grierson, E.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Marquand, H. A.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Marshall F. (Brightside)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mathers, G.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Medland, H. M.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Gunter, Capt. R, J.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sore risen, R. W.

  Guy, W. H.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Monslow, W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Stamford, W.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Morley, R.

  Steele, T.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Morriss P. (Swansea, W.)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Harrison, J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mort, D. L.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Haworth, J.

  Moyle A.

  Swingler, S.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Nally, W.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Naylo'r, T. E.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Thorneycrolt, Harry (Clayton)

  Holman, p.

  Nicholls H. R. (Stratford)

  Thurtle, E.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Tolley, L.

  Hubbard, T.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  O'Brien, T.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Usborne, Henry

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverhpton, W.)

  Orbach, M.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paget, R. T.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Walker, G. H.

  Irving, W. J.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Palmers, A. M. F.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Janner, B.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wamey, W. N.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Parker, J.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Watson, W. M.

  John, W.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Pearson, A.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Wigg, Colonel G. E.

  Keenan, W.

  Perrins, W.

  Wilkes, L.

  Kenyon, C.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Kinshorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Willey, F. T, (Sunderland)

  Kinley, J.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Prill, D. N.

  Willis, E.

  Lang, G.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Lavers, S.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Randall, H. E.

  Woodburn, A.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Ranger, J.

  Woods, G. S.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  Levy, B. W.

  Reeves, J.

  Young, Sir R (Newton)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Zilliaous, K.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Rhodes, H.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Richards, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Captain Michael Stewart and

  Lagan, D. G.

  Rabens, A.

  Mr. Popplewell.

  McAdam, W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee. [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) (No. 2) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Coffee and chicory extracts, etc.)
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    10.13 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." on the ground that we cannot take a Treasury Bill of this kind without either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury being present. That is something quite out of precedent.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not propose to accept that Motion now.
    Captain Crookshank: Then, when can you accept it, Mr. Beaumont? If we are to have no explanation of the Bill, and no responsible Minister is present, it will not be any better in five or ten minutes' time. This, I submit, is treating the Committee with great discourtesy, and I hope that the Prime Minister will take note of the absence of his lieutenants.
    The Deputy-Chairman: There are Ministers present.
    Captain Crookshank: I did not say that there were no Ministers present. There is a wonderful array of Ministers here. I am complaining that this is a financial Measure, and that neither of the Treasury Ministers is here.
    The Deputy-Chairman: It is not the duty nor is it within the right of the Chair to insist on any particular Minister being present.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I should like to know, so that every hon. Member of the Committee may know, what this Clause does. It would be awful if an hon. Member were to be asked in his constituency, during the weekend, what this Clause, the heading to which is "Coffee and chicory extracts, etc." really means. This Clause, I think that I am right in saying, although I have no authority except my own memory, has something to do with the Budget Resolutions. I would not like any hon. Member, particularly any hon. Lady, to think that because the hon. Member for Torquay said something, he claimed to know more about it than the Members of the Government, though, of course, I may know more about it. So far as this Clause is concerned, it will be noticed that it lays down that the duty on preparations
    164
    not being Empire products is to be 9d. the lb. dry weight, and where the preparations are Empire products the duty is to be 7½d. I believe that I spoke on this subject on the Budget, and I believe that what is contained in this Clause was carried out in the Finance Bill. If that is not so, perhaps some hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench will explain wherein it differs from the Finance Bill. That is a point on which I should like to get some information.
    This seems to be a rather extended Clause. I cannot remember ever having dealt with an Isle of Man (Customs) Bill before in which a Clause had to be inserted to deal with the subject of coffee and chicory extracts. Of that I am almost certain, and that being so I would ask some hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady, or even some right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, to tell us precisely why we have this Clause in the Bill. Is it really carrying out a system of Imperial Preference? If so, then it is excellent. We have on the back of the Bill the names of those responsible for it, and I should hope that some of them would give us an explanation of this Clause, which seems to be one of considerable importance since it occupies nearly a whole page of the Bill. Though it is nearly a one Clause Bill, it is an important Bill.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not wish to interrupt the speech of the hon. Gentleman except to indicate to him that he is in danger of repeating himself.
    Mr. Williams: I admit that I said something in error and I apologise most sincerely. I used the word "Bill" where I should have used the word "Clause." I think I should ask, too, why Subsection (3) is included. It provides that the
    "section shall have effect as from the first day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-six."
    That seems a curious date to choose. I should have thought that it would have been much better if we had chosen 1st August, or some day closer to the time when this Bill goes through the House. I respectfully ask that some hon. or right hon. Gentleman or Lady, or even the Prime Minister himself, should tell us what we are really doing in this matter.
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): Yesterday I moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am still the Minister in charge of it. Although hon. Members opposite seem to think it extremely unlikely that I shall be able to do so, I propose to try to give some explanation of Clause I of the Bill. What I asked the House to do yesterday and what I ask it to do today is simply this. The Isle of Man is a separate financial entity and passes its own customs duties, but those customs duties are subject to the approval and affirmation of the Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) has asked a number of questions. Those questions were no doubt asked and fully debated in the Tynwald during their debates and the reason for this alteration in the Isle of Man customs was explained. All I ask the Committee to do is to pass this Clause, which represents what the Isle of Man wishes to have as part of their legislation, with regard to coffee and chicory extracts.
    Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation. I think the customs duties in this case are the same as those which we introduced in our Finance Bill, but I should like to be absolutely certain.
    The Solicitor-General: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's memory extended as far back as that, but if it does not, then I can tell him that they are. The Isle of Man may have thought it proper to follow the example of the Imperial Parliament. These are the same customs duties, and the Isle of Man has decided to adopt them. The Clause is purely formal, an affirming Section of the Imperial Act which is necessary to enable these customs duties to become the law of the Isle of Man. I therefore ask the Committee to say that there is no reason for interfering with what the Isle of Man people 'have decided for themselves.
    Mr. Drayson: I am not clear, from what the Solicitor-General said, when the Tynwald agreed to these new customs duties. My recent experience is that the Isle of Man Parliament, which recently held its elections, will not know the results of those elections until September, when they will open the ballot boxes after having waited three months for the Service votes to arrive in the Island. It
    166
    seems that we discussed these measures ourselves at a period which did not give the Isle of Man Parliament time to consider the new customs duties. I would like to know whether the Isle of Man Parliament agreed to these new duties, which we ourselves agreed to in our Finance Bill?
    Mr. Harold Roberts: It appears to me that the Solicitor-General spoke rather from inference. I did not understand him to say that the Tynwald had, in fact, affirmed the amendment in Section 42 of the Statute of 1876 which is referred to in the Clause but I gathered that he thought that would be the case. I would like to get from him an answer to a plain and simple question which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer during discussions on Finance Bill. Is this change being made in consequence of any representation by any foreign trading interests?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude, but he is now getting out of Order.
    Mr. Roberts: Subsection (1) of the Clause states that these extracts reserve, and so forth, shall not be included in Section 42 of the Act of 1876, so far as the Isle of Man is concerned. I think I am in Order in asking whether we are being asked by any foreign trading interests to modify the Statute of 1876, so far as the Isle of Man is concerned.
    Mr. McKie: Instead of replying to the speeches that have been made by hon. Members, the Solicitor-General shelters himself behind the actions of Tynwald. Tynwald is an ancient legislative body, and its functions, as far as I understand, have never been clearly defined.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The matter is not in Order now. What the hon. Member is now saying could have been said on the Second Reading of the Bill, but not on the Committee stage.
    Mr. McKie: I was attempting to find reasons why the Solicitor-General should reply to the speeches that have been made, and I think I am entitled to say that he sheltered himself behind what Tynwald has said. This is an ancient legislative body—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Tynwald has nothing to do with this Clause.
    Mr. McKie: With great respect, Mr. Beaumont, I want to ask the Solicitor-General whether the House of Keys have debated this matter.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member need not look so surprised. He knows that what he is saying is out of Order. That is a Second Reading point, and is not in Order in Committee. I shall not be able to allow the Solicitor-General to deal with it, and therefore, the hon. Member may not raise it.
    Mr. Harold Roberts: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. I asked the Solicitor-General whether or not foreign influences have been used to induce the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill. May I ask whether that question was in Order?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That question was in Order.
    Mr. Roberts: I hope I shall get an answer to it.
    Mr. McKie: After that interlude, may I continue? Your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, has proved that I am in Order—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Is the hon. Gentleman questioning the Ruling I gave? I still rule that what he has said hitherto has been out of Order.
    Mr. McKie: Am I entitled to ask the Solicitor-General whether Clause 1 was fully debated in the House of Keys and whether the Manx Government, on the advice of the House of Keys—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask that. He might have been entitled to ask it on Second Reading, but he is not entitled to do so now.
    Mr. McKie: I gather that your Ruling is that I may not ask the Solicitor-General whether the House of Keys debated the matter. We are now discussing Clause I, and I understand I am not allowed to ask the Solicitor-General whether the House of Keys—
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman continues to repeat his remarks after the Ruling I have given, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. McKie: I would not dream of trespassing against your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. I pass from that matter. Will the Solicitor-General be good enough to tell us what the position is, and whether undue pressure was used? Was this a question freely discussed in the Isle of Man? I hope very much that the Solicitor-General will see fit to make a further explanation.
    10.30 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I am in a difficulty because of the Ruling which you, Mr. Beaumont, have quite properly given, that the Tynwald—[Interruption]. The Solicitor-General is asking the Committee to pass this Clause, on the ground that it is the consummation of an agreement between H.M. Government and the Tynwald. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If that is not so I am greatly surprised, and I think hon. Members would be grateful if the Solicitor-General made it clear what he did say. I am not suggesting that there is anything necessarily repugnant in the Clause itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has pointed out that we are delighted to see that the Government are implementing the principle of Imperial Preference in this Clause. I am glad to see that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is here in case any question on chicory should arise. She may be able to elucidate the point and perhaps she holds a watching brief in the general interest of the Isle of Man and the Tynwald. What we do not understand is the connection so far as this Clause is concerned, between this Committee, which is now being asked to pass the Clause, and the Tynwald, with whom the Government have apparently made some arrangement. I think, in view of what the Solicitor-General has already said, we are entitled to some further explanation on that point.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I would repeat the question which has already been addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to the Solicitor-General and to which I certainly have not heard any reply. What is the reason for Subsection (3) of the Clause? This Subsection provides that the Clause shall have effect as from 1st September, 1946. We have not had any explanation of that

    169
    at all. For some peculiar reason this Clause is to start on 1st September whereas the next Clause is timed to start on 1st August. There does not seem to be any reason for that curious disparity. As I understand the principle of this Bill, it is that this House should have some general control over the customs duties of the Isle of Man so as to ensure that their customs duties and ours will not be so much out of step, as to permit the possibility of smuggling. If, indeed, that is the proper explanation I should think it essential that when they make a change in their customs duties, that change should take effect on the same date in both countries. If the Solicitor-General can assure the Committee that this is precisely the same provision as that contained in our own Finance Bill of this year—and my recollection is that this is not so—there is nothing more to be said. On the other hand, if there is a difference in the dates, I think the Committee is entitled to know the reason for that difference.
    Mr. Keeling: I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General to look at the last sentence of Subsection (2):
    "In this subsection the expression 'Empire product' has the same meaning as in section five of the Act of 1919 as amended by any subsequent enactment."
    May I ask, Mr. Beaumont, what Act of 1919?
    Mr. C. Williams: I am sure every Member of the Committee would expect me, as a matter of courtesy, to thank the Solicitor-General sincerely for the answer he gave me, as far as it went. I appreciate his courtesy, and I thank him very much indeed, but I would emphasise once again that he has not yet explained why 1st September should be inserted in Subsection (3) when there is a different date later in the Bill. There is a further point which I think should be explained. In line 16, and elsewhere, the term "dry weight" is used. That, of course, is a common term, but I would like to ask him whether it is a usual term in connection with this particular commodity, and if it is exactly the same term as we would use in our own legislation. I notice a great deal of indecision on the Government Front Bench as to what they are going to do on this, and I feel I must help them in this matter so they can really understand what they are doing.
    The Solicitor-General: I think the Committee is under a misapprehension about this, and I will try to clear it up. The customs duties are imposed in the Isle of Man, with the exception of certain duties, which are immaterial, by resolution of Tynwald. That resolution is almost exactly analogous to our Budget Resolutions. That resolution remains in force for six months or until it is cancelled by a subsequent resolution, or until the resolution is replaced by an affirmation by the Imperial Parliament. In other words, the way these particular customs are imposed is as follows. The Isle of Man makes its own resolution, it discusses it and decides what it wants for the Isle of Man, and then the Imperial Parliament affirms that resolution. That is the effect of Imperial legislation which relates to the imposition of customs duties in the Isle of Man. This Bill, as I explained yesterday on the Second Reading, is an annual Bill, and on previous occasions has gone through without discussion. That is no reason why it should not be discussed on any occasion but all that the Committee is being asked to do today is what it does annually, namely, to affirm a resolution which Tynwald has itself taken. I assure the Committee that this customs duty was fully discussed in the ordinary way in Tynwald. That is to say, it has gone ' through the ordinary legislative process in the Isle of Man. What is done every year has been done in this case and the only question before the Committee in considering this Bill is: Is there any reason why the Imperial Parliament should disagree with the resolution of Tynwald. Tynwald decided this, and they had their own reasons for it.
    The date 1st September is the date in the Finance Bill which the House discussed and passed not long ago. Whether that was the reason why Tynwald fixed upon the same date, I do not know. But, it is the will of the Isle of Man, and I ask the Committee to say that it would be most unfortunate, unless there is some compelling reason, for us to override what the Isle of Man has done. I am merely asking the Committee to approve what the Isle of Man has sought to do, and beyond the fact that the Isle of Man wanted these duties imposed, I cannot say more. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied that by the ordinary legislative machinery, this can be done. The Isle of Man has followed its ordinary legis-

    171
    lative machinery through its ordinary processes, that there should be a resolution of Tynwald, which is, as I have said, analagous to our own Budget resolution. There is nothing unusual, and it has been part of the ordinary routine of the Imperial Parliament, to approve this, as a matter of course, for years past. There have been questions asked on rare occasions, but with the exception of a few debates, this measure has always gone through as a matter of course, and the House has always taken the view that it would be improper for it to alter the decision of the Isle of Man. There is no reason why the usual practice should be departed from on this occasion, and I ask the Committee, therefore, to confirm this proposal as an expression of the opinion of the Isle of Man.
    Mr. Keeling: I must ask the learned Solicitor-General to answer my question. I repeat it for him. What is this Act of 1919 referred to in line 20? There is no explanation or definition of it.
    Mr. Harold Roberts: I would like to point out that I asked a perfectly simple question, which you, Mr. Beaumont, ruled to be in Order. It was a very direct question, but I have had no answer. If the real reason for that is that it would be very embarrassing for the Government to give the answer, I am content.
    Mr. Drayson: Could the Solicitor-General give the Committee the date of the decision promulgated by Tynwald?
    The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Member had been present yesterday evening, or if, between last evening and this evening, he had looked up the official records, he would have seen that I told the Committee that the date was 16th April, 1946.
    Sir John Mellor: May I ask if the Solicitor-General proposes to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling)? The Committee, having been asked to pass this Clause, should know something about the Act of 1919 to which reference is made. The question has been put twice by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Surely the learned Solicitor-General is competent to answer it. While it may be desirable that the
    172
    Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be present, surely on this point the learned Solicitor-General should be the competent Minister to reply.
    10.45 p.m.
    Lieut, - Commander Joynson-Hicks: Quite frankly I do not see how the Committee can pass a Clause which contains a provision like this:
    "In this subsection the expression ' Empire Product' has the same meaning as in section five of the Act of 1919 as amended by any subsequent amendment."
    With all respect, Mr. Beaumont, there must be some meaning in this. If this were an Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been the first to tell us what this meaning was. Surely he ought to move a manuscript Amendment in order to give some explanation of this passage which at present does not make sense. He ought not to ask the Committee to pass a Clause which has no apparent meaning, and is simply inviting chaos and confusion. I understand from the Solicitor-General that this is not going to affect the finances of this country but affects the finances of the Isle of Man and if we put them in the position of passing legislation which means nonsense we shall be landing ourselves in great difficulties. I do seriously press the learned Solicitor-General for an explanation, or alternatively for some Amendment which will make sense of the passage I have quoted.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think it would be gracious if the Solicitor-. General would say he will look into this point. We are not trying to make a fool of him. This is a serious point, and not a trivial one. I think there is an error in drafting. I think it should read "the Finance Act of 1919." Which is it? I do ask the Solicitor-General to tell us and not to blush like a maiden.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Annual Duties (Continuation).)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I want to ask the Solicitor-General if he will be good enough to give

