Sitting of 1 May 1947

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

POOR RELIEF
Return ordered,
"showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of May, 1946 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 135 of Session 1938–39)."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

    Hydro-electric Development, Wales
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to investigate the possibilities of increased electricity from the water supply of the Welsh hills; who are the members of the committee concerned; and when he proposes to issue a report.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As a result of a full investigation by consulting engineers, several schemes have been put forward by the North Wales Power Company for hydroelectric development in the Welsh Hills. These schemes are being examined by the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board. In these circumstances I see no need to appoint a committee.
    Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that any schemes of this description would bring great relief to the coal industry without interfering with the domestic supplies of water, would my right hon. Friend give them every priority?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would not like to say that I can give them every priority, but they are under consideration.

    Statutory Obligations (Suspension)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is intended to introduce a Bill of Indemnity to excuse electricity undertakings from penalties for suspending, at the request of the Government, the performance of their statutory obligations.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister say whether the Government propose to give any protection to electricity authorities which open themselves to proceedings by cutting off electricity without any statutory authority?
    Mr. Shinwell: As far as I know, they have not asked for it.

    Oil Fuel Conversion
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of chain grate fired boilers and the number of pulverised fuel fired boilers in selected and non-selected power stations that have been converted to oil fuel.
    Mr. Shinwell: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hobson: In view of the small amount of progress made in the conversion of water type boilers to oil fuel would the Minister reconsider his decision, which is against the advice of the Central Electricity Board and is taking labour away from the production of new boilers and boilers in course of erection which are urgently required and is saddling the electricity generating industry with heavy additional running costs?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that this is against the advice of the Central Electricity Board. On the contrary, we have been in close consultation with them about it. These matters have been dealt with by the Heavy Electrical Plant Committee of the Ministry of Supply, and I think we are going along the right lines.
    Mr. Hobson: Is the Minister aware that at the present moment 18 boilers which are out of commission while this conversion is taking place are urgently needed to prevent the shedding of the load?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is the first I have heard of it, but perhaps the hon. Member will give me the details.

    New Turbo-generators
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the number of turbo-generators in the course of erection in selected and non-selected power stations in England and Wales; arid their total kilowatt capacity.
    Mr. Shinwell: Twenty-four turbo-generators, totalling 709,000 kilowatts of installed capacity are now in course of erection in selected and non-selected stations in England and Wales.

    Copartnership Schemes
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he is aware that Central London Electricity, Limited, have issued a notice to their employees stating that because of the Electricity Bill, on the advice of his Department, the directors have with reluctance been compelled to abandon their intention to reinstate the employees' copartnership scheme; why such advice was given; and what were the dates of the letters exchanged between his Department and Central London Electricity, Limited, on the matter;
    (2) if he will give an assurance that company electricity undertakings governed by the provisions of the London Electricity Acts, 1925, are not debarred from making copartnership, bonus or special payments to their officers and workpeople for the current year if they so wish;
    (3) if he will give an assurance that it is not intended by the legislation now before the House providing for the establishment of a British Electricity Authority and Area Boards to make illegal normal copartnership, bonus or special payments to officers and workpeople made before vesting date.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of the notice issued by Central London Electricity, Limited, which has now been withdrawn. It was not issued on the advice of my Department and no letters were exchanged. The Electricity Bill now before Parliament does not in any way affect rights which have been created by copartnership arrangements made in accordance with the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925.
    Mr. Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be wiser if directors of electricity undertakings were to take the trouble of ascertaining the facts before making alarming statements of this kind?
    Mr. Shinwell: No doubt it would.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Additional Food (Absentees)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the special foods, etc., which are now made available to miners, are still allocated to a miner who voluntary absents himself from duty during the course of any week.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister asking the House to believe that a miner who works four days a week is entitled to more food than a man in another heavy industry working 5½ days a week?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is very difficult to discriminate. This has been provided for miners in general. It is quite impossible to make exceptions.
    Mr. Thomas Brown: Is the Minister aware that Members of Parliament get the same food on Saturday and Sunday when they are not working as they do on any other day of the week?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can we ask that the Opposition should at least use the King's English in phrasing their Questions henceforward?

