Sitting of 14 May 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) further considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Determination of questions as to quality of coal.)
  (1) If any consumer of coal by notice in writing to the Board alleges that coal sold to him by the Board is of a quality inferior in any respect to that of coal of the class or description to which the price per ton or other unit demanded for the coal so sold applies in accordance with any list of prices for the time being in force, any question between the Board and the consumer arising out of that allegation shall be determined by arbitration under this Act and the arbitrator may by his award direct that such adjustment (if any) of the price so demanded as he may think proper shall be made.
  (2) In this Section the expression 'quality includes size."—[Sir A. Gridley.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.49 P.m.
  Sir Arnold Gridley (Stockport):I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This proposed new Clause consists of two Subsections, but I should not propose to ask the House to assent to the second Subsection, if it is your intention, Mr. Speaker, to call the Minister's Amendment in page 1, line 14, which proposes, after "available," to insert "of such qualities and sizes." If that Amendment is called and is accepted, as I have no doubt it will be, Subsection (2) of my proposed Clause will become redundant, and I propose, therefore, to confine myself to the first Subsection of the new Clause.
  The purpose of this new Clause is clear. It is to provide conditions which would be included in all proper contracts between a buyer and a seller of any bulk product and to make sure that when the Coal Board is functioning and is in contractual relationship with consumers, it will be one of its obligations to supply coal of the quality and grade for which it contracted at fixed prices. Unfortunately, it has been the experience of all large consumers of coal in recent years, whether we like it or not, to have to put up with coal of a very inferior quality. I think no one can dispute that if the Coal
  1690
  Board is to enter into arrangements to provide coal of certain qualities at listed prices, and that coal does not come up to the agreed specification, then the prices should be relatively reduced by agreement. Failing agreement, the prices ought to be settled by arbitration under Clause 56 of the Bill. In this new Clause I have used the words, "list of prices" because I assume that the Board must prepare, when they are ready to trade, a list of prices of coal of varying grades and qualities, calorific values, and so on. There should be no difficulty whatever in preparing such lists. The Coal Survey has already pointed the way.
  I said in the past, and I believe even today it is true, that there is very little redress if large consumers of coal do not get the quality for which they contracted. If a reduction in price is requested, it is seldom possible to secure it. I could quote hundreds of cases, but I only propose to quote one case to illustrate the point which I am making. Here is a case where a certain colliery supplying dry slack in 1939, supplied coal with an 18.1 per cent. dry ash content. In 1943 that coal had so seriously deteriorated that the dry ash content was no less than 42.6 per cent. There are hundreds of cases like that though perhaps they are not so extreme. In such a case surely it would be indefensible that a reduction in price should be refused.
  This proposal will affect all users of coal. It very much concerns all large industrial consumers. I am not now, therefore, pleading only for the gas and electricity industries on whose behalf I spoke frequently in Committee upstairs. I have often been told, "Oh, you need not worry about the gas and electricity industries. They are going to be nationalised anyhow." It is a very curious proceeding for this House to legislate on the assumption that the House is going to pass certain Acts of Parliament some time in the future. We, as legislators, ought to legislate for things as they are now, and not as they may or may not be in two or three years' time. Today, I can safely say I am speaking on behalf of a great many industries which the Government do not intend to nationalise. Therefore, I hope the argument that has been used previously in repelling my request for consideration of consumers' interests will not be repeated. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman

  1691
  the Minister can reasonably refuse to accept my proposal. If he does, it is tantamount to saying that the Coal Board is not to be a model seller of a product. The Coal Board should set the example to the rest of the country and be prepared to shoulder all proper commercial risks and liabilities. I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to this new Clause.
  Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead):I beg to second the Motion
  I think this Clause has increased in importance since we first saw it on the Order Paper yesterday because the Minister has not accepted some of our other suggestions such as an improved form of Coal Consumers' Council. This proposal gives an opportunity to provide proper protection for some of these great public utility companies. Before the war most of the big utility companies bought coal on any analytical basis of volatiles, ash, moistures, coking-index, thermal-value, etc., with a penalty clause. They knew what they were getting. They bought coal from certain pits, perhaps even from certain seams only in those pits. Each delivery was analysed, and when it did not come up to the contract analysis, a penalty was imposed. That system ceased during the war. This was probably inevitable. A pool system was formed under which these companies were unable to be certain even from what colliery or group of collieries the coal was coming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has said, we hope that when the Board gets into operation we shall have a new basis with a proper list of qualities and prices. When that is done, and the prices are published, it should be possible again to have something in the nature of contracts not with a penalty clause—that is too much to ask of the Government—but with some machinery by which one could go to arbitration in cases where the coal does not come up to standard.
  4.O p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell):I think there is no difference in principle between the Government and those who have moved and seconded this new Clause in so far as the Government are definitely anxious that, in due course, there shall be a more satisfactory classification of the various types of coal avail-
  1692
  able. However, we feel that the Clause itself is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons which I shall endeavour to explain. There are, first, certain drafting points which are not perhaps in themselves of overwhelming importance but are such as to weaken the proposed Clause. For example, the Clause reads:
  "to which the price per ton or other unit demanded for the coal so sold applies in accordance with any list of prices for the time being in force."
  We feel that that might give rise to difficulties. There might be a situation in which a particular type of coal is sold at different prices and one price might be appropriate in a particular case, and not in another case. That would lead to various difficulties. The basic difficulty we feel is this. The real problem here, surely, is one of contract between buyer and seller. In the normal course of events, if the supplier does not provide the coal which he has contracted to provide—and I noticed very carefully what the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) said; he began with words very similar to those which I have just used—then, surely, the remedy lies in the courts in the ordinary way or through arbitration, if that is provided for in the contract, as I understand is frequently the case in these coal contracts. We cannot see any advantage in substituting for arbitration in the contract, arbitration under this Measure. Indeed, let me say at once that arbitration under this Measure would not be in the least appropriate for this particular purpose. The House will remember that in Clause 56 details are laid down of a panel which is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the specific and temporary purpose of dealing with compensation and other matters. However, this is not a temporary Measure. In the new Clause the idea is that there shall be a sort of permanent arbitrator for settling what is, in essence, a commercial dispute and, as I have said, we cannot see any advantage there.
  There is, however, a rather deeper point involved. The Clause, as drafted, simply says that where the Board does not supply the quality of coal at a particular price which is in line with an appropriate list, there shall be arbitration if required. I suggest to the hon. Member that that does not meet the complaint he is making. What he is asking for is a much closer

  1693
  specification of the types of coal. Perhaps I might illustrate that by an example. Suppose in the case of a public utility company, an electricity undertaking, there is a purchase of slack at, say, 25s. a ton. We will suppose that that particular slack is very poor in calorific value, and does not suit the undertaking. What remedy exists under this Clause for the undertaking if the only thing in the price list is slack from such and such a colliery at so much a ton? What I think the hon. Member really wants is a much more precise description of the various types of coal with, if possible, a guaranteed analysis. That, I think, is the point he made upstairs, quite rightly, and as I said at the beginning, so far as that goes we are entirely in sympathy with him. The difficulty is that at present, as everybody knows, there is a great shortage of coal and the price structure of the industry is in a very confused state. That is largely owing to changes of various kinds which have been made during the war, and which, as compared with the prewar position, have adversely affected the position of the public utility undertakings.
  Finally, we feel that if there are immediate difficulties on this, and even perhaps as regards the matter of principle involved, this is a question which could very well be discussed by the industrial consumers' councils. This is precisely the kind of thing which my right hon. Friend had in mind when he put those councils into the Bill. Therefore, while we sympathise with the hon. Member—and I do not think there is any disagreement as regards policy and what we are aiming at—we must reject the new Clause, first because it is not very well drafted; secondly, because as I have tried to explain, it would not secure the object which he intends; thirdly, because that object is at present not practicable, though we hope it will become so before long; and, fourthly, because what is really at issue is a matter of contract between buyer and seller, and not a matter which it is appropriate to put into a Measure of this kind.
  Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough):At a risk, in the presence of the Attorney-General, of being considered reckless, may I offer a few comments on what the hon. Gentleman has said? He has taken exception to the drafting of the proposed new Clause. That is not a very valid
  1694
  objection because, all through the lengthy stages of this Bill, before he came on to the scene, we have made it quite clear that we cannot be certain that our drafting is correct, because we have to do it with more amateur weapons than those which the Government have at their disposal. In fact, we consider ourselves very fortunate that we have been able to get so many past the Rules of Order. It is a difficult matter in a technical Bill of this kind. Therefore, had the hon. Gentleman limited himself to that aspect of the case, we should have been very happy if he had accepted the Clause and given notice that in the revising Chamber, the necessary alterations would be made.
  I am afraid, however, that I detected his speech the same dilemma that we have met all along in the consideration of this Measure; that is, that in spite of the revolutionary nature of the proposals in this Bill, the Government from time to time still talk of the industry in future very much as if it were to be run on the same lines as in the past. They do not seem to have got entirely into their heads how revolutionary are the changes which must inevitably come through this national coal monopoly. That is at the bottom of this particular problem. As I understand it, when the hon. Gentleman says, "This is a question of contracts and, in the normal case, the remedy would be in the courts," that is true today. But will that be the normal case in the future? I do not know. I am not so certain that everybody will have the same ease of access to the courts in these disputes in the future as they had in the past.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell):There will be no difference.
  Captain Crookshank:No difference? They have a contract with the Board or with the Board's agents?
  Mr. Gaitskell Mr. Gaitskell indicated assent.
  Captain Crookshank:Then, of course, you get the other consideration, that the Board is a monopolist power. At present the contracts, in so far as they exist, are made with the supplier of choice, and if you do not like that supplier for some reason or another, you go somewhere else and make another contract. The trouble is that in future you have only one party with whom you can deal.

  1695
  There is nowhere else you can go. That is why it seemed to my hon. Friend, the Mover, who has deep and long experience of these problems, that it ought to be laid down in the Bill that, if the consumer so decides, there should be all the time, and as a matter of right, the possibility of arbitration. There does not seem to be anything very wrong in that proposal. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that what he thinks my hon. Friend really wants is closer specification, well, he does, and he said so, frequently upstairs. However, that is not the point here. One can perfectly well have closer specification and still require some safeguard in case one does not get what one is expecting, either in quality or price. The fact of having a specification is no answer to the problem where a difference of opinion arises.
  I hope, therefore, that the Minister will still bear this problem in mind even if he is going to reject the proposed new Clause today, because it is a problem which is going to remain. We tried to point out yesterday the position of the consumers' councils under the provisions later in the Bill. The new Clause which we proposed then was not accepted, and the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that it would lie with the consumers councils to deal with these problems. Perhaps it will, up to a point, but I do not see how they are going to deal with a dispute. It would have nothing to do with them. I am sorry, therefore, that the Minister has not given an adequate set of reasons for turning down this new Clause. As a counter offer, I put this to the Government. If the only thing worrying them is the drafting of the new Clause, let them make no mountain out of that particular problem, because it is a molehill. It is a matter which can easily be rectified if the will is there.
  Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay):I do not look at this matter from the point of view of big companies or anything of that kind; I look at it solely from the point of view of the ordinary small householders and their desire to get coal when they pay for it. During the war we did not mind getting a certain amount of bad material in our coal; that was to be expected. But the unfortunate thing is that in the nine months since the war, stone dross and all sorts of other things have increased
  1696
  enormously. We have been very unhappy about this and in my constituency we call the waste stuff "Shinwells." We want to buy coal, not "Shinwells." I am now told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the reply which I have to give to my constituents when they ask how much longer they must pay for the dross and rubbish to which they have given this appropriate name, is that, in due course, this matter will be put right. The hon. Gentleman is not very experienced and I hope he will often use that phrase in the future. It is a complete and absolute "give away" and shows that the Government do not know in the least how they are going to deal with the matter, or when or where. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that innocent remark. It has given away the Government's position.
  The hon. Gentleman then went a little further—and here I largely agree with him—and said that the real remedy for this was to have a proper description of the coal. Let us have a proper description and let us be told in future that we are going to have, say, 10 per cent. of coal and 90 per cent. of "Shinwells." We shall then know where we are. It may be that the amount will go up or down. It may be that a lot will be doubtful stuff, bricks and that sort of thing, and that one will not know what it is. But it would be a great help if we got something like that because we could get it separated and use it with other stuff for other purposes. This is a perfectly easy position to put. The Government are quite determined, by refusing this very excellent Clause, to do nothing whatever to try and protect the public in the immediate future and that is why I hope there will certainly be a Division on this Clause. Although I do not in any way wish to hurt the Minister, I think the public are nearly as sick of the appalling stuff which he is giving them in lieu of coal—and I think they are certainly as cross with him—as the miners themselves.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester):It seems to me that there is some confusion of thought on this proposal which is not unusual on the other side of the House. Is it suggested that the machinery of arbitration should be recruited merely for this one small point, or is it proposed that the courts should be cut out altogether,

  1697
  and that any dispute or question which arises in these matters should be the subject of arbitration? This is a very limited point and, as it is expressed here, it is very obscure indeed. As far as I can gather, the point seems to be that if there is a contract or transaction in which coal is being purchased and that coal does not come up to the standard bargained for, as regards either quality or price, it is suggested the matter should go to arbitration. One has only to glance cursorily at this language to see its obscurity, and to realise that numerous questions may arise out of such a transaction quite apart from the limited context which we have here. Therefore, the thing becomes absolutely impracticable. In my submission the position should be left exactly as it is. If there is a dispute in regard to a transaction. whether in respect of the quality or price of the coal, or any of the terms of the transaction—because there are many terms in a transaction of this kind quite apart from the mere price or quality—it should be left to the ordinary channels of litigation in the courts. Arbitration on this point ought not to be conceded by the Minister, unless there is to be a very careful, logical and wide system of arbitration to cover any dispute which my arise out of these provisions.
  Sir A. Gridley:I do not want to press this new Clause to a Division if accommodation can be found between the Government and ourselves. I followed very closely what the Parliamentary Secretary said, and I believe that if we can get together we shall find that there is not much real difference of opinion between us. On the other hand, I do not like the idea of leaving out in the open, as it is left at present, what the Coal Board are prepared to do. As was said from the Front Bench on this side of the House, if the consumer had the option of going from one supplier to another, the position would be entirely different. But how does a consumer today know that he will be entitled to secure a specification and a price from the Coal Board which will be suitable to him? In the interests both of the Coal Board and of the consumer, there should be some provision in the Bill to make that position clear so that reasonable security will be provided which consumers can hang on to and so that they will not be left in the air as they are at present. If the Minister is prepared to
  1698
  meet me in the way I have suggested, I shall not press this Clause to a Division. Otherwise, I am afraid I must do so.
  Mr. Shinwell:I thought that the reply of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on this point was conclusive. Moreover, we had very long discussions in Committee on this question, and on cognate questions of the quality and size of coal. As the hon. Member is aware, there is a Government Amendment on the Paper which, with the consent of the Chair, will be discussed later, and which, I think, meets the views expressed upstairs as regards widening the duties of the Board in respect of quantities, qualities and sizes of coal.
  The only point at issue appears to be this. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) directed the attention of the House to the fact that we were about to create a monopoly. That is true, but it does not in any way prevent the public exercising the utmost vigilance relating to the activities of the National Coal Board. Indeed, it is by no means unlikely that much more publicity will be concentrated on the activities of the National Coal Board, certainly by hon. Members opposite, than has been the case with regard to the privately owned undertakings. Therefore it seems to me that that provides an adequate safeguard. Over and above that, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the National Coal Board would wish to deprive consumers of their legitimate rights. What advantage is to be gained by selling coal of an inferior quality to consumers upon whom the Board must rely if it is to function as it is intended in the Measure? In those circumstances, it does not appear to me that we require to go beyond what the Government have declared.
  The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) directed the attention of hon. Members to the unfortunate situation, as he regarded it, of some persons in his constituency, unspecified and about whom we have no information whatever. As the hon. Member knows, he has the right to impart such information to the Ministry of Fuel and Power if any of his constituent consumers are aggrieved. He directed attention to the plight of some persons who were recipients of coal, some part of which was regarded as inferior, and he described it in picturesque terms.

  1699
  The hon. Gentleman, who is not without intelligence and who has had long experience, knows full well that the situation today is quite different from what it was before the war, and in the course of, perhaps, 12 months or less, certainly no longer than 12 months, we shall have corrected the position and we shall be able to adopt screening methods. That depends largely upon the labour supply which will enable the screening operations to be more efficient and, therefore, to supply coal of the right kind to his constituent consumers. I hope, after that, they will no longer require to discriminate between the normal coal supplies and the inferior coal supplies which the hon. Gentleman has described.
  This proposed new Clause which the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has asked the Government to accept, has no relation whatever to the position of domestic consumers such as the hon. Member for Torquay envisaged. The hon. Member for Stockport had in mind the larger consumers, those who purchase bulk supplies, such as the electricity, gas, iron and steel undertakings and the like. The hon. Member for Torquay had in mind the small domestic consumer who bought 1 cwt. or 2 cwt. of coal. Under this new dispensation, the National Coal Board—this monopoly, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough described it—the consumers in the hon. Member's constituency will not purchase direct from the National Coal Board. They will purchase from the local coal retailer, and if they feel themselves aggrieved there is nothing to prevent them going to another coal retailer in the constituency.
  Mr. C. Williams:I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, but the whole trouble is that——
  Mr. Speaker:This looks like a second speech, and I cannot allow second speeches.
  Mr. C. Williams:I would like to ask a question, if I may. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have had from the coal merchants and the consumers continual complaints that the quality is going down?
  Mr. Shinwell:I must have notice of that question. If the hon. Gentleman feels
  1700
  aggrieved about the supplies of coal in his constituency I hope he will give me the information. In all the circumstances, I think the hon. Member for Stockport would be well advised to withdraw this proposed new Clause. I give him the assurance that this matter will be very carefully considered.
  Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley):The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has very clearly put to us the difficulty which is inherent in the situation. Of course, the very fact that this is a monoply does alter the position which normally ruled. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what is called a normal commercial contract, and a great feature of the commercial contract in normal times is that it is made between two people who both have the desire to preserve their good will and to gain commercial benefits both as buyer and seller. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Board will be dealing through a number of retailers—that is quite true—and he said that if somebody was not satisfied with a particular agent or retailer, he could change that agent or retailer. That I took to be his argument.
  Mr. Shinwell Mr. Shinwell indicated assent.
  Mr. Macmillan:But the retailer or agent has only one supplier, namely, the Board. It all leads back to the ultimate monopoly. Therefore, this problem being a difficult one, I would have thought the Government would try to find every possible method of avoiding the almost inevitable dangers of monopoly. They want to have a monopoly for all kinds of reasons but, having got that situation, what one ought to do, I would have thought, would be to protect, as far as possible, the monopoly itself from falling into the lazy and unbusinesslike habits which follow upon being too easily in control of the whole business.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels:There is provision for arbitration.
  Mr. Macmillan:Had the right hon. Gentleman been prepared to make the industrial and domestic councils a reality instead of the creatures of the Ministry, I think my hon. Friend would have been happier about the position which he is trying to preserve. Whether the wording in the proposed new Clause is the right method or not, I hope that in the deliberations upon this Bill, in all its stages, the

  1701
  right hon. Gentleman will see whether he can strengthen the position of the public against the monopoly. Anything he can do in that respect will be to his benefit and to the benefit of his administration, because it will tend to give a greater degree of confidence in the operations of the Board. I hope that in these useful discussions the Minister will look into the question once more, and see whether by a Clause on these lines or by an Amendment to the Bill, at a later stage, he can do something to increase the degree of confidence which consumers may have in the protection of the service which they are likely to receive from this national monopoly when it is set up.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 288.

  Division No. 158.]

  AYES.

  4.29 p.m

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Osborne, C.

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Hollis, M. C.

  Pickthorn, K

  Baldwin, A. E

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hurd, A.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Birch, Nigel

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

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

  Bowen, R.

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

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bower, N.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Jennings, R.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W. H

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Carson, E.

  Lancaster, Col. C G.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Challen, C.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R K.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Channon, H.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spence, H. R.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

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

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Teeling, William

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Therneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Maclean, Brig. F H. R. (Lancaster)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Touche, G. C.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macpherson, Maj N. (Dumfries)

  Turton, R. H.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr J. W.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Manningham-Bu'ler, R E.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marlowe, A. A. H

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

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

  Marshall, D. (Bedmin)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Medlicolt, F.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Molson, A. H. E

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Morris, H. (Carmarthen)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Grimston, R. V.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  York, C.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

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

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Nield, B (Chester)

  Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

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

  Noble, Comdr. A H. P.

  NOES.

  Adams, H. R. (Balham)

  Bechervaise A. E.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Benson, G.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Beswick, F.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Burden, T. W.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Binns, J.

  Burke, W. A

  Awbery, S. S.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Callaghan, James

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Boardman, H.

  Champion, A. J.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Chater, D.

  Balfour, A.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  Barstow, P. G.

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

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Barton, C.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Battley, J. R.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Cobb, F. A.

  1702
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Candidature of employees.)
  Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent any officer or person employed by the Board from offering himself as a candidate for election as a member of the House of Commons or of any local authority.—(Mr. H. Macmillan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This new Clause is simple and self-explanatory. Its meaning is clear and its purpose manifest. Had there been the kind of nationalisation which would have set up the coal industry like the Post Office, under the direct and immediate control of a Minister without the interposition of a public corporation, it would have been a matter of consideration what rules should be applied to the servants of the Minister as regards their rights as citizens. We know that in the fighting Services and in the Civil Service it is necessary, for discipline, to make rules as to those rights being surrendered or held by citizens in those services, although it has always been rather difficult to reach the exact balance between the needs of the Service, and what are regarded as the free rights of all individuals. But since we are not operating that kind of service, since the Board will be, as regards its servants, in the same position as any other corporation, and those who are serving it will be employees like the employees of any other bodies, I think there can be no doubt that it is right that they should have the same privileges and rights as their fellow citizens.
  I owe this Clause entirely to the Minister himself; he is the fons et origo, the true and only begetter of this Clause. He is, if I may say so without any offence, one of the most remarkable examples of what no doubt we all have in our makeup, the characteristics partly of Dr. Jekyll and partly of Mr. Hyde. In this House and in Committee he moves very rapidly from gay and witty chaff to quite bitter and often rancorous attack, from suave and conciliatory charm—which nobody can exercise better than he—to violent paroxysms of emotion. Outside this House he is equally capable of showing both forms. For instance, in a broadcast which is very apposite to this subject which he delivered at the end of last year he is reported as saying:
  1706
  "There would, be three partners in the industry, the nation, the miners and the colliery managers. To the managers as well as to the miners the future offered an inspiration and a challenge. They had their part to play in the reorganisation of the mines which was second to none in its importance. The partnership would be based on mutual trust and understanding."
  Judge, then, of the emotion and confusion of these colliery managers, who I suppose we should all agree are an essential part of this great industry, when one of their number is singled out, by the same Minister who spoke so nobly of them on the broadcast, for a most bitter and personal attack. That, of course, is when the right hon. Gentleman gets to the county of Durham; he is always very dangerous in the county of Durham; it brings out his worst mood—I have been a victim, so I speak with great frankness. On 22nd February, I think it was, speaking in support of Mr. Joseph Hunter—whoever that notability may be—the Socialist candidate and old member for the Easington Division of the Durham county council, this is what the Minister said:
  "It would be fantastic if in any part of industrial Durham any Tories were returned to the County Council."
  I make no complaint of that at all, it is just good electioneering. Then he goes on to say:
  "I am bound to say that for a mine manager to contest a seat in the Tory interest against a Labour man in a mining constituency is a first-class piece of impudence."
  These are the partners on a basis of mutual trust and understanding. He then goes on to say:
  "Mine managers re excellent men in their own department and I have the highest respect for them as technicians, but when it comes to social questions they appear to know as much about them as a pig knows about pianos."
  4.45 p.m.
  These are the delicate phrases, the carefully-chosen words of the Minister of the Crown responsible now for this great industry and soon to be far more responsible in a much more direct way. I think probably most of us would have felt when we read those words that that was just the kind of electioneering to which we are perhaps all somewhat prone, and to which we know the Minister is very prone, and I personally read it with mild amusement and wrote it off, thinking no more about it. Nevertheless, I think that

  1707
  the mine managers, in their position, had a very reasonable right to feel aggrieved, because the suggestion was that while it would be quite proper for one of their number to stand in the interests of a particular party, it was contrary to what was right and proper for him to stand in the interests of another party. They, therefore, through the National Association of Colliery Managers, asked the Minister to withdraw or qualify his statement.
  I think he would have been well advised if he had said something like this: "That was just a thing I said in the heat of debate and the excitement of the platform, and I am sorry; it had no reflection upon you; you must not take it very seriously, and I withdraw it." That is what we do often enough in the heat of debate in this House or in Committee, when we have said something which we feel had better not have been said by somebody in a high position. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did no such thing. He sent them a reply, which of course I have not got, but which I understand was wholly unsatisfactory. I learn from the Press and indeed from the right hon. Gentleman's own speeches that he refused either to withdraw or to qualify what he had said, or to explain that the implications which were drawn from his words were incorrect. Indeed, the very next Saturday, at Horden in the county of Durham—that is his besetting sin, that is his danger—he said he had been reported to the Colliery Managers' Association, but this was not affiliated to the T.U.C. and he was not likely to be put upon the carpet—by the Prime Minister, I suppose. As a matter of fact he was put on the carpet by Sir Walter Citrine and also by the Prime Minister, but I am coming to that later on.
  Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West):He has never been the same man since.
  Mr. Macmillan:This trade union of mine managers, this association, can be freely insulted by the head of the industry because they are not members of the T.U.C., because they are not Socialist candidates and because they are not part of this tremendous machine which has brought the Minister and his friends into power. The Colliery Managers Association—[Interruption.]. If hon. Gentlemen opposite have no respect for liberty
  1708
  and freedom of speech, we still have some on this side. The Colliery Association then wrote to the Prime Minister and asked for a categorical assurance that it was not the policy of the Government to question the right of managers to engage in either local or national politics. The Prime Minister on 20th March gave the assurance that it was not the intention to prevent them from exercising their free rights as citizens. He went further in reply to Questions that on two occasions I ventured to put to him in this House. I think it will be in the recollection of those hon. Members who heard his reply, that it was that though the right hon. Gentleman was not to be put upon the carpet in this House, he was very nearly put upon the carpet outside. The implications of the Prime Minister's reply were very damaging to the Minister. He said the right hon. Gentleman was expressing a personal opinion only. He, therefore, purposely detached himself and dissociated himself from the opinions which the Minister had put forward. This matter, I think, can easily be cleared up if the Minister will now do graciously, what he could and should have done with even better grace to the Colliery Managers Association themselves. This is really a very important matter. If the policy upon which His Majesty's Government have embarked is to continue, and continue successfully; if four or five great industries are brought directly or indirectly within the purview of Government control, it is of the greatest importance that there shall be no kind of impression among any of them that the Government of the day bring upon them, in one direction or another, any kind of political pressure.
  After all, already in the carrying out of this so-called nationalisation policy, there is in the hands of the Government of the day patronage upon a scale greater than has been held by any Administration since the dissolution of the monasteries. Every month and year, if they go on, that patronage will increase. A very large number of people, all classes of employees, skilled and unskilled, in clerical, managerial and other functions, will be, directly or indirectly, the employees of the State, subject to a considerable amount of possible political pressure. Now, it is surely important that the Government as a whole should make

  1709
  it clear that they take no interest whatever in the political views or occupations of this great and increasing range of persons. It is still more important that the head of the particular Ministry which is engaged in directing an industry should not indulge in these distasteful and ill-mannered comments. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will do, what, I am sure, nobody could do with greater grace than he, and say he made a mistake, in that speech, in suggesting in any way that it was improper for this gentleman to stand for the local county council. I hope he will make, even late in the day, some amende honorable to those gentlemen. He can most easily do it by making it clear that neither the Government as a whole, nor he, in respect of the particular industry over which he is about to preside, proposes even to inquire into, far less to influence, the political opinions of any of the very large number of men—numbering at present some 750,000, and with ancillary businesses, perhaps, a million in all—engaged in it. He can best do that, I suggest, by accepting this Clause and embodying it in the Bill.
  Mr. Shinwell:We have now had t he long waited attack. For some time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) has been straining at the leash. In the course of our proceedings upstairs he essayed to embroil me in this somewhat embarrassing controversy surrounding the position of certain colliery managers in my constituency. But I imposed upon myself severe restraint. Had it not been for the right hon. Gentleman's attack I should have remained silent. I owe it, however, if not to hon. Members opposite, at least to my hon. Friends on this side, that an explanation of my conduct should be duly made. I say at once I do not propose to make an amende honorable. That I decline to do. There is nothing that I have said in my constituency, or, indeed, elsewhere, for which I need apologise. The right hon. Gentleman demands freedom of speech. So do I—for others and, equally, for myself. And let it be clearly understood—I hope this is not heresy—that the fact of being a Minister should not preclude one from expressing an opinion if one holds that opinion very strongly.
  Naturally, opinions of one kind and another are sometimes offensive. I have
  1710
  been in this House several years—longer, I believe than the right hon. Gentleman—and frequently I have been castigated in the most opprobrious and, as I have frequently thought, in the most vile language. But I make no complaint on that score. Epithets have been hurled at me. Have I complained? I recall that there was an occasion on which I did complain—when direct action required to be taken, for which I subsequently apologised, not to the recipient of the direct action, but to the Chair, as, indeed, it was my duty to do in those circumstances. But we must not be squeamish and mealy-mouthed. We understand each other and, surely, we can give and we can take——
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham):The right hon. Gentleman was lucky he did not get paid back in his own coin.
  Mr. Shinwell:The hon. Gentleman interjects to say that I was fortunate on the particular occasion I have in mind. That may well be. But I did emerge unscathed. I might not have emerged in that fashion. At any rate, I had the courage to take a chance.
  Hon. Members:Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University):On a point of Order. As one of those now here who was present on the occasion in question, I wonder whether other accounts and explanations of what then happened will be in Order after the right hon. Gentleman has given his account?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont):The Debate has been allowed to proceed on certain lines, but I trust there will be restraint in the matter and manner of speech.
  Mr. Nicholson:Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask you to restrain the right hon. Gentleman from boasting of one of the greatest breaches of Order that has ever taken place in this House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:It is not for me to judge of the past, but only to deal with the present.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell:I did not raise this Debate. I hope you will not allow me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to be disturbed by

  1711
  the infantile pedantries of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).
  Mr. Gallacher:On a point of Order. As one who was present on that occasion, and as I went out with the Minister after he had performed that very desirable act, might I object to the statement that it was something of which anyone ought to be ashamed? It was very much needed, and I am proud of the Minister that he did it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:I would remind hon. Members that we are not holding an inquest on this incident. I hope that we shall be sufficiently moderate in this matter, though I do not wish to spoil the cut and thrust of the Debate. Let me remind hon. Members that we have a Clause under discussion.
  Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities):Further to that point of Order. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion in question, characterised what was done as an outrage——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:I cannot accept that as a point of Order. I cannot deal with past happenings. I am concerned only with today's discussion.
  Mr. Strauss:My point is this. Is it in Order for the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), having regard to the Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave on that occasion, to justify that which Mr. Speaker described as an outrage?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:I do not think it is necessary to make any further remarks on the matter. Let us proceed with the discussion upon the Clause.
  Mr. Shinwell:It is perhaps a little awkward that this matter has arisen, but if the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) had not evinced in this matter a little malice, and then, reclining in his seat, expect that I should stand at this Box and be contrite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—The answer is that I have no intention of doing so. What is the precise matter before the House? It is not the speech which I delivered in my constituency, because that, if I may say so with respect, is quite irrelevant. Hon. Members on any side, and a Minister, are entitled to make speeches in their constituencies, and we
  1712
  shall continue to do so. No doubt the speeches will be hailed on one side with enthusiasm, and on the other with opprobrium—risks are entailed in making speeches.
  Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale):I am not fully acquainted with this matter, and should very much like the Minister to help me. Why was he annoyed with this manager? Was it because he was a manager, or because he was a Tory?
  Mr. Shinwell:I am always annoyed with Tories. Indeed, so much was I annoyed with Tories in my constituency at the time of the General Election, that when I was asked what was my policy, I said, "Clear the Tories out of County Durham." That they proceeded to do, including the right hon. Member for Bromley, and I suspect that this is the reason for the new Clause on the Order Paper. The simple issue is this. Are we to prescribe in the Bill that those employed by the National Coal Board shall not be precluded from exercising their legitimate rights as citizens, or are we to assume that as citizens the employees of the National Coal Board can, if they so decide, and without consulting the National Coal Board, except in certain circumstances which may emerge, contest in their constituencies for local or national purposes? I am going to ask hon. Members to agree with me that it is unnecessary to insert this provision in the Bill. Employees of the National Coal Board will not be civil servants—I made that clear during the Second Reading Debate—and consequently they have a perfect right to stand as candidates in any constituency. As regards the position of colliery managers, I want to repeat what the right hon. Member for Bromley said in connection with my observations about colliery managers. I have the highest regard for them as technicians—I believe British mining engineers are the best in the world—but it is my opinion, in a constituency where the great majority of the people are mine workers and the wives of mine workers, that it was a little impudent on the part of the local colliery manager to——[Interruption.] This is only my opinion. Surely, I am entitled to my opinion? I am just as entitled to my opinion as the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George), if indeed he has an opinion.
  Major Lloyd-George (Pembroke):I have an opinion, but I never regard it as impudent for anyone to hold a contrary opinion to my own.
  Mr. Shinwell:It is very easy to be amiable in these matters, and to be conciliatory or sit on the fence. Hon. Members on the other side have asked for this. They are getting it, and they do not like it. Hon. Members must make up their minds that they are not going to disturb me by their interruptions.
  Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint):We are succeeding very well.
  Mr. Shinwell:If the hon. Member, sitting on a back seat and smirking away in his characteristic fashion, imagines that he is disturbing me, he is mistaken. As regards these local colliery managers, if they want to stand in the Tory interest, they may do so, but that is their affair. I am entitled to describe it in picturesque language, and I shall do so as I feel disposed. There have been two results from the speech I delivered in my constituency, and I ask hon. Members opposite to take note of them. First, the local colliery managers lost their seats, and that was very desirable, and, secondly—and this is much more interesting—production has increased. If hon. Members opposite, and particularly the right hon. Member for Bromley, imagine that my speeches in the country have the effect of diminishing production, they are very much mistaken. It has had a contrary effect. I am completely satisfied with the technical activities of the colliery managers in my own area, and I am particularly satisfied with the efforts of the miners, who have achieved the target figures over and over again—I am very pleased that they have. If I thought that speeches of that kind would have a similar effect in other coalfields, I would consider taking similar action.
  Finally, the right hon. Gentleman introduced a great many unseemly observations. He talked about attacking and castigating the other side; about rudeness, being temperamental and the like. The right hon. Gentleman introduced something which was most unseemly and inaccurate. He said that I was "put on the carpet" by the Prime Minister. How does he know? Has someone been divulging Cabinet secrets? If the right hon. Gentleman goes on in that fashion. he
  1714
  may be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:When the Prime Minister is asked whether the speech made by one of his most distinguished colleagues represents his opinion, and when he makes the reply that his colleague was expressing his personal opinion only, that is about as near as the Prime Minister can go.
  Mr. Shinwell:That is as jejune an observation as I have ever heard from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman. In my constituency, I expressed a personal opinion, and that is all it was. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed personal opinions in his own constituency—only they have probably not been so sensible as some of the opinions I have expressed. The Prime Minister understood that as such, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to castigate me, or question me on the speech. As for the Trades Union Congress or Sir Walter Citrine "putting me on the carpet"—well, I have not got to that stage as yet. Of course, you never can tell.
  All I have to say about the proposed Clause is that it is unnecessary, irrelevant, and must be rejected. [Interruption.] I mean that it is irrelevant to the Bill. If this Clause were accepted by the Government, it would not produce an ounce of coal, and I am concerned with producing coal. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may ejaculate and interrupt as much as he likes about the effect of nationalisation, but we can have that out next week when we are discussing the Third Reading of this Bill—and I will take on any of them, at any time they like. I would not have talked in this fashion had it not been for the right hon. Gentleman. He asked for it, and I hope that he has got it, and now that he has got it, I hope that he will be satisfied.
  Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford):I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that any officer or person employed by the Board would have a perfect right to offer himself as a candidate, except in certain circumstances. Can he say what are those circumstances?
  Mr. Shinwell:He may be a high-powered employee of the Board, whose services may be regarded by the Board

  1715
  as too valuable to lose, and, consequently, they advise him not to stand. That is the custom in many industrial constituencies.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen):The right hon. Gentleman says that they will be eligible for election, and can stand as candidates, but they will be publicly appointed servants, if not civil servants, and in the same position as a servant of a public utility company. Let us take, for instance, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is an independent corporation. None of its employees is a civil servant, but none of them may stand as a candidate for this House. Upon what authority does the right hon. Gentleman say that they will be eligible, apart from this Clause, to become candidates?
  Mr. Shinwell:The point does not arise at all. These are ordinary employees of industrial undertakings, although it is perfectly true that they are set up as a result of a Parliamentary Bill, and with the consent of this House. There is no reason why they should not stand if their employers are satisfied.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Jennings (Sheffield, Hallam):I intervene because I feel that we have to get on with other matters. The right hon. Gentleman's speech has not relieved my mind on one or two rather serious considerations. I thought that he would have come forward this afternoon, and, in a friendly and genial way, have stated to the House, something to this effect: "That I had to make this speech in Durham——
  Major Cecil Poole (Lichfield):On a point of Order. In view of the fact that this Clause relates only to the position of officers and servants who are servants of the Board, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in Order to refer to the case of people who were never servants of the Board but who were privately employed? I respectfully suggest that that part of the discussion is out of Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker:As previous speakers have been permitted to refer to this matter, perhaps we had better hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
  Mr. Jennings:I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in a genial sort of way, would have given an explanation to the
  1716
  House as to why he deemed it necessary to issue a stricture on a colliery manager seeking election. I live in this county and I follow the right hon. Gentleman's speeches very closely. Some of them I treat with contempt, but I consider their effect on other people. It is in the interests of these other people that I wish to speak. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech which, in my opinion, was an extremely dangerous speech to go out to the country, and he says that he does not take back one word of what he said. He makes no apology and says the Tories he simply detests. Hon. Members on the other side must remember this: There are good technicians, and good colliery managers among Conservatives, and these people are asked to work together; but how can they, when their chief looks frowningly and with disdain on any of them who seek election to local government bodies? Does not that create in their mind a feeling that they may be penalised, in some way, by the Minister who is going to run the industry? [Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but he has expressed that view, and an atmosphere of resentment will remain in the minds of these people until he withdraws it. The Minister may say that output has gone up in County Durham; but he may get it down again by some of his speeches. We in this House are here to protect the rights and liberties of the people outside. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are?"] We all are—all parties. Surely, we are not going to make it a party issue, whether we stand in this House for the rights and liberties of the people.
  Mr. Gallacher:Can the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) give me the name of any one of the employees of the big corporations who has been allowed to stand as a candidate in support of nationalisation?
  Mr. Jennings:The reply to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is that one cannot find the head of any big corporation who supports nationalisation. I want to impress upon hon. Members on all sides of the House that if this new Clause is not accepted, the rights and liberties of the people will be interfered with by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, who looks with frowns and disdain upon any colliery manager who has the impudence to stand

  1717
  in the Tory interest. He has expressed that opinion, and he has repeated it this afternoon. I say, with great humility, that he has made a dangerous speech and one that will not help to get increased output.
  Mr. Tom Smith (Normanton):Nobody regrets more than I do that the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) moved this new Clause in the manner in which he did, and I think he must accept some of the responsibility for what has occurred since. When I read the new Clause, knowing the record of the Conservative Party in its fight for individual freedom, the extension of the franchise and the right of every workman to stand for election to a local authority, I thought he was treating this thing seriously. I have known many colliery managers who have given good local government service in rural, urban and city councils, but I also remember the days before the great war, when I first stood for election, when the colliery manager regarded it as impudence on my part, as one of his workmen, to do so.
  Mr. Macmillan:That was very wrong of him.
  Mr. Smith:Of course, it was. This new Clause could have been made the medium for defining pretty clearly what is to be the position of employees of the Board when the Bill becomes law. Hon. Members opposite, in some of their speeches recently, have suggested that when the mines become the property of the State the ordinary mine worker will not have the liberty to strike, or the same liberty for public activities as under private ownership. That was preached many years ago by the Anti-Socialist Union. We on this side have never believed that, and we know that in practice it could not be carried out, but I must say that when the Ministry of Fuel and Power was first set up, and we had to ask prominent people in the industry to take jobs, the question of how they would stand in relation to their local government positions was one that caused some anxiety. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was trying to seek guidance on that point.
  Let me give an example of what I have in mind. We established regional investigating officers, good, commonsense lads from the pits, to deal with absenteeism. The first question that arose was whether they could remain members of urban dis-
  1718
  trict councils, county councils, and so on. I think there will have to be clarity with regard to this matter. It is clear from the Bill that members of the National Coal Board cannot at the same time be Members of Parliament, but I have yet to hear any reason why a man holding a public position, doing his work conscientiously and competently, should not be allowed to take part in local politics. While I regret the tone of the speech in which this new Clause was moved, I think it will have served a useful purpose if it enables us to get some clarity in this matter. When I read the Clause first, I began to wonder what it was defining. There is reference to "officer or person." I have always understood that an officer in the Army has an abdomen and a private has a stomach. I wonder whether the ordinary miner is an officer or a person. No one need get hot under the collar about this matter. There are many officials in the great mining community, chairmen of boards, managers and workmen, who have contributed a good deal to the best in British local government.
  Mr. Henry Strauss:I feel so great a respect for the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) that I cannot help feeling a personal regret that he was not in charge of the Measure introduced by the Government to deal with these matters. I think I have seldom heard a more unseemly or disgraceful speech from a right hon. Gentleman occupying the Government Front Bench than the speech made this afternoon by the Minister of Fuel and Power. I can understand that the hon. Member for Normanton would have preferred my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) to have moved this new Clause in different terms. I thought my right hon. Friend moved it in a very good speech, a very humorous one, and certainly one that gave no justification whatever for the tone of the Minister's answer. In spite of the cheers which the Minister got from the Benches behind him, I think there will be many in his own party who will disapprove of it as much as it is disapproved of on these Benches, and I am certain that when the Prime Minister reads the speech in HANSARD, he will have a similar reaction to that which he had when he read the Minister's speech in the country which has been mentioned.