    173
    some information to the Committee about this Clause. In the table at the end of Subsection (1) a large number of enactments are set out. I do not know whether it is necessary to dig into these enactments and examine them carefully to see whether the Government are receiving powers to vary the duties imposed. Will the Solicitor-General give some kind of explanation of this to those of us who are interested in this matter and indicate how the Government actually do cany out these powers? Are they laid before the legislative chamber? Are they adopted by the legislative chamber? Is notice given? Is the Governor free to do exactly what he likes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why worry?"] Hon. Members should realise that the Opposition are very concerned about this. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and other hon. Members have been very disturbed about it.
    Mr. C. Williams: If my hon. and gallant Friend would excuse me, I would say I have been disturbed at the incompetence of the Government shown by their failure to answer my questions, and not by the Bill or the Clause.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The hon. Member for Torquay has underlined what I said. We are very disturbed at the fact that the Government have not given an explanation of this. I hope the Solicitor-General will not roughly and brusquely brush aside this request but will give us the proper explanation to which we are entitled.
    Mr. McKie: I hope the Solicitor-General will have something to say about this Clause in relation to Clause 1 and will tell us that there is no. radical departure from custom and practice in the Isle of Man as, far as these duties are concerned. We on this side of the Committee are delighted that even a Socialist Government should be able to prevail upon the Manx Government—if indeed that is the right way of expressing it—to agree to the principle of Imperial Preference. I am only concerned to know that there is nothing in Clause 2 which will prevent Clause 1 from operating in the way in which hon. Members on all sides of the Committee would like to see it operate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) asked what the Governor's duties would be, under this Clause as
    174
    drafted. That is a very important point. I do not think many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been fully informed in the past as to what are the duties of the Governor with regard to customs. I see the Chief Government Whip indicating approval. A few minutes ago, the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) said in a voice which was audible on this side of the Commttee that we knew nothing about the Isle of Man. I can assure her I know as much about the Isle of Man as any hon. Member opposite.
    Before I was led astray by my reference to the Chief Whip, I was expressing the hope that the duties of the Governor of the Isle of Man with regard to the fiscal system in Manxland would continue to be the same and that there would be no radical interruption. I hope the Solicitor-General will see his way to inform the Committee exactly as to what the position of the Governor will be in future. I say that because I am anxious to safeguard the position of Governors of remote provinces. In the past, they have often been called upon to take grave and serious decisions without being properly informed of the position. I am anxious to spare any future Governor of the Isle of Man, or any other remote province of the British Empire—while there still is a British Empire and before it has been pulled down by hon. Members opposite—from being placed in such an invidious position. I hope the Solicitor-General will tell us, first, that these two Clauses really hang together, and secondly that he will lucidly explain to the Committee that there is nothing in Clause 2 to interfere with the due operation of Clause 1, which will establish a certain mild Imperial Preference in the Isle of Man—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Clause under discussion.
    Mr. McKie: I hope it will work so, that under Clause I—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has already admitted that he has repeated himself, and therefore there is no justification for repeating himself again.
    Mr. McKie: I hope that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will tell us what the powers of the Governor of the Isle of Man are.
    Mr. Keeling: I want to ask the same question on Clause 2 as I asked on Clause 1. In Clause 2, not one Act, but at least a dozen are referred to without any explanation as to which Act is meant. The first Act referred to on page 2 is an Act of 1940. At least 100 Acts of Parliament were passed in 1940. I will not enumerate the other Acts referred to but not a single one is defined. I hope that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will either answer the question satisfactorily now, or will undertake to consider the matter and move an Amendment at some later stage in the Bill, either here or in another place.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Short title.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I notice that the Bill is entitled "Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill." That was the Title given to it by this House of Commons. I see that in this Clause the "No. 2" has mysteriously dropped out, and is merely described as the "Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1946." Surely the words "No. 2" ought to be included in the Title? Is the omission a slip, or is there some reason why the Title of the Bill differs from the Title to the Act?
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am sorry that, on this particular occasion, I cannot support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), even though they are very weighty. It seems to me that as there is to be only one Isle of Man Act in 1946, it should not be complicated by the insertion of the "No. 2."
    Mr. C. Williams: It would seem that there is a slight error in this Clause. To be in keeping with the other Clauses, it should really read, "This Act may be cited as the Act of 1946." If it read that way, it would then be quite as badly drafted as the rest of the Bill. In the circumstances, I think it is a pity that this Bill, which is so full of blots from the point of view of a Law Officer, should have this defect at the end. If the Government wish to amend it so as to bring it into line with the rest of the Bill, I should not object.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I noticed the hon. and learned Solicitor-General moving in his seat. If his movement was towards the Despatch Box with a view to giving a reply to the questions that have been raised, I shall be pleased to give way.
    The Solicitor-General: This is the second Isle of Man (Customs) Bill in one financial year. The last one received the Royal Assent on 20th December, 1945, shortly after the autumn Budget. This is the second one; but when it becomes an Act, it will have the Title which appears in Clause 3. It will not be the No. 2 Act, but the 1946 Act. That is the short explanation of what otherwise appears to be a discrepancy.
    Mr. Keeling: Would the Solicitor-General answer the question why this Act is denned as the "Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1946," whereas other Acts are defined as "the Act"?
    The Solicitor-General: The reference is always put in in that way in the Isle of Man (Customs) Acts.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    11.0 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I hope no one will think that because of the probing that has taken place into the drafting of this Bill, any disrespect is intended to the Isle of Man. We recognise its special constitutional position, but some of my hon. Friends thought that in the drafting of the Bill there were some points to be cleared up. I would like to make that point quite clear and also to thank the Solicitor-General for the care and attention that he has given to the Bill. The only protest that we want to make is that, so far as I know, this is the first time since I have been in the House that a Bill of this description has not been dealt with by one of the responsible finance Ministers, and for that reason we make protest. I myself was in charge of six Isle of Man (Customs) Bills when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I always was in attendance. Had it not been possible, the Chancellor would have taken my place. It is within my

    177
    knowledge that the Chancellor was in the Division Lobby just before the Bill was reached, and for that reason we consider that the Government—I do not say the Solicitor-General because he has been in charge of the Bill and has answered everything that was put to him—stand indicted of treating this House once again with contempt. When financial Measures come before the House, it is the business of finance Ministers to be here.—[Interruption.]—Has the Home Secretary anything to say? If the Home Secretary will keep on muttering, I think I am entitled to know what he was saying. As he is the senior Minister on the Government Front Bench, I hope that he will take the protest made by us to his colleagues and that in future, when discussing Bills dealing with Isle of Man customs, this performance will not be repeated.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Performance?"]—"Performance" is the right word. The absence of responsible Ministers is something which the Opposition is bound to take notice. Had it not been so late, we should, as a protest, have divided the House. We do not intend to do so because this is not a matter which is purely the concern of this House. This is a Bill which is confirming action taken in the Isle of Man. We, therefore, would not wish to have any misunderstanding as a result of any action we might take. I limit myself to a verbal protest and ask the Home Secretary, as temporarily in charge of the Committee, to report to the Prime Minister what we feel about this matter.
    Mr. C. Williams: As I happened to raise the first point on this Bill, I would like to emphasise what my right hon. and gallant Friend—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): No one knows better than the hon. Member that the only matters about which one can speak on the Third Reading are the contents of the Bill. A protest has been made, which I permitted, but I see no reason why further protests should be made on a matter quite outside the Bill.
    Mr. Williams: I certainly accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am glad that we can accept this Bill and pass it through its remaining stages. I feel sure that every Member would wish most sincerely that the Isle of Man should have the advantages of this Bill at the earliest possible moment.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  BISCUITS (CHARGES) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) ORDER
  Resolved:
  "That the Biscuits (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1095), dated 11th July, 1946, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th July, be approved."— [Dr. Edith Summer skill.]

  BURMA (GOVERNOR'S LEAVE AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES)
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th July]:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Governor's Leave and Travelling Allowances) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

  BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th July]:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the India and Burma (Burma Monetary Arrangements) (Second Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  Question again proposed.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I think I ought to say that this is, in fact, an act of indemnity of a most unusual character. The hon. and learned Gentleman has had to come twice to the House about it, and I trust he will be able to give us an assurance that, after this, Parliament will not be troubled with Orders of this character, and that the administration of the monetary matters referred to in these Orders will be handled

  179
  in a different way. We have not unduly stressed the irregularity of the procedure which he has asked Parliament to approve. If he will give us an assurance that this is unlikely to be repeated, and that it is a result of the chaos in Burma due to the country having been overrun, we shall understand the position.
  11.8 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am not sure that this is an irregular procedure. It was always intended, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that the Government of Burma should have full power over the currency in Burma two years after the passing of the 1937 Order; and it is only because of the circumstances that exist in Burma today, that it has been necessary to come here on these two occasions. I should not like to enter into a commitment I could not carry out, but I will certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as possible, it will be our purpose not to come to this House unnecessarily for the purpose of dealing with the currency.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Surely, after the setting up of the Currency Board, the matter must be within the jurisdiction of Burma?
  Mr. A. Henderson: Yes, Sir. It will be within the jurisdiction of Burma. But I do not want to commit myself as regards other aspects of the 1937 Order, because there are other aspects which are not affected by this draft Order.
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

  BURMA (LEGISLATURE)
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th July]:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, I935. praying that the Government of Burma (House of Representatives) (Amendment) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

  PRIVILEGES
  The Attorney-General and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe discharged from the Committee of Privileges; the Solicitor-General and Mr. J. S. C. Reid added [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

  AGRICULTURAL LAND, SCOTLAND (BUILDING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Pearson.]
  11.10 p.m.
  Lord John Hope: The matter which I wish to raise should be looked at from two aspects. One is that of the destruction of valuable units of food production, and the other is that there is an infringement— and a serious infringement-—of the rights of the individual citizen. Before I refer to specific cases—and one in particular— I wish to bring to the notice of the House that in the County of Midlothian, 640 acres have been, in the period 1945 to 1946, earmarked for building development. Some 98 acres have also been earmarked for opencast coal mining. All these acres consist of some of the best agricultural land in the country.
  I pass to the specific cases in which, in my estimation, things are going wrong through the way in which the Department is handling this matter of requisitioning agricultural land for building purposes. The first case concerns a farm called Craigour of some 150 acres. The intention of the authorities was to take that part of the land which included the farm buildings, and to leave the rest of the farm to be worked without buildings. That was the first intention, simply stated. As a result of complaints, there was a slight amendment, to the extent that the land, which includes the buildings, was not to be taken over, for the time being. The farmer does not know where he stands. In the case of another farm of some 52 acres, a note was received from the appropriate authorities by the farmer, or by the factor of the estate, worded "It is intended to use this site." As a result of that information, the farmer, who had lifted his potatoes and was ploughing ready for wheat, stopped ploughing. The land has not been taken over by the authorities, and, in fact, the field has been derelict since last year. The third

  181
  case concerns Niddrie Mains, where a potato field which was entering on the lifting stage, was broken into and largely spoilt by a bulldozer, for the purpose of making a road.
  There are two more cases. One is at Newbridge, about which the hon. Gentleman already knows. In that locality, a road was built in the standing com, spoiling a lot of it, but I understand that the arrangements have been held up as a result of representations. I am glad to hear that. The other case concerns a 9½ acre field, the tenant of which is a market gardener. This was in potatoes in 1945, and the tenant had planned to plant various vegetables last spring for the 1946 crop. He heard one day, purely by accident—by local rumour in the village— that his field would probably be taken over. He had heard nothing officially. As a result of this rumour, he telephoned to the authorities. They said that it was quite true that his field was to be taken over. There was nothing in writing, and, so far as I know, he has had nothing in writing since.
  Finally, there is the case of the farm Mordun Mains, Liberton, of which the hon. Gentleman has had notice. In this case the farmer, Mr. McKendrick, is aged 57. He came on to the farm in 1937, and his lease expires in 1951. He made that farm up from absolutely nothing, from derelict, rotten, useless land. He made it up to a farm carrying a very fair amount of stock, in addition to which he has a milk round, and sells what is surplus to the round to the Milk Marketing Board. It is not disputed that this farmer has put up an extremely fine performance in the improvement he has made in this farm. He wrote a letter to me on 16th February saying that he heard rumours—again, rumours—that his farm was to be taken over for building. He said he did not pay much attention to these reports, but that week he had had a call from an official from the Department of Agriculture who warned him to look around for another farm, as he considered it likely that the corporation scheme would go through, and they would start in possession in six months' time. He replied that he had still a long period —I think about seven years—of his lease to run, and that at his age it would not be easy to get another place. He had nowhere to go, and he considered it unfair. The points I would bring out about
  182
  this letter are that, first, this is a man of 57 who worked this farm up from nothing, as I have said; secondly, an official from the Department of Agriculture comes up without any notice in writing having been given—no letter saying that he intended to go to see the farmer—the official simply walks in and tells him to look around for another place, and that he has to go. I say that is not the way to conduct affairs. It is discourteous, to say the least. It is also demoralising to farmers, because this is not the only case in which this sort of thing has happened.
  As a result of that letter I advised Mr. McKendrick to write to the Edinburgh Corporation and find out if the threat was real. He did so and found it was. I therefore wrote to the Secretary of State on 21st March asking whether the local agricultural executive committee had been consulted in this case, as I suspected that it had not. The Secretary of State replied on 30th March, and in the course of his reply said that the agricultural executive committee was not consulted about these proposals, but the land was inspected by a planning officer of the Department of Health and by a land utilisation officer of the Department of Agriculture to ascertain whether the land could be approved for housing development. After full consideration of the circumstances with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health notified the corporation that it would be prepared to approve acquisition of the land by agreement.
  I do not consider it right to say that agricultural considerations have been kept fully in mind when the agricultural executive committee of the district had not even been told about this being done. Finally I would ask the hon. Gentleman five very short questions of which I have given him direct notice: First, what yardstick do the Government employ in deciding how much good agricultural land they are going to destroy, and how much they are going to preserve; secondly, will the Government overhaul this inhuman and overbearing system of requisitioning so that farmers will be given the earliest possible notice in future, in writing, in a decent, courteous way, and shall not have an official coming to the door and saying, "You have to clear out," so that farmers can feel that things are not being done behind their backs; thirdly, is the Secretary of State fully prepared to override;

  183
  fourthly, why is the agricultural executive committee for Midlothian not consulted in so many cases, especially in Moredun Mains; fifthly, and finally, will Mr. McKendrick now foe left in peace to carry on until 1951 when his lease falls in?
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Snadden: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord who has raised this question, but I want to be fair in my criticism, because I realise it is a very difficult problem to solve. I would look at it rather more generally, and the first thing that occurs to me is that the development of housing schemes constitutes a real drain on agricultural land. The second thing we have to remember in Scotland is that, although our country is much better farmed than England, we have a very small arable area. Out of 19,000,000 acres we have only 4,500,000 acres of arable land, but our yield per acre is much better than our friends south of the Border can show, in spite of the fact we have a much more rigorous climate. So I conclude from that analysis that it is imperative that we in Scotland should hang on to our 4,500,000 acres of high quality land and endeavour, in regard to housing, to preserve all the best of our land and to build our houses on the poorer ground.
  The difficulty is to find sites for halt a million houses—I think that is the figure—and yet at the same time to preserve our best land for agricultural purposes. We know that on the borders of some of our towns we have dairy farms. These dairy farms, if they are split up, become uneconomic units and fail to serve the town. It is a very difficult problem indeed for any Government or for any Minister, when he is faced with the need for taking away part of one of these farms, in order to meet the demands of the local authority. But I would say, from my experience that it is better to take away a complete unit and be done with it, than to indulge in mutilation and leave a large number of uneconomic units. In any event it is not an easy job, and I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken would admit that the old law of supply and demand cannot operate today because of the acute need in our country for houses. With all respect,
  184
  there does not seem to me to be any yardstick that we can employ at the present time. Each case, so far as I can see, must be treated solely on its merits. For that reason we have to emphasise that when these cases are being taken on their merits we should have proper consultation between the various Departments concerned. First there is the local authority; then there is the agricultural executive committee; then there is the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, and also the Department of Health for Scotland; and, finally, perhaps as a result of one or two letters to the hon. Gentleman opposite, we have the Minister.
  What we want to get at tonight is that, although agriculture is our greatest single industry, all circumstances must be taken into account in these consultations. I must say that the Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), so far as my cases are concerned, has been extremely helpful in this respect. In spite of that, there is dissatisfaction today in certain parts of Scotland, and I think that what we want to get at tonight is what is the procedure that is followed. If he can tell us that there is proper consultation between the Department of Health and the Agricultural Committees, and if proper publicity is given, I am certain that will remove a certain amount of the ill-feeling which results from the splitting up of country against town and that sort of thing. Then, we shall have gone a little way along the road to clearing up our difficulties.
  11.26 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I have no complaint to make against the tone of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, I should observe that the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) has just answered some of the questions put by the noble Lord. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only one."] Well, he answered one fully, and he partly answered some of the others. He said that we had a serious housing problem to solve in Scotland. We have, indeed, to find some 500,000 new houses. Recognising the urgency of that problem, I should have thought that it would have been appreciated on all sides of the House that there ought to be a minimum of delay in acquiring sites, so that the building of houses could proceed. It is true that there are cases, and perhaps