    Electricity Undertakings (Coal Ash)
    Major Peter Robertsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average increase during the period 1939–46 in ash content of coal supplied to electricity undertakings in the main areas of Great Britain.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am advised by the Central Electricity Board that the average ash content of coal as received at generating stations under their control was 10.3 per cent in 1939 as compared with 13.3 per cent. in 1945. A figure for 1946 is not yet available.
    Major Roberts: Is the Minister aware that under the National Coal Board the dirt figures are definitely increasing, and

    2145
    will he see to it because, although it may look nice in our output figures, it does not help industry?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not agree at all that the dirt content is increasing under the National Coal Board. It was very bad under private enterprise during the last few years.
    Major Roberts: The Minister does not seem to be able to look forward; he always looks backwards.
    Mr. Shinwell: I could, of course, give an answer to that.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if his attention has been called to the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Central Electricity Board in which reference is made to the increasing ash content of the coal supplied, resulting in a financial burden of £2,000,000 and loss of 380,000 kilowatts; and what steps he is taking to remedy this matter.
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been directed to the Annual Report of the Central Electricity Board and the statement that freight handling charges of inert material in coal, together with subsequent ash handling charges, resulted in an annual financial burden on the supply industry and consumers of over £2,000,000 and a loss in output capacity arising from the use of inferior coal of 380,000 kilowatts; and what steps he is taking to remedy this position.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have received the report in question. The National Coal Board inform me that they are giving urgent consideration to the quality of coal marketed both as part of their long-term policy and as part of their shorter term arrangements.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that under free enterprise any manager who sends out bad stock would be dismissed, but under nationalisation there is no discipline which will prevent the consumers being exploited?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should not care to enter into a discussion on the merits of private enterprise.
    Sir W. Smithers: There is no answer.
    Mr. Prescott: Is it not a scandal that the public should have this inefficiency put on them?
    Mr. Shinwell: This so-called inefficiency, if it is inefficiency at all, is a spill-over from private enterprise.
    Mr. Hobson: Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing the electricity undertakings to buy coal according to its calorific value, as they did before, because it would prevent this gross wastage?
    Mr. Shinwell: Shortly I shall set up an industrial consumers' council, as provided for in the Act of Parliament, and they can deal with these matters.

    South African Offer
    Major Robertsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why an offer of coal made by the South African Government to this country during the last 12 months was not accepted.
    Mr. Shinwell: Apart from a proposal to exchange South African coal for United Kingdom cement made last December, which on investigation was then found to be impracticable, I am not aware that any offer of coal from South Africa has been rejected.
    Major Roberts: Is the Minister aware that an offer was made? Is he further aware that it was made not so much on the question of cement as on the question of wagons, and are we to assume from his reply that the matter is still under consideration?
    Mr. Shinwell: Certainly not.

    Colliery Consumption
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentage of total output which is consumed by coalmines; and what steps are being taken to reduce this consumption.
    Mr. Shinwell: Six per cent. of the output of coal mines is consumed by the collieries. The National Coal Board inform me that it is their intention to intensify and extend the work done hitherto to improve the efficiency of utilisation of coal at collieries.

    Durham (Employment)
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of persons now employed at each pit sunk and each

    2147
    drift driven in the county of Durham covering the last 25 years, in accordance with his letter to the hon. Member for Spennymoor, dated 18th April, 1947; the number of pits closed in the county of Durham over the same period; and the total number of persons affected.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sending my hon. Friend a list showing the number of wage earners now on the books of each of the 17 coalmines in the county of Durham which have started operations during the last 25 years. During the same period operations ceased at 41 mines in the county. At each of these mines 100 or more wage earners were employed in 1921. At that date the total number of wage earners so employed was 18,798.
    Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that the information given on the last occasion was rather conflicting, that in one case I know 700 to 800 men were thrown out of work and, where a drift has been started, only 150 men have been reinstated who had lost their jobs?
    Mr. Shinwell: I hope the reply I have given will clarify the position.