  1719
  The Minister said that the new Clause is unnecessary. I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Morris) that that is by no means so clear. If I understood the Minister rightly, in one of the few relevant and serious things in his speech, he so far disagrees with Tories that he thinks none of them ought to exist in the county of Durham. If that is his genuine view—I hope he would not deceive the House in the matter—what is there to stop him giving a direction, under Clause 3 of the Bill, that the Board should prohibit its employees from standing in the Tory interest? [Interruption.] I get the support of the fatuous laughter of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who gives me support in the only way in which he can give it. Will the Attorney-General say that no such direction could conceivably be given? The whole tone of the Minister's speech showed the greatest necessity for a Clause of this kind, and I hope this matter will be pressed to a Division.
  Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham):Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to say how he justifies this attack on the Minister, who has just appointed a Coal Board which contains only two persons who have ever been associated with the movement which forms the Government of the country?
  Mr. Strauss:That matter has not the slightest relevance to the new Clause. I am attacking the Minister for the speech which he made this afternoon, and not for his appointments to the Coal Board. If I wished to attack him on that, I would certainly give reasons. I am attacking him for his speech this afternoon, which is the most disgraceful speech that has been heard from a Minister of the Crown. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was a good one."] It is extremely good from my Party's point of view, because, when the speech is read in the country, the failure of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw or qualify his previous speech and the aggravation of his offence today will not redound to the credit of hon. Members opposite. I understand that the Minister has two alternative reasons for the speech he made in the country. One is that it was designed or intended to increase production. If so, the results have not been startling.
  Mr. Gallacher:Wait and see.
  Mr. Strauss:It will be a pity if we have to wait beyond next winter. The Minister said, secondly, that any Minister is entitled, while he is a Minister, to express his personal opinion. So he is, provided it is also the Government's opinion, or is not an opinion from which the Government have to dissociate themselves. When the right hon. Gentleman expresses an opinion that members of an important body in the industry for which he is directly responsible must not stand for public office, or that it is impudent for them to do so in the interests of his political opponents, and the Prime Minister has to say that he is expressing a personal opinion only, that is not a position in which it has been customary hitherto for a right hon. Gentleman holding such an important position to place the Prime Minister.
  I would say that if there was a case—and undoubtedly there was—for this Clause when it was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley it is very much strengthened now. Apart from the strength given it by the Minister's indecent reply, I cite in aid the main considerations put forward by my hon. and learned Friend on the Liberal Benches the Member for Carmarthen—I agree with him about the obscurity of the position in the absence of a Clause to this effect—and support some points made by the hon. Member for Normanton. It is not clear by any means that in the absence of this Clause the civil rights of the employees would be secure. It is not clear that the Minister could not give directions to the Board that would make it impossible in certain cases for these men to enjoy these civil rights. In these circumstances I hope that this new Clause, if it is not accepted will be pressed to a Division.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames):I do not propose to comment on the speech which the Minister thought it consistent with the responsibilities of his office to make, but I propose following the line of thought suggested in the very reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). I wish to address the House on a matter which is somewhat more important even than the Minister's reminiscences" as to some of the less discreditable episodes of his

  1721
  career. First, I want to put to the House the position of the employees of this great national monopoly, and I would remind the House that the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) moved, does not confine itself to colliery managers, but covers, I understand, all the employees of the Board. So far we have had from the Government Front Bench no reassurance of any sort or kind. Consequently the disquiet, to which my right hon. Friend referred, has necessarily been very much increased. The position as I understand it is this. As the Bill stands there is nothing to prevent the Board on its own responsibility forbidding any of its employees to stand for public office. Therefore, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent the Minister giving a direction under Clause 3 (I) that the Board shall issue instructions to that effect. Therefore, there are two risks to the political freedom of very nearly one million people, and that I would repeat is a great deal more important for the House of Commons than the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to treat it.
  That matter having been raised, it is surely incumbent upon the Minister, who is responsible for this great and vital industry, to give us some clear and definite assurance. I cannot see why he should not accept the Clause, as the only answer which he has given in regard to it was that it would not raise one single ounce of coal. If he is going to apply that criterion to all the Clauses of the Bill he will have to reduce the number of them. In answer to his contention that this Amendment is not designed directly to raise a further ounce of coal, I would say it is not intended to. It is designed for a matter which appears to hon. Members on this side of the House to be of the utmost importance, and that is to guarantee the political freedom of almost one million employees. If the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that an important matter it will be, in due course, for those concerned to judge between him and those he represents, and those of us who take a contrary view. I would point out that not only is there a double risk of managerial direction as the Bill now stands, but there is also the possibility that the Minister's place may one day be filled by a Member not so conciliatory, impartial or reasonable as
  1722
  the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed one day it might be filled by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—[Interruption]. I am glad to see that I have one supporter for that contention—the hon. Member for West Fife. Unless there is some definite provision in this Bill, which is, I suppose, to some extent, a precedent for future nationalisation Measures, very serious possibilities can arise. Many people who have no partisan feeling in the matter one way or the other, are gravely disquieted at the political implications of these nationalisation proposals. I say to hon. Members opposite who believe in nationalisation that if they want to kill nationalisation at its birth, they should do just what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
  Mr. Blyton (Houghton-le-Spring):After listening to this Debate I should like to assure the Minister of Fuel and Power that the language which he used in relation to the colliery managers in the Seaham district of the county of Durham was as nothing compared with the language we have used for 26 years to the colliery managers in our mining villages. The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) referred to the rights and liberties of the people of the mines. I live in the same district. Surely he has not forgotten the liberties that the company in that area threatened after the 1926 strike. If a man was a councillor, a trade union official, a Communist or a member even of the ordinary lodge committee he did not get a start after the 26 strike because of his political and trade activities. At the same time, we had colliery managers doing their best to try to protect our own children who were being fed under the Children's Act administered by the county council. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they had been negotiating wages with the colliery managers and agents they would have found that the language of the Minister of Fuel and Power was moderate compared with the language used from time to time during those negotiations. The speech by the Minister has been referred to. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) spoke in Durham in an effort to convert the miners to the Tory cause. It was a hopeless effort, as was borne out when the election results were declared, because fewer Conservatives were sent to Westminster to represent that part of the

  1723
  country than there had been before the Election. The right hon. Gentleman referred to us as a mining community and as a Socialist caucus. We did not get all hot or bothered about that. We accepted that in the spirit in which it was given, and because it was an attempt to win the Election.
  >What is the position of the colliery manager today? No colliery manager can go forward even in the Tory interests as a candidate for any council unless he gets the consent of the agent or the director of the undertaking in which he is employed. I have known managers during the war who were directed either to give up their position as colliery manager or resign from the Home Guard. That happened in the area in which the hon. Member for Hallam lives. The liberty which Members opposite talk so much about today has not been much in evidence in the mines in days gone by. Miners will never accept the view that this Bill will take away from them the political activities which they have built up over the last 30 or 40 years. I believe that colliery managers, without any political prejudice, will get a fairer crack of the whip under this Bill than they have had in the past under private enterprise.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris:The important speech in this Debate has been made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), who placed his finger on a really difficult problem. The Bill sets up a new position. What the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has just said may be true, but there are employers in the country who preclude those holding appointments under them from standing as candidates, either for local government elections or for this House. That may be unfortunate, but this Clause is something quite new. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not his intention that the officers and employees of the Board shall be precluded from standing as candidates, whatever their party, and from taking their part in the civic life of this country. If that is so, does the Bill provide for that position? The hon. Member for Normanton gave instances in local government, as the law now stands. Take the case of an attendance officer, employed by a local education authority. Can he or not be a candidate for a county council election? I believe he cannot.
  1724
  There may be a very good argument, and I think there is, for excluding him; there may be a good argument for excluding these people from candidates for Parliament, but if that is not the intention a new position is being created, and some provision for that should be made in the Bill. The Bill provides, at the moment, that members of the Board cannot, quite properly, be candidates for this House. The Board may proceed to make regulations that all employed by them shall also be precluded——
  Mr. Turner-Samuels:Where is that?
  Mr. Morris:In Subsection (3).
  Mr. Turner-Samuels:But Subsection (I) describes what the Board can do.
  Mr. Morris:They can be directed by the Minister. It is an important and salutary departure by the right hon. Gentleman to say that people employed by the Board, other than the officers of the Board, shall be eligible, or can be eligible, to be candidates for Parliament. If that is true that is a new principle. Why cannot this be expressed in the Bill? I do not know that this is the ideal Clause on which it can be done, but perhaps the Minister will give us an assurance that he will look at the matter again, and see that the point is made clear in the Bill. All we have had is his speech, which will not be effective once the Bill becomes law.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross):I appreciate that the main, if not the only, purpose of this Clause was to enable the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) to give himself the gratification of making at some length one of those amusing speeches so detached from the realities of the Clause, although purporting to be addressed to it, which entertain us all. I am sure that the House enjoyed listening to him. But there are matters of greater importance involved, not in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but in the Clause which has been put down in his name.
  I agree that it is quite essential that the officers and employees of this Board should not be prevented by this or any other Act of Parliament from exercising their ordinary rights as citizens. But why are we dealing only with this question of standing for public office? Is that the only right in which Members opposite

  1725
  are interested? Why cannot we go a little further, and make some express provision in the Bill that officers and employees of this Board shall not be prevented from, shall we say, getting married? That is an important matter. What about another matter to which Members opposite always attach so much importance, that a man ought not to be prevented from owning his own house, or that no officer or employee shall be prevented from joining the Carlton Club?
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:Had the Minister said that it was a piece of impudence for an employee of the Board to get married, I certainly would have included that.
  The Attorney-General:The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is that I am attempting to deal with the Clause and the Bill, while he is attempting to use the machinery of the Bill and the Clause to move a vote of censure on the Minister, which, I think, will be rejected in due course by the House. I suggest that it is exceedingly important that we should make quite sure that all officers and employees of the Board should retain those essential and vital human liberties for which we all stand, including the liberty to belong to the Carlton Club, or, even, liberty to vote for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley at the next Election. But it is not necessary to alter the Bill, because there is nothing in this Bill which prevents an officer or employee of the Board from exercising his ordinary rights as a citizen in regard to the matter which is the subject of this Amendment or, so far as I know, in regard to any other matter. This Bill, so far as I understand it, introduces no new principle. It provides that members of the Board, appointed by the Minister, shall be precluded from standing——
  Mr. Hopkin Morris:I did not say that the Bill introduces a new principle, but that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman did.
  The Attorney-General:I do not know to what speech the hon. Member is referring.
  Mr. Morris:The speech of the Minister this afternoon.
  The Attorney-General:I heard nothing in that speech which involved a new principle. What we are dealing with here is the Bill, and its actual terms. All I can advise the House about is what is in the Bill. When it is eventually passed into law, as it will be in due time, we shall have to construe and apply its provisions. What the Minister may or may not have said may, no doubt, pass into history, but it will not be quoted in the courts.
  Mr. Henry Strauss:Would the Attorney-General say that the Minister would be unable under Clause 3 (I) to give a direction to the Board to make it a condition of employment of their employees that they shall not stand for Parliament?
  The Attorney-General:I have no hesitation in saying that he has no power to give a general direction of that kind. If any such general direction were given by the Minister one could be certain that there would be a race between those going to the courts in order to challenge his direction and those coming to this House with a view to reducing his salary. I am not sure who would win, but it is clear that no Minister in his senses, even if he had the power, would dream of making any such direction, and that no lawyer would seriously suggest that any power to make a general direction of that kind exists under this Bill.
  That is my view on the matter. An hon. Member opposite referred to the position of employees of the B.B.C. It is, of course, open to any commercial undertaking to make it a term of the contracts which they have with their employees that they shall not stand for public office. I believe certain commercial undertakings make such a stipulation, but it is only in regard to their higher officials, and the House will probably think it right that in the case of people occupying superior posts, it may be desirable, in certain cases, for an employer to make a provision of that kind in his contract with a particular official. That is a matter of contract in regard to which the particular employer is completely free to enter into such arrangements as he chooses with his employee if the employee chooses, on his part, to agree. There is nothing in the Bill which could affect the freedom of contract concerning these matters and nothing in the proposed new Clause. Even if this new Clause were

  1727
  passed it would still be open to the Board to say, "We will not employ anybody who stands as a candidate for Parliament or for a local authority." That is a matter on which the parties are perfectly free to arrive at any contract they may choose. That is the general position where you find that employees of an undertaking do not stand for Parliament. It is not because there is any legal disqualification against their so doing, but because they have chosen quite voluntarily not to stand.
  The case of the school attendance officer raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Morris) was a little different. In particular cases there may be legal prohibition, and one can see obvious reasons why an employee of a local authority should not be allowed to become a member of that authority, but that sort of consideration does not arise here. There is no statutory restriction, and when this Bill is passed into law there will still be no kind of statutory restriction against an officer or employee of the Board exercising any civic rights he chooses, whether it be to get married, to own his own house, to become a member of a local authority or of Parliament, or even to devote the whole of his time to his job
  Mr. E. P. Smith:I am very glad indeed to have had the chance of hearing the hon. and learned Attorney-General, who has emerged from his recent shell of silence to speak on this point. He has expounded the law to us as he sees it; but I myself have found in the past that it has cost me quite a lot of money to follow the legal opinion of hon. and learned Attorney-Generals when they have ceased to be hon. and learned Attorney-Generals, and, therefore, I place more faith in, and give more attention to, the actual wording of Clause 3 (I). I would ask the House to listen carefully to these words because I think they are tremendously important:
  "The Minister may, after consultation with the Board, give to the Board directions of a general scharacter as to the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Minister——
  that is the crux of the whole thing:
  "matters appearing to the Minister to affect the national interest, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions."
  1728
  The Minister "may"; the Board "shall". I doubt if one could devise a wider or more all-embracing Clause than that. In fact—and I am not using the word in any offensive sense—it is a tyrannical Clause. It makes the Minister a tyrant. That may be all right if we are to have a benevolent tyrant, and sometimes one can find a benevolent tyrant, but I am bound to say that, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power this afternoon, I am a little unsure whether he will always come down on the side of Dr. Henry Jekyll. I feel, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) has said, that there is more than a touch of Mr. Edward Hyde about the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot help believing, in these circumstances, that it would be wiser for the House to pass this new Clause which says, quite bluntly:
  "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent any officer or person employed by the Board from offering himself as a candidate for election as a Member of the House of Commons or of any local authority."
  As I understand Clause 3 (I), the Minister quite definitely has that power—pace the hon. and learned Attorney-General—although he could not exercise it unless he himself elected so to do.
  Mr. Raikes (Liverpool, Wavertree):After reading Clause 3 (I) I find it difficult to understand how the learned Attorney-General is in a position to say definitely that the Minister could not, if he so desired, issue such directions. I notice that the Attorney-General qualified that a little by pointing out, with an airy wave of his hand, that, after all, even if the Minister had the power, Parliament would be running after him and people would be going to the courts, and so on, but I should have thought that there was a certain doubt in law, as the Bill stands, whether that power exists, and we are considering at the moment the power itself rather than whether it is likely to be exercised or not.
  When I came into the Chamber at the beginning of this Debate I expected to hear a cheerful discussion of the merit or demerit of accepting this new Clause which would lay down absolutely, definitely and beyond doubt that persons employed by the Board could stand for office, and I was astonished and a little shocked by the extreme outburst of violence

  1729
  from the Minister. I do not know what has been happening in another place, but it seems to me that that form of violence makes it difficult to discuss serious Amendments with any due degree either of wisdom or calmness.
  Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Raikes:I notice that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head at me, and not for the first time, but that troubles me little. We were told by the Minister, and by other hon. Members opposite, that the whole trouble of this discussion becoming heated was due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) bringing up the subject of a speech which the Minister had made. What does the Minister himself say? I want to deal with his speech for a few moments, I know that I shall remain in Order because I propose to deal only with what the right hon. Gentleman said himself, and, of course, that was all in Order. He said, first and foremost, that he claimed the right of a Minister to have an opinion of his own and to express it. I should be the last to disagree with that. All I would observe in regard to it is that it would be generally admitted that a Minister of the Crown should show rather greater restraint in his public utterances than a mere Back Bencher who has not the same degree of responsibility. I do not think that is an unusual doctrine to express, or an unreasonable one.
  6.0 p.m.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman, to my utter and complete astonishment, passed on from that to discuss an extremely disagreeable incident with which he was connected in his less wise days, when he was a Back Bencher. I do not want to go into that matter again, except to say that it seems to me astounding that a Minister of the Crown should apparently take the opportunity of glorying in an incident which, if followed by other Members of this House, would destroy democracy within a fortnight. Once the fisticuffs come in and the words stop, democracy is dead. I should have preferred to forget that incident, but when the right hon. Gentleman trotted it out this evening—[Interruption.]—he did trot it out.
  Mr. Shinwell:Who started it?
  Mr. Raikes:My right hon. Friend made no reference whatever to that incident, nor would one expect him to do
  1730
  so, in such circumstances. If a Minister who is to be the big boss of the colliery industry states that colliery managers are extremely impudent when they think of opposing Socialist candidates, unless that statement is withdrawn or modified, fear might be created in the minds of certain persons as to whether it would be advisable in the future to stand for local government office or indeed for Parliament. The statement might have an extremely unpleasant effect, as being the view taken by the boss not only of colliery managers as politicians, but of Tories in general. Therefore, I cannot consider that my right hon. Friend was in the least offensive to bring that point up. One often says things in the heat of the moment. If that little bit of sting had been taken out the case would have been very much strengthened against stressing the new Clause.
  Instead of that, the point is rammed in with even more violence. We hear a lot about the general wickedness of the Tories. It is just as well that all employees of the National Coal Board should see it in black and white in a Clause of this Bill, that, whatever the personal views of the Minister may be and whether he is in a bad temper or a good one, Parliament in general has agreed and laid down that any person within the industry who desires to stand for office is entitled to do so. That is the gist of the proposed new Clause, and it has been strengthened by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Far from hon. Members on this side of the House being unable to take it, the more often the right hon. Gentleman loses his temper the better for us.
  Mr. John McKay (Wallsend):I am surprised that the Debate has continued for so long. I have every confidence that the miners, when they advocated nationalisation, were not in any way attempting to restrict the liberty of any individual within the industry. When we are discussing the Bill we ought not to allow the past to overcloud our judgment. We should look forward to the future and see in what way we can make the mining industry a success. We have had much entertainment, but it seemed to me that the individuals who were giving the entertainment were dealing neither with the Bill nor with the proposed new Clause.
  What is the real point at issue? It is whether officials in the mining industry,

  1731
  such as technical officers and so forth, shall have as much liberty as in the past or more. I suggest that, even leaving the Bill as it is, and without the proposed new Clause, there will be more liberty for the official and technical sections in the future than they have ever had in the past. They will have more freedom, and their minds will turn more in the direction of helping the industry and the party that brought nationalisation into the industry. I hope that the official section will have the same liberty as the rest of the people in the industry to get themselves, if necessary, upon a trade union footing, to affiliate with the Trades Union Congress and to get into the real spirit of the industry and work for its advantage and for the fulfilment of the object with which nationalisation is being brought into being. That is what we want and are striving for. There is no question, whatever hopes we have about the efforts of any individual within the industry, that it is important that every encouragement ought to be given to the technical and official sections, whether it be on the political issue or any other issue.
  We need an organised industry. We want a unification of the spirit of good will. We want every man in every section to do his best to be useful. That is what we are out for. We are not out to restrict men but to give them greater freedom. That is why we believe in Socialism and in nationalisation. We think they will bring that result. We believe that in the past the official section had not liberty, but that does not mean that they shall not have it in the future. Nothing has been said in the Debate to suggest that any officer or official shall be prevented from using his political influence even more in the future than in the past.
  The welfare of the industry is so important that it would be to the interest of the industry and of the country to give the technical side more power and more authority even, in political matters. If there were a group of them here it might be well. Therefore, there is nothing at issue in reality. Is there any individual in this House prepared to restrict the opportunity of an individual character—a man with some ability beyond the ordinary, a man who has a hold upon the mining section in which he is living, and has an opportunity to fulfil his own
  1732
  individuality and to help the industry and the country—who wants to stand as a candidate? I do not believe there is. I do not believe the Minister for Fuel and Power would ever attempt it, whatever he may say when he is in the constituency. We know perfectly well that there may have been personal animosity on some occasion. There may be personal animosity now, or a clash of intellects because of the attitude people are taking up. That does not matter to us. It should not matter to this House. The Clause is a political tactic if it is pressed to a Division. There is no argument for it, and I hope it will be withdrawn.
  Mr. Pickthorn:I think I shall be short and I hope I may be plain. I can pursue the former object in part by eschewing that topic which seems to be of most interest to the Minister, that is to say his own earlier life and combatant career. About that I think there is a great deal which might be said, but I think, on the whole, it would be in the interests of the House that we should not discuss that at any great length. Indeed, if I do discuss it in any way I shall not commit myself by the choice of direct epithet to indicate my opinion of his intellectual attainment or mental age. There is one point not strictly on this Clause which he and other speakers have discussed and about which I may permit myself a sentence, because I would go rather further than my Friends in my reprehension of the doctrine that a Minister may express a personal opinion of a practical matter within the ambit of the office over which he presides. I do not wish now to deploy the case against that view but I am sure I am right in saying that that is a new and unusual view, and I am also sure I am right in saying that that view is contrary to the interests of the Government. I am sure the Government will find themselves weakened if they allow themselves to get into the position of believing that a Minister may on a public platform and about public matters—worst of all, about matters in his charge—say things which may afterwards be dismissed as mere personal opinion.
  I now come to what perhaps should have been the sole object of this Debate. I say that with no reflections on the Chair or anyone else—but we have discussed various topics. The point is, can the Minister direct the Board to exclude em-

  1733
  ployees or classes of employees from standing as candidates. I understand—if I may have the attention of the learned Attorney-General, because I wish to put a direct question to him—that the Attorney-General holds the view that Clause 3 (I) does not authorise the Minister to direct the Board to exclude employees or classes of employees from standing as candidates. I think that that was what the Attorney-General told us, and I hope he will correct me if I misunderstand him.
  The Attorney-General:I am quite clear for my own part that the Minister has no more power under Clause 3 to give a general direction of that character, than he has to give a general direction that no employee or officer of the Board must get married, own a house, belong to the Carlton Club or even permit himself to vote for the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn:With respect, I was consulting the Attorney-General upon a matter on which the Attorney-General is presumably of the highest professional competence and a matter in which I have no professional competence, and I think, quite honestly, that I and the House were entitled to expect a direct answer. We did not get a direct answer. I leave that matter to the judgment of the House and the Attorney-General's profession—[Interruption.] I am asked to say again—and of the Attorney General's profession. I do not care how often I say it. My second point on the new Clause is—whether or not the Attorney-General is right in whichever is his opinion on the question I have just put—can the Board, in the absence of such direction from the Minister, direct that employees or classes of employees can be excluded from standing for elective offices? That is the second point. I understand—
  The Attorney-General:I thought the hon. Gentleman was addressing a question to me.
  Mr. Pickthorn:I was making a statement.
  The Attorney-General:I thought I heard the word "question" and that the hon. Gentleman was addressing it to me. I did not understand that he was only asking himself a question. I am sorry to deprive him of the opportunity
  1734
  of answering his own question, but I thought I had made that point quite clear. I am sorry if I did not make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, although I believe I did to everybody else. There is nothing in the Bill and nothing in the Clause to restrict the freedom of the Board to contract with the officers and employees as the Board and its officers and employees should think right.
  Mr. Pickthorn:That was the view which my untutored intelligence had taken. It was the view which I had gathered to be the view of the Attorney-General. I am glad to be certain on the point. That brings me to the next question. We now know that the Board can, if it chooses to do so, so arrange its contracts of employment that none of its employees shall be allowed to stand for elective office. The next question we have to ask ourselves is: Is that what we desire to be the result? It seems to me quite plain that it is not what we desire. It was made quite plain by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) that he did not want that result. I think I understood the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken aright, and I think he does not want that result. He does not wish these people to be at the mercy of the Board's decision that they are not to stand for elective office. But under the Bill as it stands the Board is to have that power. The Minister was not at all certain when he spoke. He spoke in very ambiguous language. He said, "of course they will be able to stand," and then in a rather lower voice, he said, "unless their employers strongly advise them not to." Three sentences later, he said there was no reason in the world why they should not stand and then he said in a lower voice, "if their employers are satisfied."
  If that is the effect of the Bill as it stands, I do not wish to say that the proposed new Clause is the only way or the best way of correcting the Bill but what I do say without any fear of contradiction is that, if that is the effect, and we have been told that is the effect as the Bill stands, then there is an immediate duty on His Majesty's Government to tell us how they propose to avoid that. If not, it is evident that they are endeavouring to take this immense measure with the comparatively short discussion it has had—[Interruption]—as the Attorney-General would know if he

  1735
  had sat in this House before or read the history of his country—[Interruption.] If His Majesty's Government are not prepared to tell us how they propose to correct that defect in the Bill, then I say they are trying to put an immense Measure, with immense and unforeseeable effects on our constitutional life upon the Statute Book in a manner so irresponsible that it could hardly have been imagined until these latter days.
  Mr. Jack Jones (Bolton):I do not intend to make a speech because enough time has been wasted already in political antagonism. I want to ask a simple question which perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney-General would be good enough to answer. What would be the position of these officers of the Crown in regard to that particular part of the law?
  The Attorney-General:The Bill contains an express provision in regard to the members of the Board. The members of the Board appointed by the Minister will not be entitled to stand for Parliament. That is made clear by the provisions of the Bill itself. As to other officers of the Crown, that is a matter, as the House knows, that we are considering at present. If the House will permit me, I want to make it quite clear, that so far as the officers or employees of the Board are concerned—that is to say, not the members of the Board but its officers or employees—the Board is, of course, free to make whatever contract it chooses with them. It could provide that they, or a particular class of them—and one contemplates that the Board might think it right to provide that in regard, perhaps, to the men at the top—should not stand for Parliament. It could provide that they were not to be married men. It could provide by any contractual provision it liked that they were not to own their own property. You cannot make suitable provision in an Act of Parliament to guard against all those possibilities which might occur to hysterically minded people but which are not likely to take place in fact.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities):I have no part in the discussion which has been going on, but some of us are worried about the freedom of the individual in the growing number of industries which may be nationalised. Therefore, the argument of the learned Attorney-General that we do not
  1736
  expressly put into an Act whether a person shall have this freedom or that, I do not think quite meets the point. In the B.B.C., for instance, as has been said, they are not allowed to do so. Do I understand that it is to be the practice in industries, as they become nationalised, that no express provision will be made, but that it will always depend on a contract which the Board makes with its employees and not with this House? The Minister, in principle, was supporting the new Clause although the Clause made it more explicit. All I am asking is whether it rests with this House or on a series of Boards to make their individual bargains?
  The Attorney-General:Under this Bill, as it stands, it will rest with the boards. Under other Acts constituting other boards it may rest with the board or it may not. It may be a matter for provision in an Act if Parliament takes what I think would be a completely mistaken view about this matter. However, as the law now stands, and as it will stand when this Bill is passed into law, each case would be dealt with by the Board on its merits as a matter of contract. It is conceivable, just as any company or any public corporation can nowadays, that it might say that individual officers should not be Members of Parliament, but one can say that any attempt to lay down a general rule about that would be raised by hon. Members in this House, and no doubt it would be effectively dealt with. The great difficulty is that if we put in a Bill of this kind an express provision against the Board contracting with regard to one matter, we are in difficulty in regard to other matters which we have not covered. Lawyers have a Latin tag, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius," and it might be argued that if you put into this Bill an express provision that servants of the Board are to be free to hold public office, because there was no express provision that they were free to marry, therefore, they were not free to marry.
  Captain Crookshank:I am no lawyer, but the Attorney-General has several times repeated the analogy of providing in a contract that a person is not to marry. Is that possible? Is not that the sort of contract which would be completely out of order on the grounds of being contrary to public interest, and, therefore, it never would be a contract?
  The Attorney-General:In many contracts there is a provision, as hon. Members well know—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know best of all because he had so much experience in the late but not lamented Government—that in the event of the employee getting married, he will vacate his office.
  Hon. Members:School teachers.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:Can the Attorney-General quote any such cases?
  The Attorney-General:There are innumerable cases of that kind. A very common kind of case is that of people employed by commercial concerns on service abroad.
  Mr. Keeling (Twickenham):I want to make a suggestion which may shorten this Debate. The learned Attorney-General in his first speech said that there was nothing in this Bill, with or without this new Clause, to prevent the Board from making an agreement with their employees that they should not stand for Parliament or a council. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the
  Minister said that nothing in the world should prevent an officer or employee from standing for Parliament or a council, and the learned Attorney-General did not differ from that view, although he said that a contract could prevent it. If the Minister and the Attorney-General are sincere in their view that nothing ought to prevent an employee of the Board from standing for Parliament, why should not the Government give an undertaking now that in another place they will introduce an Amendment to the effect that the Board shall not prevent an employee from standing for Parliament or a council? I am certain that if they would give that undertaking, which is consistent with what they have said this afternoon, we should not press this Clause to a Division.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 148.

  Division No. 158.]

  AYES.

  4.29 p.m

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Osborne, C.

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Hollis, M. C.

  Pickthorn, K

  Baldwin, A. E

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hurd, A.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Birch, Nigel

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

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

  Bowen, R.

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

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bower, N.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Jennings, R.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W. H

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Carson, E.

  Lancaster, Col. C G.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Challen, C.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R K.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Channon, H.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spence, H. R.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

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

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Teeling, William

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Therneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Maclean, Brig. F H. R. (Lancaster)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Touche, G. C.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macpherson, Maj N. (Dumfries)

  Turton, R. H.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr J. W.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Manningham-Bu'ler, R E.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marlowe, A. A. H

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

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

  Marshall, D. (Bedmin)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Medlicolt, F.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Molson, A. H. E

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Morris, H. (Carmarthen)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Grimston, R. V.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  York, C.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

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

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Nicholson, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Nield, B (Chester)

  Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

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

  Noble, Comdr. A H. P.

  NOES.

  Adams, H. R. (Balham)

  Bechervaise A. E.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Benson, G.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Beswick, F.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Burden, T. W.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Binns, J.

  Burke, W. A

  Awbery, S. S.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Callaghan, James

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Boardman, H.

  Champion, A. J.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Chater, D.

  Balfour, A.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  Barstow, P. G.

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

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Barton, C.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Battley, J. R.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Cobb, F. A.

  1702

  1703

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, J

  Coldrick, W.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Reeves, J.

  Collick, P.

  Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Collindridge, F.

  Hynd, J, B. (Attercliffe)

  Richards, R.

  Collins, V. J.

  Irving, W. J

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Janner, B.

  Robens. A.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Cook, T. F.

  John, W.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Royle, C.

  Cove, W. G.

  Keenan, W.

  Scollan, T.

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Kenyon, C.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Daggar, G.

  Kinley, J.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Daines, P.

  Kirby, B. V

  Shawcress, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lang, G.

  Shinwel , Rt Hon. E.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Lavers, S

  Shurmer, P.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

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

  Lever, Fl. Off. N. H

  Simmons, C. J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughten)

  Levy, B. W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Deer, G.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Skeffing on-Lodge, T. C.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Diamond, J.

  Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Dobbie, W.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

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

  Dodds, N. N.

  Logan, D. G.

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

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McAdam, W.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Solley, L. J.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Sorensen W.

  Durbin, E. F. M. Mack, J. D. Sparks, J. A)

  Dye, S.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Stamford W

  Edelman, M.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Steele, T.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelty)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Stephen C.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  McLeavy, F

  Stokes, R. R.

  Ewart, R.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Follick, M.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Swingler, S.

  Foot, M. M.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Forman, J.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Martin, J. H.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Freeman Peter (Newport)

  Mason-MacFarlane, Lt .Gen Sir F. N.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Medland, H. M.

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Gallacher. W.

  Messer, F.

  Thurtle, E.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Tiffany, S.

  Gibbins, J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Timmons, J.

  Gilzean, A.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

  Titterington, M. F

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Monslow, W.

  Tolley, L.

  Gooch, E. G

  Moody, A. S.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Usborne Henry

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Morley, R.

  Viant, S P.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Walkden, E.

  Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

  Mort, D. L.

  Walker, G. H.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Moyle, A

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Grey, C. F.

  Murray, J. D

  Warbey, W. N.

  Grierson, E.

  Nally, W.

  Watson, W. M.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (LlanellY)

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

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

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

  White, C . F (Derbyshire, W.)

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

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

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  Hale, Leslie

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Orbach, M.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Harrison, J.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Haworth, J.

  Perrins, W.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Piratin, P.

  Williamson, T.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Willis, E.

  Hicks, G.

  Poole, Maj Cecil (Lichfield)

  Wilson, J. H.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Popplewell, E.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Holman, P.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Yates, V. F.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Horabin, T. L.

  Price, M. Philips

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Hoy, J.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Hubbard, T.

  Pryde, D. J.

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

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Ranger, J.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bing.

  1704

  Division No. 159.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Adams, H R. (Balham)

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Ewart, R.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Coldrick, W.

  Follick, M

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Collick, P.

  Foot, M M.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Collindridge, F.

  Forman, J. C.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Comyns, Dr. L

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Cook, T. F.

  Gallecher, W.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Ganley, Ms. C. S.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Gibbins, J

  Balfour, A.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Gilzean, A.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Barton, C.

  Daggar, G.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Battley, J. R.

  Daines, P.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Grey, C. F.

  Benson, G.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Grierson, E.

  Beswick, F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Binns, J.

  Deer, G.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

  Boardman, H.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Diamond, J.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hardman, D. R.

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

  Donovan, T.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Harrison, J.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hicks, G.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Durbin, E F. M.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Buchanan, G.

  Dye, S.

  Holman, P.

  Burden, T. W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

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

  Edelman, M.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Callaghan, James

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelty)

  Hoy, J.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Hubbard, T.

  Champion, A. J.

  Edwards, N. (CaerphillY)

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

  Chater, D.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G R.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  1739

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  O'Brien, T.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Stokes, R. R.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Strachey, J

  Janner, B.

  Orbach, M.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Stross Dr. B.

  John, W.

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Keenan, W.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Kenyon, C.

  Pearson, A.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Kinley, J.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Perrins, W.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Lang, G.

  Poole, Maj. Cecil (Lichfield)

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Lavers, S.

  Popplewell, E.

  Thurtle, E.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Tiffany, S.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Timmons, J.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Price, M. Philips

  Titterington, M. F

  Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Tolley, L.

  Levy, B. W.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Lewis, T (Southampton)

  Pursey, Cmdr H.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Lindgren, G. S

  Ranger, J.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Logan, D. G.

  Rankin, J.

  Usborne, Henry

  Lyne, A. W.

  Reid, T (Swindon)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  McAdam, W

  Rhodes, H.

  Viant, S. P.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Richards, R.

  Walkden, E.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Walker, G. H.

  Mack, J. D.

  Robens, A.

  Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Watson, W. M.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Weitzman, D.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Royle, C.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  McLeavy, F.

  Scollan, T.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A A.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mallalieu J. P. W

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Marquand, H A.

  Shinwell, Rt Hon. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Marshall F. (Brightside)

  Shurmer, P.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Medland, H. M.

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Messer, F.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Simmons, C. J.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Williamson, T.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Willis, E.

  Monslow, W.

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Moody, A S

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wilson, J. H.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Smith H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wise, Major F. J

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

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

  Woodburn, A

  Mort, D. L.

  Smith, T (Normanton)

  Woods, G. S.

  Moyle, A

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Yates, V. F.

  Murray, J. D.

  Solley, L. J.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Nally, W.

  Sorensen R. W.

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

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

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Zilliacus, K.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Stamford, W

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

  Steele, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Stephen, C

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Hannan

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  De la Bide, R

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Bennett, Sir P

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Birch, Nigel

  Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)

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

  Bowen, R

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hurd, A.

  Bower, N.

  Eccles, D M.

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Erroll, F. J.

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

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Byers. Lt.-Col. F.

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

  Jennings, R.

  Carson, E.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

  Challen, C.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Clarke, Col. R. S

  Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Gridley Sir A.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

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

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Law, Rt Hon R. K

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Haughton, S G.

  Lennox Boyd, A T

  1740

  1741

  Linstead, H. N.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Osborne, C.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Pitman, I. J.

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

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

  Teeling, William

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Touche, G. C.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Turton, R. H.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Manningham-Buller, R E.

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

  Wadsworth, G.

  Marples, A. E.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Maude, J. C.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Medlicott, F.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Smith, F. P. (Ashford)

  York, C.

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

  Snadden, W. M.

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

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Nicholson. G.

  Spence, H. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

  Question put accordingly, "That the The House divided: Ayes, 139; Clause be read a Second time." Noes, 311.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Charitable subscriptions, etc.)
  It shall be lawful for the Board to continue to make any subscriptions, donations or payments of any kind made by any colliery concern prior to the primary vesting date for any religious, charitable, educational or recreational purpose, and it shall also be lawful for the Board to make any subscriptions, donations or other such payments as aforesaid at any time for all or any of the said purposes.—[Captain Crookshank.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Captain Crookshank.]
  Colonel Lancaster (Fylde):I will not detain the House for long on this matter. The object is to draw attention to something which was discussed in Committee and to which the Minister gave a sympathetic ear. This is to make it possible for the Board to continue with subscriptions which at present are undertaken by colliery concerns. I raise the matter with particular regard to the position of ministers of religion. Very often, where villages have grown up as a result of mining activities, and have become of such a size that the stipend of the minister has been quite inadequate, colliery concerns have made arrangements to increase that by way of additional stipend or by helping the minister with the education of his children. It has been a common practice. I hope that the Government will recognise that these payments in the aggregate will amount to a very small outgoing and it is something which is in the general interest. This suggestion would make arrangements to enable the Board legally to carry on these matters.
  Mr. Shinwell:I was very anxious on the Committee stage to assist the hon.
  1746
  and gallant Member in making such arrangements as would be necessary in order to continue the subscriptions and donations made by colliery undertakings, and presumably by the ancillary undertakings, to religious, charitable, educational and recreational activities. I looked into the matter, but I am advised that in the majority of cases there would be no risk of the Board being successfully challenged if it decided to continue these subscriptions. It appears to me that is all that is required. In any event, the wording of the proposed Clause is unsatisfactory. I agree that might be corrected at a later stage, but in view of the advice I have received, it does not seem to be necessary to proceed with this Clause. There is a difficulty in interpreting what is charity. I am afraid that would give rise to difficulties.
  In regard to recreation and welfare, as is well known, many colliery undertakings provide recreational facilities for employees in the form of football fields, cricket pitches, and, in some cases, tennis courts and so on. Naturally, these will be taken over by the Board. I hope there will be no difficulty and I shall encourage in every way I can the taking over of these facilities because they promote well-being in the industry. It is expected that these will be transferred and utilised as at present. Of course, education is not a matter for the National Coal Board, but in so far as educational activities comprise activities undertaken by the Miners' Welfare Committee in respect of miners' scholarships, and the like, these will be continued under the provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for the continuance of the Miners' Welfare Fund and it will come now under the direction

  1747
  of the Minister. I propose to do all I possibly can so long as I remain in office to encourage educational and recreational facilities. Therefore, in all the circumstances, I am sorry that I cannot comply with the request of the hon. and gallant Member. I am in full sympathy with him. I think, however, it is quite sufficient if we are assured that it is within the competence of the Board to continue such activities.
  Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley):Does this mean that the contributions towards the maintenance of churches and chapels in all the colliery districts will now be eliminated entirely? I hope this matter is looked into very carefully and that we are not going to eliminate the Christian ideal.
  Mr. Shinwell:By no means. It is not my intention that there should be any cessation of donations provided by existing colliery undertakings to religious organisations. The National Coal Board can continue those donations if they think fit, provided it comes within the scope of their general powers. They have general powers but they are limited by the considerations respecting the conduct of the industry itself. Where the promotion of religious, educational, recreational or welfare activities is of advantage in regard to the organisation of the industry, I am advised that the National Coal Board can continue to make the contributions.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:It is typical of our proceedings in this House that we pass so rapidly, like an April day, from shadow to sunshine and from darkness to light. I think it very happy and appropriate that charity should now be the subject of our discussions. I am pleased with what the Minister has told us with regard to the charities he has in mind. I would like to press him a little further. It seems we are all agreed on the purpose. I understood him to say he did not think the Board could be challenged if they did in fact maintain the subscriptions which are now being paid to religious or other institutions for the benefit and welfare of the miners and their families and the district as a whole. Did the Minister mean they could not be challenged by the auditors, or that they could not be challenged by some member of the public bringing a challenge in that sense? I would be very grateful if
  1748
  he could tell us under what Clause he thinks it would be within the power of the Board to make this kind of contribution. Of course, it may be that, under Clause 1 (4), where the advancement of the safety of the persons employed is concerned, it could be done, but safety there would have to be considered as spiritual safety as well as material safety.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell:Under Clause 1 (3).
  Mr. Macmillan:If that is the case, and there is a clear legal provision that this can be carried out under Clause 1 (3), I would be satisfied, but I think I also understood the Minister to say that not only had they power to carry out that sort of thing, but it was their purpose to carry on the subscriptions which were, in fact, being made, or to add to them or change them in accordance with what appears to be the needs; in other words, they could carry on the ordinary functions that had been carried on in respect of these matters.
  Mr. Shinwell indicated assent.
  Captain Crookshank:May we have that confirmed? Might not the learned Attorney-General now join in the general reconciliation? I understood the Minister to say that this power was inherent in Clause 1 (3). That is the point on which I would like the confirmation of the Attorney-General, because all that Clause 1 (3) says is:
  "The Board shall have power to do anything . . . which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their duties under Subsection (1)."
  Subsection (1) does not seem to me to have anything in the world to do with this case. It is concerned with working and getting coal, securing the efficient development of the coal mining industry and making supplies of coal available.
  Mr. Shinwell:I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has referred to Subsection (1). I mentioned Subsection (3) of Clause 1.
  Captain Crookshank:That is exactly the one on which I want the learned Attorney-General to advise us. Clause 1 (3) says, leaving out unnecessary words:
  "The Board shall have power to do any thing . . . which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their duties under Subsection (1)"
  Mr. Shinwell:Read on.
  Captain Crookshank:
  "or the carrying on by them of any such activities as aforesaid, or is incidental or conducive thereto."
  The Attorney-General:I am very glad to be able to take a small and modest part in this move from the ridiculous to the sublime. I think the Clause is wide enough. The same sort of problem arises in the case of companies having particular powers under their articles or memoranda of association to carry on a particular business, and the courts have always construed this power very widely in the matter of subscriptions to charitable organisations and that sort of thing. I think the view to take here, and the view that the courts would take, or the auditors if it arose as a matter for the auditors, is that it is conducive to the conduct of the Board's primary functions, getting coal and the rest, that they should contribute to charities which in their opinion are likely to promote the efficiency, happiness and well-being of the class of people from whom their employees are drawn. I think we have exactly the same kind of problem in the case of the Board, as in the case of any existing colliery company, and I do not think that the matter is more in doubt in the case of the Board, than in the case of the existing companies. There must, of course, be some limit, and the courts would eventually impose some limit on the purposes for which
  1750
  the money is expended, but the ordinary purposes which the new Clause has in view, and to which existing companies are directing their benevolence are within the powers of the Board.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson:Is not the difficulty the fact that they will fall to be decided by the bodies running the individual collieries or groups of collieries, who would undoubtedly require some sort of central directive before they decided the matter? The purpose of the new Clause, as I understand it, is to give that permissive directive. Will the Minister himself give that directive, and say that he is anxious that the spiritual, as well as the worldly, welfare of the employees should be cared for? I think the point needs clearing up.
  Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock):I hope I understand this Clause correctly, but I am very anxious that false expectations should not be raised. Some of us have been disappointed because, under the Bill, we have not been able to deal directly with the problem of churches and institutions, as well as homes, which have been destroyed by subsidence. I understand from the learned Attorney-General that this now comes within the powers in this Bill, and that a grant could be given to a mining village, for example, to rebuild an institute or church, or even a miner's cottage, which has been pulled down because of subsidence.
  Mr. Gallacher:I ask the Minister to use very great care in the directions he gives to the Board in this matter. I do not like the proposed new Clause. I know that the miners are paying a political levy in order to get rid of the landowners and capitalists in this country, but we often get churches presenting a form of teaching that used to be very common, though they are rather more discreet and not so open about it now. It was about "the rich man in his castle and the poor man at the gate." [Laughter] I do not remember the words. Obviously, it would be wrong if the people representing the interests of the miners, who wanted to get rid of all this "high and lowly" stuff, were, at the same time, subsidising propaganda efforts of that kind. I think the Board would do much better to subsidise the local Communist propaganda.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor (Mansfield):Has the Minister any information about the

  1751
  amount of money that would be involved if this Clause were approved?
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
  Miss Jennie Lee:Can I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Have I to vote on this Clause without having the Minister's reply?
  Mr. Speaker:The Clause has been negatived.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of moneys for research.)
  (1) The Board shall set apart out of its revenues the sum of £3,000,000 during each financial year to be used in consultation with the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Council, for the promotion of—

  the invention or development of any invention or scientific discovery likely to be of benefit in the working, getting, making saleable, and utilisation of coal and the production, distillation, manufacturing, treating and making saleable of any products of coal;

  the alleviation and improvement of working conditions in the coal mining industry; and

  research in the causation, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of physical illness and disability amongst persons employed in the coal mining industry.—[Captain Crookshank.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Captain Crookshank.]
  Colonel Lancaster:This Clause raises a matter of general interest which has, of course, a number of aspects, and I am sure that hon. Members on both side of the House will want to express their views in regard to it, particularly on the matters of health and safety and, also, of scentific research. For the present I confine myself to the matter of technical research which is included in this new Clause. Here, again, the matter was discussed in Committee and, on that occasion, the Minister said that we were pushing against an open door. I feel sure that he is sympathetic to the purposes of this Clause. However, some benefit may be obtained from a discussion this evening in regard to it, and there are one or two aspects of technical research to which I would like to draw attention.
  We have mentioned a sum of money—which, of course, embraces all these
  1752
  various activities—not with a view to limiting the activities of the Board or the Minister in this regard, but because we thought it necessary to specify a sum which is, possibly, not inadequate in the first instance. So far as technical research is concerned, very often no very great amount of money is expended; it is often more a matter of the individual expenses of the people who carry out the various investigations. Of course, those people who should concern themselves with technical research must, essentially, be practical men. The Minister mentioned upstairs that he proposed putting Sir Charles Ellis in charge of this aspect of the Board's activities. I hope he will do nothing of the sort. Sir Charles Ellis, no doubt, is the appropriate person to deal with scientific research, but technical research must inevitably come under the purview of the technically minded men on the Board. If research is to be of a practical nature, it must be carried out on the pit level by mining engineers, enginewrights, electricians and by all those concerned, and, by no means least, by the men themselves. They have a very real contribution to make in this regard and, very frequently, they have given evidence of their ability to do so. As the Minister is well aware, all sorts of research activities are going on at present, and I seriously suggest that, however important these may have been in the past, they are becoming increasingly important because, if we are to have anything like the reduction in the selling price of coal that is desired, it will be due, in great measure, to such technical improvements of an immediate nature rather than the more long-term aspect of the general reorganisation envisaged in the report.
  7.15 p.m.
  I would like to stress, for a moment, the international importance of technical research. We must recognise that such research, if it is to be valuable, cannot in any sense be confined to what we do in this country. About a fortnight ago, I went to see a very interesting film of mine machinery. I arrived in the dark and when the lights went on I was encouraged to see, not only a very ample supply of liquid refreshment laid out for us, but a number of hon. Members of the party opposite who had also gone to see the film. For a few minutes we had the advantage of the views of a very pro-

  1753
  minent member of the Miners' Federation on what we had seen and he expressed a very sturdy, but, I thought, rather nationalist, outlook on British technical abilities and, indeed, on the efficiency of British mining machinery. It would have been a little more convincing if he had been aware that both the machines which we had been witnessing that afternoon were of foreign make. He was looking at a pneumatic pick, which I had seen produced in Belgium in 1937 and which was subsequently copied in this country, and a scraping conveyor which had come straight from the United States. The trade of coalmining is one which is carried out all over the world, and there is a close affinity between all its technical problems. I hope that the Board will be encouraged to make their researches as wide as possible, not only on the Continent, but in the United States as well. I am inclined to go so far as to suggest that the more arrangements we can make for our technicians or, indeed, for men at every level of coal production, to visit and study methods abroad, the wiser we shall be.
  Fifty years ago it was the normal thing for an individual taking his final certificate to spend some time abroad. At that time, such people usually went to the Pas de Calais coalfields. I hope that, as soon as arrangements can be made, every encouragement will be given to our technical men, not only to visit those countries engaged in mining practice, but also to spend some time in studying their methods and applying them to our own problems. Research, after all, is not a very spectacular thing. It is the result of steady, hard work over a period of time by people devoting the whole of their mental energies to the particular problems with which we are confronted. I hope the Board will spread their net very widely in this matter and that they will farm out among the various undertakings particular problems on which it is desirable to have research.
  Sir P. Hannon:If I may interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend for a moment, I would like to ask whether the sum mentioned in the proposed new Clause is supplementary to the amount already provided by Parliament through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
  Mr. Hale:On a point of Order. As some hon. Members wish to take part in
  1754
  the Debate, could we hear this private conversation?
  Sir P. Hannon:I am sorry if I did not make myself audible to the hon. Member opposite. I did not know what had happened upstairs in Committee, and I asked my hon. and gallant Friend whether the amount suggested in the new Clause was supplementary to the sum already provided by Parliament through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which we know already enjoys considerable support in this House.
  Colonel Lancaster:The sum which we have put down in the proposed new Clause is additional to any other grants made by Parliament, but we do not want to be dogmatic about the amount we have specified. We had to put down something, and the sum mentioned is, possibly, a shot in the dark. In the first instance, it may be adequate or not, and at some later stage it may be desirable to increase or reduce it. Generally, we feel that this matter of research, particularly in the technical field, is one over which we must spread our net as widely as possible; we must embrace as much foreign practice as is feasible, and we must recognise that our ability to cut costs while maintaining wages at their present level, and, indeed, increasing them, and maintaining a general high standard of production will be more dependent on our ability to carry out practical research than any other direction in which the Board's activities may take place.
  Colonel Clarke:I hope the Minister will see fit to accept this new Clause. In any case, I hope he will give some answer to two points which I wish to raise. As he will see in this proposed new Clause, we presume that research will be the function of the Board and not of the Ministry. We would like to know whether that is the Minister's intention. At present there is a very great variety of authorities dealing with research, such as the Ministry of Fuel and Power and other Government Departments, colliery undertakings, distributors, manufacturers of appliances, and certain associations which are held jointly by one or other of those four. A good many people are anxious to know what is to be the position in the future, who is to find the money for research and whether research is to be carried out under the Ministry or the Board. That

  1755
  brings me to my second point, namely, what is to be done in the sphere of promoting economy in the use of fuel. It is believed in some quarters that there is tremendous scope for economy. I have heard the need for economy put as high as 35,000,000 or 40,000,000 tons. If we had that amount of economy today, we would be able to start our exports again on the same level as they were in 1939. I hope this proposed new Clause will be accepted, but in any case, when the Minister replies I hope he will clear up the points I have mentioned and, in particular, say whether the Ministry or the Board is to be responsible for research. I believe one or other should be, and it should not be run jointly between them.
  Mr. Hale:The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has initiated this discussion with moderation and knowledge. If his object in bringing it before the House was purely that of initiating a discussion on this exceedingly important matter, I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to him for doing so. If, on the other hand, his object was to make a serious addition to the Bill, I think the Clause as drafted may need a little more careful consideration, and I propose to accord it that consideration, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. May I, first of all, make what appears to me to be an observation of considerable importance? The object of the industry in the past has been profit making. There has been a good deal of emphasis in this Debate on the suggestion that the object of a nationalised coal industry should be the production of coal. We on this side of the House believe that the primary object of any industry is not merely production but the provision of safe, continuous, full and well remunerated employment for the persons working in the industry. It may be right to consider what has happened in the past. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) expressed a sentiment. He is entitled to do so because he is one who has advocated measures of reform in the past, including the primary measure of the nationalisation of the coal industry, but it may be well to look at what has happened in the past to get a picture of the amount of work that was done, particularly in the field of medical research.
  1756
  In 1938, the last full prewar year, 858 miners lost their lives by accident arising from their employment. That does not include those who paid the heavy initial toll of disease. In 1938, 3,157 miners were seriously injured and over 131,000 received injuries which incapacitated them for three days or more. That last figure, unfortunately, has not decreased but has increased, and in 1944 reached the appalling figure of approximately 175,000 out of the comparatively small number then employed in the industry. Those of us who have spent our lives in mining towns and who have been associated with the mining industry have spent years handling the tragedies of industrial disease which needed no research to prevent, and many of which are preventable in decent working conditions. With regard to nystagmus, it has been my unfortunate position to be associated with some of the dreadful decisions which have been given in the courts in connection with this disease, in particular with the discussion as to whether the disease is primarily due to an idiopathic susceptibility or to the dreadful conditions of work. In 1938 and long after, men have been obliged to crawl on their knees along 100 yards to the coal face, with a height of two feet or two feet six inches in which to work, and to spend the whole of their days on their knees and lying sideways with a pick, in damp conditions. It does not require research to establish the cause of disease, accidents and damage to limb which these men have sustained in the course of their duty. Of course, there has been effective research, and the Reid Report itself has exposed the great need for reorganisation in the mining industry, not merely for the production of coal or the making of profits but to make reasonably safe employment for the workers.
  I do not dissent from one word which the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde said as to the need for continuous research, industrial as well as medical, and of the importance which he attached to the matter. But if we are to be challenged to insert in this first Bill for nationalising an industry, a compulsory levy of £3 million upon the prospective profits of the industry and earmarking them for a specific purpose, it is right and proper that we should consider what has been done in the past, and consider the nature of the association whom it is proposed primarily to endow with the responsibili-