  185
  a fair number of cases, of farmers, such as the constituent referred to by the noble Lord, who have worked very hard indeed, and have brought their farms to a good state of health, only to find at the end of it, that the local authority requires the land for housing purposes. But the housing authority, as all hon. Members are aware, is not allowed merely to walk in and acquire that land without anyone's permission. As most hon. Members must also be aware, the housing authority, which is a democratically elected body, is not likely to be grossly irresponsible in its method of acquiring land for housing. When they have decided on a site they make application to the Department of Health, so that they may get the approval of the Secretary of State through that Department; and the Department of Health never approves a site on agricultural land without consulting the Department of Agriculture. It may be that only the land utilisation officer will go and inspect the site. In the case referred to at Moredun Mains the Planning Officer of the Department of Health also went and looked at the site. They were looking for a suitable alternative site, but they were unable to find one, and having regard to all the circumstances, including the disadvantage to agriculture, the Secretary of State was forced to the conclusion that he had to approve this site.
  After all, it was the city of Edinburgh that wanted the site. They, like other great cities in this country, have a housing problem, and my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend and colleague are always being pressed by hon. Members on that side of the House to get on with the job. Edinburgh has been pressing my hon. Friend very hard indeed to get on with the job of providing houses. Well, if we should give way to the noble Lord and say in answer to his last question that we would leave this man in possession of this holding until the lease runs out in 1951, where would my right hon. Friend stand? Although he is being pressed by hon. Members in this House he would have to say "I cannot approve this site until 1951 and so the housing must stand over." He would be in a quite indefensible position.
  Lord John Hope: May I put this point? Of course that is the case so long as it is certain there is no alternative to pushing this man out. The hon. Gentleman will agree I do not complain of what is being done. I complain of the way in which
  186
  it is being done. I thought he would say something about that.
  Mr. Fraser: I take it the housing authority in Edinburgh have their regular meetings, and it will be proposed from time to time to seek to get permission to acquire another site for housing. And some member of the housing committee will say to a friend of his or hers that the housing committee are proposing to the corporation, who will doubtless approach the Secretary of State, that somebody's farm is to be taken over. That somebody has not been informed officially that the farm is being acquired for housing. We are not responsible for the date on which the local authorities will start negotiations with the owners of agricultural land for the purchase of that land for a housing site. We are not the governors of that at all. All we are concerned about is seeing whether or not it is right that that site should be approved and I do assure the House that the Secretary of State does not lightly turn aside the claims of agriculture when deciding whether or not a particular site should be approved.
  Commander Galbraith: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I think the point the noble Lord is trying to make is that it is grievous for any man who has worked up agricultural land suddenly to be dispossessed. He wishes to be assured there are consultations. Now he is asking—and can the hon. Gentleman say?—that these decisions are conveyed to these farmers as politely and as kindly and timeously as possible.
  Mr. Fraser: I think this information is given as politely, as kindly and as timeously as possible. Perhaps not always, but I think in the majority of cases.
  Mr. Snadden: Can I put one point? The real crux of these cases is that the first information the farmer got was when the contractors entered upon his land, the agricultural executive committee not being informed.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Where was this? I do not want to interrupt but will the hon. member give us the case? The case probably happened under the last Government.
  Mr. Fraser: Really we are not aware of any great hardship or of any great dissatisfaction with the present procedure. There are one or two isolated cases of people being annoyed. I do not blame the farmer at Moredun Mains for being annoyed. I would be annoyed if I were in his place, after all the work and energy I had put into the farm to find it was going to housing. It must be a great disappointment to a man of 57 years of age to know that in a few more months, or next year, he will be turned out, but, really, he is not turned out the following morning. I was trying to say that when approval has been given, then, presumably, the local authority will get into touch with the owner of the land, and, in the vast majority of cases, they are able to negotiate a voluntary purchase. In many cases, we have not had to invoke the powers that this House gave to housing Ministers recently under the Acquisition of Land Act for the speedy means of acquisition. We have not been doing that, and the noble Lord is not objecting to it. He is objecting to the cases where the very slow, cumbrous procedure is engaged in, where a sale is voluntarily carried through between the housing authority and the person concerned.
  I think in the few minutes at my disposal I ought to answer the direct questions which the noble Lord put to me. He asked me, first, what yardstick the Government apply in deciding how much agricultural land to destroy, and how much to preserve? As the hon. Member who represents West Perth rightly said, it is impossible to have a yardstick. We have to consider the applications for site approval from the various authorities as and when they come forward. We have to consider each on its merits. The second categorical question was whether the Government would overhaul the inhuman, overbearing system of requisitioning so that early warning in writing is given. I can answer that by saying that we do not consider that the system is inhuman or overbearing. Then he
  188
  asked whether the Secretary of State is prepared to override his officials in hard cases. Of course, the Secretary of State is the Minister responsible. On occasion, he has to act as the arbiter between the housing department and the agricultural department. He would have to take into account, when deciding hard cases, what hardship there would be on the authority as well as on the individual concerned.
  The next question was why the agricultural executive committees had not been consulted in very many cases. The agricultural executive committee is not a proper instrument to be consulted at all in these cases. The Secretary of State is advised by his Land Utilisation Officer; he is the person to advise the Secretary of State. If he should refer those matters to the agricultural executive committees for their deliberation and decision, I wonder how long he would have to wait before he got that decision and in how many cases a committee would actually say, "This land is of no use for agriculture and, therefore, we can give it up." These people, quite rightly and correctly—I do not object to it at all—would merely put forward the case for the agriculturist. That is a case often put forward by the Land Utilisation Officer of the Department of Agriculture. If we should agree to consult the agricultural executive committee as to the agricultural need of the community, or the agricultural value of the land, we might very well be forced into the position of consulting other interested people as to the need for housing in the area.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order made upon 16th August.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Rubber Knee-Boots
  Rubber Knee-Boots
  Missing Airmen
  Missing Airmen
  Chaplains (Pay)
  Chaplains (Pay)
  Compassionate Leave
  Compassionate Leave
  Extended Service Scheme (Circular)
  Extended Service Scheme (Circular)
  Jet Aircraft (Training)
  Jet Aircraft (Training)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Educational Service (Wounded Officer)
  Educational Service (Wounded Officer)
CIVIL AVIATION
  B.O.A.C. Transatlantic Service (Lockheed Constellations)
  B.O.A.C. Transatlantic Service (Lockheed Constellations)
  State-Controlled Aerodromes (Landing Charges)
  State-Controlled Aerodromes (Landing Charges)
  PALESTINE (ZIONIST ORGANISATION, ENTRY)
  PALESTINE (ZIONIST ORGANISATION, ENTRY)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Service Contingents (Film Record)
  Service Contingents (Film Record)
  Blindness (Visiting Mission)
  Blindness (Visiting Mission)
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Agriculture and Mining (Training)
  Agriculture and Mining (Training)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Banana Production
  Banana Production
  Indians, Kenya (Franchise)
  Indians, Kenya (Franchise)
CYPRUS
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Constitution
  Constitution
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Lower Extraction Flour
  Lower Extraction Flour
  Sugar Sacks
  Sugar Sacks
  Overseas Gift Parcels
  Overseas Gift Parcels
  Babies' Ration Scale
  Babies' Ration Scale
  Naval Ports
  Naval Ports
  Diabetic Commodities
  Diabetic Commodities
  Bread Rationing
  Bread Rationing
  Food Office, Reigate
  Food Office, Reigate
  Malayan Pineapples
  Malayan Pineapples
  Catering Restrictions
  Catering Restrictions
  Condensed and Powdered Milk
  Condensed and Powdered Milk
  Extra Stores (Snowbound Areas)
  Extra Stores (Snowbound Areas)
  Combined Food Board (Allocations)
  Combined Food Board (Allocations)
  Orange Juice (Age Limit)
  Orange Juice (Age Limit)
  U.S. Wheat
  U.S. Wheat
  Meals in Establishments Order
  Meals in Establishments Order
  Cheese Ration (Roadmen)
  Cheese Ration (Roadmen)
  BEER PRODUCTION
  BEER PRODUCTION
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Exports (Statistics)
  Exports (Statistics)
  Wool Cloth Exports
  Wool Cloth Exports
  New Factories (Building Programme)
  New Factories (Building Programme)
  Mission to China (Air Travel)
  Mission to China (Air Travel)
  International Conference
  International Conference
  Clothing Industry (Supplies)
  Clothing Industry (Supplies)
  Utility Furniture (Deliveries)
  Utility Furniture (Deliveries)
  FRENCH NATIONALS (BRITISH DECORATIONS)
  FRENCH NATIONALS (BRITISH DECORATIONS)
  YUGOSLAVIA (PRESS REPRESENTATIVES)
  YUGOSLAVIA (PRESS REPRESENTATIVES)
  AUSTRIA (GERMAN ASSETS)
  AUSTRIA (GERMAN ASSETS)
ROYAL NAVY
  Release Payments
  Release Payments
  "Hostilities Only" (Transfers)
  "Hostilities Only" (Transfers)
  Chaplains (Pay)
  Chaplains (Pay)
  Requisitioned Garage, Brighton
  Requisitioned Garage, Brighton
  Long Service Pensions
  Long Service Pensions
  Short Service Scheme
  Short Service Scheme
  Schoolmasters (Release)
  Schoolmasters (Release)
  Artificers, H.M.S. "Euroclydon" (Messing)
  Artificers, H.M.S. "Euroclydon" (Messing)
  Cottages, Bond's Mill, Stonehouse
  Cottages, Bond's Mill, Stonehouse
  Royal Marines, Sandwich (Church Parades)
  Royal Marines, Sandwich (Church Parades)
  Radio Mechanics (Training)
  Radio Mechanics (Training)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, SALE
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, SALE
  AIRFRAME DESIGNERS
  AIRFRAME DESIGNERS
  FOREIGN TRAWLERS (SCOTTISH PORTS)
  FOREIGN TRAWLERS (SCOTTISH PORTS)
  WAR CRIME TRIALS (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES, COST)
  WAR CRIME TRIALS (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES, COST)
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Prayers.
  VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN.
  Field-Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, G.C.B., D.S.O., having been created Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END.
Sir Ambrose Edgar Woodall, Knight, having been created Baron Uvedale of North End, of North End in the County of Middlesex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD NEWALL.
Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Cyril Louis Norton Newall, G.C.B., O.M., G.C.M.G., C.B.E., having been created Baron Newall, of Clifton-upon-Dunsmoor in the County of Warwick—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
HIGH WYCOMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bills read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
LORD WALKDEN: In regard to the Provisional Order Bills on the Paper, your Lordships will see that four of these Bills have been amended by the Select Committee. The Amendments in these four Bills are of a purely formal nature, and in order to save the time of the House I propose, with, your Lordships' permission, to take these Bills through Committee without putting your Lordships to the trouble of the House being resumed after the Committee stage on each Bill. I may say that the Amendments to each of these Bills are the same, and I shall be happy to give your Lordships any information you may require. If your Lordships consent to this procedure, I propose to take the Bills in the way suggested.
Amendments proposed by the Committee to each Bill made.

SKEGNESS PIER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (GOVERNOR'S LEAVE AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES) ORDER, 1946.
INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS) (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICKLAWRENCE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Draft Orders, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Committee On Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time. May I take this opportunity of explaining that there are a few merely formal Amendments which I shall move in due course if the House agrees to the Motion. May I also take the opportunity of explaining that I do not intend to propose an Amendment to Clause 42. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, moved an Amendment to provide that persons selected as members of the local advisory committees might include persons put forward by organizations concerned with certain interests. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said "You do not put forward persons, you put forward names," and I expressed provisional agreement with the noble Lord. I thought that he had a good point there. He said that he wanted the wording to be in good English. I am glad to think that he and I thought alike on that occasion, but further reflection has made me think that perhaps there is a greater authority than either of us. I refer to the Revised Version of the Bible in Chapter I of the Acts of the Apostles, when the remaining Apostles had to fill the vacancy after the death of Judas Iscariot. Acts I, verse 23, says:
878
"and they put forward tea, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias."
Your Lordships will observe that they put forward two persons, not names, Joseph and Matthias. On the strength of that authority, I feel certain the noble Lord will be convinced that he and I were both wrong. That is why I do not propose to move an Amendment. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
Clause 43:
Determination of claims and questions.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) of this section shall not provide for the determination by the Minister of questions as to the right to benefit, but shall provide—
(c) for enabling appeals to be brought from such a tribunal to a Commissioner (to be called "the National insurance Commissioner") or deputy Commissioner appointed by His Majesty for the purposes of this Act or to a tribunal presided over by the National Insurance Commissioner or a deputy Commissioner:
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) of this section may provide for the reference to the High Court for decision of any question of law arising in connection with the determination of a question by the Minister, and for appeals to the High Court from the decision of the Minister on any such question of law; and—
(c) notwithstanding anything in any Act, the decision of the High Court on a reference or appeal under this subsection shall be final.
(5) Subject to the provisions of this section, regulations made thereunder may, in relation to the determination of questions in accordance with the regulations, include provision—

(a)as to the procedure which is to be followed, the form which is to be used for any document, the evidence which is to be required and the circumstances in which any official record or certificate is to be sufficient or conclusive evidence;

(b)as to the time to be allowed for making any claim or appeal, for raising any question with a view to the review of any decision or for producing any evidence;

(c)for summoning persons to attend and give evidence or produce documents and for authorising the administration of oaths to witnesses;

and except so far as they may be applied by regulations under this subsection the Arbitration Acts, 1889 to 1934, shall not apply to any proceedings under this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3) (c) after "Act," to insert "being in either case a barrister or advocate of not less than ten years standing." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to carry out the promise I gave on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill. It will put the two Bills into line with each other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 27, after ("Act") insert ("(being in either case a barrister or advocate of not less than ten years standing)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (4) (c), to insert
"and on any such reference or appeal the court may order the Minister to pay the costs of any other person, whether or not the decision is in his favour and whether or not the Minister appears on the reference or appeal."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also is intended to make this Bill comparable with the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, and to carry out the undertaking I gave. I beg to move.
Page 38, line 15, at end insert the said words—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved at the end of subsection (5) to insert:
"It is hereby declared that the power to prescribe procedure includes power to make provision as to the representation of one person, at any hearing of a case, by another person whether having professional qualifications or not."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed for the same reason. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 34, at end insert the said words—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49:
Inspectors.
(4) If any person—

(a) Wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of any power under this section; or

(b) fails to answer any question or to furnish any information or to produce any document when required so to do under this section;

880
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds in the case of a first offence under this subsection and not exceeding fifty pounds in the case of a second or subsequent such offence:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is intended to carry out an undertaking I gave to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 14, leave out ("fails") and insert ("refuses or neglects")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That this Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like if I may to say a few words on this Bill before it actually passes into law or, to be more accurate, before it actually leaves your Lordships' House. This is, of course, not a Bill on which a great deal needs to be said; it is not a controversial Bill; it is not one of those measures which could conceivably lead to that clash between Lords and Commons to which I understand the Minister of Fuel and Power is looking forward with such hopeful anticipation. All Parties in this House support the principle of national insurance; there is no difference between us on that. This Bill is largely the work of a Coalition Government, representative of all Parties, during the days of the war. I remember sitting myself on some of the committees which considered it in its early stages and I well remember the general harmony which prevailed. It is, I think, because of the labours of successive Governments of all political colours that we in this country already have, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, indicated in his famous Report, the finest system of social services in the world. That is a matter on which we can all congratulate ourselves without, I hope, being at too great pains to apportion the credit for so happy a situation.
But however good are the social services of a country they can always be improved, and that, as I understand, is the object of this Bill. It seeks to codify

881
the existing law and to make such improvements in it as past experience and our financial situation render possible. I am very glad that in their proposals the Government have retained the principle of contributory insurance, because that is, I think, the essence of all true insurance. A man or a woman who wishes to protect himself or herself from the major catastrophies of life must allocate money from his own income for that purpose, if the other sections of the community are really to co-operate to ensure that the benefit he receives is worth having, that is, of course, all to the good, but some contribution by the beneficiary himself is surely essential. In the present scheme, as we all know, the employer, the employee and the community all play their part, and that is, I think, a very true reflection of our joint responsibility.
There are, however, certain sections of the community to-day (I hope not very large ones) which apparently hold the view that the whole cost of this and similar schemes should fall upon what is known as the "State." I remember a speech by a former Minister of Education, Mr. Butler, in which he told how he had received a letter with regard to his Education Bill from a very angry lady, who wrote, "Why should this Education Act be paid for out of rates and taxes? Why is it not paid for by the State?" That is an example of very muddled thinking, but although it is one which it is extremely easy to laugh at, it does reflect a common and a very dangerous illusion. I am extremely glad that in this great measure the Government have not lent themselves to that illusion, for if they had the country would very soon have been bankrupt. I believe that the basis of this scheme is sound and one which we all, on whatever side of the House we sit, can support.
Only one matter of substance, I believe, has been the subject of controversy. It is a matter of common knowledge to your Lordships that we on this side of the House (and here I believe I speak not only for the Conservatives but also for the Liberals) would have liked to have seen the friendly societies given a rather larger part in the administration of this scheme. This question was very fully debated in the earlier stages of the Bill. I do not wish to reopen it now, but I would like to say that I listened during the Committee stage, like many others of your Lordships, to an extremely
882
powerful and persuasive speech by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in which he marshalled all the arguments against including the friendly societies. That speech, if I may say so with all deference, was a very remarkable Parliamentary effort—one of the most remarkable we have heard in this House for many a long day—but to me at any rate it would have been more completely convincing if the friendly societies had not for over thirty years been playing an efficient and valuable part in the structure of our national insurance, although it is perfectly true that they became originally connected with it by what was little more than chance.
When, in the years before the last war, Mr. Lloyd George brought in his insurance schemes, there was no State machinery in existence for the purpose and therefore, as we all know, he used the friendly societies, which were already available to his hand. They came forward patriotically in the national interest and did the work required of them, as I am sun we should all agree, both sympathetically and efficiently. It was one of those ad hoc arrangements so common in this country which have proved satisfactory and which have become assimilated into our social system. Personally I wish very much that that connexion could have continued and I could not help having a faint suspicion (I hope it was not an unworthy one) as I listened to the noble and learned Lord that, although he very studiously avoided saying so, there was a certain ideological element in the Government's decision. As good Socialists they prefer State servants to representatives of private institutions, but the result to many of us is that they have eliminated what we should have regarded as a valuable element and a means of providing very good healthy competition which would have helped to keep the Government officials up to the mark. However, I recognize that this is a point on which two views can be held.
It is no doubt arguable that it would not have been justifiable for this House, on this one point, however strongly we felt about it, to postpone the bringing into operation of the rest of the Bill, with ninety-nine per cent. of which we are in the very fullest agreement. Nevertheless, I would not like this occasion to pass without taking the opportunity, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit behind me,

883
to pay tribute to the magnificent work which has been done by the friendly societies in the past. They were called in to meet a national need and they have earned the gratitude of all of us by their untiring and efficient work. I am glad their name has not been entirely excluded from this Bill and that their experience and their counsel will still be made use of on the local committees.
I would conclude by saying that I believe the purposes of this Bill are essentially good. It is a Bill which I hope and believe will be of benefit to the less fortunate sections of the community of this country. We all know that there are certain people who, through no fault of their own, are unable entirely to protect themselves against the major catastrophies of life—old age, sickness, unemployment and so on. It is in these cases that we, the people of Britain, feel a moral obligation to step in and help those fellow citizens of ours who need our assistance. That is the aim and object of this Bill and I am sure that all of us, to whatever party we may belong, are glad to give it our blessing.
On Question, Bill passed, with the Amendments, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that I shall not be falling below the level of the occasion if I speak rather briefly this afternoon. We have had in recent months more than one very full discussion about the economic position of the country. I recall one in particular in which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, played a prominent part, and in which I inflicted myself on the House at some length. On the other hand, those of you who are thoroughly expert in these matters have already studied the Finance Bill with great care and will not expect me to go through it clause by clause. Therefore, I think that I can best meet the feeling of the House by setting out broadly what has confronted the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular and the Government generally, and by trying
884
to show how he has set about solving that problem. Your Lordships will realize of course that the Finance Bill covers a rather narrower sphere than the Budget, but in what I say this afternoon I am bound to touch upon questions of expenditure as well as those of revenue, because the problem that has confronted the Chancellor of the Exchequer inevitably covers both.
The essential components of any Budget consist of three types of figure. First of all we have an estimate of expenditure, then we have to meet that by borrowing—which is the second type of figure—and finally we have taxation and the rest of the revenue. This year the estimate of expenditure is £3,887,000,000. Last year it was £5,565,000,000. The difference is £1,678,000,000 or a reduction of expenditure of thirty-one per cent. The decrease is naturally in Defence expenditure. It would be very strange, when the war is over, if there were not a very large decrease there. The Civil Departments' estimated expenditure is £145,000,000 up, due to various items of social improvement all of which I think your Lordships approve. I refer particularly to education, housing, family allowances, increases in old age pensions, and the provision of milk in schools.
There has, of course, at different stages of the debates elsewhere, been criticism of this figure of expenditure as being too high, but I would respectfully submit that no one in another place—nor I think here since I have become a member of your Lordships' House—has come forward to question any important decision of policy by His Majesty's Government on the ground that it is too expensive. Indeed, we were severely taken to task the other day by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, because it was argued that some proposition which had a certain appeal in justice was possibly too expensive. I do not feel that anybody in a responsible position in any quarter of this House can seriously argue that it would have been easy to make any larger reduction in this figure of expenditure.
At the same time the fact that it is not easy imposes, as I am sure your Lordships will all agree, all the greater duty of vigilance, and it becomes all the more important, as has been recognized by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to scrutinize every item to see if by any administrative

885
economy we can bring the figure lower. Last night I happened to be reading Mr. Winston Churchill's biography of his father, who it will be remembered was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1886. Mr. Churchill recalls that in the 80's it cost the Liberal Government of the day, in the period just before Mr. Randolph Churchill took office, something between £80,000,000 and £90,000,000 a year to govern the country and defend the Empire. This year we are faced with an expenditure of £3,887,000,000. Mr. Churchill recalls that in those days these figures of Liberal expenditure were greeted by what he calls "genial malice by the Tories." I am sure the spokesman of the Tories this afternoon, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, will give evidence of geniality but not of malice. In view of the size of the figure I am sure that sympathy will be the emotion to which he will be most likely to give expression.
Be that as it may, we have a very heavy bill to meet and the Government proposes to meet £725,000,000 of it by borrowing. That is what appears at first sight but these things can be calculated in various ways. If non-recurrent items in this year's expenditure and revenue are excluded the deficit goes down to £268,000,000. The right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has estimated that in the current year we are going to pay 18s. 4d. out of every £1 spent out of revenue compared with 12s. in the last war year. So much for the relation between the total borrowed and the total to be raised in taxation. I will only mention further, while on the subject, that the cheap money policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does seem to have been a great success. Even that very austere critic, the Financial Times, has admitted that we have brought off a big thing in that direction. I will not go into details but I think your Lordships will agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has deserved very well of the country by the ingenuity and persistence with which he has pursued the cheap money policy in recent months.
Now we come to revenue. This deficit estimate of £725,000,000 is a compromise. On the one hand, while expenditure has gone down by 31 per cent. the estimated revenue is only £123,000,000 below last year's receipts—a reduction of less than 4 per cent. The level of taxation has been kept, therefore, pretty stiff.
886
We have had in that policy two objects in mind. On the one hand we are determined to get back as soon as possible to a balanced Budget, and on the other hand we are under no delusions about the necessity of counteracting the danger of inflation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not shown himself a rigid doctrinaire. He has provided in the last two Budgets for which he has been responsible certain important reliefs which I will touch on in a moment. The cost of these reliefs means in a full year—they do not all come into effect at once—£500,000,000. Perhaps what is more significant and interesting is that out of that £500,000,000 of tax relief only £30,000,000 comes through Customs and Excise relief and the rest, some £470,000,000, comes under the Inland Revenue. That is to say the £470,000,000 relief is in the field of direct taxation and only £30,000,000 in the field of indirect taxation.
I will not weary you by running through the details of these reliefs which are of course available in the Bill. I will just mention one or two of the reliefs from Purchase Tax and instances of reduction of tax. Among the goods which, under the present Bill, are freed from tax altogether I may mention domestic pots and pans, dressers, and other kitchen equipment. I do not know whether that vitally concerns your Lordships at first hand, though very often we notice a psychological impact in the home from the absence of these articles at cheap prices. Others of your Lordships will be pleased, as I am myself pleased although I do not suffer from this infirmity, that the electric batteries for hearing aids are being freed from the Purchase Tax. I think that this House has played an important part, unless I am much mistaken, in securing that relief.
Those of your Lordships who are blessed with thick and beautiful crops of hair will be pleased that the tax on hair-waving machinery has been much reduced. It has not been altogether abolished. I, personally, am not so sorry as I would have been some years ago that hair-waving machinery is still subject to a certain level of tax. I confess that, looking ahead a year or two, I take more interest in the fact that, in another place, the tax on wigs was removed completely. In saying that I am, as I say, looking ahead at any rate in my own case, with