  1757
  ties of this research. I hope in the few remarks I have to make that no one will suspect me in any way of derogating from the Medical Research Council or the Association for Industrial and Scientific Research, who have done a very great work with a limited income, and which was limited because hon. Members opposite were not willing to give to them the financial provision which was essential for the development of industrial research into these vital matters. I would like to make a passing reference to the cotton industry, because it has a close association with coal. In the coal industry we have silicosis, anthracosis, pneumoconiosis, and so on. In the cotton industry, in the town in whose representation I have the honour to share there are scores of thousands of people permanently crippled by byssinosis which is a preventable disease in decent industrial conditions with modern machinery.
  7.30 p.m.
  We know something of these matters. What provision has been made in the past by hon. Members opposite? I have the report of the Medical Research Council for the last prewar year. Lest there be any misunderstanding on this matter, let me make it quite clear that the functions of the Medical Research Council are not limited to investigating industrial disease. They cover the whole wide sphere of medical research from tuberculosis to beri-beri, from entomology to endocrinology, pathology, biochemistry, physiology, bacterio-chemistry, and so on.
  I could reel off a score of different subjects which they are charged with investigating and which are, for this matter, of vital importance to the community. A Conservative Government, in the height of their power, thought that a sum, not of £3,000,000 for one purpose, but for all those purposes of £265,000 a year, of which £70,000 was earmarked for the erection of the new building at Mill Hill for the research centre. If we are to refer to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, to which the new Clause refers, it is well that we should try to find out what was the financial provision made in prewar years for the type of research envisaged by hon. Members opposite. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research had as subsidiaries, or as associated bodies, two bodies only which had any connection whatever with medical, research——
  Mr. Speaker:The scope of this new Clause does not entitle hon. Members to go into the whole history of the Scientific and Industrial Research Department or the Medical Research Council. The new Clause only refers the matter to them. We are wasting time by going into the past, whether it be good or bad.
  Mr. Hale:The short point I wish to make is that if it is proposed to pay these two associations, or for them to have under their control, the sum of £3,000,000, it is right and proper that the House should consider the amount which was expended for these two purposes in the last prewar year in order that we can judge whether £3,000,000 is the appropriate figure or not.
  Colonel Lancaster:With respect, the new Clause does not propose to do anything of the sort. It only says "in consultation with" these two bodies. This is a sum to be spent by the Board or the Minister, on behalf of the whole field of research in regard to this industry.
  Mr. Hale:The course I will adopt, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, is to give the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde the only information at my disposal as to the amount which was being expended in 1938 in this country on this type of research. If he can mention any other bodies engaged in that research no doubt the House would be pleased to hear about it. The association to which I refer, the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, was only registered in April, 1938, and expended on coal industry research a sum of £28,000 in a year.
  Colonel Lancaster:This is entirely wrong. The research was carried on in this industry at great expense for a great many years. We cannot get down to the amount apportioned to particular bodies in this respect.
  Colonel Clarke:Out of the penny a ton welfare levy over £4,000,000 was spent on health research up to the time of the war.
  Mr. Hale:Might I ask the hon. and gallant Member what happened to that penny a ton levy under the last Government? I would point out that the levy to which he refers was a levy on the coal industry imposed by the Government in accordance with the report of the Sankey Commission, which recommended

  1759
  nationalisation and which hon. Members opposite——
  Mr. Speaker:We are now getting a long way beyond the scope of the new Clause.
  Mr. Hale:If I may say so, with respect, I entirely agree. The only point I wish to make on that is that the British Colliery Owners Research Association spent £15,884 in a year on industrial medical research within the industry. I do not suggest for a moment that there may not have been others, but those are comparable figures. The only other matter that remains for consideration in this connection is whether it is necessary to have this amount, or whether the Bill contains the necessary powers for that purpose. If the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) refers to Clause 1 (2, f) he will find that the functions of the Board specifically provide for:
  ". . . their assisting the provision by others, of facilities for training, education and research."
  If he refers to Subsection (4) of that Clause he will see:
  "The policy of the Board shall be directed to securing consistently with the proper discharge of their duties under Subsection (1) of this Section—
  (a) the advancement of the safety of persons in their employment and the promotion of their health and welfare."
  In my respectful submission, that covers the whole purpose of this new Clause, without making any specific financial provision. In conclusion, I extend this offer to hon. Members opposite. If this new Clause is not moved merely for debating purposes, but represents their serious contribution, their serious change of heart in this matter, and their serious desire to advance the cause of research, then I will pledge myself to this extent. The sum of £3,000,000, they say, represents approximately 20 to 22½ per cent. of the prewar profits of the coal industry. I am sure they would not desire to shackle the new national industry with this burden in contradistinction to that of other industries. If they would approve of the Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing a Bill to provide that a burden to that extent shall be placed on all industries in the country, and provision shall be made to the tune of 20 to 22½ per cent. of the profits of all industries in the country for the advancement of research in industry
  1760
  and in medical matters, then I will pledge them my support.
  Mr. M. Philips Price (Forest of Dean):I think this new Clause needs the consideration of the House. With other hon. Members on both sides of the House I have put my name to an Amendment further down on the Order Paper, which covers very much the same kind of ideas as those in the new Clause. With your approval, Mr. Speaker, I will speak to both that Amendment and this new Clause, because it covers very much the same ground. The object of the Amendment down in my name together with other hon. Members—in Clause 1, page 2, line 18, to leave out "and research," and to insert:
  "(g) participating in the conduct of a joint organisation set up by the Minister for the purpose of promoting and co-ordinating scientific research and development related to the working and getting of coal, the treatment of coal, the manufacture of products and derivatives of coal, the efficient utilisation of coal and coal products, and the safety and health of persons employed in or about coalmines or in connection with any colliery activities; and the Board may contribute to the expenses of such organisation in any year a sum not exceeding the produce of a levy of sixpence per ton of coal raised during the year."
  —was to ascertain the intentions of the Minister in regard to the organisation of coal and fuel research. In Clause 1 (2 f) there is at the end just one reference to research. Along with a whole lot of other matters concerning training and education there are the words "and research." We felt that was, by itself, not really enough, and we would like to know what the Minister has in mind. It is true that in the Debate on the Money Resolution the Minister said he wished the Coal Board to take an active part in research generally. On the other hand, although I was not a member of the Committee, I understand he did there say that he thought the question of fuel efficiency and coal utilisation should be outside the scope of the Board. In other words, the Board should only concern itself with scientific research on production.
  I suggest that it is undesirable to place a limitation of that kind upon the scientific research work of the Board. I see no reason at all why the scope of inquiry should not be very much wider. All enterprising private concerns which have anything to do with mining, or fuel of any kind, con-

  1761
  duct their researches, not only into the method of production but into the method of utilisation as well. That is extremely important today. Our industrial efficiency will depend upon the supply of cheap fuel, whether it be liquid, like oil, or coal. Moreover, it will depend also on efficient fuel utilisation. It has been proved on many occasions that the utilisation of coal in this country is very inefficient, in that only 70 per cent. of its available energy is actually used industrially, while 30 per cent. is wasted. That is a very serious matter; in view of our general industrial and economic position in the world today, and of the necessity to keep up our export trade and hold our own in the industrial battle of the world for foreign markets, it will be a matter of the utmost importance. Our coal is much more difficult to get than it was in the days of our fathers and grandfathers, and we have no coal near the surface ready to work as the Americans have. We must, in other words, see that the coal that is produced with so much blood and sweat and labour is to the utmost advantage.
  Then, too, we have to see in what new methods and processes we can make use of the coal that we have got. There is, in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, ample opportunity for carrying on this work. It needs money, as hon. Members have said, and, of course, the Coal Board by itself cannot do this; I am not suggesting that it should. I am suggesting that the Coal Board, with its experience and financial resources, should contribute to a general research institution engaged in this very important, wide scheme of inquiry into both the production and the utilisation of coal. For that reason, I am glad the hon. Member has moved this new Clause, and I hope the Minister will consider the Amendment on the same subject which is down in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:On a point of Order. Merely for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, would you be able to inform us whether you propose to call the Amendment to which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) referred or whether we had better discuss it along with this new Clause?
  Mr. Speaker:I had not proposed to call that Amendment and I think it would
  1762
  be more convenient if we took the two together.
  Mr. Shinwell:Hon. Members who were associated with the proceedings in Committee upstairs are well aware of my interest in matters of research, and indeed, I have indicated that interest, both in regard to coal and in other directions, in this House over a long period of years. Way back in 1924, when I was fortunate enough to be Secretary for Mines, and again towards the end of the period of office of the second Labour Government, I did all that was possible—and there were many difficulties in the way—to extend research in respect of fuel utilisation, safety and the like. My hon. Friend and other Members who have spoken, therefore, are pushing at an open door. It is a question of ways and means, it is a question of approach; the principle is accepted. Indeed, research must be an essential part of the reorganisation of the mining industry.
  7.45 p.m.
  There are, however, different types of research. There is research into safety in mines, and as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) pointed out, that is a very important and vital consideration affecting the lives and wellbeing of those who are employed in the industry. There has been a great deal of research in the past in that connection, but much more should be undertaken in order to provide congenial, healthy and safe occupations for those who work in the industry, particularly underground. As regards research into safety in mines, the question arises as to who shall be charged with the responsibility of promoting and undertaking such activity. This is a matter which has been the subject of controversy in the past, and the question has been posed as to whether such research activities should be undertaken by the industry or by the Ministry. Obviously, some measure of research must be undertaken by the industry. The mine manager, at present, in the past and in the future under the National Coal Board, is primarily responsible for the safety of the men under his supervisioin. That must always be so and, therefore, some measure of research into safety in mines must be the responsibility of those concerned with the organisation of the industry. Consequently, the National Coal Board will in a large measure be responsible.

  1763
  Equally, the Ministry must be answerable for research matters affecting the lives and wellbeing of the persons employed in the industry, because the health and safety of the mine workers is a matter of public interest. It affects production, for one thing, and there are other considerations involved. Besides, the Minister is answerable to Parliament, and questions will be raised in Parliament, and consequently it is my view that, while some part of the research must be undertaken by the National Coal Board, the other part must be undertaken by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and provision is, therefore, made in the Bill for that purpose. As regards technical research, this is a matter primarily for the industry. The very fact of reorganisation implies technical research. It is impossible to prepare the layout of new pits or coalfields without undertaking research on a very extended scale and, indeed, research is going on all the time—geological, geophysical, and research of varying kinds. That must, of course, continue. There is research, for example, into the nature of the plant to be used in the production of coal, and into the subject of haulage—a very vital factor in the reorganisation of the industry, because it is useless to instal even the most modern machines at the coalface unless haulage arrangements are of the requisite character. Research of that kind is essential; research into the provision of the right kind of props and timber, in order to support the roof and protect the lives of the men, in addition to revitalising production—all these are matters which must be undertaken by the industry itself.
  As regards research into utilisation, the industry must undertake some activity there, for example, as regards the cleaning and grading of coal, which is extremely important in producing the right quality to satisfy consumers, industrial and domestic. In particular, in order to expand our export activities, it is very essential that we should have the right cleaning and grading methods and the most modern forms of washing coal and the like, in order to assure ourselves that coal is being placed on the market with the greatest possible amount of satisfaction to the ultimate consumer. The subject of ash content, which has been referred to—I think by the hon. Member
  1764
  for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price)—requires very active consideration and research, and to some extent that is being undertaken at present, although much more requires to be done. But with respect to the utilisation of coal generally over the whole field, that must be linked—I ask hon. Members to note this—with the ultimate intention of the Government in respect of our nationalisation proposals. We are nationalising coal now. We propose to nationalise electricity; we propose to nationalise gas. When we have achieved those tasks it will be the duty of the Ministry to coordinate all forms of fuel and power. Consequently, the Ministry must be held responsible for coordination as regards utilisation in all these industries.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) objected to a statement I was alleged to have made upstairs—I have not got it before me, but I accept what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said—about the appointment of Sir Charles Ellis as scientific member of the National Coal Board. He thought we ought not to leave in the hands of Sir Charles Ellis the question of utilisation; but, obviously, the Board must concern themselves to some extent with the utilisation of the product they take over——
  Colonel Lancaster:What I said, so far as Sir Charles Ellis was concerned, was that the Minister had said that he would be in charge of technical research; and I said technical research, as applied to the technical production of coal, did not come under his purview, whereas the scientific utilisation of coal undoubtedly did.
  Mr. Shinwell:If I did say that he would be responsible for technical research, I must withdraw it, because I certainly did not mean that. Technical research would not come under the scientific member of the Board; it would come under the technical members of the Board, Sir Charles Reid and Mr. Eric Young, and their expert advisers. But there will be much for the scientific member of the Board to do as regards the question of the utilisation of the product. Moreover, we are transferring under this Bill ancillary and subsidiary activities to the Board, coke ovens, carbonisation plant; with all that that implies. Utilisation in a vast scale of activities must be coordinated.

  1765
  There is, also, the subject of research into the health of the miner. I separate that from research into safety measures. There is a distinction. Research into health is a matter that not only affects the miner personally, but affects production. Take, for example, the position in South Wales, where silicosis and pneumoconiosis exist on a vast scale. Fortunately, I am able to say—it has a bearing on the proposition before the House—that as a result of research measures, and preventive and curative measures, we are gradually overcoming the silicosis and pneumoconiosis diseases, which are associated with the presence of dust. Dust suppression methods are now being widely used, and I have reason to believe that, as a result of research, new devices are now being employed, or will shortly be employed, that will be of great advantage to the mine workers in the South Wales coalfield and, indeed, to mine workers in other parts of the country, for example, in Staffordshire, where the pits are very dusty. All that is being undertaken, and that is a matter partly for the Board and partly for the Ministry. There is one other matter to which I must direct the attention of hon. Members. Reference has been made to the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, which is associated with the Mining Association. That organisation may be transferred to the Board. Indeed, all research organisations associated with the existing colliery undertakings will be the subject of transfer ultimately. I think that deals with a point raised by one hon. Member.
  Finally, I do ask the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde to withdraw his Clause, because it is quite impossible for me to accept the proposition which, in effect, means that we must ask the Board to expend £3,000,000 annually. It simply cannot be done. It would hamstring the Board and make it quite impossible for them to proceed. We must leave it to the Board and the Ministry, subject to public opinion on these matters, and to the opinion of those concerned with the industry, which must keep the Board and the Ministry up to scratch in this vital matter of research. A great deal might be said on the subject. I have said, perhaps, much more than I intended to say, but it is a most important topic, and one that affects not only the mining industry, but vitally affects the industrial future of the whole
  1766
  country. Whilst I am very anxious to promote these measures, I am not able to accept the Amendment.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone):I have always felt that it is a great tragedy that all the millions of tons of coal dug up with such hardship, such danger, and such sweat of the brow should, to so great an extent, be wasted in their use when consumed either on the hearth fire or in industry. Any steps which can be taken to make more advantageous use of the coal which is dug up with so much labour, ought to be taken. I think the House will be gratified to know once again the attitude of the Minister towards research in all its forms in the winning of coal and its subsequent utilisation. I know—and I am sure that I speak for other hon. Members on this side of the House—that he will do his utmost to ensure that all possible research will be undertaken, by every means to improve the equipment with which to win coal more easily, to ensure the safety of miners, and to obtain the better utilisation of coal after it has been won.
  The Minister did not say whether he was going to include any further Amendment or any further new Clause in this Bill, and I must say I was not really satisfied that the Bill, as now drawn, will ensure that all these things which the Minister wants, and all of us in all parts of the House want, will be done. I was hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman would make some suggestion, even though he did not accept, the proposal of my hon. Friends on this side, or the later Amendment which was also mentioned. I think these do make a more constructive, a firmer, basis than we have in the Bill for ensuring that research will be carried on in the best possible way for winning coal and for its utilisation afterwards. I must say that in so far as the Minister did not say that he would introduce another Clause or another Amendment he did disappoint me.
  8.0 p.m.
  We do not know what the future holds in store for us. It may be that most intensive research will have to be carried out on gasification of coal. Possibly, by gasification of coal much labour and danger to miners may be avoided. Surely there is a great field for research in this direction? An hon. Member opposite condemned using money on research, and

  1767
  called it a burden on the industry. Surely, devoting 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the profits of an industry to research, is not a burden on an industry? Surely it is the most vital insurance which one can have, ensuring that the industry will become more efficient, that higher wages can be paid to those engaged in it, and that lower prices are charged to the consumer? It is only by research and by economising that we can hope to have cheaper coal for the consumer and higher wages for the miners. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the whole position, with a view to seeing whether it is not possible to strengthen research in all its aspects in regard to the winning and utilisation of coal. We also want research, ensuring that after the coal has been won it will be used and developed in the best and most advantageous way.
  I should be happier if some more specific sum, whether a global sum on royalties or a sum based on the tonnage raised, could be allocated for research, because that would give a target at which to aim. There would be a reserve definitely allocated for research, and there would be no grumbling about money being taken away from the industry. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to include something more definite in the Bill, ensuring that research will be carried on in the way that we want. We are gratified to know that the Minister is determined to ensure that the fullest possible energy is to be put into research in all its various aspects, because if that is not done, this country of ours, which depends so much for its prosperity on this industry, will no longer be a great power in the world. Coal is the basis of our effort, and the basis for the whole of our energies It must be utilised to the best possible advantage, and that can only be done if every possible use is made of research. It is because I believe that to be vital, that I am speaking in this Debate tonight, and that is why my name has been put to one of these Amendments, urging a greater amount of research.
  Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton):I wish to detain the House only a few moments, and I shall confine myself to the not very interesting subject of the way in which research should be organised. It seems to be agreed that we
  1768
  should have research as regards production and utilisation of coal on a scale which has never been contemplated before in this or any other country. An Amendment in the names of hon. Members on this side of the House, and of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), suggests that a joint organisation should be set up by the Minister for the purpose of promoting and coordinating scientific research in relation to the production and utilisation of coal. My right hon. Friend has admitted tonight that research into the utilisation of coal should, in its broader aspect, be inseparable from research into the getting of coal. The two problems cannot be put on different sides.
  I am bound to say that I am not particularly happy, because we find that the Government are doing precisely the same thing as they have done on previous occasions, namely, making responsibility for something which is of colossal importance, such as the coordination of these matters, dependent upon the Minister. One has the feeling that mysterious figures and bodies may be concealed beneath the cloak of officialdom. I for one am terrified of the danger that the first may be cramped by bureaucracy. I suggest that the first principle in planning an industry should be that the planning authority is clearly defined, so that the people depending on the effectiveness of the planning know to whom they can go with their ideas, and people will know to whom they may go for any plans and requests they wish to make for information on the subject. That is the first principle of planning. If we do not plan in the light but plan in the dark, we are surely not fulfilling the purposes for which this Government came into being. I regret that my right hon. Friend is absent. He has fought long and gallantly in the past against the big battalions, and he now leads the big battalions. It would, of course, be ludicrous for either of these proposals to be pressed to a Division. It would merely be inviting a massacre. Personally I think there would be no desire to press for a Division, because one would not get anywhere with it, but I beg the Minister to make it clear that it is not part of Socialism to try to contract the spacious universe into a tiny garden of Ministerial nominees. I ask him to make it plain that we desire the planned coordination of all matters

  1769
  we undertake, and, above all, that this vital question of fuel research upon which the prosperity of this country so largely depends, should be a matter openly known to all concerned, with responsibility clearly put upon the shoulders of persons other than the Minister. Responsibility put on the shoulders of a Minister is a responsibility which it is almost impossible to bring home on any occasion.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:We have very interesting and valuable Debate on this new Clause, which we are discussing more or less in connection with the Amendment to Clause I. I am sure that those who have heard the Minister today, and those who heard him on the Committee stage, are deeply impressed by his grasp of the subject. We discussed this matter at some length upstairs, and I think that today we have had a very interesting restatement of the position as he sees it. I think that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale)—;I am sorry he is not in his place—was unduly scornful, both about the proposed new Clause and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister for Mines (Mr. Grenfell) and other hon. Members, and I thought that he was not quite fair in regard to what has been done in the past. In order to make advances to the future, it is not always necessary to denigrate the past. We have made not inconsiderable advances in this country, and the standard of life to which, on the whole, we have reached is due, in a very large measure, to the energy and enthusiasm of peoples of all kinds, all grades and all classes.
  I was more impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) with his usual moderation and knowledge, and I found myself very largely in agreement with the principles underlying the Amendment to which he referred. Where, I think, the Minister made an important case was this: He pointed out, with perfect truth, that research covers a wide field, and that, as he claimed, the responsibility for certain types must rest with different organisations. He said that, so far as safety is concerned, it must remain with the Minister of Mines, and that, so far as health is concerned, that may be partly with what he calls "the industry" and partly with the Ministry. I am glad that we are still going to call it "the industry." I thought that was regarded as rather an old-fashioned, capitalist sort
  1770
  of term, but it was introduced, in quite a friendly sort of way. Technical research, for the production of coal in its widest form, is again with the Ministry. Everyone agrees with that. Technical research, for the utilisation of coal in the sense of its preparation for sale, comes within the industry; but, in the sense of its utilisation in its other stages—the making of oil and fuels and all the things one gets now from the remote stages of scientific development—that does not come to the industry but to the users of the other industries to which he referred. I thought that he overstated a little this division of functions, and that, from his point of view, he rather understated the advantages, such as they might be, of centralisation of ownership, which appears to be the main purpose of this Bill, and of the Bill which will follow it. At the same time, I think he made a case which commanded my general respect and assent on this question of what must be, so long as the Ministry remains and the whole thing is not handed over completely to the Board, the responsibility of the Ministry, is charged with the health and safety of the people concerned, just as the Home Office is charged with the general responsibility for factory legislation, regarding the health and safety of those workers.
  I also feel that the difference—and it is a very big difference—betweem the Amendment mentioned and the proposed new Clause, which lies in the proposals in the Amendment for a joint organisation, is a point which might well be further considered by the Minister. Perhaps agreement might be reached on the purposes which we had in mind and the purposes which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway had in mind. This question of organisation and management, this division of functions, could, I feel sure, be cleared up with general good will. I do not think that it would be difficult to make an adjustment—it is one of those things which have, to some extent, to be experimental—and I agree with the point that there should be a clear focus on whatever may be the responsibility of the Minister in respect of individual lives. What really is vital, because I know this from some experience, is that the House should adopt the common principle of the proposed new Clause and the Amendment, and say that there should be a certain sum of money, or a certain

  1771
  1772
  definite contribution because when the House of Commons say, "We want £3,000,00O spent, or sixpence a ton spent," that is a great urge, which makes Departments and organisations get on with the job. The important common factor between the Amendment and the proposed new Clause is that, while we propose £6,000,000, they propose sixpence a ton, which, I am informed, at the present output rate, is about £5,000,000 a year.
  8.15 p.m.
  I hope that if the Government cannot accept either the proposed new Clause or the principle underlying the Amendment because of the question of organisation, they will, at least, accept the principle of putting into the Bill a compulsory contribution, either of a sum of money per annum, to start with, or a levy per ton. They should do so in order that the House of Commons, entering on this great new experiment, shall mark its determination that effective and powerful pressure will be laid upon the question of research.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 317.

  Division No. 160.]

  AYES.

  [6.40 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon O.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Astor, Hon. M.

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

  Pitman, I. J

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hurd, A

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Prescott, Stanley

  Beamish Maj. T. V. H.

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

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Bennett, Sir P

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Birch, Nigel

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bower, N.

  Jennings, R.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Carson, E

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Challen, C.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Scott, Lord W.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Linstead, H N

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

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

  Lipson, D L.

  Smith E P. (Ashford)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Spence, H. R.

  De la Bère, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

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

  Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Teeling, William

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marples, A. E.

  Touche, G. C.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Marshall, D (Bodmin)

  Turton, R. H.

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

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Vane, W. M T.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Maude, J. C.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Medlicott, F.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Morris, H. (Carmarthen)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Haughton, S. G.

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

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

  Nicholson, G.

  Willink, Rt. Hon H. U.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  York, C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Nutting. Anthony

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Osborne, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES Mr. Drew and Mr. Studholme.

  1742

  1743

  NOES

  Adams, H. R. (Balham)

  Edelman, M.

  McLeavy, F

  Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelty)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Mainwaring, W H.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Attewell, H C.

  Ewart, R.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Ayles, W. H

  Farthing, W. J.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Fletcher E. G M (Islington, E.)

  Medland, H M

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Follick, M.

  Messer, F.

  Baird, Capt. J

  Foot, M. M.

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Balfour, A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J

  Foster, W (Wigan)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R

  Barstow, P. G.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

  Barton, C

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Monslow, W.

  Battley, J. R.

  Gallacher, W.

  Moody, A. S.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Benson, G.

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Morris, P. (Swansea W.)

  Berry, H.

  Gibbins, J

  Mort, D. L

  Beswick, F.

  Gilzean, A.

  Moyle, A

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Murray, J. D

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Nally, W

  Binns, J.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

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

  Blenkinsop, Capt A

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Blyton, W R

  Grenfell, D R

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

  Boardman, H.

  Grey, C F.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Grierson, E.

  O'Brien, T.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr H W

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Bowen, R.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)

  Oliver, G. H

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Orbach, M.

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

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut J. (Wycombe)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hale, Leslie

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Buchanan, G

  Hardman, D. R

  Pearson, A.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hardy, E. A

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

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

  Harrison, J.

  Perrins. W

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Poole, Maj. Cecil (Lichfield)

  Callaghan, James

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Popplewell, E.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Hicks, G.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Champion, A. J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Chater, D.

  Holman, P.

  Price, M. Philips

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Clitherow, Dr R

  Horabin, T L.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hoy, J.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Cocks, F S.

  Hubbard, T

  Ranger, J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)

  Rankin, J.

  Collick, P.

  Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

  Reid, T (Swindon)

  Collindridge, F

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Collins, V. J.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Richards, R.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Comyns, Dr L.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Robens, A

  Cook, T. F.

  Janner, B.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Cooper. Wing-Comdr. G.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

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

  John, W.

  Robertson, J J. (Berwick)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rogers, G. H R.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Royle, C.

  Cove, W. G

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Scollan, T.

  Crossman, R H S.

  Keenan, W.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Daggar, G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Segal, Dr. S

  Daines, P.

  Kinley, J.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E A A.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kirby, B. V

  Sharp, Lt.-Col, G. M.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Lang, G.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lavers, S.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

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

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt Hon. E.

  Davies, R J (Westhoughton)

  Leslie, J. R

  Shurmer, P.

  Deer, G

  Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Levy, B W

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Diamond, J.

  Lindgren G. S

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Dobbie, W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Dodds, N. N

  Lyne, A. W.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Donovan, T

  McAdam, W.

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Douglas, F. C. R

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Mack, J D.

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

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Dye, S.

  McKinley, A. S.

  Solley, L. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Sorensen R W.

  1744

  1745

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Stamford, W.

  Tolley, L.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Steele, T

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Stephen, C.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Stokes, R. R.

  Usborne, Henry

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Strachey, J.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth)

  Viant, S. P.

  Williamson, T.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Willis, E.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Walkden, E.

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Walker, G. H.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Woodburn, A.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Watson, W. M.

  Woods, G. S.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Weitzman, D.

  Yates, V. F

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Thurtle, E.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Tiffany, S.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Timmons, J.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Hannan.

  Division No. 161.

  AYES

  8.19 p.m

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Jennings, R.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

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

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Lancaster, Col. C G.

  Renton, D.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Bower, N.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Linstead, H. N

  Scott, Lord W.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Lipson, D L.

  Shephard S. (Newark)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Clarke, Col. R S.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Spence, H. R.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Drewe, C.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

  Eccles, D. M.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Teeling, William

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marples, A. E.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Marshall, D (Bodmin)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

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

  Medlicott, F.

  Touche, G. C.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Morrison Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Harris, H. Wilson

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Nicholson, G.

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Haughton, S. G.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

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

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nutting, Anthony

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Osborne, C.

  Willink, Rt. Hon H. U.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

  Peake, Rt. Hon O

  York, C.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Hurd, A.

  Pitman, I. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Sir Arthur Young and

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

  Prescott, Stanley

  Major Conant.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Raikes, H. V.

  NOES

  Adams, H. R. (Balham)

  Balfour, A.

  Bing, Capt. G. H C.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Binns, J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Alpass, J. H.

  Barton, C

  Blenkinsop, Capt A.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Battley, J. R.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Boardman, H.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bellenger, F. J

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Benson, G.

  Bowen, R.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Beswick, F.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

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

  1773

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Harrison, J.

  Paling, Rt. Ho. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Haworth, J.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Buchanan, G.

  Henderson Joseph (Ardwick)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Burden, T. W.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

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

  Hewitson, Capt M.

  Pearson, A.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Hicks, G.

  Pearl, Capt. T. F.

  Callaghan, James

  Hobson, C. R.

  Perrins, W.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Holman, P.

  Poole, Maj. Cecil (Lichfield)

  Champion, A. J.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Popplewell, E.

  Chater, D.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Porter, E (Warrington)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Hoy, J.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Clitherow, Dr. R

  Hubbard, T.

  Price, M. Philips

  Cobb, F. A.

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

  Proctor, W. T.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Collick, P.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Collins, V. J.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Ranger, J.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Rankin, J.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Cook, T. F.

  Janner, B.

  Rhodes, H.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Richards, R.

  Corvedale, Viscount

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

  Ridealgh Mrs. M.

  Cove, W. G

  John, W.

  Robens, A.

  Crossman, R. H S.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Daggar, G.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Daises, P.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Rogers, G. H. R

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Keenan, W.

  Royle, C.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Kenyon, C.

  Scollan, T.

  Davies, Harold (leek)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Scott-Elliot, W.

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

  Kinley, J.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Deer, G.

  Lang, G.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lavers, S.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Dobbie, W.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Dodds, N. N

  Leslie, J. R.

  Shurmer, P.

  Donovan, T.

  Lever, Fl Off. N. H.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Levy, B. W

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Lindgren G. S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Logan, D. G

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Dye, S.

  McAdam, W.

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Edelman, M.

  McGhee, H. G.

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelty)

  Mack, J. D.

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

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Solley, L. J.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Sorensen R. W.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Mcleavy, F.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Ewart, R.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Stamford, W

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Steele, T

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

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stephen, C.

  Follick, M.

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Strachey, J.

  Freeman, Maj J (Watford)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Gallacher, W.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Medland, H. M.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Messer, F.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Gibbins, J

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Gilzean, A.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Gooch, E. G

  Monslow, W.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Moody, A. S.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Thurtle, E.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Morris, H. (Carmarthen)

  Tiffany, S.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mort, D. L.

  Timmons, J.

  Grierson, E.

  Moyle, A.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Murray, J. D.

  Tolley, L.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Nally, W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D (Moss Side)

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

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Usborne, Henry

  Hale, Leslie

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

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Wadsworth, G.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  O'Brien, T.

  Walkden, E.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Walker, G. H.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Orbach, M.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  1774

  1775

  Warbey, W. N.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Woodburn, A.

  Watson, W. M.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Woods, G. S.

  Weitzman, D

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Yates, V. F.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Zilliacus, K.

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Willis, E.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mr. Collindridge and

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Mr. Coldrick.

  CLAUSE I.—(Establishment of National Coal Board and functions thereof.)
  Mr. Gaitskell:I beg to move, in page I, line 14, after "available," to insert "of such qualities and sizes."
  This Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in the Standing Committee. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) who moved an Amendment making various proposals, including, for example, the establishment of an appeals tribunal. My right hon. Friend was not able to accept that particular proposal, but he felt that the point had been established that some reference to quality should be made in the first Clause of the Bill. He realised that it was important that not merely the quantities and the price should be right so far as the consumers were concerned, but that the quality should be right also. I endeavoured earlier this afternoon to emphasise that point when we were discussing a new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). For these reasons, I hope the House will accept this Amendment without further delay.
  8.30 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank:I propose to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept this Amendment, the appearance on the Order Paper of which is entirely due to us. One of the astonishing things that emerged from the proceedings on this Bill was the extraordinary lack of thought given to it, due no doubt to the speed with which it was drafted. The Government were so anxious to get a Bill produced as soon as possible to satisfy the conflicting interests of those people who are behind them that they brought forward for consideration a Bill which had entirely overlooked this point. Anyone else who thought about it would have known it was one of the very first things to be considered. This part of Clause I deals with the duties of the National Coal Board, and very properly lays down in the early stages that their job is to get
  1776
  coal, which we only hope they will get, too; secondly, to secure an efficient development of the industry; and, thirdly, having got the coal and developed the industry efficiently, to make
  "supplies of coal available in such quantities and at such prices as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest."
  That was not really enough, because while quantity and price are useful measures by which to decide whether the public is getting what it wants, it also happens to be the case in this industry—and I daresay in many others that we may have to discuss from time to time in the future—that quality and sizes are also important. A great deal of discussion upstairs was directed to the proposition of the Minister that in future when selling coal far more attention would be given to its chemical or thermal properties, and to get that idea into the Board's mind at all we thought, in the Debates we had, that some reference to quality would be wise. I think that is true, because it does enable a far more scientific method of selling coal to be followed in the future than we have had in the past in this country.
  This is not entirely a new problem, and to assist in the sale of this coal we think that these words should be inserted. We wish, at any rate, to advance along that road which anyone who studies this thing at all profoundly will consider is the right road. It was very odd to leave out any relation to sizes. From the point of view of the public interest it is extremely important that it should be laid down. Under this Clause we set up this Board as a new authority with certain statutory duties, and considering the wide variety of coals and the wide variety of the use of coal—one has only to think of this or that industry or this or that kind of equipment to understand the points—it is highly desirable that we should be able to use coals of various sizes to the best advantage. The whole modern theory of screening coal at the pithead is involved in this proposition. That is why I said

  1777
  it was very strange that in the hurriedly drafted Bill there was no mention about quality and size. Such a thing as that did not escape the notice of my hon. Friends who are very vigilant on all these matters on behalf of the public at large, and they were also able to note it through their own experience, which renders them exceedingly competent to deal with these rather technical points. As a result we did have considerable discussion in the Committee upstairs, and lo and behold, the first Amendment called on the Bill itself as we reach it on the Report stage is one produced by the Minister to meet our wishes and desires. Considering that all along we had the best of the argument and that the Minister has been so generous as to accept our point of view, I hope hon. Members behind me will not divide on this, but accept the advice that I respectfully tender to them of showing to all and sundry that even the Minister, when he sees a good case put up by us, is constrained by force of circumstances to accept it.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris:It is important to determine what is meant by equality in size. I think it would be difficult for the consumer to determine what is meant by these words.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels:When listening to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) I was reminded of a character who, in the reign of George III, put upon his equipage the words, "While I live I crow." I am not sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had any foundation for assuming such wonderful results from the intervention of the Opposition. I believe it is very doubtful what the words mean, or what they will do, and that the Clause without them, having regard to the words "public interest," would be sufficient to achieve anything which the Opposition desired in this matter.
  Colonel Clarke:As one who had the credit of starting this hare, I may say that my idea of quality and size is perfectly simple. Size is well known all through the trade. Sizes vary slightly in different parts of the country, but there would be little difficulty in getting out a standard size for the whole country. Quality is also understood. I said earlier that quality was something which, in war-
  1778
  time, had rather gone by the board. Coal of a great many qualities has gone into one pool, from which people have had to draw. I hope to see the qualities sorted out. In the old days quality was based on a particular pit and seam. I hope it will be based more on some scientific and analytical value, either chemical or thermal, according to whether it is gas or steam coal.
  Mr. E. P. Smith:May I intervene in order to answer the point made by the hon. and learned Member for the otherwise delightful city of Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)? The Bill as it stands makes no mention whatever of quality or size; it merely talks about quantity and price. The Minister, being the tyrant under this Bill, might, for example, choose to export our best and most desirable coal, from the point of view of quality and size, and to foist upon the long-suffering public something which has been picturesquely described by one of my hon. Friends as "Shinwell nuts." I think it is very important that the words "qualities and sizes," referring to coal,
  "as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest "
  should be inserted in the Bill even though they may have no precise legal significance.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Captain Crookshank:I beg to move, in page I, line 16, at the end, to insert:
  "(d) securing that such supplies of coal as may be available shall be supplied without favouring or discriminating against consumers or distributors who are engaged in the same class of trade, business, manufacture or industry, or who require to consume coal of the same physical, chemical or thermal properties and whose consumption or requirements are comparable in amount."
  Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham):This Amendment is one of great importance and is intended to establish the principle that the National Coal Board who are to be the monopoly producers of coal shall sell coal at the same price to any two customers whose circumstances are alike. This is a very well established principle inserted in legislation dealing with monopoly supplies. The Electric Lighting Acts contained stipulations about what is known as undue preference. A public utility company is not allowed to sell electricity at different prices to customers in similar circumstances, and the House will recall that railways are not

  1779
  allowed to charge different rates for the same freight if it is going over the same distance. This is a principle which is so well established that we on this side of the House were astonished not to find it in this Bill. In Committee we asked the Minister why it was not there and we received the somewhat disturbing reply that the Minister wished to have powers to discriminate in selling coal even if it were to two like consumers. His actual words were these:
  "Discrimination may be required. I am using these words deliberately, so that the country should know. Discrimination may be required, if the circumstances warrant it."
  That is a very serious principle to introduce into any Bill. One of the instances of desirable discrimination given by the right hon. Gentleman was in respect of prices for export coal. In that particular case, he said:
  "We want to promote the export trade, and it may be that in given circumstances it will become essential to boost up the export trade, perhaps in an artificial fashion, by stimulating it with financial oxygen which is fortified by the internal trade." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 13th February, 1946; c. 78.]
  It would be interesting to know how the right hon. Gentleman squares that doctrine of subsidised exports with Command Paper 6709, to which the Government have put their name and where, on page 8, they are bound by this principle:
  "Members engaging in State trading in any form should afford equality of treatment to all other members. To this end, members should undertake that the foreign purchases plus sales of their State-trading enterprises shall be influenced solely by commercial considerations such as price, quality, marketability, transportation and terms of purchase or sale."
  Fortunately we now have a Parliamentary Secretary who is known to take a great interest in the principles which underlie the foreign trade, and which accompany——
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont):I think the hon. Member is talking upon the Amendment which was not selected, in page I, line 16, at the end, to insert:
  "having regard in particular to the respective requirements of domestic and industrial consumers, the export trade in coal and statutory undertakers."
  Mr. Eccles:I quite agree that my remarks might be applicable to that Amend-
  1780
  ment, but they are relevant to the one which has been moved. One of the reasons which the Minister gave for desiring to keep the power of discrimination was that he might use it in the export trade. In the present Amendment we are not particularly referring to the export trade, but it does come in. I hope that the difference between the Minister's principle of discrimination and the principle in Command Paper 6709, which I have read to the House, will be rectified. Another reason given for discrimination was that the same type of coal might have to be sold at different prices to different consumers. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary favoured us with one of his rare and interesting speeches on this point. He told us about the miner's coal. We understand that quite well. Miner's coal has to be sold at a different price from that at which it would be sold to the ordinary public, but we are attempting to safeguard the principle that no two miners in a like position could get their coal at different prices.
  If we turn to the industrial field it becomes obvious that the principle of nondiscrimination between like consumers is of great importance. Suppose a brickworks owned by the Minister of Supply, and another brickworks owned by a private enterprise; or two brickworks owned by private enterprise, if that is preferable. I really do not mind which. Or it might be two water companies, one owned by a local authority and the other owned by a private undertaking. The demand for coal in each pair of cases we will suppose is exactly the same. By the Bill, the Minister of Fuel and Power can sell to one organisation at a different price from which he sells to the other. He stated in the Debate upon Clause I that he is quite ready to use his power to discriminate between those two like consumers.
  The argument behind it is one which we have heard quite often from the right hon. Gentleman, namely that it is reasonable that the National Coal Board should be in a position to do everything that one of the old colliery companies might have done. Of course, private enterprise can, and quite often does, discriminate in selling its product between two consumers; but the point is, we are now creating a monopoly. Responsibility grows with power. There will be no

  1781
  choice before the consumer. He will not be able to go to another supplier if he thinks he is having an unfair deal. There will be no redress. Monopoly, as we have known it in the case of the electric power companies and the railway companies, has had to contain safeguards for the consumer. Cable and Wireless is at present a private monopoly. They have a rate which they charge to newspapers, a Press rate, for incoming and outgoing telegrams. Suppose they charged a different rate to newspapers which supported the Government from the rate which they charged to newspapers which opposed the Government. That would be manifestly unfair.
  We seek to put into the Bill words which will make it illegal for any such discrimination as that to take place. The Government are forging an instrument of enormous power in creating this State monopoly. We all recognise that the more powerful the instrument is, the more care we must take that it is not used unjustly as between any two citizens. If we were simply to rest upon the words of the Minister upstairs, we should be afraid that our Amendment would be rejected because he has so definitely said that he desired discrimination, but, fortunately, we have a new Parliamentary Secretary and, fortunately, this new Minister said the opposite yesterday when he was making an eloquent speech upon consumers councils. He spoke as follows:
  "This is one type of complaint they will have: Mrs. Jones will complain that her supplier is discriminating against her and favouring Mrs. Brown down the street. The council hears about that, she says she bas tried to get redress from the supplier, and the council will proceed to investigate." —(OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 1582.]
  Obviously the Parliamentary Secretary considers that discrimination between Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Brown is a bad thing and something which Mrs. Jones can bring to the council to seek redress. That is a ray of light, and we must hope that there will be no Division, because if there is, the Minister will find himself in one Lobby and the Parliamentary Secretary in the other. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this. If the Government turns this principle down, the public must draw the only conclusion; namely, that this monopoly is to be different from the previous type of trading of this kind in that the Minister who is running it
  1782
  deliberately desires to discriminate in selling coal between two consumers whose demands in quality and quantity are the same. That is a thing which we should not allow to happen in this House, because we Members of the House of Commons are the only people who can protect the public against the abuse of monopoly power, and we ought not to allow this Bill to become law unless an Amendment of this kind is accepted and written in the Statute.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft (Monmouth):I rise to support this Amendment. It is one of a number of Amendments which have been moved from this side of the House for the purpose of protecting the consumers of coal against any possible hardship that might come to them owing to certain actions of the State monopoly which this Bill sets up. We make no apology for seeking to introduce Amendments to safeguard the interests of consumers. In this industry, as in many others, the position of the producers of coal is very fully safeguarded. On both sides of the industry there are many big and powerful organisations set up. The consumers have not got that, and it is our job in the House of Commons to see whether we can introduce safeguards for their position. I have heard a number of discussions already on this question of discrimination. What struck me most forcibly was that it did not seem to me that hon. Members opposite fully understood what it was that we were trying to do. It may be because I moved the Amendment on the Committee stage.
  On this occasion we have had the benefit of listening to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and I think no one can have any excuse for not understanding quite fully what was our object after listening to his speech. We do not seek to impose upon the Coal Board the obligation to charge the same price to everybody. That would be a nonsensical obligation to put upon the Coal Board, and nobody suggests that such an obligation should be put upon it. What we do seek is to see that two customers in the same situation should be charged the same price. If, to take an elementary example, you have two brick works—whether publicly owned or privately owned, as my hon. Friend said does not matter a bit—some distance from the colliery using approximately the same

  1783
  amounts of coal and the same quality, then they ought to be charged the same price for the product which they are sold.
  I want to emphasise that this provision is necessary in the Bill. If you have a system of private enterprise in which, if you are dissatisfied with one producer, you can go to another, then you have a very ready safeguard in your own hands. I mean private enterprise in the old sense [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I saw in a section of the Beaverbrook Press this evening, which is always a little favourable to hon. Members opposite——
  Hon. Members:Since when?
  The Attorney-General:He is quite right.
  Mr. Thorneycroft:—a headline saying, "New freedom for shoppers." Apparently now, if you have been dissatisfied with your butcher or grocer for eight weeks, you can change him. That is a great step forward, but quite obviously that is not the sort of freedom which I have in mind. I say that in an ordinary private enterprise system, if you are dissatisfied with a trader, you can go round the corner to another trader and get your wants satisfied there. It is certain, that if you establish a monopoly, you cannot change the producer. There is only one producer. You have none of the safeguards which are given to you under an ordinary private enterprise system. There are advantages in a monopoly, but that happens to be one of the disadvantages of a monopoly and, as my hon. Friend said, this disadvantage of monopolies has been recognised in this House of Commons now for many years. In the Railway Clauses Act provision was made against discrimination, and there are similar provisions in the case of gas or electricity. So far as I know, no responsible politician in any party in this country has ever taken exception to those Clauses, or ever argued against them, and in those circumstances it really seemed a little astonishing to us that no such provision was made in this Bill.
  I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will not put up a lot of skittles which do not exist and start to knock them down. We are not really here concerned with increasing his difficulties, for example, over the export trade. As a matter of fact, nothing in this Amendment would prevent him from charging a different price for exports. If
  1784
  you pay for dollars, it is quite a different situation from paying for sterling. In that case it might quite easily be possible to discriminate. His difficulties there arise from quite different causes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham pointed out. It does not prevent the Board charging, say, a bulk buyer a different price to a man who is buying in tons only, if they so desire to do. It is concerned only with two customers in precisely the same situation, and only in those circumstances should they be charged the same price.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not say, as has been said already, "After all, supposing a customer is dissatisfied, Parliament will be on the tail of the Minister very quickly." We cannot turn this House of Commons into an organisation for haggling over prices with particular customers for particular amounts of coal. We are a body wholly unsuited to such an occupation and, indeed, I think it would be very disagreeable to us if we started to embark upon it and it would really ruin most of our Debates. We have not the time and we are most unsuited to it. The question of the detailed prices of coal in particular circumstances would be much better settled outside. The method by which it should be settled has been established over many years of legislation. Hon. Members opposite have spent many years advocating nationalisation. One would have expected that they should have studied some of the problems of nationalisation. Having at last introduced this great nationalisation Bill, they should have studied one of the elementary provisions which should be introduced in it.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir A. Gridley:During the whole of my business life, I have had to live under Sections and Acts which have prohibited me in my business from discriminating between one like customer and another. For nearly half a century now I have had to keep both eyes wide open on this matter. It pains me to see any Government, in nationalising an industry, proposing, as the Minister does and as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has made clear, to retain the powers to exercise discrimination. The industry to which I refer, the electricity supply industry, has been, as I claim erroneously, described as a monopoly. It is a quasi monopoly, certainly not a