887
great forethought. My feeling may be shared by other noble Lords whose brows expand as their hair evaporates.
I will not say more about reductions of indirect taxation except to call the attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who, I understand, is going to speak after me, and who, like myself, finds it a great pleasure to visit Lords cricket ground when he can steal a few minutes from our deliberations here, to the fact—which, I dare say he has not failed already to observe—that sports other than certain kinds of racing will be subject to a reduced rate of duty. I look forward to receiving some congratulations from so keen a cricketer as the noble Viscount, when he speaks.
In the Inland Revenue field, your Lordships will remember that the autumn Finance Act made provision for a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax from ten shillings to nine shillings, and for increased personal allowances. The present Bill gives other relief: it increases earned income allowance to one-eighth, subject to a maximum allowance of tax on £150. It also makes provision for first instalments of the repayment of the postwar credits to women over 60 and men over 65. The Excess Profits Tax, as I expect everyone knows, which was reduced under the last Bill, will come to an end altogether under the provisions of the present Bill on December 31. The Bill also provides for a new scale of Estate Duty. Under this scale estates up to £2,000 will be exempted from Estate Duty. Estates of between £2,000 and £7,500 will pay less than at present. Estates of between £7,500 and £12,500 will pay the same. Estates above £12,500 will pay more. I should just point out the effect statistically of these changes. In an ordinary year, 150,000 estates will be relieved entirely, 30,000 will have duty reduced, 7,000 will be unaffected, and 10,000 will be subject to a measure of increase.
I am not going to speak very much longer, but perhaps, at this point, I might call attention to the implications of these proposals. They make clear, I think, that His Majesty's Government are very far from taking the view that private property is wrong, that savings are wrong, that inheritance is wrong. What we do say is that these are good things of life
888
and they should be distributed as equitably as possible, always bearing in mind that ultimately they spring from someone's exertions and sacrifices, and that in any steps we may take in re-distributing the burden we must be at pains to ensure that exertions and sacrifices are made more and not less attractive. If I may venture just one ideological reflection of my own, it will be this. The greatest sociological problem with which we in this country, or those in any country at all similar, are faced is to reconcile two great social principles which at first sight might seem to conflict.
On the one hand is the principle of equality, the principle that each one of us when he comes into the world should be given an equal chance to lead a good and happy life; and on the other hand is the principle of what you might call family continuity, that is, that a man who has made sacrifices, and saved, should be allowed to hand on some of the fruits of his exertions and his sacrifices to his children. It may be that noble Lords on this side lay more stress on the first principle, and it may be that noble Lords sitting opposite will lay more stress on the second. But it seems to me that all of us, if we reflect on these things, will agree that somehow or other we have to strike a balance between those two principles, and I will submit very respectfully to your Lordships that a balance is struck in the Bill which is now before the House, and that it should be broadly acceptable to all of us and to the nation as a whole.
I will add a word regarding future taxation arrangements. I have already touched upon that subject. I think that what strikes one most of all, if one studies this carefully, is the consistency with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to apply the test of incentive at every point. He has asked himself: "Will this change increase incentive, will it lead people to produce more, to put forth greater exertions and to make greater sacrifices?" It will be observed from what I have said, that a far greater proportion of reliefs come under the heading of direct taxation: Income Tax, Surtax, and so on—a comparatively small amount comes under the "indirect" heading. In the old days, orthodox economists used to argue that indirect taxation was regressive, that it fell too heavily on the poor man, or at any rate, fell more heavily upon him than direct

889
taxation. I am inclined to say that, in the circumstances of the day, that view must be reversed, or at any rate reconsidered.
Without wishing to attempt to say anything final, or very authoritative, I would suggest that in the first place the taxpayer, while, of course, he would rather not be taxed at all, prefers to be taxed by indirect taxation rather than direct taxation. That, I suggest, is a matter of common observation as one moves about the country and meets one's fellow-countrymen. Secondly, it seems clear, I submit, that indirect taxation, taxation on commodities and so on, is seldom if ever a deterrent to production. Direct taxation very often deters people from producing as much as they might. As was cogently said the other day, you can give up smoking, you can give up drinking, and you can give up working, and the easiest of the three is to give up working. We have sought to avoid rendering that last option overwhelmingly attractive. This Bill, and the Budget from which it springs, has a simple theme, though it contains two notes. On the one hand there is the note of controlling inflation, and on the other the note of stimulating production. I would suggest that this Bill gives effect to those two ideas in a manner that we can approve of in this House, and it is my pleasant duty now to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Pakenham.)
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, we shall all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who is now the maid-of-all work among His Majesty's servants who sit on the Front Bench, has discharged his task in the very happiest manner. Of necessity, discussion of finance proposals in this House is an academic exercise. We can neither frame finance proposals, nor can we alter them. I remember that the late Lord Darling, when he was trying a case and was told that it was governed by a previous decision which he did not like, said that no doubt he was compelled to follow the precedent, but he was not compelled on that account to admire it. Perhaps your Lordships, in a similar vein, may say that we are called upon to swallow this Bill, but we are not required to say that we like the dose. I had not intended, in the short time that I shall detain the
890
House, to make detailed reference to these proposals, because I think more general reflections are suitable in your Lordships' House, but in view of one observation of the noble Lord opposite I must depart from my intention.
I had observed the provisions in this latest Finance Bill on the subject of the reduction of Entertainments Duty, and I had observed them with pleasure. They come under Clause 7. Of course Entertainments Duty goes back a long way. I think it was in 1935 that the duty was reduced in the case of stage plays—what was called the living drama, when actual people presented themselves on the boards. Now, Clause 7 (1), which deals with that matter says:
"… for the words 'a circus or a travelling show' there shall be substituted the words 'circus, a travelling show, a menagerie or any game or sport'"—
such as cricket, I suppose—
"' other than the racing or trial of speed of animals, vehicles, motor vessels or aircraft'."
No doubt that is very gratifying to many of us, although I think the language is curious. It becomes even more curious when I read the next provision, which says:
"… the reference to the racing or trial of speed of vehicles does not include a reference to cycle races where the cycles are propelled by the riders themselves."
Apparently that is not regarded as a trial of the speed of animals. If it were monkeys who rode de bicycles, no doubt the sport would be subject to the higher tax. As it is, reduction of the tax is provided. I think many of us are very glad that it has been found possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the rate of Entertainments Tax on the great sports of the country like cricket and football. For a long time, as I have reminded your Lordships, there has been a similar reduction in the case of an actor on the stage. Under the present Entertainments Tax the noble game of cricket is dealt with in exactly the same way as a strip-tease turn. That is the position which we have now reached. Of course it does not apply to racing, because apparently the racing or trial of speed of thoroughbred racehorses is regarded as being a test of the animals themselves, rather than of the jockeys mounted upon their backs. Such is the present state—and it is an improved state—of the law of Entertainments Tax.

891
It was my purpose to devote myself not to any particular clause but rather to calling attention to one or two financial principles and prospects which suggest themselves when one considers the finance provision for this year. There is no sacrosanct character attached to that particular period of time called a fiscal year. There is nothing in the nature of things which equates the time it takes the earth to go round the sun with a new finance statement and provisions. But it is very convenient that we should have annual Budgets, especially when it becomes a question of whether the Budget is balanced. I propose to refer to the proposals for this particular year and to ask the House to consider for a few minutes a certain tendency which it may be important for us to watch—and possibly to criticize. What I ask your Lordships is this: what is the future of Income Tax, its amount and its productivity, in the hands of a Socialist and nationalizing Government? I think that is a perfectly apposite question, and it is one which I would like to develop for a short time.
I am not quite sure that my noble friend Lord Pakenham mentioned the figure, but it is as well to have it in mind that out of a total revenue of something like £2,900,000,000 Income Tax—in which I include Sur-tax—produces about £200,000,000. That is an enormous sum. For at least a generation past it has in fact been the principal single source of the revenue of the country. Sur-tax is comparatively unimportant. There may be occasions when the question of Sur-tax appeals to a certain kind of audience, when a certain kind of speaker assures the audience that only if a particular Government are returned will the rich man be properly taxed. Nobody can say that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has not done his best in that way. When he was reducing Income Tax he made up for that reduction by taking particular pleasure in squeezing a little more out of Sur-tax. In spite of that—and it is almost incredible that it should be so—out of the £1,200,000,000 which the Income Tax and the immense Sur-tax provide, only £80,000,000 will come out of Sur-tax. The reason for this is that there are so few people in this country who have these very large incomes, and such people who have them, I think, do not find that the incomes do them much
892
good. I believe it is correct that the income of those who have more than £2,000 a year in this country amounts to only 2 per cent. of the national income as a whole. What is going to happen to Income Tax, if we continue under this dispensation, or one like it, in the future?
In origin, of course, Income Tax was a war tax. It was imposed by Pitt in 1799. The moment the peace of Amiens was signed, Income Tax was taken off. It was put on again in 1803, when the war was resumed, and it was taken off the moment Waterloo was won and the Napoleonic Wars were over. One might have thought that was the end of it. But in 1842, I think, Sir Robert Peel re-introduced it in connexion with a great many very valuable reforms, and even then, or soon afterwards, there was a prospect of it disappearing, because, if I remember rightly, Mr. Gladstone, in the first (and some people think the greatest) of his Budgets, provided that in the course of the next three years Income Tax, which was then sixpence in the pound, should go down by twopence a year until it disappeared in the third year. There is not the slightest reason to doubt the genuineness of that calculation. What happened in the interval which prevented it was the Crimean War, and, the Crimean War interposing, again Income Tax was continued. It has since risen to the figure we know.
No doubt, as a matter of interest, your Lordships may have considered what it was when you were young. When I was born Income Tax was twopence in the pound. I agreed in the year before the last war, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make it 5s. 6d. but in the emergency war Budget I raised it to 7s. 6d., not without some prominent politicians and economists expressing doubt whether this was not too big a jump. I always shared the intention and held the view that it ought to be raised to 10s., as it was; but that it should continue at figures anything approaching that seems to me to be one of the most formidable facts connected with our financial future. Let us see what Income Tax at 9s. in the pound is likely to mean under a Socialist and nationalizing Government. It is an appropriate moment to consider it, because, up to the present, no actual case of nationalization, such as this Government has planned, has come into force

893
except the Bank of England Act, which is not, for this purpose, important. But we are on the way to the nationalization of the coal industry, to the nationalization of air transport and to the nationalization of iron and steel.
What I ask your Lordships for a moment to do is to consider the effect these changes are likely to have on the productivity of Income Tax. I assume that the boards, which are to take over the administration of these great branches of industry, will pay Income Tax. We have been told in terms, I think, that the National Coal Board will be subject to Income Tax. The Post Office is not. But I presume it is intended that each of these great organizations will pay Income Tax if they make profits. What is the prospect of their making any such contribution to the national revenue as is made now in those departments of commerce? Let us take the case of coal. As long as there are different colliery companies, those which make profits pay a tax on those profits. It is not true to say that Income Tax is a tax on income in the sense of the gross amount you receive; it is a tax only on what is left to you after you have made the necessary expenditure to earn your income. The prosperous separate colliery undertakings—A, B and C—each now pay Income Tax. There are no doubt others—D, E and F—which do not make profits, but losses. They, of course, do not pay any Income Tax if they have not made any profits. But under the existing system those people have to look after themselves.
Under the nationalization plan for the coal industry the Government take over and put into a single holding all these colliery companies, whether previously profitable or not. Is it not very probable that the losses which are made by some of them will be met by the profits made by others? And the Income Tax which has to be paid by the National Coal Board will be based on its profits as a whole. It will be entitled to set off the cases in which there has been a loss against the particular colliery undertakings where there has been a profit. But I must say I am much concerned that you should consider whether these nationalization schemes applied to many industries, such as iron and steel and others—taking a great group of enterprises of the same
894
sort, and treating them all as one under a particular board—will not, as a consequence, cause losses of some enterprises to be met by the profits made by others. If so, the result will be a very great reduction in the amount of Income Tax which the State will receive.
Let me take it a step further. When the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill was discussed in this House we secured that adequate accounts should be kept. Let us suppose that the National Coal Board starts publishing intelligible accounts, and that those accounts do show profits on the Whole—which is much to be desired—will not there be a demand to increase wages until the profits disappear? Will not the miners say: "Look at your own accounts; you are making a profit; you have no business to make a profit; we have always heard from you that service is the thing that counts, not profit"? Of course, that does not apply to an application for a rise in wages! It seems to me extremely probable that that will be a further reason why some great nationalized industry of this sort will not in fact provide revenue in the form of Income Tax. Increased coal prices may well result, and if that occurs there will be injury to everybody. My noble friend opposite is a very clear-headed and ingenious man, and he may be prompted to say, "After all, the present owners are going to be paid compensation. That compensation they can invest. The profits on those investments will be taxed, and they will take the place of the profits which are lost by nationalization." I think this is one of the matters where we might wait and see. I do not know how much the compensation is going to be. I do not know whether it is really going to operate as an effective substitute or not.
Lastly there is this consideration under this head. All this matter is based on the assumption that you are going to maintain and, I hope, increase output. But are you? That is the source from which increased profit would come, no doubt, but there is certainly no sign since the passing of the Act that increased output is being achieved. So we are now in the position that the miners are face to face with the State. Incidentally, we have repealed the Trades Disputes Act. Speaking not at all as a partisan but as one trying to analyse the future financial situation of Income Tax, I wonder, in the case of the nationalized industries, whether

895
you are not more likely to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to provide a subsidy instead of deriving great amounts of Income Tax from the nationalized industries. That is the first point I wish to put before your Lordships for consideration.
Now for a few moments let us consider the demands of the social services to which the noble Lord quite properly referred. I am glad that before I spoke the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said what he did about social services. I certainly am the last to be counted among their critics or their opponents. If the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, were here, he would confirm my claim to be one of the first who took a ministerial part in these matters, and that at a time when social services were not so universally approved as they are to-day. None the less, there is a tremendous bill being piled up for those excellent services, and so long as you supplement revenue you are meeting it out of borrowings; therefore, you are really not trying to make both ends meet. You are going to have a very anxious situation, and still more anxious if that revenue itself, which has hitherto depended almost entirely on private enterprise, is going, in the matter of profits and Income Tax, to subsidize nationalization.
Look how the Government themselves are at this moment relying upon private enterprise. Their supporters from every platform are told to believe—and many of them do believe—that there is something wicked in private profit. Yet how does the matter stand? The Lord President of the Council, in one of his many manifestations, feels that there should be great production to help the export trade. Who is going to do that? Why, the people who are engaged in private enterprise. Nobody suggests that the nationalization schemes are going to get back for this country its export trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day pointed out that he was getting rid of the Excess Profits Tax. He said that it was an excellent war-time tax. Excess Profits Tax is a duty on excess private profits. Its whole productivity is due to the fact that you are relying upon the productive effects of private enterprise. If we have a Budget—as we shall have in the future—which more and more will be endeavouring to substitute nationalization
896
(I am sure with the best intentions) for private enterprise, I confess myself to an anxiety as to whether or not the revenue we get by these means will be anything like so productive and abundant as it has been under the system the Government are seeking to displace. Whether or not with an annual expenditure of more than £3,000,000,000 you will get an annual revenue to meet the high increase in expenditure, remains to be seen. There has been an improvement this year, I admit, but you are faced with the fact that the country is undertaking an immense number of new enterprises under an entirely novel system of management. The Government have to find the revenue year by year sufficient to meet current demands—each of them justified in itself—for social services, for policing our part of Europe, and all sorts of things. I ask myself, is it wise in that situation to go on substituting this new method for the method which has produced so much revenue?
Lastly, I put this question—and I put it again without any desire to crab anyone. I quite understand the good purpose in what is being done, but I would earnestly ask those who are principally concerned whether so high a figure of Income Tax—I am including Sur-tax—can be maintained without injuring the community. There was a remarkable passage in Mr. Dalton's speech early this month. I have copied it out. I think perhaps the noble Lord opposite had this in mind when making some very interesting observations at the end of his speech—rather surprising, from his point of view—to the general effect that indirect taxation was to be preferred to direct taxation. When I think of all the speeches I have heard made in another place from the Labour benches denouncing indirect taxation and insisting that the whole revenue be got by direct taxation, that is an astounding thing to hear from the Benches opposite. Let me read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place on July 19:
"I am quite sure that what most people need, and what gives the greatest stimulus to incentive, so far as incentive is dulled and blunted and repressed by taxation, is to pay less Income Tax."
I call attention to those most remarkable words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is saying in terms that the greatest stimulus to incentive would be reduced Income Tax. As we know from

897
another passage, he favours indirect taxation. It is true that indirect taxation is borne by people with less appreciation of what they are bearing. A man smokes his pipe of tobacco, having paid so much for it, and he believes he has paid all of that for the tobacco. He has done nothing of the kind; he has paid only a small fraction for tobacco, and most of the money is taken by the State through indirect taxation. We are all being indirectly taxed all the time, and large numbers of us do not know it. It is an entirely novel doctrine to me to be told that the most important thing from the Socialist point of view is to keep on indirect taxation, as opposed to maintaining high Income Tax. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer may well be right; but after inveighing, as he and others have, against the profit motive, after vowing that he was going to see to it that the people who had got a considerable income should be taxed to blazes, it is to me very remarkable to hear him say that from his point of view indirect taxes are much more to be preferred to Income Tax, because people do not really feel them so much. They do not indeed.
That brings me to the conclusion I wish to reach. Is so high a figure of Income Tax and Sur-tax really consistent with maintaining the health of and the best services for the community? I have come very strongly to the view that it is not worth while for the best brains in business to accept a highly paid job. I think there are, a good many members of this House who will confirm me in that view. I do not say a man will not take a directorship if he has not got one, but I do say that to offer a large additional salary to a man who is already in a substantial position, if only he will undertake the management of some great concern, is really to invite him to do a very public-spirited and generous thing, for the amount he will get out of it will not be worth talking about. We are all of us, I am sure, entirely in favour of equality of opportunity, equality of treatment and every other sort of equality. Nobody desires that more than I; I want to see it with all my heart. But when you have it, you are not going to get a whole race of people who are equal in capacity. How many people are there in this country to-day who really have those exceptional qualities of judgment, organization, business drive and knowledge as to how best to manage some enormous enterprise?
898
There are Very few. There are not thousands; there may be hundreds.
If you say to those people (who already have, I am assuming, an income which counts as adequate), "I appeal to you to take charge of this national affair and to manage it for me, and if you do I will give you an income of five figures" (which I gather, according to the true doctrine, nobody ought to have), why should he do so? I am convinced that at the Bar at the present moment quite a new situation is arising, although I speak now as an old fogey who is not in the least interested in wigs becoming untaxed. I am convinced that at the Bar you would find that the small numbers of people who are really making considerable incomes and who have a great business are, far more than they ever did before, refusing business, although it might seem valuable to them (and certainly their clerks would think that way). They say to themselves, "Why should I sit up half the night with a wet towel round my head and work away at these extra, briefs when, after I have done it all, the only result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is determined to swat the Sur-tax payer, takes the whole of it back again?" That is certainly happening all through the higher grades of occupation and I feel sure it is happening in that select group of people with great commercial qualities.
I put it on record that I fear (I do not say more than this because I am only engaged in pointing out what is, I think, a tendency) that what we are doing in this series of Budgets is depriving industry of the brains which are more needed now than they ever were. For a man to get up and to say that the keynote of the Government's financial policy is to encourage incentive is to me a little surprising. There it is. I appreciate the difficulties. I am perfectly willing to loin with anybody in taking as cheerful a view as is reasonable in the circumstances, but those difficulties are formidable, and I do not find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says things which are in all cases greatly encouraging. It is all very well for the noble Lord opposite to say that one of the keynotes (there are only two, so it is a simple chord and not, I hope, a discord) of the Government's policy was that it was determined to resist inflation; but is it not on record that when Mr. Dalton went to Bournemouth—no

899
doubt a most bracing place—he told the people there that the fear of inflation is passing? Is it? I hope devoutly that it is. But it is far more easy to talk about the fear having passed than it is to get rid of the thing itself. What I do know is that wholesale prices are rising and that wage levels are going up. It is obviously much more difficult to restrain spending now in peace-time than it was in war-time. While we owe an absolutely inexpressible measure of gratitude to the National Savings Movement which was started at the beginning of the war, none the less they are going to have a very hard task. I do not see myself that there is such a great sign of the Government appreciating the possible imminence of this danger.
In his speech the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was looking forward to a continuous process of tax reduction. So are we all, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that, I suppose it means he is going to make the tax smaller if he can. I therefore repeat the question I put before: how on earth are you going to finance this immense programme of public expenditure if at the same time you are going substantially to reduce taxes? There is only one possible answer, and that is that your new method is somehow or other going to result in greater production than the method which you denounce and which you are supplanting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rather shocked me when last week he seemed to speak as though he thought the Purchase Tax might be permanent. The Purchase Tax was a very good tax in war-time (and I say so because I first devised it and imposed it) because it made things indiscriminately more expensive. The result was that people were not able to buy so much and thereby the call upon supplies was reduced and the inflation which occurs when Governments compete with private people for the things which are to be bought was prevented. But although it was a very good tax in war-time, it is, I venture to say, one of the worst of taxes in peacetime, because it is completely indiscriminate in its operations, so far as the figure is not modified, on poor and rich people alike. The poor woman who wants to buy an article on which Purchase Tax is imposed has to pay exactly the same addition as a rich person, and that is the fundamental objection to indirect taxation
900
which is, I gather, now rather favoured by the noble Lord and not looked at at all askance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That is the situation in which I think we find ourselves. Therefore, while I wish to be as cheerful as is right in the circumstances and to place all the confidence I can in those who now control our financial affairs, I venture to think that the whole matter depends upon increased production. If we cannot get increased production, and thereby increased profits and increased taxes, then indeed we shall run the danger of being in a most anxious and difficult situation in a few years' time. I hope the House has not thought that I have travelled too far from the subject of debate by making these observations, which frankly are not connected particularly with the present Budget, many of the features of which seem to me to be admirable; but I think we ought to look ahead, and if we do look ahead I am myself greatly disturbed by some of the considerations which I have ventured to put forward. Not now, but at some suitable date, I shall be very glad, either in public or private, to receive from the noble Lord opposite suitable correction.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I have enjoyed the analysis to which we have just listened, and I suspect that feeling is shared by all on this side of the House. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, is well qualified to speak on this subject, and he has covered the ground, wide as it is, with great effect. He has done a great service in bringing up at this stage many of the points on which he laid emphasis. It has been the experience in recent years that on more than one occasion the Second Reading of the Budget in this House has gone by without the intervention of any speaker. I intended to intervene to-day, not knowing who else was to speak, because it seemed that that was a precedent which should not be followed. I would remind you, as you know well, even although, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, our functions are largely perfunctory, that the preamble of this Bill, as is customary in asking for further provision in connexion with finance, requires that it be by and with the advice and consent of the House of Lords. That means that custom has decreed that advice should be

901
received from this House. Personally, I think that as our lives are so largely dependent upon the character of the Finance Bill, it would be right that that custom should be revived and it be assumed on the Order Paper that this opportunity to give advice, provided in the Constitution, be taken advantage of more regularly on the occasion which is offered by the introduction of the Finance Bill. This House has such a wealth of authorities on agricultural and industrial matters that it would be of benefit to the nation that convention should allow time for more wide expression than has been customary in the past.
I do not approach this Bill with any theme of criticism, but rather, in the main, of commendation. That feeling was certainly reinforced by the considerate, appealing and persuasive manner in which this Bill was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. Indeed, had we not had rooted in our minds some of the convictions of which the caveat of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has reminded us, we might almost have left the Chamber convinced that none of the anxieties which we really feel were justified after that persuasive presentation. I am particularly thankful that the Budget has as its underlying principle a final purge of the school of contractionist or deflationist policy which brought such misery in the past. There was lingering around in Government circles, in the Bank of England (although certainly not now existing under nationalization) and in the big banks, an archaic out-dated theme that contractionist policy was right. I have no doubt in my mind that the cause of the result at the last Election—I am only speaking from this side of the House—was the aftermath of the recollection of all the misery which was brought about by that deflationist and contractionist policy, the reduction of spending, dismissals and the repayments of borrowings, which brought about the disastrous position which then existed. In addition, there was a cessation of encouragement to overseas enterprise. I repeat the commendation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I speak as an industrialist—went a long way to meet the requests of industry in the matters on which they had made fundamental representations.
There are, however, three short points I would like to draw to the attention of my noble friends. The rehabilitation time-
902
limit, which is due to finish at the end of 1949, seems short. It may well be that under the difficulties existing today it will not be possible to expend the moneys which industry is entitled to do under the Bill. Again, there is the uncertainty which comes not only from the policy of nationalization but from the fact that the Excess Profits Tax will be withdrawn. Again, the Purchase Tax is a disadvantageous tax. It misleads the buying public and encourages extravagance. I realize that all this is tied to the food subsidy programme which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said is going to cost £340,000,000. It may well be a lesser evil than the spiral rising of wages, but still those are the anxieties. Those anxieties have increased, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, and in disregard of the reassurances of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that incentive is the aim of the Chancellor and that the planners should be encouraged in some way beyond what they are now if risks are to be taken. I am not suggesting that more should be available for spending, but that companies should be allowed to build up their reserves.
I urge further a relaxation of the foreign exchange restrictions in order to attempt to build up business overseas on which we must in future rely for our increase in income, and in the exchange which we shall need to supplement the exports upon which we are dependent. The whole Budget was based on an export programme, and it is in that direction that I want to reinforce the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I do not think he touched on this particular angle. We have large commitments for social services and for shorter hours, and other advantages of easier living encouraging an inclination to less effort. We have also the heavy burden of agricultural prices, but that price policy I am sure commends itself to this House. The present easy attainments of markets may well turn out to be illusory, and it will be proved that far from achieving the goal which has been imposed by this seventy-five per cent. increase in volume above our pre-war exports, we shall find that the recapture of production by competing overseas countries will result in their sending goods to neutral markets at a price below that which we, with these high burdens, are able to make available to our buyers.

903
The trade position seems easy to-day, but those of us who remember the acid times of the 30's will realize that the moment is not one on which to base the expectations of long continuance. Full employment is expected to be the back on which these heavy burdens of expenditure will be carried, but full employment here must depend on full employment in the United States. If that begins to relax we are in a world of wide competition and we are in a hazardous position. Therefore it may well be that the belief existing to-day that we can pile burdens on to industry and yet produce goods at a price that will bring us the big volume of trade that we must have is an illusion. Yet that is the belief on which this Finance Bill and the Budget are based.
I would not like to conclude without a reference to the national land fund. Surely the Chancellor is entitled to commendation for having the vision and enterprise to take advantage of an opportunity which lay open to but was neglected by several of his predecessors. I feel that in this case he has grounds for wide commendation. It is on that note that I will end, while supporting and endorsing the caveats which were entered by my noble friend Viscount Simon, and his expression of anxiety concerning the matter of the encouragement given to enterprise. I sincerely hope that the spokesman for the Government will bear in mind the considerations which my noble friend has urged.
4.1 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I very willingly follow my noble friend, Viscount Simon, if only to add something to the remarks which he made on the subject of Income Tax, and the burden of taxation generally. A point which, I think, was rather skated over in his remarks was that the right comparison of expenditure this year is not with expenditure last year, but expenditure in 1939. The subject of the burden of taxation as a whole raises so many questions going beyond the scope of this Bill that it will be neither appropriate to touch upon them now, nor germane to a discussion which, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has already said, is largely of academic interest to your Lordships. But it is only fair to say—speaking for myself, and I
904
think for other noble Lords who sit on these Benches—that the provisions of the present Finance Bill, broadly speaking, commend themselves, and should commend themselves, to anyone who has examined the situation in detail. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has referred to a few of the problems that have had to be faced, and I think we must all agree that what it has been possible to do in this Finance Bill has very largely been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is, therefore, perhaps, rather more pertinent for me to address my remarks to one or two individual points than to the Bill as a whole.
If I select one or two points of a slightly academic nature, it is with the object of calling attention to certain matters and certain changes which might be made and which might be brought to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. First, I would say that one thing which would ease the task of those trying to deal with national finance very considerably would be to ensure that the fiscal year of a number of Government and quasi-Government enterprises should coincide with the fiscal year of the Budget. It is not for me to point out that the statement of national accounts, which is supposed to reflect the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a whole, cannot, in fact, reflect those activities accurately when some of the funds with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned close their fiscal year on a different date. That may seem a small matter, but I submit that the suggestion, if adopted, would certainly enable the position to be clarified.
My second point is that there is an omission on a matter of some importance. It is one which obviously cannot be rectified at this moment, but I hope that it will be borne in mind by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and by any Chancellor of the Exchequer who may succeed him. This point deals with the application of Income Tax to the profits of companies in respect of allowances and charges for depreciation and obsolescence. In my humble view, if there is one factor more than any other which has brought so many industrial enterprises to the state of, I will not say inefficiency, but lack of modernity in which they are to be found to-day, it has been the inadequate allowances made by the authorities for depreciation

905
and obsolescence. This applies especially to modern industries where changes are rapid, where processes in use have constantly to give way to more modern discoveries. There is no doubt that in the matter of the allowances that are made in this respect, we fall very considerably behind what is done in America. It is on that more than, perhaps, any other single factor that the continuous modernization of American industry depends.
That modernization of American industry has formed the subject of quite odious comparisons with British industry. Those comparisons have been made very freely, and I think it is not unfair to say that they have been made more freely, perhaps, from the Benches occupied by the noble Lords opposite than from any other quarter. That some recognition of the need which I have touched upon has been granted is a very welcome fact. That recognition is certainly to be found in this Finance Bill and in the last one, for there are certain increased scales of allowances in respect of new plant installed, allowances to agriculture, and for depreciation. That recognition has been given to this problem is a matter for satisfaction, and we are all grateful for it. But the mere fact that the problem has been recognized by these concessions leads me to express the hope that greater concessions of the same sort, once the principle has been recognized, will find their place in future Finance Acts, whether introduced by the Government to which noble Lords opposite belong, or by other Governments hereafter.
The recognition of the due which must be given to modern industries is also to be found in the concessions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, in the remission of Excise Duty on certain products of the artificial silk and similar industries, in the matter of fibre and yarn. I think I am right in quoting him as saying in another place that he hoped to remit these Excise Duties in full when it was possible to afford it. It is the recognition of certain realities of that sort which, I think, makes this Finance Bill particularly commendable to most of my noble friends on these Benches, and I have no doubt to others also in your Lordships' House.
There is also the recognition which has been accorded in so great a measure in this Finance Bill (in a greater measure
906
perhaps in this Finance Bill, introduced as it has been by the Government now in power) to the family incentive, to which reference has already been made. There is certainly recognition now of what might be called the sanctity of private property. In spite of many statements which have been made to the contrary by friends or colleagues of those associated with the noble Lords opposite, the sanctity of private property is recognized in the remission of the Estate Duties on estates of £2,000 and under, and the remission of certain duties on estates over that amount. That concession, in my view, is one which has been all too little remarked in the Press and in public conversation in this country and in other countries. The social consequences of that—if I may say so, the political consequences—are as far reaching as those of any piece of legislation which this Government have introduced in the course of the present Parliamentary Session. Does not that concession not only create and sanctify but indeed stimulate among the whole of the public of this country the idea of the acquisition of private property which shah not go out of the hands of their successors when they die? Does not that concession, in fact, create that very class which at any rate the more theoretical Communists have described as the Kulak class—the very body of people who have been regarded by the Communists as the greatest obstacle to the realization of the Communist State? If, as I believe, that is the case, all of us on this side side of this House have to express our thanks to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer for having introduced that concession into the Finance Bill.
There are one or two smaller points of which much the same could be said. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has referred to the concessions made and to the views expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of land, and the preservation of that land and of its amenities for the sake of the country as a whole. They are sentiments with which no one in your Lordships' House could disagree. There again, in fairness, we must recognize that the Chancellor has done what many of us could have wished his predecessors had done before him. I have only one other point, and that is, again, the question of the burden of taxation as a whole. It is difficult not to

907
regard the future as black so long as expenditure continues on this level. It is also difficult not to share some of the doubts, perhaps all the doubts, of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, about the sources from which the revenue is to come to meet that expenditure so long as it lasts. But—and this is perhaps the only really important point at this moment, because the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has spoken on the long-term view—at this late stage and in these (for this purpose) somewhat academic surroundings, I wish to refer only to the immediate future; to the next year or so.
The sources of revenue are still there, if only because the measures of nationalization to which the noble Lord referred have not yet been placed upon the Statute Book. Is it not equally important to ensure, by whatever means are open to the Chancellor, that every step is taken to combat the inflation which we fear and which some of us, perhaps more than others, think is very real? I am not sure on that point myself yet. I expressed those views in the course of a Motion tabled in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. It is early yet, within a year of the determination of hostilities, to say how far that inevitable measure of inflation consequent upon a war has gone. I would prefer to reserve judgment for another year, but I must recognize, as we must all recognize, that those measures which can be taken to ward off dangers of this kind must be taken. If such measures involve high taxation, high indirect taxation, and the continuance of Purchase Tax for some time to come, that is better than to risk the consequences of a movement getting, if not out of hand, at least partly out of hand. It would mean we should have the task of stopping the horse from running away at a time when, if it has not actually got the bit between its teeth it has, at any rate, shied at an obstacle, and looks a little mischievous. I do not think, therefore, that the dangers of the burden of taxation for, say, this year are quite so great as the noble and learned Viscount suggested, although I am not sure that the noble Viscount intended to refer to the dangers of the next twelve months in particular.
VISCOUNT SIMON: No, I did not.
LORD RENNELL: My feeling is rather that the policy of this Finance Bill has been right, and that we must reserve judgment and see how the situation develops in twelve months' time. Your Lordships may share with me one other regret. Under Clause 7 the Government have provided this country with more and better circuses, but they have not been so successful or so generous in providing bread. Even if this is an academic discussion, it may have the effect of drawing attention to points such as those mentioned in the course of this afternoon's debate, and in that way it will serve a good purpose. It is a fitting, if slightly ironical, thought to close what I have to say, that your Lordships may take only an academic interest in that which affects us all, being powerless to change it as a part of the Legislature, and equally powerless to change it, in that your Lordships are for these purposes disfranchised; we cannot even express by our votes a choice in those on whom depend our financial and economic well being.
4.20 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in the brief contribution which I venture to make to this interesting discussion I shall endeavour to emulate noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and who in a very interesting way have dealt with specific points of the Finance Bill in the present situation, rather than attempt to range over the whole field. I make one qualification; I propose to confine my remarks to one specific point. Reading through the debates in another place on the Finance Bill, my interest was most aroused by a brilliant speech delivered by the senior Burgess for Oxford University, Sir Alan Herbert. He apparently impressed the House so much with the contribution that he made upon the subject of betting that in closing the debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that what Sir Alan had said would be considered immediately. I want to put before your Lordships some views on a particular phase of this subject which seem to me to indicate that unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Government, take almost immediate steps in one department of this evil there will be a worse financial ramp than there has been for a very long time indeed.
Many of your Lordships are sportsmen, although, like myself, you have

909
reached a stage at which perhaps you spend more time watching sport than participating in it. This particularly applies to the sport about which I am going to make reference in the remarks that I have to make, namely, the sport of Association football. There are 40,000 football clubs in this country, all of them, with the exception of perhaps two hundred, amateur clubs playing purely for the love of the game. In some quarters of the community to-day it is popular to gibe at people who only watch games and do not play them. But I give you these figures. If you take a basis of twenty-five participants per match—that is eleven players on each side, two linesmen and the referee—and multiply that by 40,000, you will find that a million players are, every week, playing in organized football during the football season. Let us now look at the number of spectators. If we have two hundred professional football clubs in this country, with an average attendance of 20,000 (some of them have a great many more, and some a great many less) we get, roughly, two million people who are watching Association football matches weekly in England and Wales. My figures do not include Scotland and Northern Ireland. If you add Scotland you greatly increase those figures.
Based upon these football matches, an enormous betting business has been built up within recent years, known as football pools. For payment by postal order of a small sum of money—usually from one shilling to five shillings per week—anyone can send in a coupon attempting to forecast what will be the results of football matches. The prizes are dependent upon the amounts paid into the pools, and they range sometimes from a few shillings to very vast sums. It may surprise your Lordships, but one firm alone, in the year before the war broke out, on six different occasions paid out £30,000 to the prize-winner of what was called a "penny pool"—the people investing a penny and trying to forecast results. On six separate occasions a person won £30,000. Before I proceed further, may I tell your Lordships that I am not asking for legislation to stop this, and for two very definite reasons. The first reason is that I know of no legislation that could possibly stop it. It would be quite impossible for all the Acts of Parliament that were ever passed to stop millions and
910
millions of people from indulging in this pastime or hobby. Therefore, I am not in favour of attempting to stop it, because you cannot do it. The second reason is because all over this land, in thousands if not millions of homes, the father, mother and family gather round the family table and endeavour to fill up one of these football coupons, investing perhaps half-a-crown a week. For the life of me, I cannot see that they are doing any harm or committing any crime. Therefore, I am not in favour of interfering with them.
My object in raising this subject is to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to certain matters which are arising and which urgently require his attention. In the first place, pool betting is increasing with tremendous rapidity. Secondly, enormous profits are being made out of pool betting—and not by those who send in half-a-crown or five shilling postal orders. It may be within the recollection of those of your Lordships who follow this form of sport or betting that only last year one firm alone made an offer to the Football Association of £100,000 per year, as a free gift, in return for their co-operation in helping to run these pools. The Football Association, to their credit, refused that offer. The third point I want to make is that not one penny of the profits made in this business goes back into sport. There is nothing to prevent any person or group of persons from forming a football pool. There would be nothing to prevent any of your Lordships from putting your names to an organization and starting a football pool, and appealing to the public in every way possible to send in coupons and postal orders. No one takes any trouble to find out whether the amount paid out in prizes bears any relation to the amount that is sent in. The whole matter is left entirely free.
There is tremendous activity going on in this business at the present moment. That is the reason why I have taken this unusual course of bringing these facts before your Lordships, in the hope that this matter may receive the urgent attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although we are told that there is a tremendous scarcity of paper, millions of letters are being sent out by these people. In the district where I live, within the last lay or two every person has received a letter. I myself have received three, probably owing to