  1785
  monopoly in the ordinary sense of the term; it is subject to competition from gas, oil and so on. Quite rightly in the past, Parliament never passed an Act dealing with gas or electricity which did not put those who were responsible for managing these quasi monopolies, or monopolies, as the case may be, under the restriction which made it impossible for them to discriminate between one customer and another.
  As the Attorney-General will know, there have been cases going through the courts in which one consumer has alleged that he ought to have been given the same price or a more favourable price than a neighbour, and prolonged arguments have taken place to clarify what those discriminatory Clauses mean. The principle is thoroughly well established and understood; there is no difficulty about it. What is astonishing is that the Government, in taking over a great industry like coal, which it has to supply to every industry and to every householder in the country, determines to retain these powers of discrimination. I should have thought that this Government, which claims to know how to govern a country and run one industry after another should be a model of the way in which business should be conducted. It should be the great authority to show to the remaining industries under private control that it is the Government's intention to be scrupulously fair between one like customer and another.
  I hope the Minister, who has listened to these arguments in Committee upstairs, has had time now to think over the erroneous position put forward and that tonight he is going to say that he is ready to abandon the false arguments he used and is prepared to agree that this monopoly which is to be set up should certainly have no powers to discriminate between the price or quality as between one consumer and another.
  Mr. Jennings:I wish to say a few words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have said a few words; I hope that what I have said has been of some interest to somebody and I make no apology for it If some Members are not interested in these matters, we on these Benches are trying carefully to see that the best is being done with this Bill, and that the consumer is getting a fair deal. There is one aspect which will present some
  1786
  difficulty to the Minister if he does not accept this Amendment. A section of the coke oven plants is being taken over under this Bill, while others are not. Those plants which are to be taken over will produce coke. [Laughter.] If some hon. Members opposite would listen they might learn something. We are getting a little used to this bawling now; we have had it for some time. If the Minister will do me the honour of listening to the end of my statement, I think he will agree that coke will be produced in Government plants directly in competition with private enterprise plants. This is a serious matter, and I am sure the Minister appreciates it as such. Is coal to be supplied to the nationalised coke ovens for the production of coke at the same price as that supplied to the independent private enterprise coke ovens? If not, the Government are using a weapon by which they can unfairly put the private coke oven plants out of business. That would be a wrong thing to do, and would be discriminating very wrongly, by means of a monopoly, as the coal industry is to be, against these private enterprise coke ovens. The Minister may be able to satisfy me on this point. It is one which is giving me some concern in the interests of that nondiscrimination which this Amendment seeks. The Minister might give the point some consideration and deal with it, in view of this Amendment.
  Mr. Gaitskell:Once again, I must begin by congratulating hon. Members opposite upon their excellent intentions, or at any rate on the rather spectacular acting, the crocodile tears, and the rest of it, which we have just observed. But I must say that I cannot congratulate them on the way in which they have tried, in this Amendment, to express those intentions, this strong feeling on their part on behalf of the consumers. I do not think this is a question of bad drafting, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will not get up and say, "If it is merely a matter of drafting, you surely accept the principle." It is badly drafted, but that is so, in my opinion, because underneath this proposal there is a fundamental confusion of thought on the part of hon. Members opposite. First I would like to ask whether this Amendment is supposed to suggest that the Board should not favour or discriminate against a whole

  1787
  class of business men or traders, or whether it is intended that the Board should not discriminate as between members of that class? That is not what the Amendment says. It says:
  "securing that such supplies of coal as may be available shall be supplied without favouring or discriminating against consumers or distributors who are engaged in the same class …"
  and that might very well mean—
  Mr. E. P. Smith:"Class of trade."
  Mr. Gaitskell:Certainly. It says:
  "… class of trade, business, manufacture or industry …"
  That might very well mean that the Board should not discriminate, for example, against electricity undertakings as a whole as compared with gas undertakings. However, we can let that pass, though I am assured that that is the case. Let us take the rest of it. It continues:
  "… or who require to consume coal of the same physical, chemical or thermal properties and whose consumption or requirements are comparable in amount."
  In other words, we can leave out the intervening sentence from "who" to "industry." We are then told that the Board must not discriminate simply against those who require to consume coal of the same quality. I have consulted my right hon. Friend on this point and he assures me that that is so. In fact, the "or" in the Amendment really makes nonsense of the whole thing. Let us consider for a moment what the position would be. It might well be that the Board might choose to supply coal more swiftly to a particular ship as compared with another ship. Why? Because the ship was needed urgently to bring supplies to this country. Under this Amendment that would be discrimination, but it would clearly be directly in the public interest that that sort of discrimination should take place. Again, so long as serious shortage exists, it might well be right that the Board should give priority to a particular steel works because, we will suppose, in that particular area there would be otherwise serious danger of unemployment. That would be discrimination according to this Amendment. Again, I suggest to the House that it would be very desirable.
  I will take another point. What exactly is meant by "comparable in amount"? When the hon. Member for Monmouth
  1788
  (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) was speaking on this in the Committee stage, he moved, so to speak, from one position to another, giving way each time. The truth of the matter is that it is a very difficult thing to define discrimination. It is extremely difficult. One could say, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said, "What we mean is consumers who are in a similar position or who are alike."
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft:The hon. Member says I moved from one position to another. I do not know what he means by that. If he is in any difficulty in attempting to define discrimination, I would advise him to get the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the many Statutes in which the word has been defined already.
  Mr. Gaitskell:I am well aware of some of those Statutes. I venture to express the view that they are not so badly drafted as is this particular Amendment. To take the point raised by the hon. Member for Monmouth, I said he moved from position to position, and he did. He was interrupted, I think, by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who asked him what he would do about bulk buying. How much is this to be? Is it to be a continuous sliding scale, or is it to move in jerks? The words "comparable in amount" are so vague that one could get an almost complete "let out." The fact is that it is extremely difficult to define discrimination unless one has precisely similar circumstances, which is a very rare thing. However, I have already given one or two examples where discrimination is clearly desirable—between ships on occasion and between steelworks on occasion.
  9.15 p.m.
  Let us take the case of exports. The hon. Member for Chippenham took the view that any discrimination in the case of charging a higher price for exports than in the case of coal sold in the home market would conflict with the proposals put forward by the Americans, in Command Paper 6709. [Interruption.] Well, it might be higher or lower. The hon. Member quoted from that document:
  "Members should undertake that foreign purchases and sales of their State trading enterprises shall be influenced solely by commercial considerations."
  I suggest that that would not, in any way, relate to either lower or higher prices,

  1789
  as between home and exports. What those words do mean is that one must charge different countries the same price. The same sort of difficulty about interpreting them would arise if this were to be applied in the home market only.
  In any case, my right hon. Friend did not say that we would necessarily charge either a higher or a lower price for exports. All he said was that there might be circumstances in which that would be necessary. So there might be. We do not know, in the first place, whether the American loan will go through. We are certainly not sure whether the proposals in this document will be so widely adopted that we shall be drawn into them. There may very well be circumstances in the future in which we might wish to charge a higher or a lower price for exports, and, with respect, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth when he sees nothing in this Clause to prevent that. There is nothing in the Clause which distinguishes exports from the home market. If we take the second part of the Clause, and the last few lines in particular, why should there not be, for example, an electricity undertaking in France which was consuming coal of the same physical, chemical or thermal properties as one in England? We might wish to charge the French concern more and the English one less. The hon. Member nods his head, and I think he is in agreement with me. If that is the case, this Amendment would prevent us charging a different price for exports. Whether it would prevent us charging a lower price for miners' coal is a question of definition—whether we can call miners a class in "trade, business, manufacture or industry." I should very much doubt whether they fall within those categories, but let us leave the point.
  The next question is this. The hon. Member for Chippenham also referred to the position of those who complained against unfair retail distribution, and he quoted something I said last night. I wonder if hon. Members opposite realise what they are really asking in this Amendment. They are asking that the Board should have imposed upon it a duty to see that no discrimination should take place, even as between one domestic consumer and another. Very well, but we know that the Board, at any rate, to begin with, is not going to take over coal distribution. That is to remain in private
  1790
  hands. How can it carry out such an undertaking? How can it control the coal merchant unless hon. Members opposite wish us to hurry along and nationalise coal distribution? If that is their intention, we naturally take notice of it, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider it, but it is the fact that, without having such control, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the Board can, in fact, prevent discrimination.
  The truth, of course, is that certain types of discrimination are wrong, improper and unfair. We are all agreed about that. Of course, if some official salesman of the Board, because he did not like the face of the manager of a particular steelworks—no, I must not say steelworks, because they will be nationalised before long; I will say of some particular pottery—charged him more than another pottery, because he did not like his face or because the colour of his hair was different, or because they had had an argument about the price, that, of course, would be most improper and unfair, and it would depend on the contract whether it was legal or not. On the other hand, as I have tried to point out, there are occasions when discrimination is perfectly in order. It is necessary, indeed, when it is a question of settling priorities between one type of consumer and another. I have given many examples of that and I hope the point is sufficiently clear. It may be desirable between the export and home markets. In a Bill of this kind, one cannot deal with distinctions like that.
  I am sorry to have to refer once more to the fundamental point that, although we agree that the National Coal Board is a monopoly concerned with the production of coal, nevertheless, it is a publicly owned monopoly. Hon. Members opposite must get out of their heads the idea that it is going to behave in the same way as private monopolies have behaved in the past. It is not; it would not have the same motive for doing so. It is not there to try and get the maximum of profit; it is there to act in the public interest. Once again—I am sorry to have to repeat it, but hon. Members opposite keep coming back to it—I must remind them that safeguards through the Consumers Councils are provided in the Bill. If, in fact, any complaint was put forward by a customer because he thought he was being

  1791
  unfairly treated, he could go to the council who could investigate the matter, and the council would be a very useful body for deciding whether it was fair or unfair. That is the kind of thing which, I suggest, cannot really be laid down in a Bill of this kind. For those reasons, I must ask the House to reject this Amendment.
  Mr. E. P. Smith:In advocating this Amendment, I would like to give the hon. Gentleman and the House one slight analogy from my own personal experience. For many years I have been interested in the management of mills in London. In 1941, these mills, which were worked by means of a supply of electricity, were destroyed by bombing and we had to move. We moved into an area in which was situated one of our principal competitors. There we had to negotiate for a supply of electricity; and we found at once that we were discriminated against. We were charged a much larger rate for the electricity we consumed than were our competitors, who were older inhabitants, just because we happened to come in during the operation of a new system of contract. It made a very considerable difference to our running expenses. Now, we were working entirely under the Ministry of Food; and the Ministry fixed both our costs and our selling prices. Consequently, the question of the rate of our electricity made the whole difference to us between working at a loss and working at a profit. We found it was impossible for us to carry on unless we could get equal treatment with our competitors. Fortunately, as I have said, we were working under the Ministry of Food, and, naturally, we were able to apply a little Ministerial pressure to the electricity company and so avoid the inequitable discrimination. I have adduced this case in order to show the hon. Gentleman the evils discrimination can cause. That, of course, was under private enterprise; but we expect—at least, we have been told ad nauseam—that under nationalisation we shall do a vast deal better. But I must say that I am in no way convinced by the reply which I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Henry Strauss:The case has been put so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and supported by my hon. Friend the Mem-

  1792
  ber for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) that I should not have intervened but for the very curious speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot believe that he made the slightest attempt to answer the point of substance. Let me say at once that I agree with some of his criticisms of the drafting. I think, for instance, that the drafting could be improved by substituting the word "between" for "against", and the word "and" for "or". I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman could have obtained that interesting bit of information from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is sitting next to him. The matter being so easily corrected if it were merely a question of drafting, it is surely due to the House and to the country that somebody from the Front Bench opposite should deal with the question of substance. The question of substance is whether a monopoly shall have the complete legal right to discriminate in price between two trading competitors on purely arbitrary grounds. If they discovered, for instance, that the owners of two similarly situated factories were Liberals, unless there is something against discrimination, it would apparently be perfectly legal to sell at a cheaper price to one of those who support the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and invariably agree with the Government and to charge a more expensive price to those who hold different political views and take their duties more seriously. [Interruption.] I am sorry the hon. Member opposite did not hear me. I will endeavour to make myself audible. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is audible but, unfortunately, unintelligible. The first thing we want from the Minister on the point of substance——
  Mr. Gallacher:The hon. and learned Gentleman may be intelligible but he is not audible.
  Mr. Strauss:Until the hon. Member for West Fife can introduce a totalitarian system in this country, he will, no doubt—[Interruption.]. I do not think hon. Members opposite are going to find it so easy to put me off as they think. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] I will get on with it as soon as I am given sufficient attention to enable me to

  1793
  get on with it. I am quite prepared to go on for a considerable time. The first question to which we desire a reply from some responsible Member on the Front Bench opposite, if he is not prevented from speaking by his own Chief Whip, is: Are they, or are they not, in favour of discrimination between traders similarly situated? If they are in favour of that, it is very important that the country should know it. It is also very desirable, if the Government are in favour of such discrimination, and if they have, indeed, made up their minds, that they should reveal to us on what principles they propose to exercise that discrimination. For instance, if there were two rival manufacturers, one a cooperative society and one a private enterprise, would they, or would they not, think it justifiable to sell at a lower price to the cooperative society? [Interruption.]
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher:The hon. and learned Member has got us there.
  Mr. Strauss:I very much hope that those who report our proceedings will have noted how that serious question was received on the benches opposite. It will be legal for such discrimination to take place.
  The Attorney-General:No.
  Mr. Strauss:So far nobody on the benches opposite has said whether or not they propose such discrimination.
  The Attorney-General:It is obviously illegal.
  Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Spark-brook):That is putting one section against another.
  Mr. Strauss:Hon. Members opposite are becoming more incomprehensible, which makes me think I have touched on a tender spot. I now gather, therefore, as indeed the Parliamentary Secretary stated, that they are in favour of discrimination. One example which he gave was that it might be in the public interest to give some priority to a ship. I understood from the example which he gave that that priority was a priority in time. He apparently assumed that the scarcity produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power would be permanent and that, therefore, a priority
  1794
  in time would be most important. Even on the assumption that the present Minister maintained a permanent scarcity of coal, and, therefore, rendered priority in time necessary in the public interest, in regard to certain supplies, that would not render necessary any discrimination in price. That example was used, as I understood the Parliamentary Secretary, to justify a discrimination in price. In any event, suppose the Parliamentary Secretary was right in every example he gave of possible advantageous discrimination in the public interest in certain cases, surely there is all the difference in the world between the present proposals and the Government laying down in the Bill the principles on which discrimination could be exercised and providing some judicial machinery to which those who considered they were unfairly treated could appeal. The idea of setting up a monopoly board which shall be perfectly entitled in law to exercise discrimination on absolutely arbitrary principles——
  The Attorney-General:No.
  Mr. Strauss:I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman says "No," because it seems to me that that makes it incumbent upon him to rise and explain under which Clause this is prohibited. If the learned Attorney-General has discovered a sufficiency of power in the Bill to stop the conduct that I suggest, perhaps he will be able to explain it to the House. As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary, he said he was aware of the various Clauses against discrimination in various other Statutes. I wonder does he approve of them, or does he disapprove of them? Does the Government propose to sweep them away? If not, why is it they approve of nothing of the kind in this Bill? The Parliamentary Secretary, in what he thought was an ingenious argument, I thought rather let the cat out of the bag. He said there could not be final control down to the retail consumer unless the retail industry were nationalised. What would be the good of that if, when the wholesale side of the business is nationalised, discrimination is allowed? That example was very much against the Parliamentary Secretary. Indeed, I thought his whole speech indicated that he had expected that one of his colleagues would make the speech. I do not desire to delay the House long. [Interruption.] This is a

  1795
  point that is of absolutely vital importance. What is proposed in this Bill is unique in our Statute law. There has been no previous case of setting up a monopoly, or a quasi monopoly, without guarding in the interests of justice, by means of the most careful machinery, against discrimination between two bodies similarly situated.
  That is all thrown over in this Bill. As I said, I agree with the drafting criticisms of this Amendment, but it is put forward to remedy that glaring defect. No answer has been given to the substance of the case; surely we are entitled to know, if the Government insist on retaining the right to discriminate, on what principles they propose to exercise it, if they have made up their minds. In the absence of any adequate reply from the Benches opposite, I am sure that we should divide on the Amendment, because this is one of the most scandalous omissions in one of the most ill-drafted Measures of such magnitude ever brought before this House.
  Captain Crookshank:I certainly, unless we get some more satisfactory reply from the Government, would advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to register their protest in the Division Lobby on this Amendment. I am indeed surprised at the reply which we were given by the Parliamentary Secretary. He is said to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer as his mentor, and I must say that he certainly did on this question; the weaker the argument became, the more vigorous his gestures. I seldom heard a worse case put up against a serious Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary, I recognise, is at a disadvantage because he can only get what took place on the Committee stage by reading and by hearsay and therefore—I do not blame him for it; it is inevitable—he has not got, within his personal knowledge, the atmosphere of the debates and discussions which went on before. We come down, under the new system of small Committees, a tiny band who have been fighting this Bill in the recesses of a corridor upstairs, and bring our proposals—in so far as they are selected by you, Mr. Speaker—to the wider audience of the House, where hon. Members who have not been on the Committee have the opportunity of judging the arguments, we hope, on their merits. The merits of this particular Amendment are, it seems to me,
  1796
  exceedingly clear. We are out, as my hon. Friend has just said, to protect the consumers' interests, because we recognise that in a national coal monopoly of this kind there will be a great many complaints, and everybody in this country is, in one form or another, a consumer. We ourselves are the representatives of the consumers, each one of us, and it behoves us to walk very warily where their interests are likely to be harmed or injured by the Bill, either by what is in the Bill or what is left out of it.
  One of the remarkable things which was left out was any reference to non-discrimination. I will not argue it all over again because my hon. Friends have done it so exceedingly clearly tonight. Hon. Members will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave a description of two similar brickworks at a similar distance from the pit, and said that it would be wrong if they were charged different prices whereas, if they were charged the same price, quantities and other things being equal, it would be right and in accordance with the principles laid down by this House in other comparable cases, like the railways and the gas and electricity undertakings. That illustration, let me tell hon. Members, was not used for the first time tonight. It was used, if hon. Members like to refer to column 73 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the second day's proceedings upstairs, by an hon. Gentleman who is not one of my supporters, but who, I think, is decidedly conspicuous by his absence tonight because he supported us then. I should like to give a quotation. It is from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper). This is what he said:
  "I suggest that the illustration given by the hon. Member for Monmouth about two similar brickworks at a similar distance from the pit being charged a non-discriminatory price, is a fair one. I think the Minister will agree with that. Would he, therefore, be willing to consider the incorporation in the Bill at some point, of this principle of non-discrimination." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 13th February, 1946; c, 73.]
  The hon. Gentleman, who is, presumably, not enamoured of the political views that we hold, was frank enough to admit upstairs that we had made our point. I submit to the House that the speeches we have heard tonight have made the point. It is all very well to have the Parliamentary Secretary rather patronisingly lopping and chopping at our

  1797
  Amendment, and saying that we do not know what it is that we want; but we know perfectly well what we are trying to get the Minister to accept. If he accepts the principle, and says that he will see that some such words will he inserted in the Bill at a later stage, we shall be satisfied, because we should trust him to do what he publicly pledged himself to do. But there has been no indication of that at all. Moreover, hon. Members know, and the Parliamentary Secretary will know when he has been here longer, that it is very unusual to get an Amendment selected on Report, in the same terms as an Amendment proposed in Committee. There are limits to the ways of saying more or less the same thing in legislative language, and it may well be that the Amendment we proposed upstairs would have been clearer and simpler had it been accepted. However, we wish to return to the point of principle. We were fortunate enough to get a form of words that you have been good enough, Sir, to call; and we have had a reasonably good discussion of the principle of discrimination. The Minister has himself agreed that he wants the power to differentiate. He thinks it is essential in certain circumstances. Though the Minister may go on saying he wants discrimination, I am perfectly certain that, in the long run, he will find it wrong and unwise. That is why we bring this forward right at the beginning of the duties of the Board.
  Let the House see what part of the Bill we are dealing with. Right at the beginning of the first Clause of the Bill it is laid down that there should be a Board charged with the duties of working and getting coal; securing efficient development of the coal mining industry; and making supplies of coal available. We wish that this fourth duty should be laid down, that customers in like circumstances should be treated in a like way. I think I overheard—though, perhaps, I was not meant to—a whisper from the Attorney-General, that this point was, in fact, covered by the provision in Clause I (I, c), where it is laid down that a duty of the Board shall be to make supplies of coal available in such quantities—and, as we now put it, in such qualities—and at such prices as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member agrees with the Attorney-General. That must
  1798
  be a great satisfaction to the Attorney-General. I really am surprised that these two lawyers have suddenly discovered this, because nobody mentioned it on the Committee stage, although we had the benefit of the presence of both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General at intervals. They never said it. They never briefed their colleagues to say it. They did not brief the Parliamentary Secretary to say it just now. Therefore, I find it so much of an afterthought that, without taking legal advice, I shall not commit myself to their version being right. I do not think it can be, on the ordinary, commonsense interpretation of the word.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies (Leek):Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman implying that it is not in the Bill? It says in plain English, "to further the public interest". Why brief anyone to say what is already in writing?
  Captain Crookshank:I am interested in that, because no one has yet indicated or defined what the public interest is.
  Mr. Gallacher:It is not the Tory interest.
  Captain Crookshank:Having got these various versions of what the words mean, I would point out that there is no definition of "public interest" in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman in his speech specifically said that he could see occasions when it might be desirable to provide one steelworks with coal rather than another steelworks. That is a novel definition of public interest. We have been trying to establish the fact that there should not be discrimination, and we have obtained from the Government no reason why that should not be put in the Bill. If they allow the Board to use discriminatory powers, they will land a number of people in great difficulties. It is within the knowledge of a good number of hon. Members that we are not only concerned in this Bill with the coal industry and colliery concerns, but that we are dealing also with a lot of ancillary and subsidiary businesses. Some of these the Government will take over, and some of them they will opt not to take over. In these cases a big field of difficulty is emerging, because the Government may, for example, provide through the Board, for their own taken-over industries, and discriminate

  1799
  against those which they have deliberately decided not to take over. Whatever may have been the reasons for not exercising their option, they may practically ruin a lot of other undertakings by the use of those discriminatory powers.
  It seems to me fantastic that this sort of thing can happen, and it can happen under this Bill as at present drawn. Let the right hon. Gentleman swallow his pride and accept this. He has not been very agreeable in accepting our Amendments up to now, but if the words are really too much and stick in his throat in the swallowing process, let him say that he will accept the principle, and that he thinks it is right. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does not."] Logically, then, I suppose, in the next batch of Bills we shall have appeals for a corresponding Clause. It is wrong, and surely the right hon. Gentleman himself considers it is wrong—this very curious proposition. I do not
  know whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to be here all the time, but those of us who were recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary got the worst of the argument, as the right hon. Gentleman himself got the worst of the argument upstairs. While he has the big numbers to ride over us roughshod on this important Amendment, I hope, even at this last moment, that he will say, that although he may not be able to accept the Amendment, he accepts the principle, and will endeavour to have something inserted at a subsequent stage. That would be the wise, statesmanlike and commonsense thing to do.
  Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, " That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 324; Noes, 143.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  O'Brien, T.

  Stamford, W.

  Janner, B.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Steele, T.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Orbach, M

  Stephen, C.

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Strachey, J.

  John, W.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Stress, Dr. B.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Keenan. W.

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Kenyon, C.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Kinley, J.

  Pearson, A.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Pearl, Capt. T F

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Lang, G.

  Perrins, W.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Lavers, S.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Popplewell, E.

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Thurtle, E.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Tiffany, S.

  Lever. Fl. Off. N. H.

  Price, M. Philips

  Timmons, J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Tolley, L.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Ranger, J.

  Usborne, Henry

  Logan, D. G

  Rankin, J.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Lyne, A. W

  Reeves, J.

  Viant, S. P.

  McAdam, W.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Walkden, E.

  McEntee, V. La T

  Rhodes, H.

  Walker, G. H.

  McGhee, H. G

  Richards, R.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Mack, J. D.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Warbey, W. N.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Robens, A.

  Watson, W. M.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Weitzman, D

  McKinley, A. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  McLeavy, F.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Royle, C.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Scollan, T.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Mallalieu, J P. W.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Medland, H. M.

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Messer, F

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Shurmer, P.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Williamson, T.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Willis, E.

  Monslow, W.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Moody, A. S

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Morley, R.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Wise, Major F. J

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Woodburn, A.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Woods, G. S.

  Mort. D. L.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Yates, V. F.

  Moyle, A.

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

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Murray, J. D.

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

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Nally, W.

  Smith, T. (Narmanton)

  Zilliacus, K

  Naylor, T. E.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

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

  Solley, L. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Mr. Collindridge and

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

  Soskice. Maj. Sir F.

  Captain Michael Stewart.

  NOES

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

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

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Beamish, Maj. T V. H.

  Donner, Sqn-Ldr. P. W.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hogg, Hon. Q

  Birch, Nigel

  Drewe, C.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Bossom, A. C

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

  Bowen, R.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hope, Lord J

  Bower, N.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Howard, Hon. A

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Erroll, F. J.

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

  Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Hurd, A

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Fox, Sqn,-Ldr. Sir G.

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

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

  Carson, E.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Clarke. Col. R. S.

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

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

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  1802

  1803

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Nicholson, G.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Noble, Comdr A. H. P.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.)

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Osborne, C.

  Teeling, William

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Mackeson, Lt. Col. H. R.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Touche, G. C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Turton, R. H.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Rayner, Brig. R.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Read, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W

  Renton, D.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Marples, A. E.

  Ropner, Col. L

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Scott, Lord W.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Shepherd, S. (Newark)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Medlicott, F.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  York, C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Snadden, W M.

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

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Spence, H. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Commander Agnew and Major Conant.

  Question put accordingly, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 327.

  Division No. 163.

  AYES

  [10.5 p.m.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hope, Lord J

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Howard, Hon. A

  Raikes, H. V.

  Baldwin, A. E

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

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hurl, A.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bennett, Sir P.

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

  Renton, D.

  Birch, Nigel

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Bower, N.

  Jennings, R

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Shepherd, S. (Newark)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Carson, E.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Spence, H. R.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

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

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Lt. Col. H. R.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Teeling, William

  Donner, Sqn-Ldr. P. W.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Drewe, C.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Manningharm-Buller, R. E.

  Touche, G. C.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Turton, R. H.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marples, A. E.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

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

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Medlicott, F.

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A G.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)

  Never-Spence, Sir B.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

  Nicholson, G.

  York, C.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

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

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

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Osborne, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Mr. Collindridge and

  Hollis, M. C.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Captain Michael Stewart.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Prescott, Stanley

  1804

  1805

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard Balham)

  Dye, S.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Logan, D. G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  McAdam, W.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Mack, J D.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Ewart, R.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Fairhurst, F.

  McKinlay, A. S

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Follick, M.

  McLeavy, F.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Forman, J. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Balfour, A.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Barstow, P. G

  Gallacher, W.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Barton, C.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Battley, J. R.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Bschervaise, A. E

  Gibbins, J.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Belcher, J. W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Medland, H. M.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Messer, F.

  Berry, H.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Beswick, F.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R

  Binns, J.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Monslow, W.

  Blackburn. A. R.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Moody, A. S

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Morley, R.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Boardman, H.

  Grey, C. F.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Grierson, E.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mort, D. L.

  Bowen, R.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Moyle, A.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Murray, J. D

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

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Nally, W.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Guy, W. H.

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

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

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

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Hale, Leslie

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Buchanan, G.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  O'Brien, T.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

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

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

  Orbach, M

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Callaghan, James

  Harrison, J.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Champion, A. J.

  Haworth, J.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Chater, D.

  Henderson, A, (Kingswinford)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pearson, A.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Holman, P.

  Pearl, Capt. T. F.

  Coldrick, W.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Perrins, W.

  Collick, P.

  Horabin, T. L

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Collins, V. J.

  Hoy, J.

  Popplewell, E.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hubbard, T.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Comyns, Dr L.

  Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Cook, T. F.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Price, M. Philips

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W ) Proctor, W. T.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Janner, B.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Ranger, J.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

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

  Rankin, J.

  Daggar, G.

  John, W.

  Reeves, J.

  Daises, P.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rhodes, H.

  Davies. Clement (Montgomery)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Richards, R.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Keenan, W.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Kenyon, C.

  Robens, A.

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

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Kinley, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Deer, G.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lang, G.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Lavers, S.

  Royle, C.

  Diamond, J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Scollan, T.

  Debbie, W.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Donovan, T.

  Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Levy, B. W.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Lewis. T. (Southampton)

  Shawcross. Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Shinwell, Rt Hon. E.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Lipson, D. L

  Shurmer, P.

  1806

  1807

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)

  Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Skinnard, F W.

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Thurtle, E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Tiffany, S.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

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

  Timmons, J.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

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

  Titterington, M. F.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Tolley, L.

  Williamson, T.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Willis, E.

  Solley, L. J.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Usborne, Henry

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Woodburn, A.

  Stamford, W.

  Wadsworth, G

  Woods, G. S.

  Steele, T.

  Walkden, E.

  Yates, V. F.

  Stephen, C.

  Walker, G. H.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Strachey, J.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Watson, W. M

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Weitzman, D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Wells, P L. (Faversham)

  Commander Agnew and

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Major Conant.

  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell:I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out from "producing," to the end of line 9, and to insert:
  "or manufacturing any goods or utilities which are of a kind required by the Board for or in connection with the working and getting of coal or any other of their activities, or which can advantageously be produced or manufactured by the Board by reason of their having materials or facilities for the production or manufacture thereof in connection with the working and getting of coal or any other of their activities, and supplying and selling goods or utilities so produced or manufactured."
  This Amendment relates to a matter which was raised in Committee. The Board is empowered to undertake certain activities and the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) raised, quite properly, the question of whether the Board would be entitled to embark on plant manufacturing activities. My answer at that time, to the best of my recollection, was in the negative, but, of course, there are certain activities which are now common to colliery undertakings and which would naturally be transferred to the National Coal Board.
  So far as the manufacture of mining machinery is concerned, it is not our intention that the Board should be responsible. Certain colliery companies have engaged in the manufacture of types of loader and other apparatus, and it would not be fair to preclude the National Coal Board from undertaking similar tasks. Apart from that, there are questions of accessories and requisites associated with the plants required for mining activities. It is to make unmistakably
  1808
  clear what activities can be undertaken by the Board that I have placed this Amendment on the Paper. I hope that what I have said will satisfy hon. Members that it is not the intention that the National Coal Board should proceed any further than circumstances justify.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames):In so far as it is possible to disentangle any clear meaning from the polysyllabic circumlocution in which the Amendment is couched, it would appear that, whatever the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Amendment widens already very wide powers. Indeed, it is a case not so much of painting the lily as of deepening the bottomless pit. It is not a proper justification of an Amendment giving these extraordinarily wide powers merely to refer very briefly, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to one aspect of the matter. Perhaps I might illustrate the width of the powers that are being taken, and the fact that no particular justification has so far been offered for taking them. I would recall the observations made by the Parliamentary Secretary upon a previous Amendment. He told the House that it was not the intention to nationalise coal distribution, yet here, in this Amendment, as large as life, is power for the National Coal Board to conduct coal distribution, as well as other activities. It really makes nonsense of Ministerial assurances that a matter should be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion, and that such assurances should be given on one Amendment while these wide powers are sought to be taken on the next Amendment. If hon. Members consider

  1809
  the Amendment they will see that the Board is given power for
  "manufacturing any goods or utilities which are of a kind required by the Board for or in connection with the working and getting of coal or any other of their activities, or which can advantageously be produced or manufactured by the Board by reason of their having materials or facilities for the production or manufacture thereof in connection with the working and getting of coal or any other of their activities, and supplying and selling goods or utilities so produced or manufactured."
  If the word "boggle" is a Parliamentary expression, the imagination may be said to boggle at the width of these powers. It appears doubtful whether there is any activity which the Board, advised no doubt by the adroit mind of the Attorney-General, could not see fit to undertake. I am certain that that is contrary to the intentions of hon. Members on all sides of the House—after all, this is a Bill to nationalise the coal industry—to confer powers upon the Coal Board, to conduct activities of every sort, right through our economic system. That is equivalent to setting up a sort of "Breakages, Ltd.," with the same width of powers and the same consequences that Mr. George Bernard Shaw foresaw when he coined that phrase. If the right hon. Gentleman arms the Board with these powers, he will meet trouble in two ways. First, the functions of the Board will be extended so widely that inefficiency will become more inefficient by reason of the vast scope of its activities.
  Secondly, he is going to involve himself in a further difficulty. It is, I understand, the intention of this Government to nationalise large numbers of industries specified and unspecified—[Interruption.] I am glad to get confirmation from a no doubt authoritative source. But if we have the situation of this Board, under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman being entitled to interfere in the same activities as other nationalised industries, the possibilities of confusion and chaos are much increased and the right hon. Gentleman may well find himself involved in a series of frontier disputes with his colleagues, some of whom may be very nearly as truculent as himself. No argument has been adduced. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are such authorities upon the subject of dogmatic and non-argued assertion, that I take their applause as encouraging.
  1810
  No argument has been adduced for taking powers for the Board to indulge in almost every kind of economic activity, such as are given in this Amendment. It would appear from the considerations that I have put before the House that it is undesirable that the Board should be equipped with these powers, but, be that as it may, it is surely unsound for a right hon. Gentleman to come down to this House and ask for these powers for the Board, justifying his request by no more than one cursory allusion to the manufacture of mining machinery. If what the right hon. Gentleman really desired to do, was to take power to manufacture mining machinery, I do not think it would be beyond the power of draftsmanship of his advisers—it might not even be beyond the power of the Attorney-General—to provide an Amendment giving them power to manufacture mining machinery, but it is really an insult to the intelligence of this House to justify an Amendment like this by that sort of argument.
  Mr. Norman Bower (Harrow, West):I support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) against this Amendment. The Minister certainly made this proposal sound very innocuous, but it does not look at all innocuous to me. It is a very wide extension of the original Clause—such an extension as to be almost revolutionary in character. This is a most extraordinary Bill altogether. It is called the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill but I think it ought to be called the Blanket Nationalisation Bill, a Bill for nationalising practically everything in the country at one fell swoop. It not only provides for the taking over of many ancillary activities in addition to coal mines, but the Board is also to have power to produce or manufacture any goods or utilities which are required in connection not only with coal mining but also of the other ancillary activities which it has the power to carry on. That seems to open up unlimited possibilities in the field of production. There is no limit to the utilities which the Board will be able to produce. [Interruption.] Hon. Members corroborate that view. This seems to be the first step to the nationalisation of half the industries in the country. Why call it the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill when it is something very much more? Perhaps the Minister will say why it is not possible

  1811
  to obtain the goods and utilities from the normal sources of supply and why the Board must be given these extraordinary powers to manufacture all these different goods and utilities. Perhaps he will also tell us whether this means that all these goods and utilities which the Board is to have the power to produce or manufacture will rapidly become as scarce as building materials have become since the Ministry of Works took power to go into business in the production of building materials in a big way. If that is to be the effect, and I fear it will be, the fewer things the Board has the power to produce, the better it will be for the country.
  Captain Crookshank:My hon. Friends have pointed out, what needed to be pointed out. At first sight hon. Members might have thought that this was not very much more than a drafting Amendment, because so many of the words in it appear in the lines which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit from the Clause. But it does, in fact, extend these powers very greatly. That may not be the intention, but the Minister's speech showed that it was proposed to deal with particular kinds of mining manufacture, drills, and what not.
  Mr. Shinwell:The point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman raised.
  Captain Crookshank:The point I raised, yes. I recognise that the Minister has tried to meet that, but I want the House to realise that he has gone a great deal further.
  Mr. Shinwell:That is what happens when a concession is made.
  Captain Crookshank:The right hon. Gentleman must not say that when he gives us a concession, this is what happens. If he looks at the paragraph he wants to amend, he will see that it refers to producing various things and the last words are:
  "in connection with the working and getting of coal or with such activities as are mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection;"
  Therefore all the words, as I understand it, that appear at the beginning of Subsection (2) are for the purposes of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), that is, for the purposes of searching or boring for coal,
  1812
  treating, rendering saleable, supplying and selling of coal, producing, manufacturing, and so on, the products of coal. Therefore it is limited to the coal field.
  Mr. Shinwell:Yes, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that frequently in the course of our discussions upstairs I made it clear that the National Coal Board would be entitled to undertake any of the activities now undertaken by colliery companies. Surely that would be fair? It would hardly be fair to prevent them from undertaking any activities now common to colliery undertakings. That was made very clear.
  Captain Crookshank:I know that is the right hon. Gentleman's view and it is one which we contest, but I do not think it need be argued on this Amendment. What I am saying is that as the Clause is now drafted, this power of purchasing and manufacturing other goods is limited to the purposes set out in (a), (b), and (c), that is, purposes concerned with coal. Now the Minister says, that the Board ought to be able to do a great many other things such as existing colliery concerns may do under their articles of association "and in order to enable that to be effected he has dropped the qualifying words, which provide that the activities must be" related to the working and getting of coal and proposes to add "or any other of their activities." That extends it to all the fields of subsidiary undertakings and the like, covered by the Schedule. At least I think it does. I take it that I am right? I only wanted confirmation on that point.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall):Take the words in their context.
  Captain Crookshank:They are:
  "and supplying and selling goods or utilities so produced or manufactured."
  Mr. Glenvil Hall:Go on.
  Captain Crookshank:That is all there is on my Amendment Paper.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall:It is the words in the middle to which I refer.
  Captain Crookshank:If the Financial Secretary would like to explain his point by a speech, I should be very glad, but I thought that we were discussing the Amendment to Clause I, page 2, line 4,

  1813
  to leave out from "producing," to the end of line 9 and to insert these other words instead. When you get to the end of this Amendment, there is a full stop after the word "manufactured," and that is the end of it.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall:Line 4.
  10.30 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank:I really do not know what the Financial Secretary is trying to demonstrate, but perhaps he will do it afterwards? All I am trying to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that, up to now, these activities were limited to manufacturing and producing various goods connected with coal. By the Amendment, that limitation will be removed and power extended to "any other of their activities." I want the House to realise that this governs all the other activities which are covered by subsidiary undertakings. It is absolutely clear that under this Amendment they would have the power to supply and sell the goods they produce. Therefore, it is not really fantastic to say that under these powers they can go into all these other fields of production of things which have nothing to do with the working and getting of coal.
  Criticisms have been made of the way in which hon. Members on this side have drafted their Amendments. I am now criticising the drafting of this Amendment. The Minister certainly said that he did not intend to take the matter further than circumstances justified, but that means nothing at all. At the start the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Board which he himself controls might not go very far, but if we allow this provision to go into the Bill it can only mean making the powers very much wider than the Minister indicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is absolutely right. These are colossal powers. In so far as it was intended to meet the case I made upstairs, I am grateful to the Minister once again for listening to our arguments, but when he exceeds them, when he extends his concession to something which none of us want, then, I am afraid, he is doing us a disservice, and the House and the country a grave injury, not for the first time in this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall:I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, after "account," to insert:
  "(including, without prejudice to the generality of that expression, provisions in respect of their obligations under Sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of this Act)."
  Subsection (4) of Clause I to which this Amendment relates lays down that the policy of the Board shall be to secure:
  "(a) the advancement of the safety of persons in their employment"
  and
  "(b) that the revenues of the Board shall not be less than sufficient for meeting all outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account."
  We want to add the words of the Amendment in order to make it clear that the obligations laid on the Board in Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill are fulfilled. These words make this crystal clear. Those who were present during the Debates in Standing Committee will remember that this matter came up several times during the discussions and my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that he would move an Amendment to make it certain that the Board's obligations under Clauses 26 and 27 would be carried out. We have done our best to meet the points raised in Committee upstairs. We thought that the original wording covered what was intended, but, in the discussions, some doubts were cast by hon. Members in various parts of the Committee as to whether the wording was sufficiently clear. Now we have done our best to make it obvious to everybody.
  Mr. Jennings:I rise rather to ask for information than to criticise the Subsection to which the Financial Secretary has referred. The Minister has referred to this Measure as a large venture involving a great deal of public money. I make no apology for raising this point, because I consider this is the place where we should protect public funds and public money, particularly when such large sums are involved. The Amendment makes no mention of the question of depreciation. In a revenue account, the Board should make a proper allowance year by year, or a separate figure should be debited to the revenue account. I ask the Financial Secretary to assure the House that proper rates of depreciation will be charged against the account in order to ascertain year by year what is the exact cost on an

  1815
  annual basis, so that we get an accurate figure.
  Captain Crookshank:Before the Financial Secretary does that, I should like to say that I am very much gratified by the fact that an Amendment of this kind has been moved. It was one of the points which we thought of paramount importance. As the hon. Gentleman says, we came back to it once or twice because there was no kind of yardstick or financial bottom by which anyone could know whether the industry was on a commercially paying basis, or not. A great national monopoly is not the same as an ordinary competitive business, but we on our side of the Committee felt that there ought to be some way of finding out whether, in general terms, the business was paying or not. I suppose it will always pay because it has the whole of the power of the Exchequer behind it, and there will never come a time when it will not pay in that sense. But that is a different thing from finding out whether it is on a reasonably commercial basis. We tried our hands at making various proposals to give a definition of the outgoings properly chargeable to revenue which it should be the duty of the Board to try to secure. If hon. Members will look at a later Amendment, they will see in a rather telescoped form what is meant by the Government Amendment. The Government Amendment refers to provisions in respect of their obligations under Clauses 26 and 27. As in all these complicated bits of drafting, when we come to Clause 26 we find it refers to payments
  "incurred by virtue of the provisions of sections nine, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-one, thirty and forty-one …"
  and it is quite a business to find out exactly what is meant
  The Financial Secretary did not explain it to us because he assumed that we on the Committee knew all about it, and I suppose it did not matter very much what anybody else thought about it, though that was not very courteous to other hon. Members who were not on the Committee. What we tried to get clear was that the Board should run this business in such a way that, at any rate, there should be sufficient money—after all, they have got expenses to meet—to pay the interest and sinking fund upon the compensation which is going to be paid
  1816
  for taking over the industry at the beginning. It is a very reasonable proposition that the interest and sinking fund, which is covered by the amount of money they have to find in the interim period, and also for the compensation stock which they have to find for paying out the existing coal stock, which arose out of purchasing the coal measures themselves, and the interest and sinking fund in respect of two other large payments which the Minister has to make—the overdraft of £10 million and the amount which he has roughly estimated as necessary for modernising the business—should be considered as something which the Board must find out of its annual revenue, quite apart from the establishment of a reserve fund, which is what is done by the reference to Clause 27. The amount of the reserve fund, of course, is a matter for the Minister and the Treasury to discuss with the Board, but I think that everybody agrees that a Board like this should have some form of reserve fund and that contributions towards it should come from the annual income. After all, if there any profits in this affair, which one doubts, they will presumably accrue to the taxpayer, unless we put in some arrangement for a financial yardstick to the whole operations, including the setting up of a reserve fund. I am grateful to the Government for accepting our point of view, and I think it has improved the Bill enormously
  I only hope that the Financial Secretary will explain why they did not take in a notional figure for depreciation and obsolescence. How do the Government propose to deal with that, which is a matter of considerable importance to ordinary industrial undertakings, which have to find the money and put it aside, otherwise they would run down to a considerable extent and might even go out of business? We do not envisage the coal industry going out of business on those grounds. It may go out on the failure of the new plan, but that is another matter. So long as the Government accept our point of view that the Bill should have something on these lines in it, we are grateful, but we have wondered why they did not put in anything about it. Subject to what the Financial Secretary may say about that, which is not such an important matter as this concession which they have just made, I would like on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to thank them very

  1817
  much for accepting our general views on this subject and so improving a Bill which will be found, in other respects, to be bad.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall:By the leave of the House, I will quite briefly answer what has been said. I did not go into great detail, as the hour is getting late—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—and I know hon. Members are anxious to get home. I should have thought that anyone who was sufficiently interested to look at it would see exactly what we have done, and why. One of the obligations of the Board is to run its accounts in a proper way. Originally, it was thought that that would be sufficient. In the Committee certain suggestions were made that the original Clause I (4, b) might be held to cover less than the obligations of the Board under Clauses 26 and 27, and my right hon Friend the Minister has put down a short Amendment which clears this up. What we have done is to marry Clauses 26 and 27 to Subsection (4) of Clause I If hon. Members will turn to Clause 26, they will find there a reference to all the various other Clauses—9, 16, 17, 21, 30 and 41—which recapitulate the various charges which the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) indicated to us should be taken into account over a period of years. The reason why we have not put in a figure for obsolescence and depreciation is because it is impossible, with any degree of accuracy, at this particular stage in our proceedings, to know just what figure should be put in. We have not taken over the industry yet. Undertakings have yet to be surveyed, valued and taken over, and it is impossible, before we know exactly what we are to take over, to lay down figures as to obsolescence and depreciation year by year.
  Mr. Jennings:Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where "depreciation," in specific terms, is really mentioned?
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central):This "marriage" of the Clauses to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and which produces financial rectitude, which all hon. Members on this side of the House approve, will be received with the greatest possible expressions of pleasure and, if only one other matter were clear—the meaning of the wording:
  1818
  "without prejudice to the generality of that expression …"
  —one lingering impression of doubt in our minds would be removed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Captain Crookshank:On a point of Order. If the Amendment which we have put down to Clause 2 is not going to be selected, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully make a submission about it?
  Mr. Speaker:No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot make a submission. I have made my selection, and I need not give any reason for not selecting a particular Amendment.
  Captain Crookshank:I was not going to question the reason, Mr. Speaker, but merely to make the submission that you might not have been aware that this Amendment is literally in exactly the same form as that part of the Civil Aviation Bill which deals with the setting up of a board of a similar nature.
  Mr. Speaker:I cannot see why that should affect the selection of this Amendment.
  CLAUSE 3. —(Powers of the Minister in relation to the Board.)
  Captain Crookshank:I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, at the end, to insert:
  "(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing Subsection the Minister may, after consultation with the Board, give to the Board directions requiring the Board to submit a statement containing such particulars as the Minister may consider requisite for indicating the manner in which they propose to fulfil their powers and duties under this Act for the purpose of ensuring that the rate of coal production shall be maintained and improved, and that the coal mining industry shall be efficiently developed and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, approve, modify or vary such proposals and may give directions to the Board to carry out those proposals as approved, modified or varied by him."
  Colonel Lancaster:We feel that this Amendment will be of benefit to the industry and that it offers us at this late hour an opportunity of discussing what we feel is an important aspect of the situation. The Minister, of course, has power under the Bill to give directions to the Board and he is, in the last resort, responsible for what the Board does and the manner in which it carries out its responsibilities. The Parliamentary Secretary in two rather unhappy interventions in the discussion did say one thing to the

  1819
  point, when he said that the present position was an abnormal one. Those of us who have studied the most recent figures of production recognise that at whatever date the Minister decides to take over the industry he will find the situation fraught with every sort of difficulty. It I can have one moment of the Minister's attention, I want most seriously to draw his attention to the situation, which, I assure him, is giving people up and down the country a great deal of concern, and, I think, is giving members of his own party a good deal to think about as well. The situation is going to be no better, indeed it may be worse than the one which confronted the Minister when he assumed office in July last year.
  He will remember that at that time he was confronted with a falling output, and he had the task of not only arresting the fall, but, of course, as he hoped, and indeed as he expressed to this House, of bringing about some immediate, but nevertheless necessary, improvements. I ventured at that time to suggest to him that it was unlikely that he would manage to do so because, in fact, the task he set himself was a great deal harder than he imagined. To arrest a declining tendency is one of the most difficult things to do, and when the Board takes over it is going to be confronted with a very delicate situation. If the Board by virtue of its general powers, and the policy laid down in this Bill, attempts to do things in a hasty manner, to take such measures, as may in due course be desirable and necessary, in the first instance, it may produce a situation where what is already a very dangerous position becomes indeed a critical one. However important it may be that in the course of time it should, for instance, superimpose on this industry standard methods of administration, accountancy, and general control of one sort and another, that can only come about when the circumstances warrant the Board's interfering in such a way as to render that possible.
  Now it has, I suggest, three immediate tasks to complete. The first, and possibly most important, is the policy that control and authority are exercised at a point where they can be most effective. That is the Board's most important task. Then it will have to carry out a general survey of the industry which will enable it to put into force such plans of integration
  1820
  as are necessary before, indeed, it is possible to embark upon implementing the physical reorganisation which is set out in the Reid Report. These three tasks are such that some considerable time will need to elapse before it is either practicable or indeed wise, at this stage, to embark upon them. We have on this occasion the advantage which was not provided on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill, of having before us the deliberations of the Australian Federal Government upon their own experience of a similar situation. There, the Socialist Government had 15 years' experience of the nationalisation of their coal industry, or a great part of their coal industry. They have come to certain conclusions which have been set out in a summary of conclusions—a very detailed and liberal summary—which, no doubt, hon. Members on both sides of the House have had opportunities of studying.
  Those who have studied these conclusions will be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that this matter of superimposing a control and a bureaucracy over vast and variegated industry of this sort is only likely to succeed if the most careful handling of it is undertaken. I have no doubt that the Minister himself sees this matter clearly. In fact, I had the impression throughout the Committee stage of the Bill that the Minister is, month by month, appreciating more definitely the task which lies ahead of him. At one time I thought he approached this matter with an unreasonable degree of optimism, but I think now that he believes the chances of immediate success are not great. It is only by exercising all his ingenuity, and by securing the loyal cooperation of the Board that he will get relief of the situation. I have tried to give some indication of the doubts and uncertainties in our minds in this matter, and to afford the Minister an opportunity to give the House, and indeed, the country, some idea of how he sees the task immediately in front of him, not the eventual task. We all know what can in due course be done when the administrative organisation is set up to conform with the best tradition of bureaucracy at its worst; but what we want to see is what the Minister is going to do in the next year or two.
  Mr. Shinwell:The Amendment is interesting and important because it deals

  1821
  with the functions of the National Coal Board, particularly as regards output of coal and development of the industry. It is a topic in which we are all interested, but obviously at this late hour I cannot afford to be expansive on this topic, however interesting. My view on the reorganisation was given in the Committee stage, and to some extent, on the Second Reading. This Amendment asks that the Minister shall exercise his prerogative of direction as regards the rate of coal production and also in respect of the efficient development of the industry.
  11.0 p.m.
  The first observation I want to make is that hon. Members opposite are not quite certain on which leg they wish to stand. At the outset of our discussions they were apprehensive because they believed that the Minister sought to exercise too much direction in respect of the Board's activities. I was asked several questions by the acting leader of the Opposition, who ventured to quote a book writen by the Lord President of the Council on the subject of Socialism, and advised that we should read each other's books; by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), who said that this Bill made it possible for the Minister to be the complete dictator of the mining industry; and by the right hon and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George), my predecessor, who wanted to know whether this was giving the Board full powers to run the industry, the implication being that the Board would not be free to undertake these tasks but would be wholly under the control and direction of the Minister.
  That was the position at the outset of our deliberations, but now the hon. Members have changed their tune, and in this Amendment, and in two or three subsequent Amendments which bear on the same point, they are asking that the Minister should exercise the power of direction. There is provision in Clause 3 which enables the Minister to exercise the power of direction, but I would make it clear that it is not my intention, first of all, to interfere in the everyday administration of the Board's activities. Certain gentlemen have been invited to become members of the National Coal Board. I believe the Board will be a good one, an efficient one, and highly competent to
  1822
  discharge the tasks which it will be called upon to undertake. But clearly, having appointed the Board, I trust these gentlemen to engage in these activities and it would be highly improper to interfere in the administration. There is, however, power to exercise a general direction and hon. Members have inquired in which particular or particulars it is intended to exercise direction. My answer is that it may be necessary, having regard to social considerations that affect the public interest—take, as an example, the concentration of pits as a result of which some require to be closed down—to exercise the power of direction in order to ensure that the public interest is safeguarded. But clearly, if the National Coal Board proposes to close down a single pit for the purpose of concentration and the utilisation of the available manpower, which is in short supply at present, and may be for some years to come, it would be invidious for the Minister to interfere.
  Then again, on the subject of export trade, it may be desirable for the Minister, having regard to the national economy, to exercise the power of direction and to urge upon the National Coal Board to place more coal at the disposal of the export trade. It depends upon the circumstances, but beyond that it would seem to me to be improper to proceed. As regards the two points embodied in the Amendment, perhaps I may be allowed to say this in respect of the rate of coal production. We have been asked in this Amendment to exercise direction in order to maintain the high rate of coal production. I would say at once that the designate members of the Coal Board, who have already been formed into an organised committee, and are going round the country making the acquaintance of the personnel in the coalfields, ascertaining the facts, considering technical reorganisation and the like, are well aware of the acute shortage of coal, particularly having regard to the potentialities of British industry in respect of production. They do not require to be informed on that head, and as all those gentlemen are fully familiar with the facts relating to the coal industry and the needs of British industry, it is quite unnecessary, redundant and superfluous to issue any general direction.
  As regards the subject of efficient development, the National Coal Board—and the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who is him-

  1823
  self familiar with every aspect of the coal industry, would, no doubt, agree—will operate naturally within the framework of the technical report, and consequently will regard as one of its primary duties the efficient development of the industry on the basis of the reorganisation plans contained in that technical document. Therefore, I think we can be fully assured that all that the Amendment asks for is implicit in the proposed activities of the National Coal Board.
  There is only one other thing I want to say. There is some justification for saying it in view of what the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde said. He directed attention to the difficulties of my task, particularly in view of the declining manpower and declining output. Fortunately—I can only speak briefly on this head—we succeeded in escaping any serious industrial trouble during the winter. I do not mean merely as regards the mining industry, where, I am very glad to say, there has been an atmosphere of goodwill, for which the National Union of Mineworkers and kindred organisations have been wholly responsible. I am very grateful to them, as indeed we all are. Long may it continue. I had the fortune to meet the National Union of Mineworkers this morning on a matter of vital importance, a meeting which was of a most friendly character, although I was in the chair—and, of course, was quite unprovoked, which does make a difference. We managed to survive the winter. There was a little shortage here and there, but on the whole there were fewer complaints than were made manifest during the same period last year. I can tell the House that, whereas during the comparable period last year—I am advised that at least 140 factories had to cease operations because of lack of fuel, we have had very few instances of that kind during the comparable period this year. That is very fortunate.
  Major Ramsay (Forfar):What on earth has this to do with the Amendment?
  Mr. Shinwell:I am replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, who raised the question of the maintenance of coal output. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Major Ramsay), who is rather infantile, would no doubt agree. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member should not interrupt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am asked
  1824
  to withdraw, and as I am in a very conciliatory mood, I withdraw, and, if necessary, apologise to the venerable Gentleman opposite.
  In fact, that point was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Fylde. The question of maintaining the rate of coal output is a very important point indeed. We are all vitally concerned in it. The fact is that however we survived that winter, we are faced with a very grim prospect for next winter unless we not only maintain the rate of coal output, but increase it. Fortunately, there are very encouraging signs, although manpower is in short supply—very much shorter than it was during the comparable period of last year. Yet the output per manshift is on the increase, and all credit is due to the mineworkers for that fact. There is a still more encouraging sign. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde is fully aware of the fact that immediately after a holiday period there is normally a decline in coal output. For the first time for a good many years, we discovered after the Easter holidays that instead of coal output declining, it has actually gone up although the manpower has not increased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a good omen. I am not content with that, far from it, and I beg hon. Members to understand that I fully appreciate the difficulties that confront us and that we are very anxious to avoid any interference with British industry during the next winter. We shall do all we possibly can to prevent that, but we are operating at a time when coal consumption for industrial purposes is rising rapidly. In March this year, coal consumption for industrial purposes was higher on the average than at any time during the war period. In those circumstances, we must exercise great care.
  As regards the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But surely hon. Members are interested in coal output? [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Amendment."] If I had told a gloomy story to hon. Members, how delighted they would have been.
  Captain Marsden (Chertsey):Will the right hon. Gentleman let me put a question? Does what the right hon. Gentleman has said apply to coal for export?
  Mr. Shinwell:I am exceedingly sorry to say that we are not in a position to step up our exports. I shall be glad to, but

  1825
  we must have manpower in order to provide the necessary coal for export purposes. I cannot accept the Amendment, which induced the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde to raise this question of coal output and on which I have offered a few observations which I thought were quite relevant, but he can be assured, as can other hon. Members, that it is our full intention only to exercise direction where the public interest is vitally concerned and otherwise to leave to the Board the quite proper task of undertaking the everyday administration.
  Captain Crookshank:I was very glad when the Minister withdrew that adjective "infantile." After all, my hon. and gallant Friend served throughout the war, in which he was decorated. He went to the war in 1939, and the only conceivable sense in which that adjective could be used is that he is 3o years younger than the Minister, which is his very good fortune. If it had not been for many like him, we would not be here today sitting discussing the future of the coal industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am obliged to the Minister for having taken the opportunity of giving us a tabloid review of the present position in the coal industry. I agree with him that this is not the moment to discuss the estimates of his Department and all the ins and outs of what is going on in the industry today, but he certainly has no right—I do not know why he did, as he started so quietly—to throw across the House an allegation that we on this side of the House are not interested in the output of coal. Of course we are, just as everybody else is. Of course we all are, just the same as everybody else.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher:You are interested only in profits.
  Captain Crookshank:Not in the least. We are interested in increasing output, about which the Minister tells us, and we are gratified to hear of it from him, in relation to this basic industry on which everything else depends. If it is not flourishing, all our plans will go down the drain. Everybody agrees on that. I do not think the Minister really intends to be unkind but he does like dropping these precious things for which, however, there exists no justification whatever. I will say this to the Minister. A good deal of the value of this proposal is lost owing
  1826
  to the fact that our Amendment was not as we had wished incorporated in the Bill. We had in mind that the direction should be in writing, and that would have made a great deal of difference to the value of this proposal. Even so, there was some point in this Amendment, which sought to put upon the Minister the power to direct the Board to report to him what they were going to do on these two technical and economic points. Our general idea was that if there was reference to Parliament we could be satisfied, within limits at any rate, about what was going to be done and what the Minister was going to direct. However, as I have said, the value of the Amendment has practically gone and I do not think there is any great point in pressing the matter.
  We have had some consoling information. I hope that the good news, such as it is, is going to last, and that it is not something in early May—[Interruption]. Really, I do not know what is the matter with the Communist Party. Mr. Speaker asked us to conduct our discussions on the Report stage with dignity and in that case it seems to me that the hon. Member ought to absent himself. The main object which we had in view not having been achieved, I think it would perhaps be best if we passed on to the next Amendment.
  Mr. Gallacher:I only want to say one word in reply to the remarks that have been made, and without prejudice to the generality of anything I may have said before. I would ask the Minister to throw this Amendment out of the bag and express my regret that we cannot throw the Tories out along with it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Captain Crookshank:I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out Subsection (3), and to insert:
  "(3) The Minister may give to the Board such directions as he may think necessary in relation to the exercise by the Board of their functions as to training, education and scientific and safety research."
  Mr. Keeling (Twickenham):This Amendment is designed to give effect to the Minister's own express desires and intentions, and we shall be genuinely surprised and more than disappointed if the Government cannot accept it. When this Subsection was discussed the Minister said it was desirable on occasion that directions should be issued about

  1827
  safety research. He said the subject of safety research should not be wholly vested in the Board and went on to say that the question was one of national concern. Then, as regards education, also mentioned in the Amendment, he said:
  "These matters not only involve the Minister of Fuel and Power but also the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour. Consequently it should not be left entirely to the Board to decide what should be done in this connection."
  My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) then said:
  "Why not say so? Why not redraft the Clause to say that the Minister may give directions on those points? If the Minister would make it clear, we will not press it."
  That is, we would not press the Amendment to the Bill. The Minister immediately jumped up and said:
  "We will not be at loggerheads on the issue. I will do what I can to see that the point is clarified." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 27th February, 1946; c. 279–280.]
  If that meant anything, it meant, according to our ordinary practice, that the Minister was going to put down an Amendment to give effect to what had just been said. On that understanding, and on that understanding only, my hon. Friend the Member for West Harrow (Mr. Bower) withdrew his Amendment. I presume that it is by a pure oversight that the Minister has not put down an Amendment such as ours. I hope, therefore, he will accept our Amendment.
  Mr. Shinwell:I am at some loss to understand why this Amendment has been put down. If the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) will look at Clause 3, he will see that the original Clause was redrafted by consent of the Committee and now reads:
  "The Minister may, after consultation with the Board, give to the Board directions of a general character"
  Then, Subsection (3) provides:
  "In the exercise and performance of their functions as to training, education and research the Board shall act on lines settled as aforesaid."
  I should have thought that that implied, "for the purposes we have in view." We used the term "research" in the widest possible sense. I do not know whether the hon. Member was present earlier in these proceedings.
  Mr. Keeling:No, I was not.
  Mr. Shinwell:We had an interesting discussion on certain Amendments relating to research, in a wide sense, and on very comprehensive lines. I gave an adequate assurance in regard to research in every possible direction. The hon. Member may rest content that this subject of research cannot possibly be ignored either by the Minister, or by the Board. We must give it the greatest possible attention and I should imagine that the words in the Clause are adequate.
  Major Niall Macpherson (Dumfries):I would like to comment on the phraseology of the Subsection in question. The words are still not clear to me. The Subsection provides:
  "In the exercise and performance of their functions as to training, education and research the Board shall act on lines settled as aforesaid."
  Immediately before that we find:
  " … the Board shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister."

  Presumably the "aforesaid" refers directly to the words:
  "from time to time with the approval of the Minister."
  I draw attention to the fact that Subsections (2) and (3) are quite different in character. The first one says:
  "In framing programmes of reorganisation or development involving substantial outlay on capital account …"
  It is a question of framing of programmes, whereas, Subsection (3) says:
  "In the exercise and performance of their functions as to training, education and research …"
  This refers almost to the day to day working. The two are quite different in character.
  If the Clause remains as it now appears, it seems to me that the initiative of the Board will be gravely hampered, and that if they follow out the Clause, it will mean having to refer to the Minister various plans. When the Government say "the Board," they must include the Board's employees in the districts and such instructions as they may give. I should have thought that training and educational arrangements would be on a comparatively low level; say, district level, or even lower. Undoubtedly, so far as research is concerned, the Minister is in a position to give directions, and, indeed,

  1829
  under Clause 39, safety is made his particular duty. In my submission, the Amendment will mean less interference with the activities of the Board than the Clause as it stands. The Minister will only give directions when he thinks it is necessary, whereas, in the other case, the Board will perpetually have to refer to the Minister in the normal exercise of their functions, matters concerning training, education and research.
  Amendment negatived.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jennings:I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, after "thereto," to insert:
  "sufficient to enable the Minister to ascertain the output costs of production of each undertaking of the Board and such other matters as the Minister may direct."
  This Amendment relates to the information and accounts which the Board are to supply to the Minister, and it enlarges on the Clause in that it calls for detailed accounts from each undertaking. The Minister will remember that I raised this matter in Committee, and he assured us that proper accounts would be called for. I want to point out that, unless the Minister is supplied by the Board with accounts from each undertaking in the country, of the cost per ton in each district and in each area, the wages costs, the output costs and every possible detail in respect of each district in this country, the information he receives from the Board will not enable him to ascertain whether or not an undertaking is being carried on at a huge loss. It will, therefore, be possible for an undertaking which is carried on in a losing way, to be bolstered up by the profit areas and profit undertakings, if the figures are taken as a whole. That is a very dangerous position for the Minister because there may be many areas and many undertakings losing money very quickly and many millions of pounds may be involved in this position. If this information is not obtained, a great deal of public money may be involved, and I say that advisedly, because here again—and I make no apology for repeating it—we should protect the taxpayer and the public purse. This is an attempt to have a check on the position of each undertaking, so as to enable the Minister to ascertain how this huge venture as he calls it, is going on, and to be in a position to check the leak of millions of money, if there is a leak and if there is a
  1830
  loss going on, to enable him to check that loss before it gets to substantial figures and becomes alarming. This Amendment is in the Minister's interest. The Minister ought not to refuse any possible piece of information which would enable him, as the responsible Minister, to know whether this huge venture is proving a success or a failure. Millions of pounds can be lost in a venture like this and it is in the interest of the Minister and the country that the Board should be forced to supply him with all the information it can.
  Mr. Shinwell:I must ask the House to agree with me in rejecting this Amendment. I would direct the attention of hon. Members to Clause 3 (4). If they read that Subsection they will see that every facility is to be afforded by the Board to the Minister for obtaining all the necessary information in respect of the various activities of the Board I beg hon. Members to look closely at the wording of this Subsection. Moreover, as regards the Amendment itself, the words appear to me to be restrictive in character. For example, it says:
  "sufficient to enable the Minister to ascertain the output costs of production…"
  The word "sufficient" is restrictive in character, whereas the words in the Subsection are more comprehensive and would not restrict the power of the Minister to call upon the Board to provide all the information which, in his opinion was thought desirable as regards the operations of the undertaking. In addition, I would point out that the Amendment refers to
  "the output costs of production of each undertaking of the Board…"
  I do not know what that means, because what we have in contemplation is not a series of undertaking, but one undertaking. The National Coal Board will have one undertaking under its control—the mining industry. If we were to accept this Amendment, it would naturally follow that there must be a splitting up of the undertaking in order to make it consistent with the Amendment. That we do not propose to do. What we have in mind is the existence of one undertaking under the supervision of the National Coal Board. In any event, I am satisfied—and I said this, I believe, during the Committee stage—that the words in the Subsection are adequate for our purpose. I cannot see that we require words more comprehensive in character. In the cir-

  1831
  cumstances I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Jennings:Am I right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to call for the figures of each district, but proposes to take the districts as a whole?
  Mr. Shinwell:If I may reply to that question, I would say that of course there will be districts; there will be groups of pits, single pits, batteries of coke ovens, and the like, but they will be all comprised in one undertaking—the nationalised mining undertaking.
  Colonel Hutchison:This Amendment was intended to assist the Minister, and as he spoke I was almost persuaded that he intended to give what we wanted and what the whole country expects. Nothing is more certain than that the country will not be fobbed off by some kind of "mock-up" accounts which will not show whether one section of the industry is making a loss and being subsidised by another section of the industry; or whether one group of collieries is making a loss and its accounts are being camouflaged by another section. In Committee, the Minister seemed to be in complete agreement on this. He told us, time and time again, that he had nothing to hide, that he wanted to lay open to the country without let or hindrance, and without camouflage, how this great adventure was going; how each section of the industry was doing and whether this colliery was making a profit or that colliery a loss. Now I am completely fogged, because the Minister, to start with, talked in global terms of the whole industry as though he was going to encompass all these accounts in one lump sum which would tell the nation, and the House, and his own Party, nothing whatever about how things were going. Later he seemed to compromise on the previous remarks and to say "No, of course each area is going to present its own set of accounts, so that we can learn." I ask the Minister straightforwardly to tell us what we demand, and what the country demands. Here, after all, we have the great yardstick by which nationalisation will be judged. Upon the success or failure of this Measure—I personally am satisfied it will fail—the country is going to judge whether the rest of industry is to be nationalised with a prospect of success or not. Will the Minister tell us without equivocation
  1832
  whether he intends to allow us and the nation to know if this or that section of the industry, this or that colliery, is making a profit or a loss? Is he going to demand from the Board that accounts shall be kept which will allow the Minister to judge these great matters?
  Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon):My first impression was that the Minister's intention was to put the wording of Subsection (4) into Clause 3. I received a rude shock when I heard the Minister proclaim his intention to do something quite different from that which might naturally have been expected. In the years to come, when the mines have been taken over by the State, this House should be in a position to check what is going on; and one of the best ways of checking what progress is being made, how nationalisation is working out, will be a comparison between past results and the results that are then being achieved. Unless the results for each undertaking are called for by the Minister and disclosed separately, this House, and the country, will not be in a position to judge. For that reason, I support the Amendment. There is just one point I would urge in doing so. From time to time in future hon. Members may wish to put down Questions to the Minister of Fuel and Power on the results produced in any particular colliery or undertaking as envisaged in this Bill. They should be well within their rights in doing so. Unless the Minister has the power—and indeed I should have thought the obligation—to call for the specific information to which this Amendment draws attention, he will be gravely handicapped, and so will the House and the country.
  Mr. H. Macmillan:I must say that I was rather dissappointed with the reply. It seemed to me to show a considerable change of heart on the part of the Minister since the Committee stage. In the Committee he was at pains to show that, although we were to have single ownership, we should have competition and rivalry. He was hoping to combine the advantages of two systems under a single management. Now he tells us he is not prepared to ensure that the accounts shall be rendered in such a way that we shall be sure what are the results in any particular section of the coal industry proper or in any of the immense range of undertakings ancillary, or alleged

  1833
  to be ancillary to, the coal industry which the Board will be able to include. This range is very great; it is greater, I think, than is generally understood by the country. But it will be a great shock to the country if they find as the experiment proceeds that there is no clear accounting system, no yardstick, by which the results can be judged.
  I do not understand this curious lack of confidence of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their own plans. I should have thought that if they think they will succeed, they would be only too anxious to produce the most comprehensive and most carefully annotated accounts of their work. It is true that one of the weaknesses—I admit it quite frankly, not important in size, but troublesome in character—of the capitalist system is the occasional fraudulent and swindling promoter, who makes use of a system to injure rather than to promote the interests of the nation as a whole. That happens sometimes; it is unfortunate and all the efforts of Parliament and of the various committees—the latest of which is the Cohen Committee—are related to enforcing upon the great organisation of private companies or public companies, the need for a very clear statement of their accounts, making absolutely plain to the shareholders and the public the results of the different companies subsidiary, allied, and so forth, grouped together in one large undertaking. It has been said that the system of company accounting does not give sufficient information on the precise results of the various groups in one undertaking. I think the result of that system has been to make the information more precise, and accurate, and valuable each year, and if we are to be told that this industry is to be lumped together in one undertaking and that we are somehow to put in one single return what should be shown in a series of categories, in the industry itself and the ancillary businesses, I think we shall have a very bad result.
  Therefore I hope the Minister will, in his own interest, think again whether he will not accept this Amendment, or promote it in another place in some other form, so as to make clear to the public that this enterprise upon which we are now to embark will be fairly judged, and that full information as to all its activities will be made available. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is all there."] The hon. Member says it is all there, but the
  1834
  Minister's speech has made it clear to us that he does not intend to use these powers, and he has made it clear to us in his speech——
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell:There is no use the right hon. Gentleman dramatising himself and indulging in cheap heroics. The hour is too late for that sort of thing. He might have started it earlier, and we should have dealt with it. The fact of the matter is, I was dealing with the Amendment and saying how foolish it was. I did not say that we should not disclose the full financial transactions of the Board in respect of these undertakings. In Clause 29 it is set forth that the Board shall keep proper accounts and other records, in relation thereto, and all the rest that is required, including proper auditing. Moreover, it provides that the Minister shall lay a copy of every such statement and report before the House of Parliament. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want more than that.
  Mr. Macmillan:I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can get away with that. We have this vague phrase "The Board shall keep proper accounts." That is what Mr. Farrow said. Our complaint is that the provision here does not describe or give any details of the character of the accounts. It says "the Board shall keep proper accounts," but who shall decide what are proper accounts? The Auditor and Comptroller-General, who controls every other activity concerning money voted by this House, is to have nothing to do with these accounts. In the Committee the right hon. Gentleman appeared to indicate that he was not satisfied with the whole of Clause 29. He gave us to understand, and we were really satisfied, that whether the Bill laid it down precisely or not, it was his intention to put down in great detail the precise details of the regions. Now he says, "Oh, no, we will knock them together. They are not a series of undertakings, but one single undertaking. Therefore, we will lump all the accounts together." So it will be possible for skilled accountants to give the minimum of information
  I think, in his own interests and the interests of this experiment, the right hon. Gentleman would be wiser to accept if not the actual words of the Amendment —which I still think are quite applicable—

  1835
  at any rate, words which he might find more suitable. A Government, when they accept Amendments, always say, "These are not the right words, and we must find others." We have all done that in our time. If the Minister could not accept these precise words, he could find words which would carry out our intention. The whole of this affair has given us grave

  Division No. 164.

  AYES.

  [11.50 p.m.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

  Prescott, Stanley

  Birch, Nigel

  Hurd, A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Bossom, A. C.

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

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bower, N.

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

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Renton, D.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Jennings, R.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ropner, Col. L

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'Id'n) Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Carson, E.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Shepherd, S. (Newark)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Spence, H. R.

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

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Cuthbert W. N.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Mackeson, Lt. Col. H. R.

  Teeling, William

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  McKie. J. H. (Galloway)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Donner, Sqn-Ldr. P. W.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Touche, G. C.

  Drewe, C.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Vane, W. M. T.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Marples, A. E.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

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

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Maude, J. C.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Medlicott, F.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Mellor, Sir J.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Hare, Lt.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Houghton, S. G.

  Nicholson, G.

  Major Conant and

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Commander Agnew

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Noble, Comdr. A H. P

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Burden, T. W.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Deer, G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Callaghan, James

  Delargy, Captain H. J

  Attewell. H. C.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Diamond. J.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Champion, A. J.

  Dobbie, W.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Dodds, N. N

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Donovan, T.

  Balfour, A.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Barton, C

  Collick, P.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Collindridge, F.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Benson, G.

  Collins, V. J.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Beswick, F.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Boardman, H.

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

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Bowen, R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Ewart, R.

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

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Dagger, G.

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

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Follick. M.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Foot, M. M.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Forman, J. C.

  anxiety. In their original scheme by which they sailed into power, the Government sold shares to the public upon a faked prospectus, and they want to justify their results upon faked returns.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 265.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Shurmer, P.

  Gallacher, W.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  McLeavy, F.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  .

  Gibbins, J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Goodrich, H. E

  Medland, H. M.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Messer, F.

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

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mikardo, lan

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Solley, L. J.

  Grierson, E.

  Mitchison, Maj. G R.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  Steele, T.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Morley, R.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Stokes, R. R.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Swingler, S.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Moyle, A.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

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

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hale, Leslie

  Naylor, T. E.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

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

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

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

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Hardy, E. A.

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

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Haworth, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Orbach, M.

  Thurtle, E.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Tiffany, S.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Timmons, J.

  Holman, P.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Usborne, Henry

  Horabin, T. L

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Hoy, J.

  Pearson, A.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Hubbard, T.

  Pearl, Capt. T. F.

  Walkden, E.

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

  Perrins, W.

  Walker, G. H.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Piratin, P.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Watson, W. M.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Weitzman, D.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Popplewell, E.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Janner, B.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Price, M. Philips

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

  Pritt, D. N.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Keenan, W.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Kenyon, C.

  Ranger, J.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Rankin, J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Lang, G.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Lavers, S.

  Rhodes, H.

  Willis, E.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Richards, R.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Robens, A.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Woodburn, A.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Woods, G. S.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Yates, V. F.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Royle, C.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Logan, D. G.

  Scollan, T.

  Lynn, A. W.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  McGhee, H. G

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Mack, J. D.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Mr. Simmons.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered this day.

  ESTIMATES
  Sir Harold Webbe discharged from the Select Committee; Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison added. —[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) (MEASURES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  "That the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament." —[King's consent signified.]"
  12.3 a.m.
  Mr. Burden (Second Church Estates Commissioner):I know the House would not desire me to speak on this Motion at

  1839
  any great length. The Measure is desired in order to enable a difficult situation which arose owing to the war to be properly and adequately dealt with. I need hardly remark that there is today a shortage of clergymen and many parishes are now in areas which need to be re-planned. The object of the Measure is to avoid filling up the benefices which ought to be and could be served by a neighbouring vicar in the meantime.
  The Measure is limited in its operation to ten years but it will enable a bishop, with the consent of the diocesan committee advising him whether an existing committee or a committee specially set up for the purpose by the diocesan conference, to declare that a vacant benefice should not be filled for a period of five years. This declaration by a bishop is not not to be made until he has consulted the church council of the parish, and it also requires the consent of the patron, unless the patronage has already lapsed.
  A private patron's right to presentation ordinarily lapses to the bishop if not exercised in six months, and from the bishop six months later to the archbishop, and from him, in another six months, to the Crown as patron paramount. The making of a declaration in this way debars the patron from presenting to the benefice during the suspension period, but the period of suspension does not count for less, so that in the end the patron gets compensated by the making of the declaration. The bishop's power is limited. It has to be exercised within seven months; that is either where, owing to the shortage of clergy, benefices have been kept vacant during the war, within seven months of the passing of the Measure, or, in the case of any future vacancy, within
  1840
  seven months from the benefice becoming vacant. The House will notice that the total of the suspension periods in any one instance must not exceed seven years. If any benefice is kept vacant, the bishop must appoint sequestrators to look after the property and emoluments, one at least of whom must be specially qualified. I need only add that the Measure has received the approval of the Church Assembly and of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
  Commander Agnew (Camborne):I beg to second the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament."
  Resolved:
  "That the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Curate Grants) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament."
  Resolved:
  "That the Clergy Pensions (Supplementary Pensions) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to His Majesty for His Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament." —[Mr. Burden.]"

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved:
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.

  ANGLO-EGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS (BRITISH FORCES, WITHDRAWAL)
  Mr. T. Reid
  asked the Prime Minister if the decision of His Majesty's Government to withdraw British Forces from Egypt in no way implies a diminution of Britain's ability to defend the Suez Canal.

  The Prime Minister:
  It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to reach agreement with the Egyptian Government in order to make effective provision for the defence of the Canal zone. Discussions are now proceeding between the delegation and the Egyptian Government with this object in view.

  GERMANY (RYE FLOUR)
  Mr. Vane
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he anticipates that the first rye flour of the 1946 harvest will be available for bread making in the British zone.

  Mr. J. Hynd:
  In August.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax (Health Service Cost)
  Sir W. Smithers
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of the new health and hospital proposals in terms of Income Tax.

  Mr. Dalton:
  Ninepence in the £

  Customs Facilities, Civil Airfields
  Mr. Hurd
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at how many civil airfields there are now facilities for clearing customs on leaving the country and returning; and if he will arrange for a customs official to attend at any registered airfield if 24 hours' notice is given.

  Mr. Dalton:
  At 12 airfields now, but this number will be increased as traffic grows. I am afraid the hon. Member's suggestion is not practicable.

  Excess Profits Tax (Directors' Remuneration)
  Mr. A. Edwards
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in applying the Excess Profits Tax concession under which directors' remuneration paid to a director serving in His Majesty's Forces is allowed as a charge in computing the profits of the company for Excess Profits Tax, it is the custom of the Inland Revenue to deduct the amount of the Service pay and family allowances received by the director.

  Mr. Dalton:
  No, Sir. The remuneration is allowed in full, subject to the amount paid not being in excess of what is reasonable and necessary.

  STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS (BOUND COPIES)
  Major Bruce
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is his intention to resume the prewar practice of supplying bound copies of the verbatim Reports of Proceedings in Standing Committees.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  Yes, Sir; with the resumption of Standing Committees.

  CIVIL SERVICE (CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT ORDER)
  Sir J. Lucas
  asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Control of Engagement (Civil Servants) Order is likely to be relaxed.

  Mr. Glenvil Hall:
  I regret that I am unable to say how soon the efficient conduct of public business will permit of the Control of Employment (Civil Servants) Order, 1945, being relaxed

BRITISH ARMY

  Ammunition Dumps (Agricultural Land)
  Mr. Watkins
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are a large number of ammunition dumps on good agricultural food producing land alongside main roads in Breconshire and Radnorshire and adjoining

  165
  counties; and whether he will arrange for such unused and unguarded dumps to be disposed of immediately.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  Very little good agricultural land is used for the storage of ammunition, and any land used for this purpose consists entirely of strips about 3o ft. wide along the borders of roads. The use of these strips was agreed with local representatives of war agricultural executive committees when the land was requisitioned. As my right hon. Friend has informed the House on previous occasions, every effort is being made to dispose of surplus ammunition as quickly as possible and priority is given to agricultural land.

  Spanish Republicans
  Major Bruce
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now any announcement to make in regard to the date and place of demobilisation of the Republican Spaniards now serving in the Pioneer Corps at No. I Camp, Sudbury, Derbyshire; whether he is aware that the men themselves are very much opposed to any scheme to discharge them in Italy; and whether he is prepared to secure their discharge at an early date in this country.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) on 9th April last.

  Mrs. Braddock
  asked the Secretary of State for War why it was found necessary to send an escort of one captain, one sergeant, two corporals, and 25 armed men to accompany 49 Spanish Republicans from Chorley camp to Kirkham, Lancashire, on their way to France.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  This party of Spaniards was escorted by one subaltern and 15 other ranks, all unarmed, from Chorley to Preston; at Preston station they were handed over to two unarmed other ranks who acted as guides to France.

  Release Deferment
  Mr. Cooper-Key
  asked the Secretary of State for War why block deferment of release groups is permitted to take place in certain branches in the Forces under Middle East Command; and whether he will give an assurance that deferment will be applied only after consideration of individual cases.
  166
  Mr. Bellenger:
  Deferments of officers and other ranks on operational grounds in M.E.F. have only been allowed on an individual basis and will continue to be authorised only after careful consideration of each individual case.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for War (I) if he is aware that cipher personnel of the Royal Signals, M.E.F., have been told that they are to be deferred beyond their age and service release dates, although messages which need the use of cipher are increasingly rare and these men, now being deferred, will spend much time in idleness; and if he will take steps to replace these men, who are older than most soldiers now serving, by men from higher age-service groups in B.A.O.R. or Great Britain and so relieve them from the arduous conditions of the desert and free them to return to their homes and civilian vocations;

  (2) if he is aware that orders have been given in the M.E.F. to defer the release of certain cipher personnel, aged 42–45 years, who, because they are in low age-service groups, are excluded from the L.I.A.P. Scheme, although many younger men are getting 28 days' home furlough; and, until these men can be released, will he see that they are given priority in home leave, as many have not seen their families for over a year, as the division was moved from B.A.O.R. to M.E.F. in October, 1945, without home leave being granted.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  There is a general shortage of trained cipher personnel and I understand that it may be necessary for the Commander in Chief to defer the release of some of those serving in the Middle East. They will certainly not be retained unless it is really essential to do so. I am making inquiries as to the length of time for which their release is likely to be deferred and if, as I hope, it is not expected to be for long, it would not be justifiable to send them home to this country on leave. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have received further details.

  Major Legge-Bourke
  asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers of the Royal Signals serving in the Middle East have had their releases deferred in April; how many replacements

  167
  have arrived during the same period; and what employment is being found for such officers.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  On 2nd May, 20 Royal Signals officers serving in the Middle East had had their release deferred on operational grounds. Fifteen Royal Signals officers arrived in the Middle East during April. I have no detailed information as to the exact appointments of these officers, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that they will all be fully employed.

  Wife Maintenance Proceedings (Addresses)
  Mr. B. White
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the wife of an Army officer, whose name has been communicated to him by the hon. Member for Canterbury, who had been granted a summons for maintenance against her husband, applied to his Department for his last known address but was refused this information on the ground that he was a commissioned officer; and what steps will be taken to ensure that when a wife of an officer is granted a summons for maintenance and the police are unable to trace the whereabouts of the officer concerned, she will receive the cooperation of the military authorities.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  It is contrary to the practice of the War Office to disclose the addresses of members or ex-members of the Army to their wives, but in order to facilitate maintenance proceedings it is the practice to disclose last recorded addresses to solicitors, the police or the Clerk of the Court to enable proceedings to be instituted or legal process to be served. This is the answer which should have been given to Mrs. Barlow, and I very much regret that she was apparently given incorrect information.

  Army Forms
  Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson
  asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Army forms in existence in, respectively, 1936 and 1946.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  Upwards of 2,000 types of Army forms were in existence in 1936 and 2,300 are in existence now.

  Mails (Japan)
  Mr. Osborne
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that letters addressed to British soldiers in Japan are held up in Australia; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure a quicker and more reliable delivery.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  Mail for British troops in Japan is now being sent via India and Singapore. Although in the early stages of the occupation some mail may have gone via Australia there should have been no delay there. I am taking steps to ensure that if any mail is now in Australia it is forwarded immediately.

  Defence Works, Aberdeen
  Mr. Hector Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the work of removing the concrete anti-tank defence blocks along the seafront at Aberdeen has only partially been done; that it is important to complete it in a safe and tidy manner before the short summer holiday season of this resort begins; and if he will have this done immediately.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  The responsibility for the physical removal of defence works of this nature from land owned by the local authority rests with that authority. If the authority is unable itself to remove the works, the removal of which is in the public interest, the appropriate civil Department will assume the responsibility. The War Department is prepared to assist in the work of removal if military labour happens to be available and in this case 18 blocks were in fact removed by military labour. I understand that most of the remaining blocks are on the public highway and, therefore, a matter for the Ministry of Transport.

  Middle East Troops (Dispositions)
  Mr. Dodds-Parker
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision to withdraw British troops from Egypt, he will now give early consideration to the proposals for establishing a training area for British troops in Kenya.

  Lieut.-Colonel Price-White
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision of His Majesty's

  169
  Government to remove British troops from Egypt, it is intended to extend and develop existing Army training grounds and bases in East Africa in the near future.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  Following the decision to withdraw British troops from Egypt the future dispositions of our Forces in the Middle East area are of course being considered by His Majesty's Government and in this connection the suggestion made by the hon. Members will naturally be examined.

  Driving Accident, Stromness
  Sir B. Neven-Spence
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on 17th June, 1945, at about 0045 hours, AM(E) FX 685056 John D. Dicker, whilst driving Bedford R.N. 11674 from the R.N. Air Station, Hatston, Orkney, crashed into the entrance gate of the house of Mr. Peter Stockan, Redlandhill, Stromness, and damaged the dairy, the roof of the dwelling-house and a stone dyke; and what compensation he proposes to pay to Mr. Stockan.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  I understand that the vehicle concerned was being driven without authority. In accordance with the general policy the Government are unable to accept financial responsibility for this accident as it is considered that at the time of the accident the driver was driving in such circumstances that had he been in private employment his employer would not have been responsible in law for his acts. If the claimant does not agree with this view the question could be referred to an independent Legal Referee appointed by the Lord Advocate provided he intimates that he wishes this to be done within 28 days. On the other hand the claimant may, if, he wishes, submit the case to the Compassionate Payments Committee of the Claims Commission for consideration for an ex-gratia award.

  Staddon Heights, Plymouth
  Mr. Medland
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he will order the removal of the wire fencing recently erected on Staddon Heights overlooking Plymouth Hoe and thus restore to the general public a right they have enjoyed for 50 years of walking over the heights and particularly over the golf course to the wall, in view of the fact that this land
  170
  is one of the finest beauty spots in the country.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  Although the land in question is War Department property, it is leased to a golf club. I understand that the fence to which my hon. Friend is presumably referring was put up by the golf club, with whom I suggest he should take the matter up.

  Surplus Excavators
  Mr. T. Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for War what number of excavators, or other machines, now surplus in his Department, can be used for the purpose of expediting the building of houses so badly needed and if he will take the required steps to release these machines at the earliest date in order that they may be put into use.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  All machines of this kind which are in urgent demand for civil purposes and which are surplus to Army requirements are declared to the Ministry of Supply as soon as they become surplus. The only surplus machines which are still Army property are a relatively small number (including 17 excavators) which are at the moment in process of being declared to the Ministry of Supply for disposal. Their subsequent disposal is a matter for that Department.

  Coate Water, Swindon
  Mr. T. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that it will require an expenditure of about £4,000 to repair the damage done to the beautiful Coate Water, Swindon, by military occupation, details of which have been supplied to him; and if he will compensate the Swindon town council equitably, irrespective of the technical point about the exact regulation under which the place was both used and occupied.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  As the case for paying, more than the compensation allowed by the Compensation Defence Act, 1939, depends on the need for restoration of an amenity, I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

  Education Scheme (Formation Colleges)
  Major Legge-Bourke
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give

  171
  an assurance that men retained in Java and other theatres, where no training courses are available for postwar resettlement, will not thereby be disqualified from obtaining these courses before release; and if he will consider arranging for any man who has served for more than six months in an operational area to be entitled to at least two months on a full time educational course before leaving the Army.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  Training for resettlement in civil life is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, which provides courses, or grants for further education, for men and women, who fulfil certain specified conditions, after their release. The fact that soldiers are serving in an operational theatre does not in any way prevent their being considered for these courses or grants. Among the facilities provided under the Army Education Scheme are one-month residential courses for suitable personnel at Formation Colleges which have been established in the major Commands at home and overseas. Arrangements have recently been made by which officers and other ranks serving overseas who have not been able to attend Formation Colleges before their release may be allowed to attend a Formation College in the United Kingdom during Class A release leave, if the appropriate course is available.

  C.M.F. Leave Trains, Buffet Cars
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for the provision of N.A.A.F.I. buffet cars on leave trains for the C.M.F. similar to those which are provided on leave trains for the B.A.O.R.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  N.A.A.F.I. buffet cars are run on both the C.M.F. and the B.A.O.R. leave services and the rolling stock used is the most suitable that can be provided in each case.

  Clifton Heath, Berkshire
  Sir G. Fox
  asked the Secretary of State for War when he anticipates being in a position to derequisition Clifton Heath, Berkshire, and the adjoining wood; and for what purpose it was used in April.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  I regret that I cannot forecast when it will be possible to derequisition Clifton Heath, Berkshire, and
  172
  the adjoining wood, as this camp is being held for a further commitment. The camp was unoccupied during April.

  Marriage (German Women)
  Mr. Sorensen
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether any record is kept of inquiries from soldiers desiring to marry German girls: and whether any decision has been reached respecting the granting of allowances in respect of children whose fathers are British soldiers.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  No special record is kept of inquiries from soldiers desiring to marry German girls. No allowance is normally admissible from Army funds for an illegitimate child born during the soldier's service.

  Polish Troops, Italy
  Mr. Osborne
  asked the Secretary of State for War how many Polish soldiers under British command in Italy recently agreed to return to Poland; how many refused to sail at the last moment; what were their grievances; and what steps have been taken to remedy them.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  Three thousand five hundred Polish soldiers serving in Italy have volunteered to return to Poland since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' recent announcement. Two thousand three hundred and one of these men refused to sail from Italy at the last moment. I understand that they stated that their grievances were that they were not to be paid war gratuities, that arrangements had not been made for the transfer of their savings to Poland and that they had not been issued with new uniforms. The first two points are being examined and it is hoped to make an early public statement 1 can, however, explain the position about the issue of uniforms now. The soldiers in question were apparently under the impression that new uniforms had been issued to those returning to Poland from countries other than Italy. This is not in fact the case. Arrangements are made to ensure that all those returning to Poland, regardless of the country from which they are travelling, retain all the articles of uniform in their possession including spare suits which they have in most cases; only if their uniform is not in good condition is a new set issued.

  The Malthouse, Wokingham
  Mr. Hurd
  asked the Secretary of State for War why the notice of derequisitioning of The Malthouse, Reading Road, Wokingham, was not served on the tenants of this property, the East Berks Indoor Bowls Club, from whom it was requisitioned in 1940; and if he will take the necessary steps to hand this property back to the club.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I have nothing to add to the letter containing full details which was sent to the hon. Member on this subject on 3rd May.

  Drill Hall, Kettering
  Mr. Mitchison
  asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to make a statement about the future use of the Drill Hall, Northampton Road, Kettering, or to implement the promise made to return it for the use of the Army Cadet Force in Kettering.

  Mr. Lawson:
  Instructions have been issued for Regular Army use of the Drill Hall to end on 31st May, 1946. As early as possible after this date the premises will be handed back to the Territorial Army Association, who should then be able to meet accommodation requirements of the Army Cadet Force unit in Kettering.

  Basuto Troops' Mutiny, Palestine (Report)
  Mr. Henderson Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make a final statement on the Court of Inquiry into the shooting of Basuto troops in Palestine.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I have now received the report of the Court of Inquiry. The facts given in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 16th April, which were based on a telegraphic report, were substantially correct. It is now clear, however, that a considerable time elapsed after the first signs of mutiny were apparent, until firing actually occurred. During this time, reinforcements were brought in, and attempts were made, including the use of tear smoke, to quell the mutiny without resorting to the use of fire. Contrary to the orders of the Commanders on the spot, some British troops opened fire in the general melee which resulted from attempts to force the
  174
  Basutos into their cells, after two British officers and a number of British other ranks had been injured by bricks thrown by the mutineers. The Commanders took immediate action to stop the firing, which, according to various estimates, lasted only from 10 to 45 seconds. The Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Forces, considers that force was necessary to deal with the mutineers, but that more than the minimum necessary was used. He is of the opinion that the Commanders on the spot did honestly intend that only the minimum force should be used, but failed to appreciate the need for cooperation of command and clear orders. This failure resulted in lack of control, and to this extent, the Commanders were blameworthy, and have been censured. I agree with the views of the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Force, and I have approved the action taken by him. The Basutos were not tried for their mutinous conduct on the occasion in question and, as I informed the House on 16th April, all the previous sentences were subsequently remitted. The Basutos concerned left the Middle East on their way home on 25th March.

  Victory March (Effect on Release)
  Major Legge-Bourke
  asked the Secretary of State for War why officers of groups 29 and 3o, and other ranks of group 3o, will not be arriving in the United Kingdom from East Africa until after the dates for release of their groups, despite his assurance that there was no reason to suppose that the arrival of men in group 28, or later, from East Africa, would be so delayed.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him yesterday.

ARMED FORCES

  Indefinite Leave
  Sir W. Smithers
  asked the Secretary of State for War to the latest convenient date, the numbers of the members of the three Services on indefinite leave with pay; and if he will give the figures for the R.N., Fleet Air Arm, Army and R.A.F., separately.
  175
  Mr. Bellenger:
  I regret that complete information is not readily available for the three Services, and could not be obtained without a good deal of research. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that all these concerned are either ex-prisoners of war who are not yet fit or personnel who have been allowed to remain temporarily on leave for some other special and good reason.

  Passenger Motor Cars
  Air-Commodore Harvey
  asked the Secretary of State for War how many new passenger motor cars have been purchased for the Army, R.N. and R.A.F., since V J-Day; and how many in this period have been sent overseas.

  Mr. Bellenger:
  The War Department has received some 3,900 cars from production since V J-Day and the Admiralty and Air Ministry five and 325 respectively. Some 6,500 cars have been sent overseas during the same period; it is impossible to say how many of the vehicles sent overseas were new vehicles.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Mr. Sparks
  asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning which authorities have applied to him to make an order under Section I of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944; and in how many cases the applications have been acceded to and compulsory purchase orders confirmed.

  Mr. Silkin:
  Six authorities, the councils of the county boroughs of Plymouth, Bristol, Coventry, Southampton, Exeter and Swansea, have applied for Orders under the Section referred to. No such Order has yet been made, but a public local inquiry into the first of two such applications made by the County Borough of Plymouth has recently been held.

  Green Belt, London
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
  asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether it is the policy of his Department to continue to prohibit building in the Green Belt.
  176
  Mr. Silkin:
  I would refer the hon. Member to the statement about the planning of London, which I made in this House on 5th March. The policy of His Majesty's Government set out in that statement with regard to the Green Belt remains unchanged.

  Rights of Fairs
  Mr. Lang
  asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he has taken steps to preserve the rights of holding fairs in towns which are to be re-planned; and if he will arrange for such rights in entirely new towns.

  Mr. Silkin:
  Whether, and to what extent, planning requirements will affect existing rights of fairs is a question partly of law and partly of administration, according to the nature of the right and to the particular circumstances of the case. Rights of fair arise by charter, prescription, or Act of Parliament and cannot, I am advised, be created by the exercise of powers under the Planning Acts. I am not at present satisfied that any amendment of the law in this respect is necessary, but if the particular difficulties which are apprehended are brought to my notice, I will consider the matter further.

  Penychain Camp, Pwllheli
  Lieut.-Colonel Price-White
  asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will announce the nature of the concessions made by Messrs. Butlins to the authorities concerned, in regard to the future use of the Penychain Camp at Pwllheli as a holiday camp, in view of the expressed anxiety in certain quarters in Caernarvonshire as to the nature of such concessions.

  Mr. Silkin:
  The concessions which Messrs. Butlins have agreed to make are as follows: the planting of trees and shrubs for screening purposes; the provision of public access along the eastern boundary of the camp site and across fields from two points on the western boundary to Penychain Point, where the public will be allowed to roam at will; the provision of a narrow strip of land on the northern boundary of the camp to enable a diversion of the main road to be made; the land on the north side of the new road to

  177
  be sterilised as regards building; the provision of a car park with access at a point to be agreed by the planning authority, and the colour of the external painting of the camp buildings to be similarly agreed.

HOUSING

  Labour Camp Site, Acton
  Mr. Sparks
  asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the hutments at the Emergency Labour Camp, Park Road North, Acton, have been unoccupied for a long time; that they are now in a bad condition and unfit for occupation; and, in view of the housing problem in the neighbourhood, if he will release the site and demolish the hutments to enable the Acton Borough Council to acquire the site for permanent housing development.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  I am aware that this camp has been unoccupied for some time and is in bad condition. Instructions have been given for it to be demolished, and it is estimated that the site will be cleared by 31st May.