911
the fact that on past occasions I have taken part in filling up a football coupon, and I shall probably do so again. As I said a moment ago, I see no harm in it. But, in addition to the letters that are being sent out, newsagents and small shopkeepers throughout the country are being appointed as agents of the football pools for the coming football season. Some of your Lordships, when entering your newsagent's shop, will probably see a card in the window announcing that the shopkeeper has had the great honour of being appointed an agent of one of the football pools. When the football season starts at the end of August, I venture to say that there will not be a single factory or workshop in this country which has not an agent working inside the factory, who will be collecting money from the workmen and sending it to the pools.
Although we are always being told that it is impossible to get on with certain work because of the scarcity of labour (and urgent vital work should be proceeded with) two weeks ago a small army of people were engaged by the leading football pools in door-to-door canvassing for members. That army is now operating in some of the industrial centres, going from door to door and enrolling customers for one particular firm. When scores of industrialists are clamouring for factories in which to carry on their business, one of these firms has succeeded in getting an enormous factory in North London, and within the last fortnight has sent out a circular letter to every person resident in that Parliamentary area, offering employment. To girls leaving school at the age of fourteen they have offered thirty-five shillings a week for a five-day working week, working from half past nine till five o'clock. The result is that many of the businesses in that area are complaining bitterly that their staffs are leaving them and going to work in this football pool business.
Just before I left to come to your Lordships' House this afternoon I had yet another letter handed to me which was received from a firm which describes itself as the only pool to guarantee to their clients a return in dividends of between 80 and 90 per cent. of the money received. They add that in 1939 the staff employed by them totalled 15,000. That is one firm alone. A group of the larger of these
912
firms have announced that their aim is to try and get a turnover of £100,000,000 by the end of the season after next. Before the war, in so far as it is possible to ascertain figures, the amount they took was something like £3,500,000. They are now agreed that by an all-out and vigorous campaign they will try and get, by the end of the season after next, a £100,000,000 turnover. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a very simple method is at hand to deal with this problem. Already the Government recognizes betting through the Racecourse Betting Control Board which controls totalisators and horse-racing. It seems to me that it would be a simple thing to apply this control to the football pools. In 1939 the total invested on the totalisator in horse-racing was £7,000,000. Football pools this year will probably get seven times that amount. The Betting Control Board, set up by the Government in 1928, makes considerable profits, and some of these profits are devoted to improving bloodstock and the sport of racing. I suggest that a Football Pool Board should be set up on similar lines to license those who carry on football pools, the licence to be based on a percentage of the pools.
Your Lordships may be interested in what Sweden did in this connexion. Apparently Sweden, with a population not so big as that of Greater London, took an interest in British football matches to such an extent that the Government found it necessary to take control of football pools in Sweden. In three years before the war, in Sweden, from football pools carried out on the results of British football matches, the Government collected £8,000,000, which was used for creating playing fields and recreation grounds for children and for generally promoting sport in the commonest sense of the word. If Sweden can do that, surely we are not going to lag behind them. The suggestion I make, if carried out, would bring in revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of £1,000,000 a year to begin with. There would be no serious objection from the public, who would be guaranteed an honest deal, which they are not getting at the present time, or from the genuine football pools, who would be protected from unfair competition; and that revenue could be used in the interests of sport, for the provision of playing fields and to aid struggling clubs.

913
I apologize to your Lordships for having introduced this speech into the debate on the Finance Bill, but Sir Alan Herbert raised it in another place in another connexion. I have pointed out the evil which I think is going to be unmanageable unless somebody does something about it quickly, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only person who can take rapid action. I have ventured to suggest how he could obtain control of this business before it gets out of hand. I hope to receive some assurance from the noble Lord who is going to reply.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not think that it would be the desire of the House that I should deal extensively with the questions which have arisen during the debate. The best service I can render to the various speakers is to assure them that everything they have said will be faithfully laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some of the points that have been made will no doubt improve his digestion, and others will no doubt retard it. I am sure he will be as interested to read what has been said as I have been to listen to it this afternoon. I would just like to thank all those noble Lords who have been kind enough to say some pleasant and agreeable things about me, and those who did not but who no doubt intended to do so.
On Question, Bill read 2ª;Committee negatived.

FUTURE STRENGTH OF THE SERVICES.
4.33 p.m.
LORD CROFT LORD CROFT rose to call attention to the strategic commitments of His Majesty's Government at home and overseas and the Forces necessary to fulfil those commitments; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for raising the subject contained in the terms of my Motion at what we sometimes used to describe as "this late hour," because although we have been debating vital matters with such skill and interest in this House for the last three months, I feel sure your Lordships will all agree that there is no question which we can debate which is of such supreme importance to the future of this country as that of defence. My principal object in tabling my Motion is to ask his Majesty's Government to inform the public what is to be the shape of our national defences, in view of our
914
strategic commitments, the foreign policy which we are pursuing and the necessities of Imperial defence. What is the Government, in fact, asking of the Royal Navy, what of the Army and what of the Royal Air Force? The uncertain picture at the present time is having a disturbing effect, for it is difficult for the officers, and men in the various services to know exactly what prospects are held out to them; whether Forces will expand, or whether the axe may fall. Other Powers do not hesitate to tell the world where they stand and what their intentions are. I suggest that it is time that we in this country had a plan. I would like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government how voluntary recruiting is going, and whether it is satisfactory in all three Services. That is something which I am sure your Lordships are anxious to know.
I would also like to ask, if it is not satisfactory, whether the noble Lord can give us the reason. Is it perhaps because the Government have given no guidance to the country as to the future, or is it perhaps that the conditions of service, improved as they undoubtedly are, are still not such as will attract the best recruits? I do not ask for specific details of actual distribution of the Forces, but I think that this House and the country are entitled to know what Forces and what formations we have to dispose next year, when the war-time Forces which have been built up over the recent years will have been dispersed. I want further to ask the noble Lord what are the strategic commitments for which those Forces are built up, in so far as the national interests permit him to disclose the facts. The Government would receive the confidence of the people, I am sure, if they would give us the facts. I think the country deserves to be told all that must now be known by His Majesty's Government. I submit that you cannot continue to ride off without a policy, as was done in another place. One was inclined to sum up the remarks of the Secretary of State as meaning that, on the matter of the Services, all he would say was: "Tar-baby, he say nuffink." I hope that the noble Lord when he replies will not assume the attitude of Brer Fox and say that he, too, is going to lie low. There is no doubt whatever that the hounds will soon know where he and his colleagues are, because there is a general insistence

915
by the nation to know what is the real position.
The Government cannot get away any longer with evasion and silence on this question. The great struggle for our existence must surely have convinced our countrymen, if it was necessary to do so, that we cannot any longer build up in a few weeks or months Forces to meet a world conflict. From the nature of the scientific advance which has taken place in the last few years in military affairs, it is clear that if war does come it will come upon us no longer with notice but as a bolt from the blue. I recall the constant votes against Service estimates between the wars and the strident calls for disarmament, irrespective of the armaments of other Powers, on the part of the then Opposition, and, although I hate to recall it, the failure of my own Party to stand up adequately to the storm of pacifism which they met in Parliament, in the pulpit, on the platform and in bye-elections from all those who believed that collective security was an alternative to armaments and who put their faith in international forces which did not exist at that time, instead of recognizing that adequate armaments are an essential pre-requisite to collective security.
I have not the smallest doubt that the motives of those who gambled with our fate were in many cases sincere, but in the light of events and having regard to the hairbreadth escape we had from utter disaster and servitude, from which we were only saved by brilliant leadership—and here perhaps I may be permitted to say how we rejoice at seeing the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, here this afternoon as one of the members of this House—by the valour of our fighting men, the staying power and determination of our people and the amazing contribution of the whole Commonwealth and Empire, we cannot again gamble with our fate. Memories in this country are proverbially short, but I cannot believe they are short enough to allow the continuance of drift in this world so full of inflammable material, and where, alas, co-operation and friendship are still so lacking in many quarters.
Let me run through one or two of the main anxieties which demand not only the strength and determination of our country, but, much more, preparedness and
916
a policy. Let me take first the outer defences of the Empire. As far afield as Malaya and Burma there is the rustling of unsettlement due to the chaotic results of the invasions of those great countries, and undoubtedly we shall require police forces in all those areas until this transitory stage has passed. Then there is the immense problem of Palestine which, so long as it remains the scene of enmity between two great conflicting interests, must require something much more than mere policing. In Palestine gratitude seems to be eliminated on both sides, yet the whole of the inhabitants of that country owe all they have to British strategic policy in the past. One might imagine that the armed might of Great Britain had never rescued that country from the Turkish yoke and that our fighting men had never really entered into the great conflict in Europe and liberated so many people. Surely we must realize that but for that fact the unhappy lot of the Jews now on the Continent of Europe would have been far worse and that they would have been confronted with perhaps complete and final extinction. That is what the armed forces of Great Britain and of the Commonwealth Empire did above everything else. In their wonderful victory they undoubtedly saved great masses of people from complete starvation and from death.
Again the liberation and new life of the Arab and Moslem world in the whole of the Middle East were due to British victories in two great wars. Arab unity was only possible under the shelter of British arms. The Arabs of North and East Africa were only recently lifted out of bondage, and but for British arms the Egyptians, as I think every student will agree, would to-day be the slaves of Mussolini and Hitler. These great services to Jew and Arab and to the Middle East in general are, I think your Lordships will agree, a glorious page in our military strategic history, and might, one would have hoped, have earned the undying gratitude of all the inhabitants of that great area. Instead, by our effort to be fair and impartial, we are the butt of extremists on both sides, and British soldiers and airmen, the shield of peace, to whom so much is owed, are assassinated, insulted and kidnapped. These events have culminated in the last few days in what has been described as "foul murder" even by their own compatriots, and this awful tragedy, involving the loss

917
of so many innocent lives of great public servants, has horrified not only this country but the whole world. It is a painful picture, but with such inflammable material it is not to be denied that there is the possibility of a new war in that area, and the power of British arms alone can stay great bloodshed, misery and disaster. If that is so, then I ask the Government whether we are adequately prepared and armed to preserve peace in Palestine and in the Middle East and for the defence of Egypt.
Then we have the problem of India. With the rights or wrongs of the policy upon which the Government has embarked I do not intend to deal this afternoon, because it would be quite inappropriate to do so. For what they were worth, my warnings were uttered ten years ago in another place. We must face up to the fact that it is possible, and indeed probable, that the great Indian Army, built up over such long years of endeavour and sacrifice, may no longer be at our disposal for the preservation of world peace and that our whole strategic balance may consequently be upset. I hope my fears in that respect may prove to be groundless and that the wonderful military partnership of Britain and the fighting men of India may be preserved to write yet further glorious pages in their common history. Meanwhile the cleavage between Moslem and Hindu in India is so volcanic in character that you cannot be absolutely certain that Hindu and Moslem soldiers, who have learned the science of war, will in all events remain at peace with each other. It was, as your Lordships so well know, the military genius of this country which blended the many races of India into a great and efficient army, an army which threw the Japanese back from the Indian frontier, destroyed that Japanese army in Burma and thus saved India for freedom. Whilst this great experiment of self-government is proceeding the peace of that great subcontinent must still, it seems to me, depend on the Pax Britannica and that is the protection provided by His Majesty's Government. I would ask whether the Government are satisfied that our scattered and small British forces in India are adequate to protect life in the transition stage.
Then we come to Europe and the occupation of the British zone in Germany. Can the Government tell us how many
918
troops we have available there, and can they give us an indication into what formations they are organized and how they are equipped for emergencies? Can they also tell us what is the strength of the forces of our Allies in the American and Russian zones and what forces of occupation there are in Austria, Hungary, Roumania and the Baltic States? If these vast forces, especially those of Russia, are necessary to keep the peace in Central Europe, are the Government quite certain that our forces are adequate in Western Germany? If, as we all pray, U.N.O. is going to be a great and enduring instrument for peace, it is now admitted I think on all sides that there must be a large international force behind it, and I ask His Majesty's Government what is to be our contribution. To wait on foreign countries before we do anything is surely dangerous. It is for the British Government to decide what is to be the maximum contribution we can make to the common defence of the world.
Clearly, if we are to count as a great power in U.N.O. and to have any influence, we must hare far larger forces than we can secure under any voluntary system. If, on the other hand, which God forbid, any one Power or group of Powers break up U.N.O., then the menace to world peace will be so dangerous and immediate that we must have even larger forces than would otherwise be necessary. I should like to congratulate His Majesty's Government in that they are sufficiently realists to have decided to continue, at any rate for the present, the system of universal service, for without it in this menacing situation which we see in so many parts of the world we should be simply courting disaster. We are a small people in these days of immense populations—population sometimes armed and organized for war. I was distressed to read in the reports of the Dominion consultations how little was achieved in promoting a real Commonwealth and Empire Defence, for unless the Commonwealth is prepared to pool its resources for the defence of peace I see no guarantee of safety for this country or for any other country within the Commonwealth system. Indeed, I see no hope for the world unless the Commonwealth is united and strong, and we can have lasting understanding with like-minded free nations. It seems to me that the Government have failed woefully in grasping the nettle, and we

919
appear to be sliding away from that remarkable Imperial comradeship which existed in all the theatres of war to a laissez-faire defence, which might lead ultimately to obliteration in detail.
No conceivable Regular Army can insure us against a major peril of the kind that we have twice been through in the last twenty-five years. It is obvious that we must have the machinery for immediate expansion. Surely the Government have by now made up their mind on the subject of a Territorial Army. I know they have said there will be a Territorial Army, and I am not going to suggest they should actually start training to-day, or to-morrow or this year, because warriors, however keen and patriotic, are bound to be stale after seven years of war, and they need a respite. But to list officers and to select the commanding officers of the various units which, are contemplated, to set up the skeleton framework on which can be built the main structure and to allocate districts and counties to definite formations is essential if we are not to see the best material dispersed perhaps never to be regarnered into the military effort.
Beyond all this I cannot help wondering whether we are completely up to date in the latest use of Army air co-operation in the strategical and tactical use of military power. I have always had this subject very near to my heart. I remember in the winter of 1916, or in the spring of 1917, when I had the honour to serve in His Majesty's Army in France, I had the presumption to send a memorandum to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff at that time, Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson. I urged him then that it was worth while immediately considering building 1,000 transport aeroplanes in order to land troops behind the enemy line in those bloody battles of fixed positions, and attack the enemy artillery from the rear in synchronization with the main frontal attack. That could not be done because we were busy building bombers. I remember a few years after I had a letter from the C.I.G.S. in which he pointed out to me that two Companies had that day been flown from Cairo to suppress riots in Palestine. He said that my dream had at least come true to a small degree.
The remarkable feats of our airborne infantry in Burma, and later the immortal
920
story of Arnhem have demonstrated for all time that this form of operation of Army air co-operation so brilliantly executed by the British Army has come to stay. To-day, more than ever, we must look to the airborne punch as the solution of our scattered world-wide problems. Only by such means, in my belief, can we concentrate the essential forces at vital points with the greatest economy of time. Have the Government provided the Army now with the means of thus using our slender military power? Have they the plans? If so, may we be informed of the state of their preparations in this vital matter as well as with regard to armaments? The time has gone by, I think, when we can go on reiterating, as was done by one of His Majesty's Ministers in another place, that these matters are still under consideration. Defence, after all, is more vital than ease or affluence, and I humbly submit far more important than experimenting with the economic, industrial and financial life of this nation. It is on defence that all our minds should be concentrated, and unless we learn that the plans are complete and satisfactory I go so far as to say that we really ought not to adjourn until we have an assurance that the plan is complete; otherwise, our foreign policy, as sometimes in the past, must fail to achieve its fruitful results.
I would urge your Lordships not to allow any consideration of the atom bomb or any new devilish products of science to deflect Parliament from the minimum of proved safety in defence. Remember that new weapons frequently lead their champions to imagine vain things. I always remember after the South African war that most knowledgeable people used to tell me that in all future wars mounted infantry would be the one thing that counted, and they would dominate all future wars. In 1914 I think it will be recalled mounted infantry were useless, and were certainly never employed. After the last war, we were told by some that infantry had been put completely out of date by the advent of that wonderful British invention, the tank. Armour, of course, in the recent war proved vital. But without infantry to fill the gaps and to consolidate the ground gained by armour we certainly could not have exploited the use of our armour, and again and again the shortage of infantry nearly led to disaster, especially at Caen, where