  Brick Supplies
  Sir G. Fox
  asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to provide bricks for house building in Oxfordshire, where there is a shortage.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  The rate of production of bricks is increasing daily, and it is expected that the priority distribution scheme for building materials, recently introduced, will ensure that adequate supplies of bricks will be available in all areas for the most essential purposes such as house building. I have no information of any particular shortage in Oxfordshire, but if the hon. Member will furnish details of any case he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

  Aluminium Houses
  Mr. Renton
  asked the Minister of Works the cost ex-factory of a temporary aluminium house; what is the price charged to a local authority for buying such a house; and how much of the difference between the cost ex-factory and the price paid by the local authority is represented by charges made by Government departments.
  178
  Mr. Tomlinson:
  Prices for manufacturing temporary aluminium houses have not yet been fixed. Local authorities do not buy temporary houses; all temporary houses are provided by the Government and housing authorities pay an agreed sum annually to the Minister of Health while the houses remain in their possession. It is estimated that the charges made by Government Departments will be about two per cent. of the total cost.

  Ramsey
  Mr. Renton
  asked the Minister of Works when he proposes to deliver 18 temporary houses promised to Ramsey Urban District Council, Huntingdonshire, last autumn.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  Deliveries of temporary houses allocated to the Ramsey Urban District Council began on 2nd May and should be completed this month.

  Government-Occupied Rooms, Edinburgh
  Sir W. Darling
  asked the Minister of Works the number of rooms formerly used for residential purposes now occupied by Government Departments in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  I regret that no accurate information is available as to the extent to which accommodation now occupied by Government Departments in the city of Edinburgh was formerly in use for residential purposes, but the number of rooms so occupied is estimated at approximately 750. I should add that this figure includes hotels and boarding houses in addition to dwelling houses but excludes rooms occupied by the Service Departments.

  Building Materials Priority
  Mr. G. Wallace
  asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the misunderstanding that has arisen amongst builders' merchants over the scheme for priority allocation of building materials; and if he will take immediate steps to clarify the position.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  I am not aware of any general misunderstanding by builders' merchants of the scheme for the priority allocation of building materials. It was too much to hope that the launching of this

  179
  scheme would be free from initial difficulties, but steps are being taken to overcome them.

  Stockton-on-Tees
  Captain Chetwynd
  asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the temporary housing programme at the Albany Road site, British section, Stockton-on-Tees, is being held up through lack of supplies; that skilled and semiskilled men are being paid off by the contractor; and whether he will make suitable supplies from the storage depots at Dalton near Thirsk and at Aycliffe available for this work.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  Yes, Sir. It is regretted that owing to a misunderstanding inadequate supplies were sent to the Albany Road site. Steps have been taken to rectify this and supplies are now ample.

  Requisitioned Houses. Canterbury
  Mr. B. White
  asked the Minister of Works the number of dwelling-houses that are still requisitioned in Canterbury for use as offices by civil departments; and the total number of living-rooms in such houses.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  The number of dwelling houses in Canterbury still held on requisition for use as offices by civil Departments is five and the total number of living rooms in such houses is about 50.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Mitchison
  asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the shortage of labour and materials for rural housing, he will offer assistance to rural district councils by the provision of permanent prefabricated houses or otherwise; and, if so, upon what terms.

  Mr. Key:
  My right hon. Friend fully appreciates rural housing needs, and, as my hon. Friend suggests, one of the ways of assisting rural district councils to use the limited amount of labour and materials to the best advantage is to encourage them to supplement traditional building by means of permanent prefabricated systems of construction. Arrangements have already been made to supply rural district councils with 2,500 Swedish timber houses and these are now being erected in various parts of the country.
  180
  After reviewing all the systems at present available, my right hon. Friend has selected one, that designed by Sir Edwin Airey, as being most suitable for rural building on a large scale. Type plans have been prepared and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Works, is arranging for the wall components to be manufactured and supplied to contractors at a specified price. Details of the scheme are contained in a circular which my right hon. Friend has just sent to local authorities and of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  Roofing Timber
  145. Mr. Janner
  asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is no seven by two-inch stock-cut roofing timber in the whole of the Midlands area and that, as a consequence, houses that have been constructed up to the point of the roofing cannot be completed; and what steps are being taken to remedy this situation.

  Mr. Belcher:
  No, Sir, but I shall be glad to inquire into any specific case of difficulty my hon. Friend may have in mind.

MINISTRY OF WORKS

  Stone Production
  Sir W. Darling
  asked the Minister of Works, in view of the shortage of bricks, what steps are being taken to stimulate stone quarrying in general and the manufacture of artificial stone in Scotland.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has arranged for a substantial allocation of prisoners of war and an allocation of heavy excavators for stone quarries. The manufacture of artificial stone in Scotland is being stimulated by support of applications to erect new works and by assistance to manufacturers in obtaining labour, transport and plant.

  New Factories
  Mr. S. Shephard
  asked the Minister of Works how many licences to build new factories or to add on to existing factories have been issued since V J-Day; what amount of floor-space these licences involve; and how the total floor-space is

  181
  allocated as between development areas and non-development areas.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  2,831 licences have been granted for new factories and for extensions to existing factories since VJ-Day. I cannot give precise figures for the floor space involved, but the total would be in the neighbourhood of 30,000,000 square feet, of which about 14,000,000 would be in development areas.

  Repairs, Transport House
  Sir H. Webbe
  asked the Minister of Works how many windows are being reglazed and painted in Transport House; and the total cost of works for which a permit has been issued in this case.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  330 windows are being repainted and of these about 200 are being reglazed where the glass is broken or missing. The total cost of the licensed work, which includes repair to the roof and fabric needed to make the building weatherproof, is £2,965.

  Westminster Hall (Scaffolding)
  Mr. S. Shephard
  III. asked the Minister of Works when it is anticipated that the scaffolding in Westminster Hall will be removed.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  The scaffolding in Westminster Hall was erected after bomb damage to the roof, to enable temporary repairs to be carried out, and it will be retained for the permanent ,repairs. It is hoped to start the permanent repairs this year, and the work will take 12–18 months to complete.

  Building Apprentices Scotland (Wages)
  Mr. Hicks
  asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that an award of the National Arbitration Tribunal in regard to the wages of building trade apprentices in Scotland varies considerably the scale under the National Apprenticeship Scheme for the industry in England and Wales; that this is causing dissatisfaction among lads already under apprenticeship and is retarding the normal flow of apprentices to the trade in Scotland; and whether he will receive representations from the Scottish building trade, with a view to the adoption of a
  182
  uniform apprenticeship scheme to cover Great Britain.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  I am aware of the recent award of the National Arbitration Tribunal covering the wages of Building Trade Apprentices in Scotland. I have no power to alter or intervene in any award given by the tribunal and I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served if I were to receive representations on this matter.

  Brickmaking (Prisoners of War)
  Mr. Gaitskell
  asked the Minister of Works how many prisoners of war are to be employed in brickmaking; and how many are now so employed.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  The number of prisoners of war to be employed in brick-making will depend upon the availability of British recruits. On 27th April, 2,300 prisoners were employed in brickworks.

  Defence Works (Bricks)
  Major Legge-Bourke
  asked the Minister of Works what steps are being taken to collect bricks put down in the countryside during the war as a precaution against enemy aircraft landings, so that stocks may be used for building purposes.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  While I am not hopeful of obtaining substantial quantities of bricks from these sources, I am arranging for them to be inspected. If they are suitable as bricks, they will be made available where required as soon as possible.

COAL INDUSTRY

  Watches (Key Men)
  Mr. Cocks
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has been able to make arrangements with the Ministry of Supply for pocket watches to be made available for key men working underground in the coalmines.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply that a very large number of pocket watches have recently been released for distribution through normal trade channels. In the event, however, of underground key workers not finding it

  183
  possible to obtain pocket watches in the ordinary way, I have made arrangements to advise where individual requirements may be purchased if they are notified through Colliery managements to my Mining Supplies Officer.

  Mining Subsidences
  Mr. T. Brown
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he proposes to set up the committee to give full consideration to the question of mining subsidence and the damage to land and property arising therefrom; and from what source will the committee be appointed.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  I hope to make a statement in the near future.

  Opencast Mining, Wentworth Woodhouse
  Mr. Keeling
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the thickness of the hard rock which will have to be blasted during the opencast coal working near the Wentworth Woodhouse mansion; and how far is the nearest point of this rock from the mansion.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The borings disclose that the rock overburden of the site in close proximity to the mansion varies between 20 feet to 40 feet in thickness according to the dip of the seam, and that it persists throughout the whole of the working area. The nearest point at which the workings will approach the mansion is 450 feet.

  Miners (Military Service)
  Flight-Lieutenant Crawley
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether young men working in the mines, who are due for call-up, will be allowed to remain in the mine3 if they desire to do so.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  Young men who become liable for service in His Majesty's Forces under the provisions of the National Service Act will be retained in underground coalmining employment so long as their services are satisfactory.

FUEL AND POWER

  Coal Supplies, Hull
  Commander Pursey
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total amount of the stocks of domestic
  184
  coal in Hull and the stocks held, respectively, by the Cooperative Society, Risdale and Walkers, and the other merchants on 1st May, or nearest date for which records are kept for the new coal year.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The total ground stock of domestic coal at depots in the Hull district on 27th April, 1946, was 432 tons. Of this total the Hull Cooperative Society held 88 tons, Messrs. Risdale and Walker 68 tons, and other merchants 276 tons.

  Commander Pursey
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the date for which the registrations will be taken on which to base the allocation of domestic coal for the new coal year, and at what intervals increases in the allocation will be made for the city of Hull, in order to include new houses completed, bomb-damaged houses repaired, evacuees who return and other new registrations.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The present basic weekly allocations to Hull merchants, which will run for six months from 29th April to 27th October, 1946, have been made on the basis of the local fuel overseer's records of registrations as at 25th January, 1946. In addition to the six-monthly basic allocation a small tonnage is set aside for allocation on a four-weekly basis to meet emergencies all over the country, and from the share of this tonnage which may be allocated from time to time to the North Eastern region, allowance has been and will continue to be made so far as supplies permit for increases in the Hull registrations as certified monthly by the Local Fuel Overseer. Basic allocations will be revised for the six months following 27th October.

  Commander Pursey
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentage of the full allocation of 50 cwt. of domestic coal per registered customer supplied to the city of Hull during the coal year ended 30th April, 1946; the percentage supplied, respectively, to the co-operative society, Risdale and Walkers, and the other merchants; and the actual amount of coal which should have been delivered to consumers registered with these three categories of merchants.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The percentage of the house coal allocation received during the 12 months ended 30th April by merchants

  185
  in the Hull district was 91.8. The percentages received by the Hull Co-operative Society, Messrs. Risdale and Walker Limited, and by other Hull merchants were 84.1, 90.6 and 93.9 respectively. This allocation includes house coal used at non-domestic premises, and it is not possible to give a separate average for domestic deliveries which would moreover vary according to the availability of gas or electricity or other special circumstances. The average of the deliveries to all the registered premises in the Hull district was approximately 45.9 cwt; for premises supplied by the Hull Co-operative Society it was 42.1 cwt; for premises supplied by Messrs. Risdale and Walker Limited 45.3 cwt.; and for premises supplied by other merchants 46.9 cwt.

  Forged Petrol Coupons
  Mr. A. Lewis
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, to counteract the sale and exchange of forged petrol coupons, he will make it a condition of sale of petrol that motorcar log books must be produced together with petrol coupons so that the dealer may check serial numbers of petrol coupons issued.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The only forgeries at present in circulation are those of the basic ration coupons and the number is relatively insignificant. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion but it would not be practicable to require the production of the registration book as a condition of the sale of petrol. The easiest way for the dealer to protect himself against the risk of accepting a forged basic ration coupon is to comply with the legal requirement to detach the coupon from the ration book at the time the petrol is supplied and to see that the registration number of the car corresponds with that shown on the cover of the book.

  Small Businesses (Petrol)
  Mr. Morley
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can increase the allowance of petrol to small businesses so that they can employ their men returning from the Forces.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  Within the limits permitted by available supplies, regional petroleum officers are authorised to grant supplementary petrol allowances to small businesses so that men returning from the Forces can use their cars for the purposes of the business.

  Agricultural Machinery (Petrol)
  122 Mr. De la Bèere asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, if he will dispense with the agricultural application form R. (M.S.) 6, for petrol for tractors, and substitute a simple card to be signed certifying that the vehicles and requirements remain the same as for the previous month, in view of the waste of time, paper and money under the present method.
  Mr. Shinwell:
  The prescribed application form R. (M.S.) 6 which covers a two-monthly period is used for agricultural lorries and stationary engines as well as for tractors. The petrol requirements of these vehicles and machines vary considerably, according to the season of the year. The substitution of the card suggested by the hon. Member would not result in any economy, quite apart from the fact that if an application were made in such a form the applicant would not be under any legal obligation to use the petrol solely for the purposes for which he has applied. I have considered the possibility of extending the two-monthly rationing period to three months, but regret that owing to considerable administrative difficulties, I am unable to make any change at the present.

  Overseas Visitors (Petrol)
  Captain Bullock
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to the decision of the French Government to issue coupons for an initial allowance of 33 gallons of petrol to British tourists visiting France, and a further allowance for each week's stay in that country; and whether he will reciprocate this courtesy by extending similar facilities to French tourists wishing to bring their motor cars to Britain.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  Yes, Sir. Arrangements are already in operation by which visitors to this country from Overseas who bring a car or motor cycle with them can obtain a basic petrol ration book, and also supplementary coupons for any necessary business journeys they may desire to make.

  Electricity Poles
  Major McCallum
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the development of the supply of

  187
  electric power to rural areas is still held up owing to the lack of poles; and if there has been any improvement in the supply position since the beginning of March.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The answer to the first part is "Yes, Sir." The answer to the second part is "No, Sir," but steps have been taken to improve the position. In this connection I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) on 17th April.

  Central Electricity Board (Supplies)
  Mr. Palmer
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total number of units sold by the Central Electricity Board for the year 1944; and how many of these units were sold to owners of selected stations at the grid tariff.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  The total number of units sold by the Board in the year 1944 was 34,439 millions, of which 1,784 millions were sold to the owners of selected stations at the grid tariff.

  Mr. Palmer
  asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many owners of selected generating stations elected to purchase their supplies of electricity from the Central Electricity Board for the year 1944, on each of the following alternative charges: grid tariff under Section II, adjusted costs under Section 13, and cost of production, under Section 7 of the 1926 Act.

  Mr. Shinwell:
  In the year 1944, 18 selected station owners purchased supplies from the Board at the Grid Tariff fixed under Section II of the Act of 1926; 90 at prices agreed between the Board and the owners under Section 7 (4) of the Act; and none on the basis of cost of production under Section 7 (4) (a). Cases only arise under Section 13 of the 1926 Act if agreement cannot be reached on the cost of independent operation and a reference to the Electricity Commissioners is made. No such cases have so far been referred in respect of the year 1944.

EMPLOYMENT

  Catering Industry (Wages Boards)
  Mr. A. Lewis
  asked the Minister of Labour what progress the Catering Wages Commission has made in regulating the wages and conditions of employment in the catering industry; what wages boards have been set up; what sections of the catering industry are affected by these boards; when will the various boards' findings be published; and will he make a full statement in connection therewith.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  An account of the progress made by the Catering Wages Commission in their examination of the machinery for the regulation of the remuneration and conditions of employment in the catering industry is given in the Commission's annual reports, to which I would refer my hon. Friend. As a result of recommendations made by the Commission the following wages boards have been established:

  Industrial and Staff Canteen Undertakings Wages Board.

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment Wages. Board.

  Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant Wages Board.

  Licensed Non-Residential Establishment Wages Board.

  An Order has also been made for the establishment of a fifth board, the Unlicensed Residential Establishment Wages Board, which is in process of being constituted. These boards cover respectively (I) industrial and staff canteens, (2) cafes and teashops, (3) licensed hotels and restaurants, (4) public houses and registered clubs, and (5) unlicensed hotels and boarding houses. Following the receipt of proposals submitted by the Industrial and Staff Canteen Undertakings Wages Board a Wages Regulation Order fixing the wages to be paid and the holidays to be allowed to workers in industrial and staff canteens was made on 26th November, 1945. Wages boards are under a statutory obligation to publish notices of wages regulation proposals before submitting them to the Minister, but I am not in a position to say in advance when such notices will be published.

  Older Men
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould
  asked the Minister of Labour how many men over 55 years of age have been unemployed for more than two months; how many of them are unable to get work because of their age; and what steps he is taking to see that these older men get jobs.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  The information asked for in the first and second parts of the Question is not available, but it is proposed to obtain statistical returns which will show whether there is abnormal long term unemployment among older men.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Peter Freeman
  asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the letter from the chairman of the Trainees' Committee of the Leather-head College, functioning under the Disabled Persons Act; whether he will continue the trainees' rent allowance whilst on authorised leave to married trainees; make more suitable arrangements for trainees on termination of their training for employment; provide travel and other facilities while in search of work; and, pending such employment, grant return warrants until work is assured after interviewing.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  As regards the first part of the Question, my right hon. Friend has the matter under consideration. With regard to the, latter parts of the Question, my officers assure themselves before a disabled person is accepted for a training course that there are reasonable prospects of placing him in suitable employment when he has completed his training and most of the trainees at Queen Elizabeth's College have a job to go to when they leave the Centre. Those who remain unplaced at the end of the training course return to their home areas where the Disablement Rehabilitation Officer of the local employment exchange makes every effort to find them employment. So far as I am aware these arrangements are working satisfactorily and the great majority of the severely disabled persons who attend this centre are placed in employment in the trade for which they have been trained within a few weeks of completion of their training course. Travelling expenses may be paid in approved cases to disabled persons, in-
  190
  cluding trainees from this Centre, either to attend an interview with an employer or to take up employment. I am, however, considering whether any extension of these facilities is necessary.

  Flight-Lieutenant Parkin
  asked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons are unemployed at present in the Stroud and Dursley area; how many of these were transferred to the area to take part in war production, which has now ceased; and what steps are being taken to provide them with suitable sheltered employment.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  The number of persons registered as disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act at present unemployed in the Stroud and Dursley area is 15, of whom two were transferred to the area to take part in war production. The main provision of work for disabled persons is through the application of the quota scheme to ordinary employment. The needs of the minority who may require some form of sheltered employment are being assessed.

  Mr. Morley
  asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the discontent amongst the trainees of Queen Elizabeth's Training College for the Disabled on account of the stoppage of married trainees' rent allowance whilst on authorised leave and the non-placing in employment of trainees on the termination of training direct from college; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy these grievances.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave today to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman).

  Car Unit Personnel, Germany and Austria
  Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown
  asked the Minister of Labour why particulars of the conditions of service and vacancies for personnel for Car Unit employment with the Control Service in Germany and Austria, as given in the War Office Welfare Memorandum No. 43, for March, was not available in Resettlement bureaux up to 3rd May; and what is the procedure for ensuring that local Resettlement bureaux get early information regarding likely employment vacancies.
  191
  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  Information regarding these posts was made available to the Forces through the Service Departments, and hitherto the recruitment position has been such that further publicity was not considered necessary. Arrangements were, however, made by our Department that any inquirer seeking information at a Resettlement advice office with regard to the vacancies should be advised to apply to the Control Office for Germany and Austria, either through his commanding officer, if still in the Forces, or otherwise directly. With regard to the second part of the Question, the purpose of the Resettlement advice offices is to give general information and advice, and normally these offices do not have detailed information about specific vacancies, such information being available at the Employment Exchanges and appointments offices of our Department. Where, however, vacancies which are notified to our Department are of a special character and might be of particular interest to ex-Service and other persons resettling after war service, the information is made available to Resettlement advice offices with all possible speed.

  Engineering (Essential Work Order)
  Mr. W. J. Brown
  asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the decision to lift the Essential Work Order in the engineering industry has been applied to some factories operated by Messrs. British Thomson-Houston, but not in respect of others; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  A number of undertakings which were de-scheduled on or about 4th May and one to be de-scheduled on or about 15th May are engaged in industries to which notices of withdrawal from the Essential Work Orders has been given. Our present information is that four British Thomson-Houston factories which are still scheduled are engaged in industries to which no such notice has been given but my right hon. Friend is having the circumstances of each case investigated.

  Cinema Operators (Training)
  Mr. Baldwin
  asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an assurance that an ex-Serviceman who wishes to undergo vocational training as a cinema operator
  192
  will not be refused by reason of the fact that he was not employed in this industry prior to enlistment.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  Yes, Sir.

  Building Industry, Scotland (Trainees)
  Mr. Willis
  asked the Minister of Labour what provision has been made in Scotland for the provision of training centres for building trade workers; what progress has been made in their completion; and whether any special measures have been adopted to increase the number of trainees.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  Centres at Spring-burn and Muircockhall are now training men for the building industry and a new centre at Hillington will come into use in a few weeks. Five other centres at Dundee, Edinburgh, Milngavie, Barrhead and Mossend, are planned. The possibility of increasing the number of trainees by shift working in the centres and employment of trainees on production work is at present under consideration.

  Vocational Training Scheme
  Mr. Beswick
  asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many vocational training centres were operating by the end of April, 1946; how many students were attending; how many trades were covered; and what further extension of these facilities is proposed;

  (2) how many applicants are waiting for admission to vocational training centres; and how many applications have been refused to date on the grounds of unsuitability or ineligibility.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  On 8th April, 1946, the latest date for which figures are available, 38 Government training centres and 150 technical and commercial colleges were providing training under the Vocational Training Scheme to 10,461 trainees in 71 occupations. As regards extension of the facilities I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 16th April last.

  Unemployed Electricians, Scotland
  Mr. Willis
  asked the Minister of Labour the number of skilled electricians regis-

  193
  tered as unemployed in Scotland on 31st December, 1945, and at the latest date for which figures are available with the corresponding figures for Edinburgh.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  The following table shows, for 10th December, 1945, and 11th March, 1946, the numbers of wholly unemployed men aged 18 years and over registered at employment exchanges (a) in Edinburgh and (b) in Scotland as applicants for employment in the occupations specified:

  -

  Edinburgh (including Leith and Portobello).

  Scotland

  10th Dec., 1945.

  11th Mar., 1946.

  10th Dec., 1945.

  11th Mar., 1946.

  Electrician, Wireman, etc. (including vehicle, aircraft and ship wireman)

  2

  9

  74

  125

  Fitter, Erector, etc. (Electrical Engineering) including maintenance electrician

  2

  9

  46

  65

  Unemployed Building Workers
  Mr. Henderson Stewart
  asked the Minister of Labour the total numbers of unemployed bricklayers and joiners, respectively, in Scotland and in England and Wales.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  On 8th April there were 34 bricklayers and 98 carpenters in the Building Industry registered as unemployed in Scotland. The corresponding figures for England and Wales were 236 and 529.

  Miners, Neath
  Mr. D. J. Williams
  asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that 12 men employed at the opencast coal undertaking at Banwen, Neath, Glamorgan-shire, were dismissed without notice on 6th April though the Essential Work Orders; that although the men have appealed their appeal has not been heard; and whether, in view of the urgent need for increased coal production he will take steps to have these men reinstated.
  194
  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  I regret that, owing to a misunderstanding it was not realised at the time that the undertaking in question was scheduled under the Essential Work Orders. Appeals have now been submitted and consideration is being given to the proper action, including any question of reinstatement, in the light of the proceedings of the local appeal Board. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as a decision is reached.

DEMOBILISATION

  Agricultural Workers
  138. Mr. Dye
  asked the Minister of Labour the latest available figures for the release under Class B of men from the Armed Forces to work in agriculture.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  Up to 30th April, the latest date for which figures are available, 15,512 men were released under the Class B block release arrangements for agriculture.

  Class B Release
  139. Brigadier Low
  asked the Minister Labour whether there is any difference in the treatment of officers and other ranks in cases of Class B release recommended by his Department and forwarded to the Service authorities.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  No, Sir. Members of the Forces, whether officers or other ranks, who are recommended by the Ministry of Labour, are offered Class B release if they can be made available and can be released without prejudicing the position of other men due for release in Class A.

FACTORY DEVELOPMENTS

  North-East Development Area
  86. Captain Chetwynd
  asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish a list of new factory buildings and extensions in the North-East Development Area authorised by his Department, with the starting date, estimated completion date and estimated number of persons to be employed.

  Mr. Belcher:
  Following is the information requested:
  195 196

  BUILDING SCHEMES—NEW AND EXTENSION—APPROVED FOR THE NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT AREA

  Location.

  New, or Extension.

  Area square feet.

  Starting Date for Building.

  Estimated Completion Date.

  Estimated Employment.

  Male.

  Female.

  Total.

  Annfield Plain … …

  Extension …

  12,443

  —

  —

  12

  6

  18

  Ashington … …

  New … …

  16,000

  —

  —

  6

  250

  256

  Ashington … …

  New … …

  12,000

  —

  —

  —

  400

  400

  Ashington … …

  New … …

  24,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  Aycliffe … …

  New … …

  58,630

  31st December, 1945 …

  17th June, 1946 …

  500

  30

  530

  Aycliffe … …

  New … …

  21,000

  —

  —

  300

  200

  500

  Bedlington … …

  New … …

  30,000

  —

  —

  70

  530

  600

  Billingham … …

  Extension … …

  13,500

  —

  —

  200

  —

  200

  Billingham … …

  Extension … …

  26,000

  —

  —

  50

  —

  50

  Billingham … …

  Extension … …

  11,900

  20th March, 1946 …

  September, 1946 …

  139

  —

  139

  Billingham … …

  New … …

  3th December, 1945 …

  1947 … … …

  400

  —

  400

  Billingham … …

  Extension … …

  10, 000

  4th October, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 … …

  60

  —

  60

  Billingham … …

  Extension… …

  5,000

  —

  —

  20

  —

  20

  Billingham … …

  Extension…

  6,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nil

  Birtley … …

  New … …

  32,000

  —

  —

  200

  200

  400

  Birtley … …

  Extension …

  23,700

  May, 1946 … …

  —

  12

  6

  18

  Birtley … …

  Extension …

  28,800

  5th February, 1946 …

  —

  240

  —

  240

  Bishop Auckland … …

  Extension …

  10,000

  —

  —

  20

  60

  80

  Bishop Auckland … …

  New … …

  29,000

  —

  —

  50

  10

  60

  Blaydon … …

  New … …

  24,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  Chester-le-Street … …

  New … …

  21,000

  June, 1946 … …

  30th December, 1946 …

  10

  340

  350

  Chester-le-Street … …

  New … …

  24,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  Crook … …

  Extension …

  10,000

  1st March, 1946 …

  30th April, 1946 …

  90

  —

  90

  Crook … …

  New … …

  52,500

  10th June, 1946 …

  27th February, 1947 …

  50

  650

  700

  Croxdale … … …

  Extension …

  12,500

  —

  —

  50

  70

  120

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  43,400

  —

  —

  40

  —

  40

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  4,860

  —

  —

  50

  —

  50

  Darlington … … …

  New … …

  20,000

  —

  —

  100

  —

  100

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  10,000

  —

  —

  50

  —

  50

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  1,500

  —

  —

  30

  —

  30

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  140,000

  14th March, 1945 …

  30th June, 1946 …

  84

  33

  177

  Darlington … … …

  New … …

  1,300,000

  March, 1946 … …

  1947 … … …

  1,000

  2,000

  3,000

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  1,600

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  3,560

  —

  —

  240

  —

  240

  Darlington … … …

  Extension …

  53,000

  10th September, 1945 …

  31st January, 1946 … …

  250

  —

  250

  Durham … … …

  Extension …

  6,400

  28th September, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 … …

  10

  16

  26

  Eaglescliffe … … …

  Extension …

  4,000

  16th July, 1945 …

  30st December, 1945 …

  10

  —

  10

  Eaglescliffe … … …

  Extension …

  69,825

  —

  —

  100

  —

  100

  Felling … … …

  Extension …

  8,432

  —

  —

  8

  32

  40

  197 198

  Location.

  New, or Extension.

  Area square feet.

  Starting Date for Building.

  Estimated Completion Date.

  Estimated Employment.

  Male.

  Female.

  Total.

  Felling … … …

  Extension …

  80,200

  September 1945 …

  31st May 1946 …

  45

  60

  105

  Ferryhill … … …

  Extension …

  15,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  30,000

  —

  —

  100

  450

  550

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  8,500

  4th February, 1946 …

  30th June 1946 …

  —

  —

  100

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  16,500

  —

  —

  64

  200

  264

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  35,800

  —

  —

  49

  167

  216

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  124,000

  22nd November, 1945 …

  30th November, 1946 …

  1,100

  80

  1,180

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  19,000

  8th December, 1945 …

  30th June, 1946 …

  50

  700

  750

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  80,000

  —

  —

  200

  800

  1,000

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  10,500

  —

  —

  50

  50

  100

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  17,144

  —

  —

  400

  130

  530

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  10,000

  22nd November, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 …

  —

  —

  Nil

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  22,000

  10th June, 1946 … …

  30st January, 1947 …

  40

  —

  40

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  64,350

  3rd July, 1946 … …

  28st February, 1947 …

  135

  242

  377

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  9,500

  —

  —

  2

  100

  102

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  12,500

  —

  —

  5

  100

  105

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  30,000

  —

  —

  80

  270

  350

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  8,000

  11th February, 1940 …

  31st July, 1946 … …

  No addition

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  65,145

  22nd November, 1945 …

  31st July, 1946 … …

  100

  200

  300

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  12,500

  24th November, 1945 …

  30th June, 1946 … …

  —

  100

  100

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  47,250

  22nd October, 1945 …

  22nd June, 1946 … …

  100

  —

  100

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  5,600

  2nd April 1946 …

  30th September, 1946 … …

  40

  —

  40

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  18,000

  —

  —

  50

  150

  200

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  12,000

  —

  —

  30

  40

  70

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  10,500

  10th June, 1946 —

  12th January, 1946 … …

  5

  85

  90

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  12,000

  10th June, 1946 … …

  3rd October, 1946 …

  50

  —

  50

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  16,000

  4th February, 1946 … …

  31st July, 1946 …

  30

  —

  30

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension … …

  5,700

  —

  —

  24

  8

  32

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New …

  40,000

  —

  —

  12

  60

  72

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  2,400

  —

  —

  60

  60

  120

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  New … …

  4,000

  —

  —

  50

  —

  50

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  12,962

  —

  —

  50

  —

  50

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  11,120

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  3,000

  —

  —

  40

  —

  40

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  13,192

  23rd December, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946, …

  24

  6

  30

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  113,500

  —

  —

  200

  100

  300

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  81,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  26,000

  —

  —

  59

  —

  59

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  15,000

  —

  —

  150

  —

  150

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  5,490

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Gateshead (Team Valley)

  Extension …

  29,400

  15th October, 1945 …

  30th June, 1946 …

  30

  —

  30

  199 200

  Location.

  New, or Extension.

  Area square feet.

  Starting Date for Building.

  Estimated Completion Date.

  Estimated Employment.

  Male.

  Female.

  Total.

  Hartlepool … … …

  New … …

  165,000

  24th November, 1945 …

  30th September, 1946 …

  500

  200

  700

  Hartlepool … … …

  Advance Factory

  24,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  Haltwhistle … … …

  Extension

  17,000

  —

  —

  20

  30

  50

  Haltwhistle … … …

  Extension …

  7,800

  —

  —

  20

  5

  25

  Hebburn … … …

  Extension …

  47,708

  —

  —

  200

  —

  200

  Hebburn … … …

  Extension …

  90,000

  27th April, 1945 …

  30th June, 1946 …

  100

  270

  370

  Houghton-le-Spring … …

  New … …

  10,000

  —

  —

  —

  120

  120

  Houghton-le-Spring … …

  New … …

  12,000

  —

  —

  —

  200

  200

  Houghton-le-Spring … …

  New … …

  24,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  250

  Jarrow … …

  Extension …

  4,000

  —

  —

  25

  —

  25

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  25,000

  30th July, 1940 …

  3rd February, 1947 …

  —

  400

  400

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  6,200

  —

  —

  7

  7

  14

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  11,250

  30th July, 1946 …

  20th December 1946 …

  43

  —

  43

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  3,150

  —

  —

  3

  —

  43

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  25,000

  —

  —

  120

  120

  240

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  55,555

  30th July, 1946 …

  20th December, 1940 …

  140

  280

  420

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  35,000

  30th June, 1946 …

  28th February, 1947 …

  30

  170

  200

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  13,500

  30th June, 1946 …

  30th December, 1946 …

  30

  —

  30

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  75,000

  —

  —

  110

  —

  110

  Jarrow … …

  New … …

  24,000

  1st April, 1946 …

  30th September, 1946 …

  —

  —

  250

  Lanchester … …

  New … …

  22,800

  —

  —

  —

  250

  Langley Moor … …

  New … …

  30,100

  28th January, 1946 …

  21th July, 1946 …

  100

  650

  750

  Langley Moor … …

  New … …

  25,000

  22nd November, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 …

  80

  320

  400

  Lemington … …

  Extension …

  4,700

  7th February, 1946 …

  30th June, 1946 …

  4

  15

  19

  Middlesbrough … …

  Extension …

  44,000

  —

  —

  236

  —

  236

  Middlesbrough … …

  Extension …

  25,000

  15th January, 1946, …

  31st May 1946, …

  —

  —

  Nil

  Middlesbrough … …

  Extension …

  7,000

  —

  —

  25

  —

  25

  Middlesbrough … …

  Extension …

  7,000

  3rd October, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 —

  10

  85

  95

  Middlesbrough … …

  Extension …

  6,465

  —

  —

  3

  3

  6

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  27,000

  —

  —

  100

  —

  100

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  220,000

  February, 1946 …

  —

  250

  —

  250

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  4,860

  —

  —

  32

  8

  40

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  New … …

  40,158

  30th December, 1945 …

  31st December 1946 …

  25

  50

  75

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  New … …

  520,000

  —

  —

  400

  1,100

  1,500

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  40,000

  —

  —

  30

  28

  58

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  5,700

  —

  —

  5

  90

  95

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  9,300

  —

  —

  3

  34

  37

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  16,108

  28th July, 1945 …

  31st December, 1945 …

  —

  —

  Nil

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  19,000

  22nd February, 1945 …

  24th November, 1945 …

  35

  —

  35

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  72,000

  —

  —

  170

  23

  193

  201 202

  Location.

  New, or Extension.

  Area square feet.

  Starting Date for Building.

  Estimated Completion Date.

  Estimated Employment.

  Male.

  Female.

  Total.

  Newcastle-on-Tyne … …

  Extension …

  4,470

  —

  —

  15

  —

  15

  Pelaw … … … …

  Extension …

  2,100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nil

  Saltburn … … …

  Extension …

  18,900

  —

  —

  28

  —

  28

  Scarborough … … …

  Extension …

  6,000

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Sherburn … … …

  New … …

  21,000

  —

  —

  100

  —

  100

  Sherburn … … …

  New … …

  24,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  Sherburn … … …

  New … …

  26,300

  30th April, 1946 …

  30th November 1946 …

  —

  400

  400

  Shildon … … …

  New … …

  28,500

  —

  —

  20

  150

  170

  Skelton … … …

  New … …

  24,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  300

  South Shields … … …

  Extension …

  9,200

  15th July, 1945 …

  31st March 1946 …

  30

  —

  30

  South Shields … … …

  Extension …

  10,000

  —

  —

  14

  11

  25

  South Shields … … …

  New … …

  50,000

  —

  —

  100

  900

  1,000

  South Shields … … …

  New … …

  50,000

  1st August, 1945 …

  30th June, 1946 …

  200

  200

  400

  South Shields … … …

  Extension …

  9,000

  8th October, 1945 …

  28th March, 1946 …

  120

  —

  120

  South Shields … … …

  New — …

  26,000

  —

  —

  50

  300

  350

  Spennymoor … … …

  Extension …

  2,000

  —

  —

  20

  —

  20

  Stockton … … …

  Extension …

  4,800

  —

  —

  50

  —

  50

  Stockton … … …

  New … …

  9,350

  —

  —

  5

  150

  155

  Stockton … … …

  Extension …

  22,000

  3rd September, 1945 …

  28th February, 1946 …

  12

  6

  18

  Stockton … … …

  New … …

  125,000

  April, 1946 …

  —

  1,400

  100

  1,500

  Stockton … … …

  New … …

  17,175

  —

  —

  12

  80

  92

  Stockton … … …

  New … …

  20,000

  —

  —

  25

  75

  100

  Stockton … … …

  Extension …

  145,000

  25th September 1945 …

  31st August 1946 …

  120

  100

  220

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  15,000

  —

  —

  25

  25

  50

  Sunderland … … …

  New … …

  21,000

  —

  —

  10

  390

  400

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  9,210

  —

  —

  100

  —

  100

  Sunderland … … …

  New … …

  13,860

  —

  —

  60

  40

  100

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  25,000

  12th November, 1945 …

  12th December 1946 …

  —

  —

  Nil

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  5,000

  —

  —

  28

  100

  128

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  21,298

  —

  —

  40

  —

  40

  Sunderland … … …

  — …

  20,000

  9th July, 1945 …

  31st January, 1946 …

  150

  —

  150

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  122,000

  —

  —

  1,500

  500

  2,000

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  36,000

  25th October 1945 …

  31st March, 1946 …

  250

  …

  250

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  22,184

  March, 1946 … …

  —

  20

  50

  70

  Sunderland … … …

  New … …

  60,000

  20th August 1946 …

  —

  20

  —

  20

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  35,000

  3th April 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 …

  120

  120

  240

  Sunderland … … …

  New … …

  83,000

  25th February, 1945 …

  30th September, 1946 …

  100

  1,400

  1,500

  Sunderland … … …

  Extension …

  32,000

  —

  —

  200

  —

  200

  203 204

  Location.

  New, or Extension.

  Area square feet.

  Starting Date for Building.

  Estimated Completion Date.

  Estimated Employment.

  Male.

  Female.

  Total.

  Sunderland … … …

  New … …

  75,000

  26th November, 1945 …

  18th June, 1946 …

  —

  600

  600

  Tow Law … … …

  New … …

  40,930

  —

  —

  190

  —

  190

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  63,888

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,500

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  9,225

  —

  —

  20

  40

  60

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  15,500

  —

  —

  40

  90

  130

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  180,000

  1st April, 1946 …

  —

  —

  —

  1,000

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  4,900

  30th July, 1946 …

  —

  30

  —

  30

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  16,220

  —

  —

  65

  70

  135

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  55,000

  1st October, 1945 …

  31st July, 1946 …

  70

  430

  500

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  21,000

  8th December, 1945 …

  30th August, 1946 …

  240

  —

  240

  Tynemouth … … …

  New … …

  15,000

  5th December, 1945 …

  31th July, 1946 …

  —

  60

  60

  Thornaby … … …

  Extension …

  18,000

  —

  —

  32

  10

  42

  Thornaby … … …

  Extension … …

  6,860

  —

  —

  5

  45

  50

  Washington … … …

  Extension …

  260,000

  8th November, 1945 …

  1947 …

  100

  —

  100

  Washington … … …

  New … …

  13,000

  —

  —

  90

  10

  100

  Washington … … …

  New … …

  144,000

  —

  —

  20

  180

  200

  West Auckland … … …

  Extension …

  61,400

  22nd November, 1945 …

  19th August, 1946 …

  —

  700

  700

  West Auckland … … …

  Extension …

  5,600

  —

  —

  —

  80

  80

  West Auckland … … …

  Extension …

  24,000

  —

  Complete … …

  150

  150

  300

  West Hartlepool … … …

  New … …

  26,500

  28th March, 1945 …

  30th November, 1946 …

  100

  300

  400

  Willington Quay … …

  Extension …

  12,000

  —

  —

  75

  —

  75

  Wilton … …

  New … …

  2,000 acres

  11th March, 1946 —

  —

  10,000

  —

  10,000

  Scotland
  Sir W. Darling
  asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the increase in unemployment in Scotland, he will detail, respectively, the factories under his Department erected during of construction and planned to be commenced within the present year; and what is the anticipated peak figure of employment and when this figure is likely to be reached

  Mr. Belcher:
  Thirty Government factories, with a total floor area of over 3 million square feet, have been allocated for civilian production to firms who estimate they will employ about 22,000 workers. Of the new factories, of which building started after the end of the war, one has been completed, but 73 buildings, including extensions, with an approximate floor area of 1,900,000 square feet, are now in course of erection, a number being near completion: these should

  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES ALLOCATED IN SCOTLAND.

  Location.

  Area. Square Feet.

  —

  Number to be Employed (Approx).

  Abbotsinch … … …

  109,128

  Extension

  3,400

  Aberdeen … … …

  80,000

  New

  1,000

  Alloa … … …

  40,100

  Extension

  300

  Ardrossan … … …

  90,000

  New

  500

  Blairgowrie … … …

  75,284

  Extension

  140

  Bo'ness … … …

  10,000

  New

  150

  Broxburn … … …

  50,000

  New

  600

  Cambuslang … … …

  50,000

  New

  500

  Coatbridge … … …

  100,000

  New

  500

  Dumbarton … … …

  475,000

  Extension

  2,800

  Dundee … … …

  50,000

  New

  350

  Dundee … … …

  50,000

  New

  900

  Dundee … … …

  35,000

  Extension

  200

  Edinburgh … … …

  55,000

  Extension

  490

  Edinburgh … … …

  104,490

  New

  1,000

  Falkirk … … …

  443,000

  New

  2,000

  Glasgow … … …

  90,937

  Extension

  370

  Glasgow … … …

  35,390

  Extension

  500

  Hamilton… … …

  158,850

  New

  1,400

  Hillington… … …

  268,000

  New

  1,600

  Hillington… … …

  45,000

  New

  500

  Hillington… … …

  10,000

  New

  100

  Hillington… … …

  200,000

  New

  1,400

  Hillington… … …

  22,000

  New

  300

  Macmerry … … …

  70,000

  New

  480

  Portobello … … …

  20,000

  New

  500

  Rutherglen … … …

  6,633

  New

  30

  Thornliebank … … …

  220,000

  Extension

  1,000

  Thornliebank … … …

  70,000

  Extension

  700

  Thornliebank … … …

  20,000

  Extension

  270

  206
  employ about 13,000 workers. A further 83 projects, with a floor area of 2,500,000 square feet, have been approved and on most of these building should have been begun before the end of the year; they are estimated to provide employment for a further 19,000 workers. In all, it is estimated that projects now approved should ultimately give employment to 54,000 workers in Scotland but it is not possible to anticipate when this target will be reached. Projects now in progress should start to make their effects felt about the end of this year and will during 1947 make a substantial contribution towards remedying the unemployment position in Scotland, particularly in the Development Area. I am arranging to include some details of the projects to which I have referred in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would add that further schemes for the erection of factories in the Development Area are being worked out in consultation with the other Departments concerned and the Scottish Industrial Estates Company.
  207 208

  FACTORIES COMPLETE OR IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.

  Place.

  Area in Square Feet.

  New or Extension.

  Date of Commencement of Building.

  Estimated Date of Completion.

  Number to be Employed (Approx).

  Alloa … …

  22,422

  Extension

  3rd December, 1945

  December, 1946 …

  150

  Bainsford …

  8,000

  New

  14th February, 1946

  June, 1946 … …

  53

  Blantyre …

  5,000

  New

  28th March, 1946 …

  —

  30

  Blantyre …

  10,000

  New

  28th March, 1946 …

  —

  100

  Bridge of Weir

  24,450

  Extension

  18th March, 1946 …

  December, 1946 …

  100

  Cambuslang …

  6,826

  Extension

  3rd January, 1946 …

  June, 1946 …

  40

  Carfin …

  10,000

  New

  15th October, 1945 …

  June, 1946 …

  150

  Carfin …

  18,000

  Extension

  15th October, 1945 …

  June, 1946 …

  100

  Carluke …

  14,000

  New

  January, 1946 …

  October, 1946 …

  180

  Catrine …

  185,850

  New and Extension

  8th October, 1945 …

  April, 1948 …

  564

  Chapelhall …

  5,000

  New

  25th March, 1946 …

  —

  64

  Chapelhall …

  30,000

  New

  9th January, 1946 …

  June, 1946 … …

  150

  Chapelhall …

  5,000

  New

  11th March, 1946 …

  —

  55

  Chapelhall …

  15,000

  New

  9th January, 1946 …

  June, 1946 … …

  50

  Chapelhall …

  15,000

  New

  26th March, 1946 …

  —

  150

  Dundee …

  50,000

  Extension

  19th April, 1946 …

  —

  300

  Dundee …

  5,775

  Extension

  25th March, 1946 …

  October, 1946 …

  9

  Dundee …

  20,245

  Extension

  January, 1946 …

  June, 1946 …

  105

  Dundee …

  10,000

  Extension

  22nd October, 1945

  30th June, 1946 …

  —

  Dundee …

  42,700

  Extension

  22nd October, 1945

  31st August, 1946 …

  852

  Dundee …

  8,000

  Extension

  22nd October, 1945

  30th June, 1947 …

  —

  Dundee …

  115,000

  New

  22nd October, 1945

  —

  500

  Dundee …

  20,876

  Extension

  15th February, 1946

  —

  50

  Dundee …

  36,596

  New

  January, 1946 …

  August, 1946 …

  368

  Dundee …

  8,500

  Extension

  21st March, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 …

  Nil

  Dundee …

  9,600

  Extension

  September, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 …

  200

  Dundee …

  46,000

  New

  14th November, 1945 …

  30th September, 1946 …

  300

  Glasgow …

  7,000

  New

  1st February, 1946 …

  August, 1946 …

  25

  Glasgow …

  17,035

  New

  29th October, 1945 …

  October, 1946 …

  30

  Glasgow …

  10,500

  Extension

  —

  31st March, 1946 …

  Nill

  Glasgow …

  54,572

  New and Extension

  March, 1945 …

  July, 1946 …

  325

  Glasgow …

  18,295

  Extension

  October, 1945 …

  April, 1946 …

  120

  Glasgow …

  12,960

  Extension

  4th January, 1946 …

  —

  65

  Glasgow …

  24,064

  Extension

  1st November, 1945 …

  April, 1946 …

  160

  Glasgow …

  11,280

  Extension

  31st March, 1946 …

  —

  75

  Glasgow …

  7,300

  Extension

  8th January, 1946 …

  May, 1946 …

  50

  Glasgow …

  5,600

  New

  8th February, 1946 …

  —

  30

  Glasgow …

  5,642

  Extension

  1st March, 1946 …

  —

  37

  Hamilton …

  15,000

  Extension

  21st March, 1946 …

  —

  170

  Hillington …

  10,000

  New

  15th January, 1946 …

  —

  100

  Hillington …

  5,000

  Extension

  11th April, 1946 …

  —

  20

  Hillington …

  8,000

  Extension

  30th April, 1946 …

  —

  40

  Hillington …

  6,700

  Extension

  14th February, 1946 …

  April, 1946 …

  50

  Hillington …

  10,000

  New

  15th January, 1946 …

  —

  45

  Hillington …

  40,000

  New

  16th January, 1946 …

  —

  650

  Hillington …

  6,000

  Extension

  4th April, 1946 …

  —

  14

  Hillington …

  30,000

  New

  15th January, 1946 …

  —

  255

  Hillington …

  15,000

  New

  15th January, 1946 …

  —

  71

  Hillington …

  5,000

  New

  15th January, 1946 …

  —

  60

  Hillington …

  50,000

  New

  15th January, 1946 …

  July, 1946 … …

  300

  Hillington …

  3,000

  Extension

  8th February, 1946 …

  31st March, 1946 … …

  20

  Jedburgh …

  6,500

  New

  20th March, 1946 …

  October, 1946 … …

  Nil

  Jedburgh …

  4,574

  New

  18th August, 1945 …

  31st March, 1946 …

  Nil

  Johnstone …

  32,000

  Extension and Replace

  17th December, 1945 …

  August, 1946 …

  94

  Keith …

  25,200

  Extension

  3rd September, 1945 …

  May, 1946 …

  51

  Kilmarnock …

  45,000

  New

  27th January, 1946 …

  —

  400

  Kilmarnock …

  17,901

  Extension

  June, 1945 …

  May, 1946 … …

  140

  Kirkcaldy …

  3,385

  Extension

  29th August, 1945 …

  June, 1946 … …

  350

  Kirkintilloch …

  20,448

  Extension

  —

  —

  136

  Larkhall …

  5,000

  New

  January, 1946 …

  June, 1946 …

  74

  Larkhall …

  5,000

  New

  22nd March, 1946 …

  September, 1946 …

  64

  209 210

  Place.

  Area in Square Feet.

  New or Extension.

  Date of Commencement of Building.

  Estimated Date of Completion.

  Number to be Employed (Approx).

  Linlithgow …

  80,000

  Extension

  November, 1945 …

  May, 1946 …

  —

  Mossend …

  93,000

  New, Extension and Alteration

  June, 1945 … …

  November, 1946 …

  600

  Newhouse …

  40,000

  New

  14th March, 1946 …

  —

  240

  Newhouse …

  200,000

  New

  17th September, 1945 …

  September, 1946 …

  3,000

  Old Bishopton …

  23,500

  New

  1st August, 1945 …

  June, 1946 …

  126

  Paisley …

  60,000

  New

  1st November, 1945 …

  31st May, 1946 …

  250

  Perth …

  15,987

  Extension and Alteration

  1st September, 1945 …

  September, 1946 …

  150

  Prestonpans …

  9,000

  Alteration and Extension

  11th February, 1946 …

  June, 1946 … …

  40

  Renfrew …

  9,650

  Extension

  4th January, 1946 …

  —

  84

  Renfrew …

  57,500

  Extension

  June, 1945 …

  28th February, 1946 …

  380

  Selkirk …

  21,000

  Extension

  December, 1945 …

  September, 1946 …

  90

  Tollcross …

  2,600

  Extension

  August, 1945 …

  February, 1946 …

  17

  Total …

  1,903,033

  13,619

  APPROVED BUT BUILDING NOT YET STARTED.

  Place.

  Area in Square Feet.

  New or Extension.

  Number to be Employed (Approx.).

  Aberdeen … … …

  30,000

  Extension

  80

  Airdrie … … …

  56,500

  New

  377

  Barrhead … … …

  5,500

  Extension

  14

  Bathgate … … …

  20,500

  New

  133

  Blantyre … … …

  50,000

  New

  333

  Bishopton … … …

  5,000

  Extension

  30

  Broxburn … … …

  50,000

  New

  350

  Carfin … … …

  75,000

  New

  500

  Coatbridge … … …

  14,000

  New

  90

  Coatbridge … … …

  59,800

  New

  400

  Dundee … … …

  80,000

  New

  699

  Dundee … … …

  33,000

  Extension

  300

  Dundee … … …

  13,000

  New

  30

  Dundee … … …

  35,800

  New

  915

  Edinburgh … … …

  9,360

  Extension

  27

  Falkirk … … …

  39,000

  Extension

  220

  Glasgow … … …

  5,600

  Extension

  30

  Glasgow … … …

  27,460

  New

  180

  Glasgow … … …

  18,753

  Extension

  60

  Glasgow … … …

  30,000

  New

  450

  Glasgow … … …

  12,400

  New

  80

  Glasgow … … …

  36,830

  New

  245

  Glasgow … … …

  482,000

  New

  650

  Glasgow … … …

  23,000

  New

  153

  Glasgow … … …

  21,000

  Extension

  200

  Glasgow … … …

  6,000

  New

  50

  Hillington … … …

  30,000

  New

  102

  Hillington … … …

  20,000

  New

  194

  Hillington … … …

  7,500

  New

  39

  Hillington … … …

  6,450

  New

  44

  Hillington … … …

  5,000

  New

  32

  Hillington … … …

  15,000

  New

  100

  Hillington … … …

  10,000

  New

  30

  Hillington … … …

  5,000

  New

  175

  Hillington … … …

  1,200

  Extension

  8

  Hillington … … …

  20,000

  New

  270

  Hillington … … …

  25,000

  Extension

  800

  Hillington … … …

  5,000

  New

  98

  211 212

  Hillington

  30,000

  New

  420

  Hillington

  25,000

  New

  255

  Hillington

  10,000

  New

  34

  Hillington

  5,000

  New

  30

  Hillington

  20,000

  New

  165

  Hillington

  10,000

  New

  100

  Hillington

  40,000

  New

  100

  Hillington

  10,000

  New

  50

  Hillington

  10,000

  New

  80

  Hillington

  10,000

  New

  56

  Hillington

  5,000

  New

  14

  Hillington

  60,000

  New

  660

  Hillington

  5,000

  Extension

  84

  Hillington

  16,000

  New

  —

  Hillington

  10,000

  Extension

  69

  Hillington

  10,000

  New

  120

  Hillington

  5,000

  New

  60

  Hillington

  5,440

  Extension

  42

  Hillington

  5,000

  New

  28

  Hillington

  5,000

  New

  70

  Hillington

  5,000

  New

  156

  Hillington

  10,000

  New

  95

  Kilmarnock

  15,100

  New

  9

  Kilmarnock

  5,000

  New

  31

  Kilsyth

  22,000

  Extension

  220

  Kilwinning

  5,000

  New

  60

  Larkhall

  100,000

  Extension

  600

  Larkhall

  70,000

  Extension

  1,250

  Mossend

  43,500

  Replace

  —

  Newhouse

  60,000

  New

  2,000

  Newhouse

  75,000

  New

  512

  Newhouse

  30,000

  New

  530

  Newhouse

  10,000

  Extension

  150

  Newhouse

  20,000

  New

  500

  Oban

  45,000

  New

  300

  Paisley

  14,000

  New

  93

  Port Glasgow

  40,000

  New

  165

  Port Glasgow

  25,000

  New

  190

  Port Glasgow

  12,000

  New

  20

  Port Glasgow

  30,000

  New

  200

  Renfrew

  15,000

  New

  100

  Rutherglen

  9,000

  New

  200

  Uddingston

  18,500

  New

  120

  Uddingston

  150,000

  New

  1,000

  Total

  2,524,693

  18,826

  MILITARY SERVICE (ENGINEERING APPRENTICES)
  Mr. Swingler
  asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that engineering apprentices, when called up for military service, are being registered and posted as non-tradesmen; and whether he will issue instructions to ensure that such apprentices are posted as early as possible to units where they will have the opportunity of becoming tradesmen.

  Mr. Ness Edwards:
  The number of tradesmen's vacancies in the Services to which engineering apprentices can be posted is small and it is therefore, unavoidable that such young men should be called up for general service. The Service authorities, however, earmark potential tradesmen for remustering when appropriate vacancies occur.

  MALAYA (WIVES, SEA PASSAGES)
  Mr. Spence
  asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how soon he expects to be able to allow the wives of civil servants and planters returning to Malaya to rejoin their husbands unconditionally or to travel with them.
  213 214
  Mr. George Hall:
  It is no longer necessary for the wives of Government officials and non-officials, whose husbands have already returned to Malaya, to obtain special permission to enter that territory. But the shipping situation is still such that it is likely to be a considerable time before all such wives can join their husbands in, or accompany them to, Malaya. In the meantime the policy in the allocation of the available passages is to give priority to wives who have been separated from their husbands for long periods. About 150 wives have been provided with passages to Malaya but half of these qualified as "workers" before the restrictions on wives were lifted. Passages for another 200 wives (not workers) are being arranged on a ship leaving about the end of May.

SCOTLAND

  Doctors (Statistics)
  Major N. Macpherson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give a list showing the number of general medical practitioners and specialists, respectively, in each county and burgh in Scotland in 1938 and at the most recent date for which statistics are available

  Mr. Westwood:
  Information is not available in the form for which the hon. and gallant Member asks, but the following particulars relating to the areas for which local medical war committees operate have been extracted from the records of the Scottish Central Medical War Committee:

  Area

  Total number of medical practitioners

  Number of general practitioners

  1938

  December 1945

  1938

  December 1945

  Aberdeen City

  284

  299

  88

  112

  Aberdeen and Kincardine (except Aberdeen City)

  155

  132

  83

  92

  Angus (except Dundee)

  59

  62

  34

  33

  Argyllshire

  94

  77

  57

  50

  Ayrshire

  258

  208

  135

  121

  Banff, morav and Nairn

  116

  84

  64

  57

  Bute

  18

  19

  13

  15

  Caithness

  —

  20

  —

  13

  Dunbartonshire

  138

  140

  68

  72

  Dumfries and Kirkcudbright

  117

  105

  58

  58

  Dundee City

  195

  156

  83

  72

  East Lothian

  51

  39

  19

  21

  Edinburgh City

  1,083

  772

  312

  258

  Fife

  221

  186

  124

  131

  Glasgow City

  1,244

  914

  489

  400

  Greenock Burgh

  46

  36

  23

  23

  Inverness

  97

  93

  48

  46

  Lanarkshire (except Glasgow)

  377

  311

  201

  192

  Midlothian (except Edinburgh)

  72

  70

  36

  42

  Orkney

  25

  19

  18

  17

  Paisley Burgh

  76

  71

  41

  42

  Perth and Kinross

  154

  133

  74

  74

  Renfrew County (except Paislev and Greenock)

  134

  110

  63

  61

  Ross and Cromarty

  52

  42

  29

  31

  Shetland

  25

  19

  11

  10

  South Eastern Counties

  95

  88

  48

  53

  Stirling and Clackmannan

  162

  142

  89

  85

  Sutherland

  —

  12

  —

  6

  Western Isles

  26

  22

  16

  18

  West Lothian

  42

  48

  27

  27

  Wigtown

  30

  48

  19

  27

  Medical Students
  Major N. Macpherson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many medical students were admitted to the four universities in 1928, 1933, 1938, and in subsequent years; how many qualified in each of those years in medical degree examinations; and how many licentiates were admitted.

  Mr. Westwood:
  The following is the available information:

  MEDICAL EDUCATION—SCOTLAND.

  Year

  Medical students entering Scottish Universities.

  Graduates.

  Licentiates.

  1928

  477

  325

  124

  1933

  450*

  393

  96

  1938

  553*

  523

  206

  1939

  †

  553

  239

  1940

  †

  507

  219

  1941

  †

  469

  137

  1942

  528

  451

  128

  1943

  540

  498

  114

  1944

  534

  503

  118

  1945

  573

  452

  134

  *Partly estimated. † Not available.
  Notes:
  (I) The figures of students, for 1928 and 1933, are taken from a return made by Universities to the General Medical Council; for later years they are taken from returns made to the Department of Health in connection with the quota restrictions on admission of medical students to reservation from national service during the war. The figures of graduates and licentiates are taken from returns from examining bodies to the General Medical Council.

  (2) More than 95 per cent. of the licentiates received their training not at Universities but at the extra-mural medical schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh. These members also include a few practitioners with a foreign medical qualification who became licentiates after one year's training in Scotland.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. J. J. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what means he proposes to utilise to the fullest extent the services of the small building trade employer in solving the present housing problem in rural Scotland.

  Mr. Buchanan:
  I am pleased to say that we have introduced a scheme under which a local authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, arrange for the erection of small groups of houses by small builders who are not in a position to tender
  216
  in the normal way. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a recent circular outlining the arrangement.

  CEYLON (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM)
  Mr. Peter Freeman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the letter from the All-Ceylon Tamil Congress protesting against the introduction of the Soulbury Commission's recommendations; whether he will arrange to defer the implementation of the recent White Paper on Ceylon; provide for the consideration of the whole matter by a joint parliamentary committee; arrange for fresh elections to decide the issue, and then set up a constituent assembly or constitutional ruling body to provide for the democratic government of Ceylon.

  Mr. George Hall:
  Representations from the All-Ceylon Tamil Congress regarding constitutional reform in Ceylon have been received and considered. His Majesty's Government is not disposed to vary the decisions which they made on this matter, and which were accepted by the State Council of Ceylon by an overwhelming majority, including five out of the seven Tamil members.

  NEWFOUNDLAND (ELECTIONS)
  Mr. Lang
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, following the Government's policy for holding, during 1946, elections in Newfoundland, as early as climatic conditions permit, to elect a National Convention to examine the condition of Newfoundland, he will now state in which month the elections will be held.

  Mr. Bottomley:
  A definite date has not yet been fixed, but it is at present contemplated that the elections should take place in the latter half of June.

  DEFENCE WORKS (REMOVAL)
  Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson
  asked the Minister of Health how the responsibility for removing defence works and obstacles from defence areas is allocated between

  217
  Ministers and Government Departments in respect of removal from privately-owned lands and other lands, respectively.

  Mr. A. Greenwood:
  I have been asked to reply. The responsibility for the removal of temporary defence works, in so far as they are on private land and should be removed in the public interest, rests with the Minister of Works. If the works are on publicly-owned land within the sphere of responsibility of a Government Department direct, or a local authority which is accustomed to working under the general supervision of a Government Department, that Department or local authority would be responsible provided again that the removal of the works or the restoration of the land was to the public interest. The responsibility for making payment under Section 52 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, where the owner carries out approved works or restoration, would be the same. In other cases, the damage to the land would be dealt with by the requisitioning authority or Department concerned by the payment of compensation, and the parties interested in the land would be free to apply the compensation to making good the damage.

  PHENOLIC MOULDING POWDER
  Sir I. Fraser
  asked the President of the Board of Trade in what proportions he is distributing phenolie, moulding powder between firms, who use it for electrical accessories for housing, for the export trade, and for luxury or semi-luxury goods.

  Mr. Belcher:
  Distribution of these powders is not subject to Statutory Control but the producers give priority to their use for Government contracts, housing requirements, including electrical accessories, and manufactures for export.

  BREAD PRICES
  Major Lloyd
  asked the Minister of Food what is the real price of a loaf of bread, allowing for the subsidy contribution; what was the highest price of a loaf of the same weight after the previous war; and what is the present value in money of that highest price.
  218
  Sir B. Smith:
  The price of a quartern loaf, without bread and flour subsidies, would be Is. 2½d. The highest price of the 4 lb. loaf occurred in November, 1920, when it was is. 4d. On the basis of the cost of living figures it now costs about 11¾d. to purchase what cost Is. 4d. in November, 1920.

ROYAL AIR FORCE

  Education Officers (Release)
  Captain C. Smith
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any further statement to make on demobilisation arrangements for education officers in the R.A.F.

  Mr. Strachey:
  There have been no major changes in the arrangements for releasing temporary members of the. R.A.F. Educational Service. The Service procedure of demobilisation does not apply to these officers because they are civil servants, who are not on the Active List of the Royal Air Force; and for the same reason they are ineligible for Service release benefits. The Air Ministry has, however, made arrangements for them to be released broadly in step with the R.A.F. release programme, and they have all been told when they will be free to leave the Educational Service. On their release they are given an extra allowance of clothing coupons; they are also given time off during their last month of service if they need it for making arrangements connected with their change of employment.

  Tollerton Airfield
  Mr. S. Shephard
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will now state the future of Tollerton airport.

  Mr. Strachey:
  We have not yet transferred this airfield, but its future use is being considered by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

  Demobilisation (Instrument Workers)
  Mr. Mitchison
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what group of instrument makers is now being released; and what forecast he can give of releases in that trade.
  219
  Mr. Strachey:
  By the end of this month we shall have released instrument makers and repairers in group 35. We have told the Service that during the following two months we only expect to release one more group in these trades, which means that by the end of July their release will be three groups behind the general level. The recruits' training courses for instrument work take up to six months, and our difficulty is that this training programme has not yet had time to catch up with the accelerated release for the Service as a whole.

  AGRICULTURE (DISPOSSESSED FARMERS)
  Sir W. Smithers
  asked the Minister of Agriculture (I) whether he will introduce legislation which will provide that, before any farmer can be dispossessed and deprived of his house, alternative accommodation shall be provided, in a similar way that the town dweller is protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts;

  (2) whether he will introduce legislation that when his Department takes possession of a farm the in-going valuation and tenant right to be paid by his Department should be settled by each party appointing a valuer to agree on such valuation and, in default of agreement, the valuers should appoint an umpire;

  (3) whether he will introduce legislation which will enable any farmer dispossessed to be paid compensation for disturbance to the same amount and in the same way that a private landlord would have to pay his tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act;

  (4) whether he will introduce legislation providing that, in cases where crops are ordered to be grown or work executed which do not allow of a profit for the farmer, the farmer should not be dispossessed for this reason, but should be permitted to do the work and be paid by his Department on a cost-of-works basis;

  (5) whether he will introduce legislation that before a farmer can be dispossessed he should have the right of appeal from a dispossession appeal panel to a county court, in order to put the Minister in the same position as any other litigant.

  Mr. T. Williams:
  The points raised will be considered in connection with legisla-
  220
  tion to give effect to the Government's agricultural policy, which is now being prepared. I am unable to make any statement on details in anticipation of the Bill.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES, SWYNNERTON AND RADWAY GREEN
  Mr. A. Edward Davies
  asked the Minister of Supply for what purpose the royal ordnance factories at Swynnerton and Radway Green are at present being used; the number of staff employed; and what his plans are for the future use of these establishments.

  Mr. Leonard:
  These factories are engaged on production work for the Services, on the special packing of Service stores and on the breaking down of surplus weapons and ammunition. They are also undertaking the production of housing fitments and have on hand a few orders for the normal requirements of industry and of U.N.R.R.A. The factories will be retained as part of the permanent establishment of the Royal Ordnance Factories. The number employed at Radway Green is approximately 1,680 and at Swynnerton approximately 2,900.

PRISONS

  Epileptics
  Mr. Ayles
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many epileptic subjects are in prison at the present time.

  Mr. Ede:
  Of the persons in prisons and Borstal Institutions on 1st January, 1946, amounting to about 15,000, 62 were considered to be clear cases and 38 doubtful cases of epilepsy.

  Solitary Confinement
  Mr. Ayles
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of hours in each 24 a normal prisoner is required to spend in solitary confinement as a usual part of routine in the early stages of a sentence; and whether the same conditions apply to women prisoners as to men.

  Mr. Ede:
  Prisoners on weekdays are normally unlocked about 6.30 a.m. and with intervals for meals are out of their

  221
  cells for employment and exercise until about 5 p m. but prisoners in the later stages dine in association, and prisoners of the Star class after four weeks also spend an hour in association in, the evening.

  Normally, a substantial number of prisoners would also be out of their cells in the evenings for educational classes and physical training. Staff shortage during the war however has necessarily curtailed these evening activities. The
  222
  staff situation is rapidly improving, and evening classes are increasing, especially for young prisoners, but it will be at least a year before normal conditions can he resumed at every prison though improvement will be progressive throughout that period.

  The conditions are the same for women as for men except at Holloway Prison, where owing to exceptional staffing difficulties the prisoners are locked up one hour earlier.

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Charnwood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROYAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, ROYAL WEST MINSTER OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, AND CENTRAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, (AMALGAMATION, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SHOREHAM AND LANCING BEACHES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT)/ CORPORATION BILL— [AMENDED].
Read 3a (with the Amendments), and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)/ (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly;
(The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair).
Clause 1:
Repeal of 17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 22 and restoration of law in force before that Act.
1. The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1927") is hereby repealed, and, subject to the transitional provisions set out in the Schedule to this Act, every enactment and rule of law amended or otherwise affected by that Act shall, as from the commencement of this Act, have effect as if the Act of 1927 had not been passed.
2.35 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after "is," to insert "with the exception of Section four thereof and the First and Second Schedules thereto." The noble Lord said: I propose to put the arguments on the merits of this Amendment very shortly. I want to put the case in a few words for contracting in, and against contracting out. I want to say very briefly that, in my humble opinion, the practice of contracting out is unfair, is undemocratic, and is reactionary, and that will show why I am asking your Lordships to vote for and pass this Amendment. I submit that it is not right that a political party should benefit from the inertia of a mass of people, many of whom will, admittedly, have no strong views on Party political questions one way or the other, many of whom may be quite undecided as to which way they would vote if and when the time comes for them to vote.
In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said this:
"The difference between contracting in and contracting out is that you get the benefit of the inertia of those people who will not take the trouble to fill up a form."
I disapprove of a political Party getting that benefit. It lays that political Party open to the suspicion—I do not put it any higher than that—that the Bill has been introduced in order to augment Party funds. I am not making any assertion on that point. But there must be

151
that suspicion in the minds of a large number of people in this country. I want to point out that I am not myself saying this in any Party spirit.
It may be asked why I have not taken up this position with regard to other Bills which the Government have introduced into your Lordships' House. The answer is that, broadly speaking, and subject to exceptions, I have not been against those Bills, and that is why I have not taken up this position before. I hope that it will not be thought that I am in any way what is called a "diehard." I consider that this Bill exceptionally is a bad Bill, and that this Amendment ought to be passed to make it a less bad Bill than it is, and it is for those reasons that I venture to intervene this afternoon. Nor am I against trade unions. I am not altogether in favour of all the machinery under which they are governed, but I, for my part, would like to see conditions created under which trade unions should have a compulsory membership, under which it should be lawful for workers to be compelled to join a union as a condition of their employment. But how can you possibly pass any such legislation when you have contracting out, as it is proposed to have, after this Bill is passed? Surely, it would be a condition precedent for such legislation that contracting in should be restored and that the funds of a trade union should not automatically be put to the advantage of any political Party.
I think that that will be a sufficient argument on the merits of this Amendment, and I say that because I know quite well that I shall not succeed in changing the mind of any member of His Majesty's Government here this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that he would have the Bill and the whole Bill, and I am not so optimistic as to assume that I shall change the minds of any of its supporters. As to the opponents of the Bill—and there are many in your Lordships' House—I need not say any thing more to reinforce their opinions about this Bill. On the merits, therefore, I have said enough. But I have this much more to say: that I am asking your Lordships to vote for this Amendment and I must put forward some reasons why I make that request. I am asking your Lordships to vote for the principle of contracting in and not to abstain from voting.
This Amendment is word for word in the same terms as an Amendment put down by the Liberal Party in another place and pressed to a Division, and I am sufficiently optimistic to assume—or at least I was—that the Liberals in your Lordships' House would rise as one man to support their colleagues in another place. It is because I have apprehensions about it that I must mention this. I suppose that the reason for the difference is that in your Lordships' House there is a serious danger that if they divided on this Amendment they might win. This position, under which one must not have a Division unless one is sure of losing, is not, in my humble opinion, a healthy situation. It is creating a Gilbertian position under which, to quote the words, if I may, of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel:
"We have this strange paradox: that we are a Second Chamber which has become impotent through possessing too much power.—
In saying that I do not like this situation, may I be allowed to add that I represent this afternoon no political Party and no group of members or group of persons at all. Rightly or wrongly, I am doing this upon my own initiative and I do not want anybody else to be implicated against his will. I seek support, but I do not want to drag in anybody who is not willing to give me his support, and I can assure your Lordships that I am not doing it for publicity or notoriety; I am doing it because I think it is right.
I have a very simple proposition to put before your Lordships and it is this: that it is the duty of every member of every legislative body or assembly to vote for a Motion if he thinks it is right and against it if he thinks it is wrong, and to abstain from voting if, and only if, he has no opinion as to the merits of it. That is what I consider the duty of a democratic organization or assembly. The country has the House of Lords which it deserves. It chooses, through its elected representatives in another place, to retain the principle of a second Chamber which is largely manned by the hereditary element. I am not saying that that is wrong, but I am saying that if it so chooses it must accept the consequences of that choice whatever those consequences may be, and I am perfectly aware of the full force of the possible consequences. Until the

153
country chooses to effect a reform, I submit that the functions of your Lordships' House should be allowed to continue as they were intended to continue and, so far as I know, still are intended to continue, and that therefore the members of your Lordships' House should vote upon the merits of the question irrespective of the consequences and not in accordance with popular clamour.
I apprehend that it may possibly be said, or at any rate thought, that your Lordships must pass this Bill and must reject this Amendment because there was at the last General Election a mandate for this Bill. To clear the air, let me admit at once that I think there was a mandate for this Bill. But since when has it been part of the Constitution that the House of Lords must pass a Bill for which there is a popular mandate, or must reject legislation if it goes against the popular mandate? Had the House a mandate for passing the 1927 Act? I was not aware of it, and I am still not aware that such a mandate is necessary. If it is, if there has been a change in the Constitution, may we be told the authority for that change? I ask this with the deepest respect: Is this House really merely an assembly for dotting the i's and crossing the t's and dropping the h's out of Acts of Parliament, or is it something more? Again I say, if a change has been made in the Constitution, let us be told when it was made and what it amounts to.
Obviously no change will be made in the structure of your Lordships' House by the present Government so long as the House passes into law every Bill which the Government introduces. One could not expect it. And may I be allowed to say, at this stage, that before the war I had the greatest respect and the greatest sympathy for the small group of members who formed the Labour Opposition in your Lordships' House. I still have the greatest respect for them, but I have not the same sympathy for them. They do not require the sympathy now, because they can pass through your Lordships' House anything they want to. I hope that the position will be clarified so that we may know whether that is really so. I understand it to be the case that since the last General Election there has been only one Division in your Lordships' House. Again I say I do not think that that is a position with which we ought to be satisfied. I do not
154
think it is a democratic way of governing the country, and I must be allowed personally to express my disapproval and disquiet at this position.
I have asked myself upon many occasions during the past few days whether I should be really right in tabling this Amendment and pressing it to a Division if I could find a Teller to support me—and I frankly confess that up to the moment I cannot do that. The answer, I think, is that it is right. I am doing this because I feel that I, like every other member of your Lordships' House, have a certain responsibility in this matter. We have a responsibility which we cannot avoid by staying away or by sitting in the House and saying nothing. If I go to the other end of the earth and bury myself I am still responsible for the passage into law of this Act and every other Act that is passed, and for the rejection of this Amendment if it is rejected. Your Lordships have an office—you do not need to be told that really. I believe it is the only office in the world which cannot be abdicated or resigned. As we have seen in the papers during the last day or two, even monarchs can abdicate, but not your Lordships. We cannot give up this responsibility however much we desire to do so, and even the humblest member of the House must be allowed to share this responsibility and to feel it, and to feel the difficulty about abdicating it.
I can only add that in moving this Amendment I have no ulterior motive. There is no subtlety about it. I do not wish in any way at all to bring this House into disrepute in the country or elsewhere. I feel uneasy and disturbed about the present situation and I genuinely desire to rectify it. I feel that it is time some of these things were said by somebody. I regret that no one else has got up to say them and that apparently no one else shares this view, but I still feel, rightly or wrongly, that they should be said, and I still hope that I shall receive some support. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1 line 6, after ("is") insert ("with the exception of section four thereof and the First and Second Schedules thereto")—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would like, if I may, immediately to address a word

155
or two to your Lordships on this Amendment. While very diverse views on the merits of this Bill were expressed in the two days debate on its Second Reading, I think there was practical unanimity in all quarters of the House on what was the right and constitutional attitude which this House should adopt towards it. Anyone who has listened to the noble Lord who has just spoken will appreciate the sincerity which has impelled him to speak, but at the same time I think everyone who has considered his Amendment and, still more, anyone who has heard his speech, will agree that this is an Amendment which goes to the whole structure of the Bill and which therefore, as indeed the noble Lord himself has said, raises the whole constitutional position with regard to it. However ill-advised many of us may consider this measure (and I made no concealment, nor did anyone else speaking from this Bench, that I thought this was a bad Bill) yet as my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon said in speaking immediately after the Lord Chancellor, the Government can fairly contend that they have constantly advocated the repeal of the 1927 Act, and, having been returned to power after an Election in which this was indeed an issue, have something in the nature of a mandate to pass the Bill.
In moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, did not in any way challenge that; indeed he said in terms "I admit that the Government have got a perfectly clear mandate from the country to propose this Bill to Parliament." He then went on to express a view of the functions of a second Chamber which I think few members in any quarter of the House could accept. Although we have no written constitution, I will say that not only is it not a wise view to express of the functions of a second Chamber in this century, but it is certainly not the constitutional view to take of the functions of this Chamber.
The fact that there is a mandate for this Bill does not relieve this House, as was well said on the Second Reading, of its right and its duty to debate the Bill thoroughly. Indeed the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, himself said "I should like to join the noble Viscount who has just spoken" that was myself—" in his tribute to the value and character of this debate. I agree with him
156
that it is fully worthy of the traditions that this House has established and maintained". If I may say so with respect, I think that in the two days' debate on the Second Reading your Lordships discharged what was your constitutional right and duty in an exemplary manner, but I submit to your Lordships that it is equally clear—indeed it follows from the views expressed in the earlier debate, even by the Bill's sternest critics—that we should be exceeding our proper constitutional functions if we amended this Bill in a manner which struck at its fundamental provisions. I think that by its history, its structure and its provisions this Bill necessarily stands or falls as a whole.
Perhaps I may be permitted to repeat what I said on the Second Reading, because I know that in what I said then I was expressing the view of everybody on these Benches and, I think, the view held very generally in the House.
"I think the Government have got authority to do this thing if they think it right to take the responsibility for doing it. I go further, and say that this Bill, which is either a good Bill or a bad Bill, is not a Bill which is susceptible of amendment, unless it were desired—and that would be the responsibility of the Government—to produce the kind of amendment to Clause 1 which would substitute for the uncertainty that is going to be created a new certainty. But, as I say, I do not think that this Bill is really susceptible of amendment in this House. I know I speak on both these points for all my colleagues on these Benches, and that is why I think it is so important that we should consider this Bill fully on the Second Reading".
I would only add that when I made that speech I had not only had the opportunity of a great deal of consultation with all my colleagues on this side who were here, but I had also—and I am sure the House would wish to know this—had the benefit of discussing it very fully with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who we all regret is as yet unable to take his place as the Leader of the Opposition, but who, I hope, will be here after Whitsuntide. He has asked me to say that he most fully concurs in the advice which others and I ventured to tender to the House. Those views are, I know, shared by the great majority on tins side of the House and I therefore commend this course with confidence to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: As the noble Lord who moved this Amendment mentioned at the outset of his observations,

157
its terms are identical with those which were moved in an Amendment in another place by the small Liberal Party there, an Amendment which was pressed by them to a Division. In the observations that I myself made on the Second Reading of this Bill, I referred to that fact and expressed the view that while I believed all or most of my noble friends here would share the same opinion, the constitutional position of this House was such that a second consideration had to be taken into account, and that on all such measures we had to think of two things, first, the merits of the particular proposal, and, secondly, whether it was desirable for this House to push àoutrance their own views as against those of the popularly elected Chamber. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment holds the view which was expressed by Lord Milner in your Lordships' House on a famous occasion when it was a question of rejecting the Budget of 1909, that we should do what is right and damn the consequences. As in that case, so in this. In all probability the consequences would be, in Shakespeare's words, "most damnable." It would immediately give rise to a constitutional crisis, bringing into the very forefront of our politics an issue which no Party at this moment desires to embark upon, and in general would be contrary to the national interest.
We have to consider not only whether this particular proposal is right, but whether it would be desirable to press it; and while we may agree that the Amendment in itself would be desirable, the consequences which would follow from pressing it would be exceedingly undesirable. The noble Lord, whose sincerity and devotion to principle we would all of us recognize, would seem to be, however, a questionable guide on this particular issue, for he has said himself that he favoured compulsory membership by the working classes of trade unions; that an Act of Parliament should be passed putting upon every working man the obligation of becoming a member of a trade union, and apparently, making himself liable to penalties if he did not do so. He did not say whether, in this matter, there would be even a conscience clause at all; and why he should object to the proposals in this Bill, as many of us do, when in another matter he would be prepared to go very much further in the infringement of individual liberty I
158
cannot quite understand. On the issue he raises I trust my noble friends on these Benches will not support this Amendment on this occasion, and I hope that on consideration the noble Lord will revise his estimate of the comparative value of valour and discretion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (LORD JOWITT): I ought to say something, if only out of courtesy to the noble Lord. I do not propose to argue again the merits which were gone into very fully on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is the right, nay, the duty of your Lordships' House to investigate this Bill, as all other Bills, with most careful scrutiny. I would, as a comparative new-comer to your Lordships' House, like to say this. I think it is a bad policy to estimate the value of your Lordships' House by the number of Divisions we have. We have had a very large number of discussions on all sorts of matters, and we always say that a discussion has been a most valuable one. Allowing for the usual trade discount, there can be no doubt at all that a very large number of these discussions have been of the utmost value, though they have not been followed by Divisions.
Might I just let the noble Lord into a secret of mine? I have, as Lord Chancellor, on very many occasions accepted amendments which have been pressed upon me by noble Lords opposite, and sometimes, I do not mind telling him, I have had the utmost difficulty with my colleagues in the Government to account for my conduct. But I have always tried to give way, if I can do so, to an argument which convinces me, as a matter of logic, that it is right and sound, and that, surely, is the main function of a second and revising Chamber. I very much hope that the noble Lord on consideration, not of my observations, but of the more weighty observations which have been made already, will think again and not seek to press this matter to a Division.
LORD MERTHYR: I have very little to add. I should like to say this, that I am a little bewildered by the suggestion—it is no doubt entirely my fault—that it is right for a Party in another place, and I am not now referring only to the Liberal Party, to seek to tear this Bill to pieces by moving amendments clause by clause and dividing on each one, but wrong in your Lordships' House to do the same thing or in any way approach it.

159
I am a little bewildered but that, no doubt, is my fault. With regard to the question of compulsory membership which was taken up by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I would just like to say that I did emphasize when making that suggestion that the conditions must first be created, and satisfactory and fair conditions, before any such proposition could be put into force I would like to emphasize that.
I do not propose to go any further with regard to the constitutional point, but it is, of course, of vital importance, and I would like to suggest that if there has been a change, even a gradual and slow change, in the constitutional status of your Lordships' House, perhaps we could usefully hear somewhat more about it on a proper occasion. The only other point I have to decide is whether to divide on this Amendment. I frankly say that I would have liked to divide if I could have found any support at all. I equally frankly say that I have found no support, not even anybody to act as a teller, and in those circumstances it would be in no way right for me to cause your Lordships to go to all the trouble of going through the Lobbies, even those who would do so, and would not abstain. Therefore, with your Lordships' consent, and with apologies for detaining the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
3.8 p.m.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH/ (MONEY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, this is the first time during the current session that I have been able to handle a Bill that is in some way connected with the work of my own Department, and therefore to me at least this is an exceptionally pleasurable occasion. The object of this Bill is to enable the Post Office to borrow the capital it needs for the extension and improvement of the telephone, telegraph and postal services. All but£4,000,000 out of£50,000,000 required is for use for the telephone service The amount
160
authorized by the previous Act of 1942 was considerably less than we are now asking for, only£35,000,000 in fact, but spending, of course, at that time was restricted to works required directly or indirectly for the conduct of the war. The present Bill is intended to supply funds for new developments which could not be carried out during the war when labour and materials were in extremely short supply. The extensive arrears of work that must now be overtaken explain why the amount of money asked for in this Bill is larger than on previous occasions. The Post Office will also take over for its own use a certain amount of plant which was constructed for war purposes, and the cost of which was borne at the time upon Votes of Credit. The borrowing powers of the Bill will be used to the extent required to cover the cost of this new plant. The total sum of£50,000,000 for which we are asking in this Bill should meet the requirements of the Post Office until about June, 1948.
The Post Office is, of course, experiencing many difficulties in the aftermath of six years of unremitting warfare, difficulties which, of course, are not peculiar to any one Government Department. These difficulties are a direct result of the war, and they cannot, unfortunately, be overcome for quite a considerable time. The large number of enlistments of Post Office engineering staff in the Forces, 16,00o out of a total of 41,000 men, and the inability to make good these losses by recruitment of more than 11,000 temporary staff, made it impossible to meet applications for telephone installations as they came in, and a waiting list of over 300,000 applicants has now accumulated. That this is a legacy of the war, and is not due to the operation of public control as compared with private enterprise, is shown by the fact that in the United States of America there are roughly as many people waiting for telephone installations in New York City alone as in the whole of the United Kingdom.
But there is one hit of good news I can give to-day. I am glad to say that during April there was, for the first time, a reduction—a small reduction it is true—in the size of the waiting list in the London region. There is good reason to think that we have now turned the corner in London, and that fresh installations will continue to reduce the number of people who are waiting for telephones. Since the end of the

161
war fresh demands for telephone service have been coming in at a greatly increased rate. In recent months they have been coming in at more than double the pre-war rate. The Post Office is making a great effort both to cope with current demands and to clear off outstanding cases, while, at the same time, it does what it can to improve the existing telephone service. It has already increased the installation of telephones to the rate of 60,000 a month—which is nearly 75 per cent. more than the pre-war rate. That is not, I think, at all a bad achievement considering the continuing shortage of engineering staff.
The borrowing powers in this Bill will enable us to do our utmost to speed up the provision of new telephone connexions. For this purpose additional ducts, underground cables in the streets and exchange buildings must be provided as time goes on. Unfortunately, all these jobs have to compete for labour with the building industry. In spite of this, the work of laying ducts and cables is already going ahead in over 200 towns, and plans are in preparation for further underground construction in about 500 other towns. The Post Office would like to plan for even more new work in order to cut down the waiting lists and enable new telephones to be installed with the least delay, but it is still held up by the short supply of labour. As demobilization continues a constant flow of skilled Post Office workmen is increasing our engineering staff, and the recruitment and training of additional men, of young men as a general rule, is proceeding all the time. As a result of this fresh intake from both sources the engineering rank and file staff which amounted before the war to 41,000 men, and which was only 36,000 at the end of hostilities, will soon reach the record figure of 45,000 men.
I mentioned earlier that the Post Office will be able to take over for the public service a considerable part of the plant laid down for war purposes during the conduct of both the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. The Defence Services have already surrendered several thousand trunk circuits and there are now in use, for public trunk calls, more than 12,000 circuits for distances of over 25 miles. This compares with less than 7,000 of these long-distance circuits before the war. So the number of circuits
162
now available is almost double what it was before the war.
The telegraph service has been handicapped by the destruction by enemy action of the Central Telegraph Office in London and by the loss of the Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth telegraph offices in the same way. The improvement of the telegraph network by the introduction of new switching methods, which will accelerate the transmission of telegrams, is now in hand and we expect these changes to be completed during 1947. We hope by the end of the current year to have made sufficient progress to enable us to give the public a telegraph service just about as good as we gave before the war.
May I in conclusion—because this is a Money Bill and I wish to be as brief as is customary on such occasions in your Lordships' House—stress the considerable output which the Post Office in carrying out its statutory duty of providing telephone and telegraph services for the public has succeeded in obtaining only nine months after the end of the war. Compared with pre-war days the Post Office is now carrying thirty per cent. more telegrams, is handling ninety per cent. more long-distance trunk calls and is installing over fifty per cent. more telephones each month. Your Lordships will realize that this has meant hard and sustained work by the whole of the staff concerned, and I should like to express my very keen appreciation, an appreciation which I am sure will be shared by your Lordships, of the fine effort made by the Post Office staff. During the war it kept open continuously the channels of communication, often under great difficulties and at moments of great danger. It kept open the channels of communication needed by the military and by the civil population at home. It has now turned with no less determination to its most urgent peace-time job of giving the public, as soon as the damnosa hereditas bequeathed by the war has been paid off, telephone and telegraph services of which the Post Office and the country can both be proud. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.17 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think we are all very much obliged to

163
the noble Earl for the account of the doings of the Post Office which he has given in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. We all wish him success in his office and I should like to join in the tribute which he has paid to the Post Office workers. During the days of the war, great pressure was put upon them and they had to carry out their work under circumstances of considerable difficulty. It was not too easy to sit, as girls were obliged to do—in some instances alone in a small exchange—and carry on the work of the telephone exchanges when the "blitz" was on. But the workers all stuck to their posts and so our communications never broke down. Indeed, without their work I do not know what the Defence Services of Great Britain would have done. We have to offer our sincere thanks to them for the courage which they displayed and the manner in which they stuck to their jobs in those difficult days.
I am sorry that we have not been able to get a little more progress even than we have done in the Post Office since the war. I realize that the Postmaster-General is hampered, as are others, by lack of labour at this time. But there are too many people waiting to have telephones installed in their houses, and I do hope that the Postmaster-General will look into this and see whether anything can be done to enable him to increase the number of his customers and to give this vital service in more homes. As a matter of fact, if a house is vacated nowadays, even for the short periods that houses are now vacated, you find that a Post Office man goes in the very next day and the telephone is whisked away, although often the wires are left. Then, so far as the installation of a telephone is concerned, that house goes to the bottom of the list and several months have to elapse before a telephone can be put in. I wonder if it would not be possible, even as a temporary measure, to make more use of telephones that were used by the Services during the war.
Another point I would like to raise, as we are discussing the Post Office, is this. When we want more telegraph poles, as we undoubtedly shall in some places, since you cannot put all lines underground, are we getting, or could we get, poles from Germany for that purpose? We have cut down too much of our
164
timber in Scotland and in our own country both in the last war and in this war. I have said this in the House before, but I do not apologise for saying it again. There are masses of timber in Germany and we ought to get some of that, not only for the Post Office but for houses, and make the Germans send it for reparations and to save the woodlands of this country.
A NOBLE LORD: Why not take the telegraph poles themselves?
LORD LLEWELLIN: If you do, at any rate they will be seasoned. I quite agree that we might take the poles so long as it will not cause a breakdown in the communications of the occupying Forces. But I do urge that everything should be done to get timber from Germany and from other countries. The Post Office is in urgent need of that, as I well knew when I was allocating timber in the early days of the war. The tremendous demands of the Post Office then made heavy calls on the best and tallest trees which we grow in this country. Apart from these observations, which I hope have been constructive, I rise to support the measure.
3.22 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question before the debate continues? I would like to congratulate him on the expeditious and excellent way he moved his own child—his own Bill. My noble friend spoke about the difficulty of obtaining technical, skilled workmen and engineers and, of course, materials. We heard an echo of that from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I understand that one difficulty has been the shortage of telephone operators. Is the Post Office getting what is needed, in the general demobilization scheme, in the allocation of labour? I have heard it said that one of the causes of delays is the shortage of girl operators.
3.23 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am anxious to ask the noble Earl a question with regard to his Department. He has given us a number of interesting figures, and told us of an increase in the number of telephones being installed, but I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had a similar experience to my own—and I know it is the experience of many others—when chaffing a number from an

165
automatic exchange. On some occasions you will hear a ringing tone, and then suddenly it shuts off. You then dial again, hoping for the best, with probably the same result. After that had happened to me a few times I took the trouble to inquire from the local exchange the possible reason for that. I was informed by the exchange that the automatic exchanges, in London, at any rate, are at the present moment very much overloaded.
Whether that is so or not I do not know, but the more telephones that are installed the more that difficulty must be aggravated, assuming that the reason given is the correct one. I am wondering if the noble Earl could say anything with regard to automatic exchanges as a whole. There is another point I would like to raise. Those of us who live in the south of London, and who frequently make toll calls, are very often given the "engaged" signal when we put in a call. On inquiry we are told by the exchange that the line—not the number—is engaged. If that is so it seems to point to an insufficient number of lines. I only put these questions to the noble Earl in the hope that he may be able to give those of us who suffer from these minor worries some slight help.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I say a word for consideration by the noble Earl in respect of requisitioned properties now being returned to the unfortunate owners. What I have in mind occurs in a number of cases, but I am in particular interested in the case of a noble Lord whose house, having been requisitioned for nearly six years, has only recently been derequisitioned. On de-requisition the War Department proceeded to remove the instruments which they had been using during the war. They were instruments, I may add, which were the property of the Post Office and not of the War Office so perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will see that he is personally concerned to protect this property. These instruments have been removed, torn away from the walls, and there seems to be no prospect for many months of getting the instruments back again, or similar instruments installed.
Those of us who live in the country, some miles from another telephone, know that such a state of affairs almost makes
166
the property unusable. The occupants are unable to order supplies, unable to communicate with their friends, and unable to do any of the vast number of things that people in the country have become accustomed to doing by telephone. If you restore their property to them, minus the telephone, which they have been accustomed to using for perhaps ten or twenty years, it is almost giving them property which has been deprived of a very large part of its value for habitation. I am not asking impossibilities. I am asking only for this—that people whose properties had telephones belonging to them at the date of requisitioning should be given priority in respect of the return of these amenities.
3.29 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Llewellin mentioned the Air Defence of Great Britain. As an officer who has served in a group in Fighter Command I would like to pay a tribute to the ground crews of the Post Office who repaired the lines. As my noble friend has said, air defence depends on quick communications; and that means land-line communications. When we had those raids on our smaller towns, the Baedeker raids as they were called, we lost a lot of lines because we had put our switching centres through the towns which we thought would not be bombed. We got our lines repaired with the greatest possible celerity and our signal section had the greatest co-operation from the General Post Office.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the Post Office engineers. I have had three telephones installed; one in Chelsea, which took five days to instal after application; one in Kensington, which was installed in one day, and one in the City in two days. I think there is a good deal in the method of approach to the engineers. Mine perhaps has been a happy one.
3.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, let me first say how much obliged I am to the House for the extremely friendly reception it has given to this Bill, and to a number of noble Lords for the constructive suggestions they have made about the work of my Department. I particularly should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for the tribute he paid to the work done by the Post Office staff during the war, and to the noble

167
Lord, Lord Waleran, for his reference to the work of the engineering staff which was helping to repair and maintain the circuits used by the Royal Air Force. I am not in a position to answer on the spur of the moment every question that was raised by noble Lords, but I will answer those with which I can deal without further consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that it causes great inconvenience when a tenant, at the end of his tenancy leaves a house, and the telephone is removed, because the subsequent tenant has to wait a considerable time before he gets a new installation. Those facts are, of course, completely true. The point is this, that, in every area, a very large number of people are waiting for a new telephone. Those telephones are provided according to the length of time that a subscriber or a potential subscriber has waited, or according to certain priority categories, and it would therefore be unfair for an incoming tenant to take precedence over people in the same area who had been waiting for a much longer time or had a much more urgent claim to the telephone service.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the noble Earl has slightly misunderstood me. I was only taking that as an instance of the need for pushing ahead with the provision of telephones to the greatest possible extent, although I must say with regard to the point made about places in the country, where they have always had a telephone before requisitioning (I should have thought that was a different point) I would support my noble friend on that.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely accept what the noble Lord has said. He mentioned that he thought that we might acquire timber, or indeed, whole telegraph poles, from Germany in the form of reparations, for use in this country. That, I am afraid, is a point that I cannot answer immediately, but I will certainly take personal responsibility for seeing that it is given careful consideration. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi who is not here (and whose question therefore I feel I need not answer) will, I am sure, appreciate that we are doing our best to recruit girl operators for the telephone exchanges, and I shall be pleased to inform him later of the steps we have taken.
168
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to certain difficulties he had experienced in connexion with certain automatic exchanges in London. He said the reason given was that the exchanges were overloaded. That may be the case. It may equally have been the case that the machinery was not in the best possible condition. It is, unfortunate that we have been unable to maintain a reasonable standard of maintenance in the plant and equipment of the telephone service. The standard has fallen considerably since the beginning of the war, and this very often gives rise to many inconveniences which your Lordships experience when trying to dial toll or trunk calls. We are, however, dealing with the overloading of exchanges, by building more exchanges in the London area. Some have already been started, and we have a considerable programme which will be carried out in the next few years.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, raised a point of considerable importance which I cannot answer immediately, but I will address myself to his point at the earliest possible moment. I am particularly grateful for this debate, which has extended for a greater length of time than the usual discussion which takes place on a Money Bill. I like to think that that means that the Post Office is giving a certain amount of satisfaction to, as well as occasioning a certain amount of criticism from, your Lordships and the public generally.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In February of this year the General Assembly of the United Nations met, discussed this problem, and came to certain conclusions with regard to the nature and extent of the diplomatic immunity which they desired to be given to their officers, and agreement was unanimously arrived at. In order that this country may adhere to that Convention, it is necessary for us to obtain from Parliaent the necessary powers, and that is