921
we saw the greatest assembly of German armour ever used anywhere. It was an assembly against the British Expeditionary Force on a small front, but it was broken and defeated by the British armies.
With the arrival of V1, many shook their heads and told us that nothing could meet this weapon. Its effect was almost miraculously countered by our Ack-Ack artillery and fighter co-operation, but it was British infantry and armour which finally destroyed the launching sites in the Pas des Calais and in Holland. Science found it impossible to counter V2, and it was only when the Expeditionary Force landed and captured the sites from which the rockets were fired that we could breathe again, although in both cases our bombers did great work in breaking up the rhythm of attack. Again, a large number of people told us that with the advent of airpower the day of the battleship was over. I am not going to enter into that controversy, but I think that no one who has studied the strategy of the 1939–1945 war can deny that the presence of a single battleship frequently dominated naval operations over vast expanses of the ocean.
While we pray that the atom bomb may be effectively eliminated from war by the united wisdom of the nations, so long as it is a menace unsolved no Power can sit down to be destroyed by this new force. Just as with V2, the only complete solution as yet may be to attack and defeat the Power using it on its own soil, in its own harbours and in its own skies. To counter any weapon, new or old, this ocean-linked Empire cannot rely on security without the most modern equipment and highly trained Forces on sea, on land and in the air. Therefore, I say that the country must be told where we stand. Foreign Powers, if they have the usual intelligence services such as we knew them to have in the past, must know all about what forces we have, and probably the precise formations which we have in being. Why should we deny that information to our own country? The country should know what we are aiming at, and what is the shape of the forces and the broad principles of policy upon which we are working. Twice in twenty-five years, as your Lordships are poignantly aware, we saw the absolute flower of our people wiped out and the most brilliant of our sons taken from us. We owe it to their treasured
922
memories to see that never again shall we fight the trained hordes of tyrants unprepared and ill-equipped. I beg to move for Papers.
5.6 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in supporting this Motion I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to the strategic commitments which will fall particularly on His Majesty's Navy. It is with some diffidence that I raise this matter because I am aware of the number of distinguished Admirals who are members of your Lordships' House. The eclipse of Japan has produced a profound change in the balance of power in a very large area of the Pacific, and I think there is little doubt that we are faced with entirely new strategic commitments which must be largely bound up with a combination of naval and air power, and, of course, military power as well, but on a limited scale. The Western Powers have great responsibilities in the Pacific, and we must not fall behind in taking care of our obligations. American foreign policy, like that of Russia, has entered upon an entirely new and vital phase. The Naval Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives have recently made it quite clear that they are in favour of complete strategic domination of the Pacific by America, and they have suggested that America should have control over the former Japanese mandated islands—the Marshalls, the Carolinas and the Marianas—and have also asked for specific and substantial rights to sites where they have set up bases during the late war.
In January, 1944, as, no doubt, many of your Lordships will remember, an agreement, which is still in force, was signed between Australia and New Zealand with a view to co-ordination of foreign policy with special reference to the Pacific, and there is little doubt that those two countries are fully alive to the focus of world power which is now centred in this area, and which is daily becoming more and more complex. I am sure that many of us who sit on this side of the House are anxious to know from His Majesty's Government what forces are to be made available, and how they are to be disposed in order to maintain our influence in the Pacific, and to fulfil our obligations. It might be said that the setting down of this Motion is a little premature, on the grounds that the

923
atomic bomb tests are incomplete, and that the forces necessary to fulfil our obligations may have to undergo a profound change when the full results become known. But what is happening to the Navy before these results have become apparent and have been analyzed? The fact is that we are again exhibiting all the signs of precipitate naval disarmament which occurred after the first world war, and we are doing this before the atomic bombs tests have become fully known and analyzed. The results of these tests may well show that fleets are by no means obsolete.
What is happening to our fleet? The proposed battleships "Lion," "Thunderer," "Conqueror" and "Temeraire" have been cancelled. The "War-spite" is to be scrapped, while the "Malaya," "Ramillies," "Resolution" and "Revenge" are to be turned into floating barracks. "The Royal Sovereign" has been transferred to Russia, and I understand that the "Queen Elizabeth," "Valiant," "Nelson," "Rodney" and "Renown" are to be reduced to training ships. Our battleship fleet will then consist of only five battleships in active service, which will include the "Vanguard," "King George V," "Duke of York," "Anson" and "Howe." How do we fare in cruisers? Before the war we had sixty-four cruisers, and the United States had thirty-five. Now this position is reversed; while we have thirty-eight underage cruisers, the Americans have seventy-four. Numbers of proposed new destroyers have been cancelled, and of the forty "battle class" laid down, I believe only half are to be completed, and only four of the new "weapon class" of destroyers will go into service.
Most of the capital ships are old and worn out, but what has happened to our replacement policy? It may be wise to hold our hand a little longer with regard to the replacement of battleships, but a replacement policy for aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers is still vitally necessary. At the present rate of naval disarmament, the fleet will very shortly be in the same state that it was at the time of the Munich crisis. I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to assure your Lordships that a replacement policy is not to be neglected, and certainly not because of the possible implications of atomic warfare. And now let us see
924
what Russia is doing. Some of your Lordships may have read in the Press that a recent report in the Journal of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party stated that:
"Our shipbuilding yards are turning out more and more naval vessels, and our naval schools are training men for a mighty navy."
It does not appear from that that Russia proposes to rely only on atomic weapons. She is not going to neglect her other weapons.
When the war ended aeroplanes without pilots had been used to carry explosives. Bombs had been dispatched by rocket at the touch of a button. It may well be that atomic bombs may never be dispatched at all in another war unless the members of the human race want complete extinction. During the last war the world was worried about the possibility of gas warfare, but it was never used. The same thing might happen with atomic weapons in a new war; but that does not mean that we should neglect our Navy because of this atomic weapon. I propose to make one comparison between our fleet in the Pacific and that of America. The American fleet consists of five battleships, eleven fleet aircraft carriers, twenty-eight cruisers and some ninety-eight destroyers. Our Pacific fleet, I believe, consists of two light aircraft carriers, four cruisers, and eight destroyers. I hope this force is to be increased in the near future. I am not in any way suggesting that we should be in competition with America, but I feel strongly that it is essential for us to have a strong fleet, not only to show the flag in the Pacific but to fulfil our great obligations and to keep faith with those free nations of the Commonwealth who look to us for guidance and support in naval policy.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I do not intend to follow my noble friend Lord Croft in the survey of the strategic requirements of the present time. It is quite plain that they are very considerable, and that they are likely to remain considerable. In fact, I do not think that for a long time we shall reach that static period of peace which is referred to at intervals in various official statements. It is also plain that there never was a time when our foreign policy more required the backing of our Armed Forces to enable us to meet our commitments.

925
It is no doubt true to say that although we can see heavy and serious commitments over a short-term period we are unable to look far into the future, and it might be argued that therefore it is not reasonable for us to expect His Majesty's Government to draw up a long-term plan for the Armed Forces of the Crown. I can imagine that the Treasury would lend a certain amount of support to that view. They would be pleased if other Departments took the view that they could not plan, so that the Treasury would not be asked for any money.
But the moment we allow such a view as that to be adopted we find ourselves in a vicious circle. The Army needs planning for a much longer term than some people suppose. It needs a much longer view than that shown in the White Paper recently published on the call-up for the next two years. There are two factors which I want to stress rather particularly. They are both new since the time of Cardwell and Haldane. The first is that the Army, and particularly its leaders, technicians and specialists, requires very much more training than did the volunteer Army before 1914. The second is that in these days no second line forces are of the slightest use unless they are all set in practically instant readiness for war. In the time of the Cardwell scheme and of the Haldane scheme the General Staff could assume that there was a period of six months during which this island would be defended by the British Navy, while our second-line Forces had time to train. There were then no aeroplanes. Those two things of course are obvious, and I apologize for mentioning them, but I think they cannot be said too often, because they do involve us in making preparations which are much more firm and definite, much more serious, than those needed before 1914.
What steps appear to have been taken so far? I say "appear to have been taken," because I am only quoting from what has been published. In these days, when the Opposition Parties are not represented on the Committee of Imperial Defence, no one on these Benches has any access to confidential information which might reassure us—or alarm us. The published statements are two. The first is the White Paper on the Call-Up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948. That deals with the
926
immediate strategic commitments, and it deals with them very fairly. There is very little in that White Paper which I can criticize. In fact, there are several things which I welcome, particularly the announcement that the Auxiliary Territorial Service is to be continued. So far, so good. That White Paper takes us to the middle of 1950, provided it is not altered, because those people who are called up at the end of 1948 will be in the Forces up the summer of 1950.
The other pronouncement is contained in a speech by the Secretary of State for War in another place on June 27 last. I do not wish to quote that speech in detail. I am not sure that I should be in order if I did. There seemed to me to be three points which emerged from that speech. The first is that the Army has not returned its its peace-time status; the second is that the professional Army can in no sense meet our requirements if a war should come; and the third, that the Territorial Army is to be reconstructed from among those people who offer themselves. I make a point of those words "who offer themselves." I do not want to go into the details of that speech, but I would like to mention two points. First, I should be lacking in gratitude if I did not express my appreciation of what was said about the Army Cadet Force, and secondly, I notice with interest what I may call the rosy sunset of Army welfare and Army education with which that speech closed.
But I was quite unable to discover in that speech, even by reading between the lines, any words which led me to think that any of the proposals outlined have received Treasury sanction or Cabinet approval. I hope very much that those excellent sentiments and those excellent plans for Army welfare and Army education may soon be brought to fruition, and that the noble Lords opposite will not be content with "No" for an answer, whether it comes from the Ministry of Works, the Treasury, or anybody else, but will see that the barrack building programme, and all that goes with it, is properly implemented and that financial provisions are properly made.
I apologize for that excursion and I come back to the three main points of the debate on June 27. As I said, the White Paper deals with the immediate situation. It does not deal with enlistment in the Regular Forces nor does it deal fully with the Auxiliary Forces.

927
This question of enlistment in the Regular Forces and the taking of Commissions by young officers is an absolutely vital matter for the Forces. If we go wrong with our young officers we shall have no commanding officers of the right type in twenty-five years' time. In thirty-five or forty years' time we shall have no Generals. If we go wrong with the men in the ranks, in fifteen years' time we shall have no decent warrant officers and sergeants. I am not at all sure that this Regular recruiting is going right. We have a Motion on the Order Paper which may come up after the Recess and we shall come back to that question of recruitment to the Forces.
Let us look at the auxiliary Forces. An announcement has been made that the Territorial Army is to be restricted to those people who offer themselves, which I take to mean to some extent is a return to the volunteer system. I wonder how that is going to meet the requirement which I mentioned just now, of adequate training and readiness for war. I want to be quite fair. I admit that people who are enlisted now, and who have done the proper primary and corps training during the war, will be fully trained. But I want to think a year or two ahead, and of what we are going to do when we have to ask people to join the Territorial Army Who have not had the advantage of proper training under one of these compulsory schemes.
Fortunately this matter is not a question of politics or opinion; it is very largely a question of fact. We can see quite plainly what happened before the last war under a scheme of voluntary enlistment. I take the figures from the Army Estimates of, I think, 1938–39, which tell me that the peace establishment for 1939 was 246,379 all ranks, excluding permanent staff. The strength on January 1, 1939, was 204,009. So you see, without taking account of the increase from peace establishment to war establishment, without any reserve for wastage at the outbreak of war, we were still 45,000 down out of less than 250,000.
That is the actual strength compared to the peace establishment. I want to make that point very plainly, because it quite clearly indicates to me, and perhaps to your Lordships, that we are not likely to do very much better than we did before
928
the last war, because these figures are taken at a time after Munich. I want to ask His Majesty's Government as straightly as I can, on what calculations have they based the idea that a Territorial Army in the old shape is going to meet the conditions of the present time? May I put it in another way? This announcement in another place has brought the story of the British Army to a parting of the ways. The announcement might well—I hope it will—turn out to be a foundation for something which is realistic—really adapted to the needs of training for battle, and really adapted to the requirement of readiness for war. Or it may turn out to be a reversion to the bad old ways, in which case, as I say, the facts are before us for all to see.
My noble friend in front of me said just now that it is not a question of Party. There is no point to be gained in deciding who was the more to blame, the people who made proposals which were not big enough, or the people who voted against the proposals, small though they were. To my mind, that is not interesting at the present time. What is interesting is the opportunity which lies before His Majesty's Government and before the War Office to build an Army which is technically and morally capable and properly equipped, both in its Regular and its Auxiliary Forces, for instant readiness for war, and which therefore affords a proper backing to the efforts of our Foreign Secretary, which we so much admire at the present time. May I conclude by saying that His Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for War are very fortunate in that the noble Viscount who was introduced to your Lordships' House this afternoon has succeeded the noble Viscount, Lord Alanbrooke, because they can be assured of continuity of the soundest possible General Staff advice.
Nineteen years ago I had the privilege of sitting under Lord Montgomery as an instructor at the Staff College, and there he taught that attack was a methodical progression from objective to objective. It is common knowledge that he has never wavered from that conception of battle, and it has been given to few to put his teaching into practice in so brilliant a manner as he has. I would only ask that His Majesty's Government should proceed methodically in the building up of the post-war Army from objective to objective,

929
and perhaps I might say that if they do so they will find my noble friends on these Benches even more helpful than they usually are.
5.25 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, any member of your Lordships' House who intervenes on the subject of defence in a debate in this House does so with a certain temerity, because he rises with the awareness that there are present many noble Lords who have an immense weight of experience, and what he utters has to be weighed against that experience. Therefore, I should be presumptions if I detained your Lordships for more than a minute or two in this debate. But I intervene because of my conviction that the subject under discussion is one of prime importance, and when I say "prime" I mean it in the literal sense of the word, because I am sure that it is the first task of any Government, whatever its complexion, to be certain that its defence policy is sound. When I read the report of a debate in another place, I saw that a Member of that House said it was useless for a community to debate the method of cultivation of its fields unless it was certain that the sea-wall was sound and could not be breached. I think that is an excellent simile. It is useless for us to dispute and argue—as we sometimes do—about the various methods of cultivation unless we are certain we can cultivate our fields in peace.
There are two points about the British Commonwealth and Empire which I believe are worthy of note. The first is that in two great world-wide wars it has emerged victorious; and the second is that it has failed to prevent those wars. It is the function of His Majesty's Government to do their utmost to prevent another war. They must do so, in my humble opinion, by seeing that the organization of our defences is adequate and that we cannot be surprised. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who spoke just before me, referred to the state of readiness of our Forces, and that seems to me to be a matter of particular importance in the present circumstances.
"Blitzkrieg" is a word of German origin, but it has caught on because of its topicality. We realize now that the time for preparation is very short, and it follows, therefore, that if we wish to prevent a potential aggressor from yielding
930
to the temptation of attacking, our preparations must be in a very forward state. The longer it takes us to prepare after war has started, the greater the potential dividend to an aggressor. The responsibility which rests upon His Majesty's Government now is therefore a very heavy one. I am disturbed because from the published statements so far I am unable to detect that the Government very fully realize that, in order to conduct a foreign policy which is adequate for the situation, you must have a force in being—as well as a potential force—which is capable of supporting that foreign policy. We must see that in the most economical method possible we organize our war potential now.
The British Commonwealth and Empire I conceive can be in a peculiarly strong position in the circumstances of modern war. Any major war in which this country has been engaged has become a global war. That is a truism which is not sufficiently often realized. If we become engaged in a great war, by reason of our resources and our sea-borne communications it necessarily becomes a global war, because this country can stick it out until (and the day has never come) our communications are cut. But under modern conditions this country must, in any European war, be in the front line. We must therefore see to it that there is a dispersal not only of our military forces but of our productive capacity. If we ensure now, in peace-time, that the dividend to accrue from attacking this country is not immediate victory but must involve a long and arduous war, then we shall have done much to prevent the aggressor from ever embarking upon his aggression. Our defence is not an insular matter; it is an Imperial matter, and I realize that in touching upon this subject I am treading on delicate ground. The British Commonwealth is an organization of sovereign nations, and sovereign nations naturally do not wish to prejudice the conduct of their foreign policy by giving pledges in defence beforehand. I am equally certain, however, that that is not a reason for doing nothing. There are many directions in which we can consult the Dominions, in collaboration, in our production, in exchanging information, and in being certain that if the British Commonwealth of Nations is involved in war we can use the utmost economy of effort, and will not have to do, as, for example,

931
we had to do in the last war—take rifles over to the Canadian Forces in order that they can bring them back again to fight in Europe.
What disturbs me about the only pronouncement on defence policy which we have had, apart from the debate in another place—I refer to the White Paper issued in February—is what I might call the procrastinating attitude which it displays. It says:
"This is not the time to come to decisions about the eventual shape of our post-war Forces. The great strides made in the realm of science and technology, including the production of atomic bombs, cannot fail to affect the make-up of our Forces. Time is wanted for the full effects of these startling developments to be assessed."
In the meantime we have to conduct a foreign policy, as one of the noble Lords has pointed out, so it is never possible to make final decisions in defence policy; all these decisions are interim and subject to revision, and the more closely they are examined and the more often revised, the better the organization. I do implore His Majesty's Government—and I say this not in any Party spirit—not to delay their decision, but to come to some decision now about the organization of our postwar Forces.
In coming to that decision they must analyze our commitments, and when they have analyzed our commitments they must, without fear or favour, without paying attention to any pre-conceived notions or Party theories or pledges, see that those Forces are adequate to fulfil those commitments. I would particularly draw your Lordships' attention to the last paragraph of that White Paper. It says:
"Collaboration with the Dominions in defence.
"During the war, collaboration with the Dominions and India has been comprehensive, continuous, and effective. The long accepted principle whereby His Majesty's Forces throughout the Empire have been trained, organized, and equipped on the same basis, proved its value in the easy and whole-hearted co-operation which took place by sea, land, and air, in all theatres of war, between men and women of many races. Behind the Forces, collaboration in the field of scientific and technical development, and in the production of munitions and supplies of all kinds, was equally close and thorough."
If we are to prevent another war, we must not wait for the development of that collaboration until the first shot is fired. I believe a unique responsibility rests upon
932
the Government of this country, because although the Dominions and ourselves rank equally in our Commonwealth, nevertheless the Dominions still look to us for a lead and initiative. I do implore His Majesty's Government to inform the people of this country of what they think needful, and I have no doubt that, whatever conclusions they come to, provided the nation is given the facts, every man and woman in this country will loyally provide what is required.
5.36 p.m.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I cannot help deploring the fact that the noble and gallant Viscount who joined us this afternoon for the first time has not been able to remain in the House and make what undoubtedly would have been a vastly important and extremely interesting contribution to the debate. I have no doubt that he is barred from doing so by one of those ridiculous traditions to which we are slaves, which says that the C.I.G.S. when in office may not speak in either House of Parliament. It would have been very interesting and very illuminating to have heard what he had to say on this subject. I would like to ask the Government one or two questions. One I would like to ask in particular is whether they have yet made up their minds that they are going to get out of the Middle East, including Palestine, as they intimated some time ago was their intention, or whether they intend to remain.
The importance of that question is this. Your Lordships will remember that we had a debate on Middle East affairs in this House at the end of May, and in that debate, though only fools prophesy, I was rash enough to predict that immediately following upon this announcement of our proposed total evacuation of our troops from Egypt there would be an outburst of insolence and rioting from the Egyptians and their neighbours. The words were hardly out of my mouth when there was an outrage in Alexandria, and now we have this more serious affair in Palestine. I find it difficult to speak with any moderation at all about that, because I know the King David Hotel, having lived and worked there for many months, far better than I know this Chamber. The full casualty list has not yet been published, but I knew a number of those men; I know the great work they have done and the immense debt that we, the