169
the object of this Bill. May I make this general observation with regard to diplomatic immunity. I have always thought that lawyers can raise all sorts of hair-raising problems as to what might happen with regard to diplomatic immunity, but these problems very seldom do arise, having regard to the character and the responsibility of those who are appointed to these great positions.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: There are exceptions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are exceptions, as the noble Viscount has mentioned in his interjection. However, that is not a matter which should be in any way lightly, or inadvisedly, embarked upon. I have no doubt that your Lordships at a later stage, if necessary, will give us the benefit of your experience on your careful consideration of this Bill. I am bound to say that I do not think myself that this Bill goes any further than is necessary, to enable us to adhere to the United Nations Convention. That Convention points this out, that the privileges and immunities are accorded to the representatives of members not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves, but in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the United Nations. Consequently, a member—that is, one of the States, of course—not only has a right, but is under a duty to waive the immunities in any case where, in the opinion of the member, the immunity would impede the course of justice. They can be waived without prejudice to the purpose for which immunity is accorded. Section 29 provides that the United Nations shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes where immunity is not waived.
I think that is right, and with regard to the officers of the United Nations, the Secretary-General is given power to waive the privileges of any one of his officers. With regard to the Secretary-General himself, the Security Council are given power to waive his privileges. Therefore, there is a complete right to waive where that is necessary.
Now I turn to the Bill itself. The Second Schedule of the Bill sets out, I hope in what your Lordships will think a convenient form, the effect of the amendments of the 1944 Act (which I may call the principal Act) by this Bill, showing
170
the amendments in black type. Your Lordships will observe that the Second Schedule shows that this is the utmost extent to which we can be asked to go. Our Order in Council need not go so far as this. If your Lordships will look at page 4, line 42, you will see the words "to such extent as may be so specified," and on page 5, line 10, ".…except in so far as the operation of the said Part IV is excluded…." It does not necessarily follow that the Order in Council will provide all these things, but these things are the maximum, the ultimate limit, with which the Order may deal.
In pointing out the salient features to your Lordships, I must refer to one which is important, and that is the omission of the words which occurred in the 1944 Act "other than British subjects." The effect of this Amendment will be that certain British subjects may be able to claim in this country full diplomatic immunity. In the old days it was often the fact that British subjects sought to be made diplomatic representatives of small Powers in order that they might carry on their lives here and enjoy diplomatic immunity at the same time. That has been stopped for many years. There were many obvious disadvantages in such a course. I may point out, however, that this part of the Bill applies only to the highest officials of the United Nations Organization, that is to the Secretary-General, the Assistant Secretaries-General (who may be seven or eight in number), and the representatives of the member governments. The greatest importance is attached to these higher officials having exactly the same independence in relation to the countries of which they are nationals as they would have in regard to other countries. The number of British subjects covered will be, of course, extremely small, and the occasions on which immunity will be exercisable will be limited. I agree that difficult theoretical questions might arise about crimes committed, but I think the provisions about waiver to which I have referred already will prove a satisfactory safeguard.
Since we have decided to ask your Lordships to modify the principle that no British subject should have diplomatic immunity in this country, in order to cover the case of any of these high officials who might be a British subject it has been

171
thought right no longer to distinguish between representatives of foreign Governments and representatives of the Dominions to assemblies and conferences of the United Nations. Therefore the latter, as representatives of the Dominions, may also be invested with diplomatic immunity.
There are two further extensions to which I ought to call your Lordships' attention. The first is indicated by the words in heavy type on page 4 of the Bill. In order to comply with Article V of the Convention, there has been added to Section 1(2) (b) words to include the class of persons employed on temporary official missions such as, for instance, investigation of an international dispute. Secondly, as indicated by the words in heavy type on page 5, to comply with Section 16 of the Convention, privileges and immunities to be granted to the representatives of foreign Governments have also to be extended to the higher officials of their delegations down to the rank of Secretary of Delegation, and certain immunities have to be conferred in respect of their wives and children. Then I come to the question of exemption from taxation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask where the words "down to the rank of Secretary of Delegation" occur?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is certainly the intention of Article 16.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May be it is in the Order in Council.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May be. It may not be on page 5. That is a point I think we ought to examine and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising it. It ought to be looked at. Now I wish to draw attention to the change set out on page 3 of the Bill in the proviso to Section 1 of the 1944 Act which prevented exemption from rates and taxation being conferred on any British subject. That we are proposing to change and the grounds for the change are that if United Nations Organization officials are subject to Income Tax on their salaries in their own country but not elsewhere, it is impossible to secure equality of emolument as between officials of different countries who are doing the same work. In consequence, our Delegation gave support to the proposal at the General
172
Assembly that the exemption from taxation of salaries should be irrespective of nationality. But the new proviso clearly provides that the members of the United Kingdom Delegation cannot, under the Bill, claim any immunities in this country.
Two new paragraphs are added to the Schedule to the 1944 Act which, I think, are numbers five and six of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Bill. I think they are self-explanatory and I need not spend time on them. With regard to the duration of the Bill, your Lordship will remember that the 1944 Act extends for five years only, with a right of extension thereafter on the appropriate resolution being passed, but as we most surely hope that the United Nations Organization is going to be a permanent institution we are making this a permanent Bill and removing the five years limitation. There is one further matter which I shall explain. We have taken the opportunity in this Bill to deal with the position of judges of the International Court of Justice. That matter is to come before the General Assembly of the United Nations at its next meeting and we are asking for power to pass Orders in Council to give effect to the conclusions which the General Assembly of the United Nations may reach in regard to the immunity of the high officials of the International Court. Obviously when they are on official duty, on their way to the Court and so on, there ought to be some immunity, and that matter is going to be discussed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
I would mention in conclusion that our obligations under the Convention apply not only to the United Kingdom but also to Southern Rhodesia, Newfoundland, Burma, all British Colonies, Protectorates and Protected States and Mandated Territories. That gives rise to the not altogether satisfactory position, but a very common one, in which we are assuming obligations which we cannot meet unless the Governments of these territories agree to enact the necessary domestic legislation. I have no reason to think that they will not agree—indeed I have every reason to think they will—but it is an unfortunate position. Although we have not yet received positive assurances from them I think there is no doubt that we shall encounter no difficulty in that respect. I put forward this Bill not as

173
being a controversial one—I do not think it is for a moment. At the same time, I put it forward as a Bill which merits and I hope will receive careful consideration. I do not want to go one whit further than I need go so long as we are enabled to implement and adhere to the arrangements which were decided by the United Nations, and I am sure that we shall all desire to show the importance we attach to that organization by extending appropriate immunity to their officials and representatives. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think all of us will be prepared to give a Second Reading to this Bill in the spirit in which we were invited to do so by the Lord Chancellor. I would like first of all to observe that, technically difficult as the Bill may be to understand, we are greatly indebted to the draftsman and to the Government for what is a comparatively novel way of printing a difficult Bill like this. I do not think the Statute Book hitherto has contained provisions some of which are in thin type and the rest of which are in heavy type. I daresay it will not be so in this case when the Bill is passed, but in order to make the matter as easy to read as possible we get provided (it is very unusual; I do not remember an earlier instance) in the Bill itself not only the amendments which are to be made to the Act of 1944 but a sort of reprint of what the Second Schedule of that Act will look like when these amendments have been made. The parts of the Second Schedule which are new are to be picked out because they are in thicker type. I must say that I think that is an extremely useful way of presenting to Parliament a Bill as technical and complicated as this, and I hope it will be followed in all suitable cases.
As to the subject itself, I rather agree with what the Lord Chancellor said. It is not the most interesting or stimulating corner of the law, but one has to remember as a practical matter that there are always two sides to diplomatic privileges. If you look at the other side of the matter, the question really is in what cases shall British shop-keepers who have extended credit to a customer not be able to enforce payment of the debt, and in what cases shall people who are
174
walking about our streets, for example, not be able to recover damages because a motor-car has been negligently driven by a person who enjoys diplomatic immunity? That is one point of view from which it might be looked at—the point of view of what I may call the common people.
I read in black type at the very end of this Bill that where any person is entitled to any such immunities and privileges as are mentioned in Part II of the Second Schedule as an officer of the Organization, then that person's wife or husband and children—I am not sure whether there is a definition of children in the Act or whether some other Statute will define it—shall also be entitled to those immunities and privileges to the same extent as the wife or husband and children of an envoy of a foreign sovereign Power accredited to His Majesty is entitled to the immunities and privileges accorded to the envoy. That is for the moment a little mysterious. I am not sure that there is a precise law as to the age which an envoy's child has to reach before it ceases to have the privilege of running down His Majesty's lieges at whatever speed it chooses without either it or its father having to pay. I know that really what happens is that in a gross case, at any rate the larger and most important Embassies never raise any question about it but pay as a matter of grace. It is, however, important to look rather closely to see how far this has got to be done.
The other general reflection which occurs to me is this. How enviable will be the position of any British subject living in this country who has, I will not say the good luck, but the necessary accomplishments and virtues to be appointed as one of these persons thus protected. If he is one of the high officers, he is to have such exemption or relief from taxes and rates as is accorded to an envoy, and there is no doubt of course than an Ambassador pays no taxes. He is to have no liability in this country on any legal process, so that if he can manage to incur any debts here he need never pay them, and if he commits any sort of wrong not connected with contract he need never pay any compensation. I am quite sure, of course, that in gross cases it would none the less be done as a matter of grace, but we are told that the Secretary General has the "power" to disallow the immunity. It

175
is a power; it is not an authority or a duty.
I do not say these things in the least from a desire to suggest that these immunities may not be necessary, because I do not know, but what I am quite clear about is that it is the duty of this House to be reasonably well satisfied on the Committee stage as to what these immunities really do amount to and whether they really are, as I am sure the Lord Chancellor means them to be, the minimum that is right and fair. It is not very long since there was a rumpus in the capital of another State because the son of an Ambassador drove a motor-car in the streets to the danger of the public. Anyone who is interested in the ancient literature of this subject may refresh his memory on the case of Pantaleon Sa, who, if I recollect rightly, was the brother of the Portuguese Ambassador in the time of Cromwell. What he did was very serious and what happened to him I am not quite clear about.
I venture to think that the proper way in which to deal with this Bill is the way the Lord Chancellor suggests, namely, to recognize that the principle it is aiming at is certainly to be admitted and to recognize further that it is very carefully drafted, but at the same time, before we reach the Committee stage, to look very carefully at what is provided and to see whether there is as a matter of fact any instance in which the position is unnecessarily generous to the person privileged and therefore unnecessarily severe on the ordinary British subject who might suffer thereby. I very well remember the passing of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act of 1944 in this House, and I think I am right in saying that in the course of its being carried quite considerable changes were made in the direction of securing that these privileges should not go too far. In particular, there is a section in the Act of 1944 which provides for reciprocal treatment; it says in effect "We are not bound to give your diplomat privileges to this extent unless in your country you do the same with ours". That does not, of course, apply when dealing with an international body like the United Nations, but I think we should still want to consider whether, before we finally enact this, we have got reasonable assurances that something to the same effect is going to be enacted in
176
the other countries which also form part of the whole body. I hope what I have said Will not be thought to be critical of the Bill; it is not. The Bill is most conveniently and admirably put together but it is not a thing about which everybody can be sure on every detail at first sight.
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I add a word in support of what has just fallen from my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon? In the first place, I want to say how fully I agree with something which is of very great importance in the matter of the drafting of many Acts of Parliament, and that is the system whereby Section 1 of the Act of 1944 is amended by a Bill, namely, the Bill before us, which not only sets up the section in its old form but sets it out as amended. Your Lordships, especially those not accustomed to studying beforehand the Bills which you can get in the Printed Paper Office, must be terribly puzzled to know what precisely the House is being requested to do in relation to a Bill. Even a lifetime at the law is not sufficient to make it easy to ascertain the effect of an amendment of an existing Act of some complication. The reason is plain to see. We have not got paper copies of the old Act before us. We cannot take a copy of the Act out of a library, for instance your Lordships' library, and make the alterations in pencil upon it, because the librarian would object, and secondly, you are in the greatest difficulty in seeing in many cases what is the precise result of the amendment proposed in the Bill before the House. For my part I would wish to express in the strongest possible terms my approval of the method adopted in the case of this Bill, and to express a fervent hope that the system will be adopted in a number of other cases in order to enable the House really to know what it is doing in amending legislation.
As regards the merits of the Bill, I have practically nothing to add to what has already been said, both from the Woolsack and by my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon. It is a complicated matter. I do not know if I shall be guilty of egotism in saying that I have had a good deal of experience in these cases. I remember in particular the case of a Minister from a South American Republic who contrived to make himself a trustee here for

177
a relative of his and who pocketed the money. He not only pocketed the money, but he entered the house of his relative and refused to give it up, and there was the greatest possible difficulty in dealing with it. As counsel, I must with shame admit that I failed in a proceeding against him in the first instance, but fortunately, after a decent interval of two or three years, he was removed from his post. I then renewed the effort on behalf of my client, and succeeded at any rate in getting him out of the house, and getting an order for the restitution of the trust funds. He fought that nobly up to the Court of Appeal, and there, I am happy to say, I finally succeeded. I have been concerned with other cases of that kind. Although what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, says is perfectly true, that it is only in exceptional cases that trouble arises, still these matters do arise, and they have got to be considered.
In addition to what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, there is one thing which I have not worked out properly. Perhaps there is nothing in it, but I do suggest that this matter should be considered. An officer, such as a Minister or Ambassador, is appointed by a country and remains accredited to that country until he is removed or dies or retires. The high officials with whom we are concerned here are not quite in the same position. They are presumably not residing here permanently. They may come over here from time to time, and should be given certain immunity. I am assuming that the United Nations Organisation will not be in this country, because it has not been suggested it should be. They will either be in the United States or elsewhere. What I am not sure about is this; ought they to have, and will they have, immunities when they come over here for a period not on official business at all? A Minister who happens to be travelling backwards and forwards gets immunity because he is supposed to be a Minister with duties here, and all the time he is here, whether he is working or not, he is entitled to immunity. If an official of the United Nations Organisation happens to come over here, although his real residence may be in some city in the United States, is he to have immunity? As I say, I have not worked it out, and I am not sure what the answer to my question may
178
be. I only respectfully submit to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the matter is worth consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the reception that this Bill has had, and I agree with all the observations which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, have made. I would welcome careful investigation of this Bill from your Lordships and also your Lordships' help to see that we have not gone too far. I think, if I may suggest it, the most useful way to approach it is to look at the general Convention, which is Command Paper 6753. It is not a Convention to which we have yet adhered, but it would be a great pity if we did not, as long as other people do the same thing. The real problem is whether the powers we have taken in this Bill are sufficient to enable us to adhere to Command Paper 6753 or whether we have taken too great powers. We do not want to take powers wider than are necessary save with the question of this International Court where we are doing that in order to save a second Bill. I am very grateful to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
4.8 p.m.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
(The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.)
Clause 1:
Voluntary schemes for amalgamation of police forces.
1.—(1) If it appears to the police authorities for any two or more police areas that it is expedient that those areas should be amalgamated for police purposes, they may for that purpose submit to the Secretary of State a scheme (hereinafter referred to as an "amalgamation scheme") and the Secretary of State may by order approve any scheme so submitted to him.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the incorporation of a joint police committee with perpetual succession and a

179
common seal and for conferring on such a committee power to hold land, or to borrow money.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (5), after "may," to insert "after consultation with the police authorities concerned." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the police authorities concerned Will be consulted by the Secretary of State before he makes an Order conferring upon a joint police committee power to borrow money. The obligation to consult the police authorities will apply irrespective of whether the Joint Police Committee has been constituted by a voluntary or by a compulsory amalgamation scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the police authorities concerned").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes.
2.—(I) Subject to the provisions of this section, if it appears to the Secretary of State that the expediency in the interests of efficiency of making an amalgamation scheme for any police areas should be considered and no scheme satisfactory to him has been submitted to him by the police authorities for those areas under section one of this Act the Secretary of State may in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this section by order make such scheme as he considers expedient, and the provisions of section one of this Act shall apply in relation to any such scheme as they apply in relation to schemes made under that section.
(2) Before making a scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall give to the police authorities concerned notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme; and unless those authorities give notice to the Secretary of State that they assent thereto, the Secretary of State shall cause a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him (not being an officer of police or of any government department), and the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act 'shall have effect with regard to any such inquiry.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (I), after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert "before such date as he may fix." The noble Lord said: Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes. Before agreeing to the use of this power the Secretary of State will give the police
180
authorities every possible assistance in formulating voluntary amalgamation schemes under Clause 1. In the interests of efficiency, however, it may be necessary to set some time limit upon the preparation and submission of voluntary schemes and what this time limit should be will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. The purpose of the Amendment is to assure that before the Secretary of State initiates the procedure for a voluntary scheme he will inform the police authorities concerned of the time limit which he has fixed in their case for the submission of a satisfactory voluntary scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("before such date as he may fix").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (2), after "shall," where that word first occurs, to insert "publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the areas of the authorities a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme and shall." The noble Lord said: The Bill provides that where proposals made by the Secretary of State for the constitution of a joint police force are not acceptable to the police authorities concerned, a public inquiry is to be held. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that all persons interested have notice of the nature of the proposals which are the subject of the inquiry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the areas of the authorities a notice of the general nature of the proposed scheme and shall").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Provision of buildings and acquisition of land for police purposes by county and town councils, and joint police committees.
(2) A police authority or such a joint police committee as aforesaid may, with the consent of the Secretary of State purchase by agreement, or may be authorised by means of an order made by them and confirmed by the Secretary of State to purchase compulsorily, any land whether within or without their area which is required for the purposes of the power conferred by subsection (I) of this section.
(3) The following provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, that is to say, Part III of the First Schedule, Part I of the Third Schedule (except paragraph 2 and sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 3) and paragraph 4 (except head (b) of subparagraph (i)) of Part II of that Schedule shall apply to an order under the last foregoing subsection with the substitution for any reference to the responsible authority of a reference to the council of a county or burgh or the joint police committee, and with any other necessary modifications.
(4) Nothing in this section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land which is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest or which belongs to any local authority or to any public undertakers within the meaning of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935; and where any land proposed to be acquired by means of a compulsory purchase order made in pursuance of this section is situate within such distance as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State from any of the royal palaces or parks the county or town council or the joint police committee shall, before submitting the order to the Secretary of State for confirmation, send a copy of it to the Minister of Works.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (2), after "agreement," to insert "or take on lease." The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment to make it clear that a police authority may acquire land or premises on lease as well as having the power to purchase. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, after ("agreement") insert ("or take on lease").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "by means of an order made by them and confirmed." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this and the following Amendment is to apply to the compulsory purchase of land under the present Bill the procedure recently enacted by the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. The intention, when the Police (Scotland) Bill was introduced, was to apply to compulsory purchase under it the standard procedure of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, but as that Act had not then become law reference to it could not be made in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("by means of an order made by them and confirmed").—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert
("(3) For the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, the last foregoing subsection shall be deemed to have been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act.")
The noble Lord said: I have already explained this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1 leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Interpretation, etc.
12.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"Enactment" includes an order, regulation or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act;
"Officer" includes a servant;
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "servant," to insert:
"'Enactments relating to county police' and 'enactments relating to burgh police' mean enactments relating to the administration and maintenance of county and burgh police forces respectively."
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to remove any possible ambiguity as to the meaning of the expressions "enactments relating to county police" and "enactments relating to burgh police." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Provisions as to Inquiries.
1. The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to hold the inquiry and to report thereon to him.
2. The person appointed to hold that inquiry shall notify the police authorities concerned and any other person appearing to him to be interested.
LORD WESTWOOD LORD WESTWOOD moved, at the end of paragraph 2, to insert "of the time

183
when and the place where the inquiry is to be held." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule requires the person by whom the local public inquiry is to be held to give notice to the police authorities concerned and to other persons interested. The Amendment makes it clear that the purpose of the notice is to specify the time and place of the inquiry.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).

COMPENSATION RENTS FOR REQUISITIONED PROPERTY
4.15 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider introducing legislation to enable compensation rent to be paid to persons whose premises were taken by the Government (whether by requisitioning or by lease) during the war, so as to cover the entire period between derequisitioning on the termination of the lease, as the case may he, and the date when the repairs are actually completed and the premises actually made habitable again. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name. During the war a certain number of properties were taken over by the Government. Some of these properites were taken over under requisition notices, others under leases for a fixed period of years—such, for example, as three years—or for the duration of the war, and I think I am right in saying that some properties were taken under the Defence Acts (not to be confused with the Defence Regulations) in which case the service of a formal requisition notice was not necessary. In all these cases, dilapidations have occurred, and I have no doubt that in the course of time the Government will pay for these dilapidations. But after the premises have been derequisitioned or the lease has come to an end, as the case may
184
be, some six or twelve or even eighteen months may elapse before the premises are restored and made fit for habitation again. That lapse of time is caused by lack of labour and materials, the necessity for applying for licences and also the extent of the damage which has been done.
I do not wish to make any undue criticism of Government Departments, but I think everyone will agree that occupation by a Government Department, especially a Service Department, causes a great deal more damage than normal civilian occupation. During the whole of these six, twelve or eighteen months, the owner or former occupier of the property will have to pay rent for living elsewhere, and may also have to pay for the storage of his furniture. I must confess that on the last occasion when I spoke on this subject, I omitted to draw your Lordships' attention to another aspect of this matter. If the former occupier is himself a tenant of the premises, he will have to pay rent under his own lease to his own landlord after the requisition has been terminated. He will also have to pay rent for the premises in which he is living in the meantime, and he may also have to pay storage charges.
During the period of requisition, it is to be hoped that the requisition rent will cover the amount of rent which the tenant has to pay under his own lease to his own landlord, but when the requisition comes to an end one can envisage cases—in fact thousands of cases have occurred in different parts of the country—where a person has to pay rent under his own lease to his own landlord and also pay rent for the premises where he happens to be living and probably has to pay storage charges as well. I know that in some cases the Government have made ex gratia payments over three months or even up to six months, but I submit that in the great majority of cases these ex gratia payments are quite unsatisfactory and quite inadequate to meet the justice of the case. I therefore ask His Majesty's Government to introduce fresh legislation whereby everyone may be put on the same footing, and whereby those whose premises have been requisitioned or taken over under lease during the war shall be entitled to claim compensation for the entire period which elapses between the end of the requisition or the termination of the lease, as the

185
case may be, and the date when the premises are substantially repaired and made fit for habitation.
4.20 p.m.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston seems to me to have raised a very important question, and I would like to say just a word or two in reference to his remarks. I am quite prepared to believe—I do believe—that the Government have every desire to act honourably, fairly and justly towards those people whose premises have been requisitioned. And I am quite certain that there is no one in this House who would be less likely not to support a policy of justice and fairness than the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who is about to reply. Certain facts, however, were brought to my notice the other day, and I took the trouble to inquire into them and to satisfy myself that they were accurate. They completely illustrate the point which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made, and I venture, therefore, to give them to your Lordships' House.
The case in question concerned forty-seven flats requisitioned by the Air Ministry in 1941. They were derequisitioned on January 26 of this year. Compensation rent was paid up to that date. The lessees, long lessees in this case, have every expectation, according to the custom in these matters, of receiving three months' more compensation rent—or possibly six months' compensation rent, if the case is regarded by the Government as an exceptional case. When these flats were requisitioned by the Air Ministry they were very extensively altered, no doubt for security reasons. The result, I am told, is that this block of flats looks more like fortified barracks than residential flats. In addition, they were bombed. Three or four were, to all intents and purposes, destroyed and the roof over this block was seriously damaged. Now, I am informed that nothing can be done at all until a schedule of damage has been produced by the Air Ministry. That schedule, although repeatedly asked for, has not yet been produced. And, as I reminded your Lordships, the flats were derequisitioned on January 26, so that three months have already elapsed.
Having obtained this schedule of damage from the Air Ministry the next thing (this I am told is the practice) is to obtain
186
a licence from the local authority to enable the restoration of the buildings to be proceeded with and materials to be supplied. I am informed—and I can well believe it—that when all this has been done it will take at least twelve months before the flats can be restored to their state when they were requisitioned by the Air Ministry. The result of all this is that the owners are most seriously prejudiced. In this particular case I have verified the figures. If you take into account the rents of these forty-seven flats (tenants are waiting to come in), and if you take into account the mortgage interest, which is running all the time, the money which has to be set aside towards the redemption of the mortgage, interest, and on top of all that the ground rents, the loss to these unfortunate owners is no less than£22,000 a year. Your Lordships will readily understand that a case might well arise, when this sort of thing happens, that an unfortunate owner might be driven to ruin and bankruptcy, through no fault or error of his own.
Now, what the noble Lord, Lord Meston says, as I understand it, is that until the schedule of damage is delivered and agreed, and until the work is completed, this compensation rent should still be paid. I think, indeed, that he has been extremely modest in that request, because even if compensation rent were paid it would nothing like cover the£22,000 a year which I have mentioned in the present case, the amount by which the owners of the flats are damnified by reason of the present situation. But it would be a very great thing if the Government would accept the principle that compensation rent should be paid until such time as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has indicated.
When this matter came up on March 26 this precise question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. What he said then was:
"… strictly speaking, these ex gratia payments… are outside the ambit of the Statute. Perhaps, therefore, the Government may consider forthwith bringing in a new or amending Act which will put everybody on the same footing and enable the Government properly to make payments of compensation rent after the period of requisition had been terminated."
I have not the slightest idea whether it is, or is not, ultra vires for the Government to make these ex gratia grants. If

187
it is, I should entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in saying that the Government are in fairness—I was almost inclined to say in honour—bound to take early legislative action to enable them to do the right and proper thing for this class or person—a person who, through no fault of his own, has been most grievously affected by requisitioning by Government Departments.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I would support what the noble Lords who preceded me have said, and I would quote a further typical instance in another particular direction. There are many schools and institutes which were evacuated, particularly from coastal areas, owing to enemy action, or threat of enemy action, in the years 1939, 1940 and 1941. In order to keep going, many of these schools had to rent, and in some cases to purchase, premises in what were then known as "safe areas." Their own premises were requisitioned by one of the Service Departments, usually, let me say, the War Office, not so much the Air Ministry. The rent paid as compensation rent usually did not cover the tenant's original continuing rent, which he had to pay his landlord, even though the tenant himself had to take premises else where. There was one school in the South Eastern area where a head master was paying a rent of£350 a year, exclusive of rates. He had to leave, and his premises were requisitioned. He had to rent another place somewhere in North Wales, at a rent of£400 a year, so that his total outgoings were£750 a year.
The War Office assessed the compensation rent of his school at £200 a year, so that out of his resources the schoolmaster had to meet a deficit of£550 a year during the war. These premises were derequisitioned some three months ago. Compensation rent has stopped, but unfortunately it will be many months before that schoolmaster can obtain a licence and, after he has got the licence, obtain the labour and materials to get his premises back into the state which will allow him to receive his pupils again. All this means that during the war period he lost£55o a year, and the price of peace for that schoolmaster is a continuing loss, at the rate of£750 a year, until he can obtain his licence.
188
I am quite sure that the Government look sympathetically at cases such as those of householders, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, and flats, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, and also these schools and institutes.
I do not know what the Minister is going to say, but it occurs to me, if we have the answer that legislation is not possible owing to congestion in Parliament—an answer which Governments give on varying occasions—to suggest that he should go into the matter and see if something could be done administratively within the law as it exists to-day. Actually, provided that you are not doing something that is thoroughly illegal, by administration you can usually do what you want within the law. This thought occurs to me: Would it be administratively possible to introduce an interim derequisitioning period, that is to say, that the Department which is evacuating the premises—for example, the War Office—should say that they are willing to vacate them on a particular date, but that there should be some Department that would say—with Treasury consent, of course—that derequisitioning could be postponed for a specific period, which specific period would be assessed at the time likely to be needed to obtain a licence and the work completed subsequent to the licence being granted for the rehabilitation of these premises? A deficit, of course, would appear on the particular Service Department Vote, in that they would be incurring redundant expenditure, but provided that the Treasury had given prior sanction for such redundant expenditure, I do not think that the audit authorities could in any way question such expenditure, nor do I believe that the other House nor this House would offer any objection. I only put forward that suggestion in order to see whether, if the noble Lord says that legislation cannot be introduced, we can at any rate meet the unhappy lot of these people by administration.
4.35 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for returning to this subject, all the more so because the last time it was raised a number of supplementary questions were put to me which I was not then fully equipped to answer, although I do not think I positively misinformed the

189
House. As I explained last time, I am in warm, but I am afraid rather improper, sympathy with the kind of case raised by the noble Lord, having had a small house of my own requisitioned throughout the war. With regard to the particular cases raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, being old members of Governments they will not expect me to commit myself offhand. I will simply say that they have made out heart-rending cases. I will certainly address myself to them, and I will see that the minds of others more important than myself are addressed to them. If I may put it in a rather colloquial way, I will see that there is "a stamp on the envelope." I hope that that will be sufficient for the moment.
I should remind the House that, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the 26th March, I explained that, when requisitioned premises have been damaged, some allowance is made at the time of derequisitioning in respect of the time taken to make good the damage. This allowance is, of course, over and above the cost of making good the damage, which is met by the Government in all cases. I think that the House is clear on that point, that the compensation rent is quite separate from, and additional to, the compensation for damage, but I venture to reiterate it. The allowance is made in different forms in different cases. Sometimes, though the premises are no longer required, and the owner is able to go into them and repair them, they are nominally retained on requisition for a certain period, so that compensation rent continues to be payable. I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, is aware of that arrangement, but that is the position. However, in most cases—in the case of private houses, for example—a lump sum payment is made which has, broadly, the same effect. But in all cases, as I was careful to explain, the calculation is related to the time it would take in normal circumstances to make good the damage, and not to the time which in the present conditions of stringency may actually prove to be necessary, which, of course, brings us to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston's proposal goes beyond the existing arrangements
190
in two respects. First, the noble Lord asks that in all cases the owners shall continue to receive rent from the Government until the repairs are actually complete—that I believe is what the noble Lord suggests—and the premises made habitable again. Secondly, he applies this proposition to leased property as well as to requisitioned property. I will deal first with requisitioned property. The owner has been receiving a compensation rent while he has been kept out of his property under a requisitioning notice, and at first sight it might seem reasonable that, as long as he is unable to get use of his property, as a result of damage done during requisitioning, he should continue to receive that rent. That is how it strikes the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but the problem is by no means so simple. The time actually taken to repair the damage will not always be more than the normal time; so I am assured. I am assured in some cases the time taken to repair the property has not been more than the normal time. But I must say, speaking from personal experience, that kind of case would appear to be somewhat rare.
What I must point out to the noble Lord is that there is a two-fold difficulty about meeting his proposal. First of all there is the administrative difficulty, on which I personally would not rest the chief emphasis, because administrative difficulties exist to be overcome, and, although this is a rather large one, I feel that, taken by itself, we would probably overcome it. Nevertheless, there is a substantial administrative difficulty if the noble Lord's proposal were accepted and the owner were compensated during the whole period it in fact took him to get his house repaired. The Government Department concerned would have to make frequent investigations to ensure that the owner was using his best endeavours to get the work done as quickly as possible, and differences of opinion would be sure to arise as to the point at which the premises became "habitable." You could not just say to the owner: "Until your house is ready you will receive compensation rent," because—
LORD MESTON: Substantially ready.
LORD PAKENHAM: Even if you said substantially ready you could not allow the owner to proceed rapidly or slowly,

191
according to his pleasure. You would have to make sure that he was proceeding at the maximum speed. There is an administrative difficulty which is rated fairly high.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Could not the local authority be the adjudicating party in respect of that time?
LORD PAKENHAM: I have no doubt that steps could be taken which might meet the position. Equally, I have no doubt that they would involve a lot of labour. I simply mention to the House that this is regarded as an administrative difficulty, which, if not insuperable, is not negligible.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? In the case I gave, as I understand it, the work had not been put in hand. A licence from the local authority could not be obtained until a schedule had been received from the Air Ministry, and, as I am told, they have been constantly pressed to produce this schedule, and have not done so for three months. Therefore, the delay in starting the work at all has been entirely the fault of the Air Ministry itself, and not the fault of the unfortunate owners of the property.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord will not wish me, naturally, to pronounce on the particular case.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: No, no.
LORD PAKENHAM: There may or may not have been some delay. I naturally cannot offer an opinion on that. But as regards the obtaining of licences, I am assured that there is no difficulty about obtaining a licence, but there is sometimes a difficulty about obtaining top priority. If it is a question of rebuilding the house completely, then it is easier to obtain a high priority. In some other cases it is not always easy to obtain as high priority as the owner would wish. Certainly I am entitled to say, however, that as between houses which have been damaged and have been derequisitioned and as between other houses exactly similar which have not been requisitioned, the preference, if in doubt, would go to the house derequisitioned. That, I understand, would tend to be the administrative
192
practice. However, the noble Lord has raised a special case which he will naturally desire to be looked into.
The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, however, is unacceptable, mainly, indeed, for administrative reasons, but also on the grounds of equity. The delays and difficulties due to the shortage of labour and materials are common to all classes of owner whose property needs repair, including cases of war damage, and the case before us is only one example of many types of loss due to war circumstances which I am afraid are outside the field of public compensation. I am sorry to say that, but there it is. The case does not stand on its own. The Government feel, in making an allowance based on the time it would normally take to effect repairs, that they are giving equitable treatment to owners of derequisitioned premises and holding the scales evenly between them and other classes of property owner. That is really the pith and burden of the reply. To the extent that this does not fully compensate for not getting the use of their property, the difference is attributable to causes common to the whole community.
As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question dealing with leased premises, I may say that the shortage of labour and materials of course applies to them too, but the more important point is that the lessor's rights are determined by the terms of the lease he entered into, and he has access to the courts to enforce them. Whatever those rights under the lease are, the Government as lessee must honour them; but there is no reason why the owner who has granted a lease to a Government Department should, when the lease is terminated, get something more than the lease provides for, when the owner who has granted a lease to anyone else does not. If the noble Lord's proposal were adopted you would be conferring a special favour on those who had granted leases to Government Departments. That is how the matter is viewed officially. I am afraid, therefore, that as regards both requisitioned and leased property the Government sees no justification for introducing such legislation as the noble Lord proposes.
The only remaining point is whether the lump sum payments made ex gratia in requisitioning cases ought to be made the subject of legislation. This is a legal

193
point. The Government do not think this is necessary. It is common practice and convenient, when supplementary payments such as those now in question are made, not to attempt to set out a precise code in a Statute but to make such payments as seem fair through the machinery of a Vote. It is therefore correct to describe them as extra statutory but not illegal payments. In the view of the Government, therefore, there is no need to introduce legislation. I am sorry not to have been able to meet the noble Lord more generously, but I am convinced that if these proposals were adopted he would be putting one class of property owner in a position superior to other classes.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I understand the gist of the matter is that the Government are not prepared to go further in any case than to make an ex gratia payment of six months' rent. If that is the position, I may take the advice of those who are experts in such matters—
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Is the noble Lord in order? He has not moved for Papers.
LORD MESTON: I thank you.
4.46 p.m.
LORD MESTONhad also given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will arrange that, on the derequisitioning of premises by Government Departments, the owners and former occupiers of the premises will be notified of the derequisitioning and given an opportunity of returning to their premises before any further requisitioning is considered. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name. This is a matter which lies within a very narrow compass. I do not wish to say anything at all by way of criticism of the Government in carrying out their very difficult task of finding dwellings for displaced and homeless persons, but I would point out that it sometimes happens that the owners and former occupiers of premises are themselves homeless and displaced persons. I understand that in some cases when a Government Department derequisitions premises the practice is for the Government Department to inform the Ministry of Health of the fact. If the premises are large premises, such, for example as a
194
large house, the Ministry of Health then promptly requisitions the premises again for some purposes such as a nursery. If the premises are small premises, such as a small house, then the Ministry of Health informs the local authority, who thereupon requisition the premises for housing homeless or displaced persons. In the meantime, the owner or former occupier of the premises is not even notified of the fact that the premises have been derequisitioned in the first instance, and is given no opportunity to return to them again.
I must not mention cases of which I have not given the Government prior notice, but cases have been brought to my notice of owners and former occupiers who are themselves homeless and displaced persons and would like to return to their own homes but are unable to do so because their houses have been requisitioned a second time. I submit that that is very hard, and while fully appreciating all the difficulties of the Government I hope that they will be able to take a different view of the matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if, when he replies, he can throw some light on the time limit which other Government Departments have allowed subsequent to the derequisitioning of premises and the final declaration by the Government that no other Department wishes to occupy such premises? There are not only in towns but in rural areas many premises that are now being derequisitioned, and the owners are unable to obtain occupation because these premises are put, as it were, on offer to all other Government Departments who might be interested. I am not arguing as to whether that policy is right or wrong, but let there be some time limit. I would suggest it should be fourteen days after derequisitioning during which the Government can declare that some other Department requires those premises. We all know we are threatened with prison, fines and a good many other penalties if we do not fill up forms within seven days. I am not suggesting the Government should have only seven days, but twice the grace they give to ordinary citizens. At any rate, let them impose some limit upon themselves.
4.49 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I rise to reply on behalf of my noble friend Lord

195
Henderson who, I am sorry to say, is indisposed. I hope I shall be able to deputise for him half as efficiently as he did for me when I was ill a little while ago. The present practice is for a requisitioning Department, when they no longer need small houses and flats, to offer them to the Ministry of Health so that they may be used for housing inadequately housed persons. I am dealing first with small houses and flats. The local authority has been instructed by the Ministry of Health first to ascertain whether the house is required for occupation by the owner or his family. If so, the property is derequisitioned. That is in the case of small houses and flats. Consideration is also given, on their merits, to any other proposals by the owner for the occupation of the house. If the property is required by the Ministry of Health the requisition is transferred to that Department; there is no re-requisitioning. If, on the other hand, it is not required, it is derequisitioned by the requisitioning Department. The Ministry of Health usually decide upon their action within a period of three weeks. This period cannot very well be shortened, as time must be given to enable the local authority to make contact with the owner and for the owner to make his decision. That is in the case of small houses and flats.
Before other properties are derequisitinned, including large houses, steps are taken to ascertain whether other Departments need accommodation in the neighbourhood. This procedure avoids unnecessary new requisitioning and helps the Government to surrender first the type of premises most urgently needed for other use. In the case of large houses, the Ministry of Health, before using them for any purpose, gives consideration to any applications from owners for release for personal occupation. Departments are given a period of ten days in which to decide whether they need accommodation surplus to the requirements of the requisitioning Department.
Finally—this is the third case—hotels, holiday camps, and educational establishments do not come within this procedure but are derequisitioned immediately they are no longer required by the occupying Department. Departments have been asked to ensure that these matters are dealt with urgently at all stages—I hope
196
that will afford comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—and to give as much notice as possible to owners and former occupiers of the intention to de-requisition premises. The time has not yet come when the practice of asking other Departments whether they require requisitioned premises no longer needed by the requisitioning Department can be discontinued, but the matter is kept under close review. It will be observed from the above that small houses and flats (notified only to the Ministry of Health), hotels, holiday camps and educational establishments are already excepted.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Could the noble Lord say whether the ten days which all Departments are given runs concurrently for all Departments, or whether it is ten days for one Department, ten days for another, and so on through the whole line of Departments?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord will appreciate that, speaking for a Department which I do not represent in this House, I am unable to give him a firm answer. I think in the circumstances, in the absence of a tic-tac system, I will let the noble Lord know by letter.
LORD MESTON: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

PAY OF PALESTINE CIVIL SERVANTS.
4.53 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM LORD ALTRINCHAM rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government can now inform the House of any steps taken to improve the pay and allowances of Government servants in Palestine, which are described by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry as "generally and sometimes pitifully inadequate." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name. Your Lordships may remember that I spoke upon this subject in the debate on Palestine not long before the Christmas recess. The Lord Chancellor, who replied to that debate, was good enough to give me some information on this subject and he referred in particular to two improvements in the lot of the Government servants in Palestine which had been made in the course of the war. He then said that the last of these improvements might not prove adequate

197
and he gave me an assurance in these words:
"I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has continuously in mind the special difficulties of the Palestine Service and the question of salary scales."
Some months have passed since then, and the conditions of payment and allowances for Government servants in Palestine have elicited a rather remarkable comment from the members of the Anglo-American Palestine Committee. They, after all, are quite impartial and responsible judges. I am bound to say I find it wounding to this country's reputation for fairness to its public servants that it should have been possible for such a comment to be made, but the Committee actually said that the salaries and allowances paid to civil servants in Palestine were generally, and sometimes pitifully, inadequate. Those are strong words, but from what I saw of the conditions there—not entirely alleviated by the action previously taken—those words are in no way exaggerated.
There is going to be an increasing strain upon Government servants in Palestine. Let there be no mistake about it; their period of trial is not at an end. The prices there are not, I think, at all likely to fall in the near future. We have, I believe, to take heed of the warning which has been given by a recent strike amongst the Government servants in Palestine. This complaint is the one thing which has entirely united British, Arabs and Jews, who acted together without any difficulty to establish their rights in this respect. This question was very close to the heart of the late Lord Gort, who knew far more about it than I did, because he was living with the problem all the time. He spoke to me about it constantly and when I was in Palestine I was able to satisfy myself that what he had said was in no way inconsistent with the facts. I hope, therefore, that I may this time have an answer from the Government which shows that the claims of Government servants in Palestine have been further considered and that more is going to be done for them.
4.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend has raised this question in the House. The phenomenon of the inadequacies of the salaries of the Colonial servants in Palestine is to some extent a recent phenomenon in view of the rise
198
in prices which have taken place over there, but the strain under which they have been suffering must in many cases stretch back for at least ten or a dozen years. I had the privilege of visiting Palestine in 1938, at the time when the attacks of the Arabs upon our civilians and upon our troops were almost at their height and I realised the intense burden of anxiety borne not only by the Colonial servants themselves but by their wives and their families. Their work, too, was singularly heart-breaking in that the turbulence of Palestine at that time prevented them from carrying out those social improvements which they were most anxious to see.
It should perhaps be remembered, when criticisms are made in this Report of the lack of educational facilities for the Arabs, that the possibility of making those reforms was very keenly in the minds of the civil servants, who were most anxious to proceed with social amelioration but who were debarred from it by the turbulence of the times and later by war-time conditions. I suggest that we should take warning from this particular incident where British policy has been criticised, and rightly criticised, in an international document, and should ask the Minister for the Colonies to give very careful consideration—more careful consideration in the future than in the past—to the remedying of any financial grievances which may be adding unnecessarily to the burden and impeding the efficiency of Colonial servants in other parts of the Empire.
4.59 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have been asked to reply on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House and I hope the reply will in some way relieve the anxiety that is felt in the quarter mentioned. Approval has recently been given for increases in the rates of pay of officers in the higher ranks of the Civil Service in Palestine with effect from January 1, 1946, and at the same time increases have been sanctioned in the expatriation allowances payable to officers whose place of domicile at the time of appointment was outside Palestine. With effect from April 1, 1946, a substantial upwards revision of basic rates in the grades applicable to the second division of Civil Service has also been approved. The compensatory high cost of living allowances payable

199
to all officers have also been increased with effect from April I. The maximum allowance payable to a bachelor in receipt of£15 a month or over, for example, is now nearly£16 a month as against rather more than£9 a month previously, while the allowance to a married man with four children in receipt of the same salary of£15 a month or over, is now roughly£22 a month as against£19 previously.
In addition to these increases, a lump sum payment equivalent to two months' basic pay and basic allowance with a ceiling of£120 will also be paid shortly to all civil servants in Palestine, in recognition of the fact that the existing rates approved in May, 1945, have been found inadequate in certain respects, and more particularly, in that cost of living conditions prior to that time were not taken sufficiently into consideration. The total cost of all the above increases in pay and allowances will be in the region of£1,500,000 a year, while the cost of the lump sum payments is estimated to be£1,000,000. The total sum involved is£2,500,000.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for that most satisfactory reply.
5.2 p.m.

LONDON AIRPORT PLAN.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government where and in what manner the Minister for Civil Aviation intends to publish the report of the Committee upon which the plan of the London Airport is based.]
I do not know whether it would be convenient to the Minister in answering to give us at the same time any information about the depot which will be used in London. There has been the suggestion of Earls Court. I shall understand if he says he is not in a position to add that to his reply on the specific matter on the Paper. In that event I will put in a specific question about that at a very early date.
THE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, the report in question was pre
200
pared for departmental use only. The subject matter is highly technical, and I do not think that the Report would be of sufficient general interest to warrant publication. I have, however, given instructions that a précis should be prepared, and I will place a copy of this in the Library of the House as soon as it is available. As regards the supplementary question which the noble Viscount has addressed to me, I agree it is a matter of very great importance, and I would ask, with his agreement, to have notice given to me of the question.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I will certainly put down an appropriate question at a very early date, because I think it is a matter not only of great importance, but of great urgency. I take it that it will probably be convenient that this I should be in a pre-digested form, so that we can understand it. It will be sufficient, I take it, to give us the arguments for and against what I believe is known as the tangential as opposed to the triangular system. I believe there is a movement away from the tangential into the triangular system, but as far as the document sufficiently sets out what are the pros and the cons, and the reasoning on which the decision was based, I think that would be convenient. Will it also be convenient at the same time to state who are the outside experts? He said that not only departmental officers, but various outside experts had been called in to advise, and it was upon the combined opinion that the decision was based. It is always interesting to know who the outside experts are.
LORD WINSTER: My instructions concerning the précis cover that point, for and against the tangential system. I will take into consideration the further point as to whether the names will be published.

PURCHASE TAX ON STREET BINS.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will exempt from purchase tax, communal street bins, or household containers, purchased by local authorities for the purpose of carrying out the

201
collection of kitchen waste to help make up for the great reduction in imported feeding stuffs.]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place has undertaken to propose some further limited Purchase Tax concessions during the progress of the Finance Bill, and has indicated that he is anxious to collect suggestions as to what are now the most urgent claims for relief from this tax. I can of course assure the noble Lord that the Government have the greatest sympathy with his concern for stimulating the collection of kitchen waste for use as animal food, and that his suggestion will be carefully considered, but I doubt if it is free from difficulty.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, might I ask if he would represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he would care to send one of his officers to consult with me, I would probably be able to give him some information, particularly with regard to the difficulty now being found in various parts of the country in continuing the collection of waste food. Already over 2,000,000 tons of waste food have been collected through this effort, and it is most desirable at the present time that that effort should not slacken in any way. In view of the fact that I could show the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one particular place where two kinds of bins are being used for the same purpose, one of which is subject to Purchase Tax and the other not, perhaps he would be good enough to have one of his officers make further inquiry into this matter, and he would probably be convinced of the need for carrying out the recommendation.
LORD PAKENHAM: I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will jump at the chance of consultation between his officers and the noble Lord. Indeed, I feel he will be tempted to undertake the job himself.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Sixth Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—Resignation of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.
The Chairman of Committees informed the Committee of the resignation of his Counsel, Mr. Arthur A. Capewell, K.C., and that he had appointed Sir John Stainton K.B.E., to be Mr. Capewell's successor.
The Committee sanctioned the salary attached to this post.
2.—Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
The Committee agreed to the Report from the Sub-Committee appointed to consider a proposal as to an appointment to the post of Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
The Committee approved the payment of£500 per annum (including bonus consolidation) to Admiral Sir Guy Royle, K.C.B., C.M.G., on his appointment by Black Rod to the post of Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
The Committee further recommended that the severance of the post of Yeoman Usher from the post of Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain should not be drawn into precedent and that the matter should again be brought up for consideration when a vacancy occurs in the post of Yeoman Usher.
3.—Annunciators in Library and Refreshment Room.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that the Ministry of Works had notified their readiness to undertake the installation of annunciators.
The Committee recommend that this should be done.
4.—Editor of Debates.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of salary to Mr. G. W. Rowe during his continued employment as Acting Editor of Debates owing to the illness of Mr. A. A. Reid.
5.—Head Housemaid.
The Committee agreed to an increase in wages to Mrs. H. Smith, the head housemaid.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and approved. I think there is one general matter to which I should call your Lordship's attention, and that is that it is the recommendation of the Committee that annunciators shall be placed in Prince's Chamber and the Library and the Dining Room by which members can be kept informed of the changes in speakers as they occur. The Committee hope that that will be to the general convenience of the House.
Moved, that the Report be now considered and approved.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.7 p.m.

INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the India and Burma (Burma Monetary Arrangements) (Amendment) Order, which has already been examined and approved by the India and Burma Orders Committee of your Lordships' House, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALEDONIAN INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Bill committed.

RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING) BILLL.
Report from the standing Order committee that the standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Bills agreed to.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read and ordered to lie on the Table.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
First Report from the Joint Committee, being the Report on the Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.], made, and to be printed; the minutes of evidence (with the Proceedings of the Joint Committee) laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.