933
Jews and, for that matter, the Arabs owe to them. Many of them are Englishmen and a large proportion of them, I am proud to say, are Irishmen. Now it appears that a great many of them, including the Deputy Chief Secretary and Mr. Wash, the economic adviser, are dead. It is indeed a poor return for the asylum which we in this country have been proud to offer to Jews from Europe through the centuryés, that they should murder not only entirely innocent men and women but people who have built up their country during the last twenty-five years.
We have had a most interesting debate this afternoon on financial matters, with a speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. It may interest some of your Lordships to know that one of the very few countries in the world which has succeeded in balancing its Budget, and not merely in balancing its Budget but in having a revenue considerably in excess of its expenditure, is Palestine. That fact, of course, is due, and due solely, to the admirable administration of Palestinian affairs by the British Government—or rather by the Palestinian Government, but through our people—over the last quarter of a century. It is all very well for American Congressmen to sneer at us and to pretend that they could govern India with one hand and Palestine with the other, but from some personal knowledge of that country I may tell your Lordships that it is an extremely difficult place with which to deal. The complexities of the problem are immense.
I want to ask the Government this afternoon whether they are really going to continue this insane policy of trying to administer this Mandate with no more force at their command than a handful of policemen, armed with truncheons and paid £20 a month with all found. It cannot be done. In another place last night Mr. Attlee gave voice to sentiments (with which every one of your Lordships would wish to be associated) of horror, grief and consternation at this dastardly outrage; but why was something not done to avert it? Can the Government, can Mr. Attlee, can the British military authorities, really divest themselves of responsibility for it? I say categorically that they cannot. They had ample warning; they saw what has happened in Egypt and they knew of the murderous attacks on policemen and other authorities
934
during the last few months. It must have been perfectly obvious to them that the time would come when pot-shots at policemen would be followed by a major outrage such as we have now had. Was anything done to prevent it, to anticipate it, or to deal with it? Not a thing.
It appears to me that the time has arrived when the British Government really must make up their minds and formulate some definite policy on this question. They must put enough armoured divisions into Palestine to take care of the place. After all, it is a very small country. There may be 100,000 Jews in Tel-Aviv but the country can be controlled if you have enough armed force. In fairness to our compatriots out there, many of whom have not been home for years and who have slaved there all through the war, you must either get out or give them protection. Soft words are all very well, but soft words here and curfews in Palestine are not enough; something else must be done. We are under a very serious obligation to protect our compatriots in the Middle East from this sort of thing.
When I was in the Middle East in 1942 there was very little of this. We then had the Axis at our doors, and the Jews and the Arabs—I draw no distinction between them as regards trouble making; I am not an anti-Semite at all—were comparatively quiet. They behaved themselves because they knew that in British arms lay their only hope of being saved from the Germans. Therefore they behaved themselves; but now, having saved both Egypt and Palestine from being overrun by the Axis, what is our reward? The King David Hotel. That hotel is both a military headquarters and an hotel. That in itself is a piece of unutterable folly which ought to be remedied immediately, because at present any Tom, Dick or Harry, Jew or Arab, the man carrying the laundry or anyone you like, can and does walk into that hotel without let or hindrance. It is scarcely surprising that, these men having got into the building, these things occur. It is just as though you could go freely into the Palace of Westminster and find this particular Chamber heavily guarded. The futility of that is obvious to anybody who thinks about it at all. General Barker, the local officer commanding, is reported to have said that he had long wished to have this aspect of the matter put right but could

935
get no help or support in his desire to do so That may or may not be accurate.
But think about it as you must and feel about it as you will, it appears to be perfectly clear that unless some action, and some quick action, is taken, and unless we stop merely talking and praying and saying how sorry we are, there are going to be further outbursts of a far graver nature, both in Egypt and Palestine, and the whole place will go up like a volcano. The Government have been warned about this not once but half a dozen times, and I suggest to them that unless they pay some attention to those warnings and send out sufficient troops and air squadrons—and if necessary the Navy—to take care of the situation, they will be taking upon their shoulders a responsibility which I personally would not care to take upon mine. Either they must do that or they must get out. I do not mean by that that the Government must get out, but that they must evacuate the Middle East, as they have said they are going to do. They must do one thing or the other; they must stand and fight, do the job properly and suppress, once and for all, this terrorism which is making us the laughing stock of the world, or give the whole thing up.
5.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken except to say that Palestine is, of course, a very serious commitment. This Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Croft is, I think, of vital importance. I am sorry that the House is empty; I am sorry that important people are prevented from coining and taking part; I am sorry that those who have had great experience in this war and who are now members of your Lordships' House are precluded from coming here to speak on a Motion such as this, on which they could give of their great experience. I am of the 1914–18 war and not of the last war, but I was more than pleased to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley who was one of your Lordships who fought in the front line in this war, and also the speeches of the two other noble Lords who spoke. I feel that you could extend this subject to an unlimited extent and would get nowhere. Therefore I am not going to follow any of the lines that have been followed.
936
The first part of the Motion calls attention to the strategic commitments of His Majesty's Government at home and overseas. I have not heard many of them mentioned yet. Although we do not know the full commitments, we know some, and I hope the noble Lord is going to tell us what those commitments are which are certain. Palestine is one which will go on for some considerable time. The second part of the Motion calls attention to the Forces necessary to fulfil those commitments. One noble Lord spoke of the question of administration, how to get officers trained and how to do the training, but that is, to my mind, outside the terms of this Motion. The Forces necessary to meet those commitments are vital. Surely the first thing we have to consider is what are our resources and what are the overriding points about those resources. Surely we are short of man-power, of raw materials and of time. All the rest is only addition, but those are the three things the British Empire will be short of in another twenty years and is short of to-day. I will repeat them: man-power, raw materials, and time. What is the most efficient and economical way to meet the deficiency both in man-power and raw materials, and what is quickest in time? The White Paper, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, says:
"This is not the time to come to decisions about the eventual shape of our post-war forces. The production of atomic bombs cannot fail to affect the make up of our Forces."
Whatever you may say about that, it is the future and not the present we must consider. I will take a period of fifteen to twenty years, and I make bold to say in the hearing of such a great scientist as the noble Lord who sits here that there is not the slightest doubt that the atom bomb has done one thing only at present, and will have done only one thing in fifteen years—that is, to make the air more important than it has ever been before. In twenty years the V2 rocket will not be any more efficient or any more accurate than it is to-day, and no scientist will tell you that it will be made quite efficient in that time. When it is, the Air Force may be as out of date as many other things are to-day and were at the beginning of this war. I will not name them.
Now I come to two remarks made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Croft.

937
If he had not made them I should not be speaking at this moment. There were also some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham to which I would refer. They talked about battleships and aircraft-carriers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, even went so far as to say that the Navy and the Air Force were more important than ever and the Army only important to a limited extent. There is not the slightest doubt that with air power the Army is more important than it has ever been before with its airborne forces. The Navy, I fear, has come to the point of being mere sea transportation. In transportation the air every day is going further and further. It has greater range, greater power and greater economy in man-power and raw materials. When I hear it said that aircraft carriers are necessary, I think there are no airmen, and, indeed, very few other people, who do not consider that they are a passing phase. With the range of aircraft increasing it is of more convenience to operate from the shore.
I warned this House, if I may say so, before this war, of what was happening, and If say now that the war was unnecessarily prolonged. I say to-day that you do not realize what is the most efficient weapon. You have to realize what is the weapon which will be the most economical in man-power, in raw material and in time. If we could provide everything by all means let us provide everything, but we cannot do so. I did not come here armed with any notes, but when I heard some of the remarks which were made to-day I thought that I would try to put my views to the Government. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has said that this subject is very important. I would say to the Government: "All your new political ideas will be of no value whatever if you do not look after this Empire in the most economical and efficient way during the next ten to twenty years. You have got it in your power to-day to do so. The whole country would welcome a decision."
Then we have to consider why men do not wish to join the Services. I still meet a large number of officers in all Services. They ask me, "Will the Government tell us what is going to be the form of service?" A lot of them who intended to take permanent Commissions do not do so because they ask, "Are we going back
938
into the old ways of the battleship and all the rest of the paraphernalia?" The Army is more important and vital to-day than it has ever been, because it will always be needed to go and "dig them out" even when there are all these scientific weapons. I beg the noble Lord to convey what I have, said to the Leader of the House. I hope we shall have a big debate on this question in the autumn.
5.57 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, I do not need to have impressed upon me, speaking for the Government, the importance and the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted in this debate which opened with a speech of so much earnestness by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. It is a debate in which a part has been taken by members of your Lordships' House each of whom has had some experience, if not in this war, then in an earlier war, and a debate to which distinction has been added, by the contribution of the noble and gallant Viscount who has just spoken and who brings to matters of this kind so deep an experience and knowledge. The questions raised by this debate are of far-reaching importance in the whole field of national defence. The noble Lord, Lord Croft, invited me to expound Government policy on the military commitments with which we are faced, to state our ability to meet them, and also to give information about the size and nature of our post-war armed forces.
As far as our military commitments are concerned, I would refer the noble Lord to the Government statement relating to Defence issued as a White Paper, to which reference has already been made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. Your Lordships will recall that that White Paper gave an outline of the main military asks with which we were faced at the close of hostilities. We are still faced with responsibilities in ex-enemy territory and in most of the countries which were formerly under enemy occupation. It is clear that these are commitments which will continue until the Peace Treaties have been signed. In addition, we still have responsibilities in India, in the East and over the length and breadth of world-wide communications.

939
Your Lordships will understand that it would not be in the public interest for me to give figures describing our detailed strengths and dispositions in this transition period, and I have, therefore, nothing to add to the information which has already been published. In the same way, it would clearly be quite impossible for me to give figures of the strategic dispositions of our Allies. Government decisions on a matter of such grave importance as the size and nature of our post-war Armed Forces, can be reached only after most careful study has been given to the lessons of the recent war, and after extensive and scientific research into the nature of future weapons. The same joint staff machinery which was charged—not unsuccessfully, I think your Lordship will agree—with the study of the problems of our war-time strategy is now fully engaged in the study of the new and varied problems of our future security. Furthermore, I can certainly assure your Lordships that the Government are fully alive to the necessity of applying the advances of modern science to the design of the future Fighting Services. With this in view, the Government have already strengthened this machinery to take every advantage of the latest technical and scientific developments. Your Lordships need have no fear, for example, that in our future Army we shall fail to make use of the air-borne and armoured elements, which played such notable parts in the recent war. The need for auxiliary forces to provide the necessary backing for the Regular Forces, is also fully realized, and plans to reconstitute the Territorial Army are well advanced. Details will be announced when the structure and terms of service have been finally approved, which I hope will be after not too long a delay.
It has been suggested that uncertainty in these matters makes it difficult for officers and men in the three Services to know how they stand, and to plan their careers accordingly. Certainly, we should all like to be able to look into the future, and to see more clearly the shape of things to come. But I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Government must not allow themselves to be rushed into deciding the shape of the Fighting Services without proper consideration of all the various factors. They are many, and they are important. Nevertheless, I can, for the Government, confidently assure
940
volunteers that the Services will provide good prospects as a career, and that, so far as humanly can be foreseen, no "axe" is likely to fall.
It is too early yet for the Government to say what will be the results of the current voluntary recruiting campaign, about which something has been said in the debate. I am bound, in frankness, to tell your Lordships that up to date they are a little disappointing, but one must take account of the psychological reactions at the end of six years of war, and of the fact that the majority of men who have been in the Forces during the war naturally wish to return to civil life—at all events for a period. I am glad to say, however, that there are now preliminary indications that the rate of voluntary recruiting is improving, and I am hopeful that this will continue. At this stage, I must emphasize the importance which the Government attach to the satisfactory completion and the fulfilment of the programme of voluntary recruiting.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? It would be a great reassurance, I think, if the noble Lord could give us some figures. After all, the matter cannot be one of very great secrecy, because we now have a system of estimates. We should be very happy to know what are the reassuring elements to which the noble Lord refers.
LORD NATHAN: I must tell the noble Lord opposite, quite frankly, that it would not be in the public interest to give figures at this stage, and I am unable to do so. I come now to a further question which was asked in the debate: what is to be our contribution to the Forces which will be placed at the disposal of the United Nations? This is a matter which is now being studied by the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations Organization, and it is impossible for me to say what our contributions will be until that body has reached agreement on the size and nature of the Forces required. But your Lordships can rest assured that we shall be ready and willing to play our part as soon as we know what is wanted of us. I next come to the question of Commonwealth collaboration, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Croft, touched.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him?

941
I should like to know whether what he has just said about our contribution to the Forces to be placed at the disposal of the United Nations means that the Government will have to wait until they know the size of the Forces for which the United Nations Organization will ask before they take any steps themselves to protect the interests of the British Empire. I should like to suggest that when we have made whatever dispositions are required to protect the Empire, the Forces thus disposed will then automatically go towards making up the Force required by U.N.O. Surely if we get ready at the present time to protect the Empire and do not wait, that would be a quicker way of accomplishing what we have in view.
LORD NATHAN: I was answering a specific question as to the United Nations Organization. I think the noble Viscount must have misunderstood me. Until we know the results of the studies which are now being conducted I cannot say what our commitments to the United Nations Organization will be. We do know that we shall be prepared to meet those commitments. What I have just said does not mean that, in the meanwhile, His Majesty's Government are supine as regards the re-organization of the Forces of the Crown. The contrary is the case. I was coming to the question of Commonwealth collaboration which was raised by Lord Croft, and referred to by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Croft, seemed, if I judged what he said aright, to be disappointed with the results of the recent meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers. Let me tell him at once that the Government were not disappointed. The Government feel that they have no grounds at all to be disappointed.
There was, in fact, a very full and free exchange of information and views on the question of defence, and I think that all the Dominion Prime Ministers, without exception, went away recognizing to the full how heavy is the share borne by the United Kingdom in defence, and determined to consider, in the light of this, what their own preparations for defence should be. There was a very useful exchange of views, too, on the question of the machinery through which matters of defence should be discussed, and the Government very much hope that this will lead to satisfactory arrangements for mutual co-operation.
942
Your Lordships will appreciate that at a time when the Dominion Governments concerned are considering these matters, it is impossible for me to give details.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Might I interrupt the noble Lord to say how glad we are to hear that His Majesty's Government are reassured as to the conclusions of the Dominion Prime Ministers? But could not wider publicity be given to that feeling of reassurance, and also to what was actually achieved?
LORD NATHAN: A communiqué was issued at the conclusion of the proceedings, which perhaps has not come to the notice of the noble Viscount. The assurance of satisfaction for which the noble Viscount asks publicity, I give now. I think I have dealt with the various questions which have been put to me specifically. Let me say, in general, that the Government will certainly take into consideration the matters which have been raised in this debate to-day. We are grateful to the noble Lord opposite for having introduced this debate. I will take note of what the noble Viscount has said about a full-dress debate on this subject at a later stage when the moment may be opportune. In the meantime, I can say that the Government are working hard upon these questions and are taking as their motto, not merely "Preparation," but "Preparedness."
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I think your Lordships must have felt gloom and despair in listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is quite clear that he was able to tell us absolutely nothing. I am not attacking him personally, because I am aware that he has to speak very largely from a brief; he cannot himself lay down a policy.
LORD NATHAN: I cannot allow that to pass, because, as no one knows better than the noble Lord opposite, whether a Minister is provided with a brief or not, the matter is his responsibility. I accept complete responsibility for what I have said, and if I have said no more than has been attributed to me by the noble Lord it is because I have a sense of responsibility.
LORD CROFT: I would not for one moment wish to suggest that the noble Lord was not giving us his own considered opinion, but obviously he can give, in this

943
House, only the views of the Government as a whole. That was what I intended to suggest when I said "from a brief," because obviously a Minister in any defence Department cannot speak for himself alone.
LORD NATHAN: I entirely accept that.
LORD CROFT: We have heard an extraordinary succession of phrases. We were told that the Government must wait until science had produced further evidence; that they must not allow them-selves to be rushed. Various other phrases were also used, such as: "Until we know the results of the studies which are taking place." Making such a complete evasion is not treating your Lordships' House correctly. It is no longer true that we cannot tell the world broadly what our policy is. There is no strategic reason, no reason of public interest or danger, to prevent the Government showing what foreign countries must know—how many armed divisions we have and are aiming at, and how many airborne divisions we have. These facts are known. When the noble Lord says that he cannot give us the exact figure I must tell him that we will pursue this matter. The last thing we want is to divide tonight on a question of defence, but if we have a reply of that character to future inquiries it may be necessary. Democracy demands to be told the truth about the defence of this country. I hope that the noble Lord will convey to those responsible for the major policy of the Government the fact that we are not satisfied that His Majesty's Government are taking the question of defence seriously. I will not pursue the matter. I think everybody who listened must have been disheartened.
The noble Lord told us that the Dominions Conference was satisfactory, and that a statement was issued to say how pleased everybody was. If that is so, I think he might have given us some indication that they had agreed on anything of major importance. We should have been told. Perhaps it is a further continuation of the policy of secrecy. We want to know, because we believe that the Dominions and this country together are a mighty and wonderful military force. Are we pooling the whole of our military efforts, or are the Government allowing this wonderful opportunity to go by and
944
taking no steps to see that we get together in such things as the Canadian Air Training plan? I do not wish to pursue the matter now, but in any event we must raise this question again soon after the Recess, and we hope that the noble Lord will convey the feeling of alarm and despondency which I think men of all Services feel at the position. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FOREIGN PATENT RIGHTS.
6.17 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: I beg to ask the question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Barnby.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if, in view of the delays on the part of the Capital Issues Committee, which often imperil the negotiation of foreign patent rights valuable to this country, they will consider the instituting of an immediate enquiry into procedure which is causing such widespread complaint and uncertainty, and if they will provide more expeditious machinery pending the setting up of the foreshadowed Capital Investment Council.]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I must make it clear that the Government do not accept the implication that the procedure of the Capital Issues Committee is causing widespread uncertainty and unreasonable or harmful delay. The Committee have a difficult and complex task to perform, and if they are to continue to carry out their duties in any responsible manner they must be allowed time for proper consideration of the merits of an application in consultation with the appropriate Government Departments. Every effort is made to eliminate unnecessary delays. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the help of the Committee, has been studying methods whereby the work can be further speeded up, and certain suggestions which have been made are being put into effect. The delays at present involved have been much exaggerated in the Press and elsewhere, but the noble Lord can rest assured that the matter is engaging the Chancellor's attention, and improvements will continue to be made wherever it is found practicable. The National Investment Council, which met for the first time yesterday, is an advisory body

945
set up to advise the Government on questions of policy in relation to investment. The Council will not, as suggested in the question, in any way supersede the Capital Issues Committee.

DE-REQUISITIONING OF WORKSHOPS.
LORD GRENFELL: I beg to ask the question standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, who apologizes for being absent.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the lengthy negotiations which have taken place in regard to the de-requisitioning of the privately-owned Stone Pier Workshops at Warsash, whether this property can now be returned to its owner, and further, whether His Majesty's Government are aware of the fact that continued delay is preventing ex-service personnel from earning their living.]
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, it is hoped that a final decision on the disposal of the properties which are held by the Admiralty on requisition at Warsash, and on which considerable public money has been spent, will be possible at a very early date. In the meantime, ad hoc arrangements have been made to enable the lessee of the Stone Pier and Workshops to take possession, and I understand that he has already started yacht repair activities and is employing a certain amount of labour thereon.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (INCREASE OF BORROWING POWERS) SPECIAL ORDER, 1946.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

HIGHWAY CODE, 1946.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Code
946
as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Code raises questions of policy and principle similar to those agreed to by the House when passing the Road Traffic Act, 1930, under which the Code is submitted for approval; that the Code is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Code cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Code.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ACQUISITION OF LAND (INCREASE OF SUPPLEMENT) ORDER, 1946.
ACQUISITION OF LAND (INCREASE OF SUPPLEMENT) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1946.
Report from the Special Orders Committee that they have examined the Special Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Orders raise important questions of policy and principle; that the Orders are not founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Orders cannot be passed by the House without special attention; but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Orders.
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported specially from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.