    Underground Gasification
    Mr. Scollanasked the Minister at Fuel and Power if he will consider experimenting on gasification of coal seams that have been abandoned as unprofitable for mining.
    Mr. Shinwell: The desirability of gasifying abandoned coal seams has been considered by an inter-Departmental working group which was appointed to advise on the general question of developing underground gasification in this country. The report of this group is at present under consideration, and I hope to announce a decision shortly. It is also hoped that representatives of the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Coal Board will have an opportunity of observing experiments in underground gasification which are expected to take place shortly in Belgium.
    Mr. Scollan: Is there any chance of these experiments being held up for lack of finance, because if we expend finance on this, there must be available in the country in the abandoned coal seams, millions and millions of tons of coal which could be utilised to the advantage of industry?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course there are financial considerations which are not lightly to be ignored. because experiments of this kind are likely to be expensive, but there are also very serious practical considerations.
    Mr. Scollan: Is not the reward well worth spending the money?
    Mr. Shinwell: We cannot decide whether it is going to be worth doing it until it has been investigated.

    Coal Board Staff
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total number of the staff employed at the London headquarters of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Shinwell: Staffing is a matter of management for which the National Coal Board are responsible. In view, however, of the recent statement in the Press that the headquarters staff of the Board had reached the alarming total of 11,000, the Board have asked me to let the House know the truth. The total of the clerical, administrative and professional staff employed in London is about 850, and this includes London staffs formerly engaged in coal industry activities of one kind or another now transferred to the Board, and the transferred staff of the Coal Commission.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister name the newspaper which has made these fantastic misrepresentations?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should have thought that was obvious.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Minister take the opportunity to express—[HON. MEMBERS: "Express' is right."]—to the National Coal Board the deep satisfaction of the House at being allowed to know something of what is happening?
    Mr. Shinwell: The trouble with certain hon. Members on the other side of the House is that when the truth is exposed they cannot stand it.
    Mr. Marlowe: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is able to get information from the Coal Board when it is favourable to him, but that he is unable to get it when it is unfavourable?
    Mr. Shinwell: Not at all. The hon. and learned Member is quite wrong. But when there is gross misrepresentation it is desirable to state the facts.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any reason to suppose that the newspaper in question, if it had gone to the Coal Board for information before printing its sensational misrepresentations, would have been denied the facts?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course that is a matter for the newspaper in question. If newspapers insist on obtaining information before they make themselves responsible for publication, it may affect their circulation.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the original answer, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that information as to Coal Board staffs will in future be available, provided it is asked for from his own side of the House?
    Mr. Shinwell: Oh, no. I am responsible to the requirements of the House in general; indeed, I must be, but it depends on the merits of the Question that is put to me.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order. The Minister says he will select the sort of Questions he will answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—according to his own choice. Are we not justified, Mr. Speaker, in asking for your protection in this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister is responsible for Questions about the Coal Board and if he answers, he answers for a particular reason, I presume. It is not within my power to insist that he shall answer. I cannot interfere with his power.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is there not something wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.'']—after all, the Minister is a servant of the House—that he should be so selective in the sort of Questions he chooses to answer? It is quite understandable if he answers no Questions, or if he answers every Question, but it is not understandable that he should answer only those which are suitable to himself.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not in my power to tell the Minister what Questions he should answer; that is not within my province.
    Mr. Nicholson: I appeal to you, Sir, as guardian of the rights of Private Members. It is for the Government or the House to decide whether a Minister shall be entitled to answer Questions in regard to a certain body, but it is surely for you to protect us?
    Mr. Speaker: It is for the House to say if a Minister is not efficient—[HON. MEMBERS: "We know that."]—it is entirely for the House, and not for me. If the House decide, they can deal with the Minister, but I cannot direct the Minister as to what Questions he should or should not answer, and the Minister is always entitled to refuse to answer.
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what instructions he has given to the National Coal Board in connection with the number of persons they employ on clerical and administrative duties.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have given no instructions to the National Coal Board on the subject referred to.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Does the Minister intend to take any steps to limit the numbers involved in view of the great shortage of manpower?
    Mr. Shinwell: I gave an answer earlier which corrected some of these gross misrepresentations on the subject of the number of persons employed in the National Coal Board.
    Brigadier Mackeson: That was not the question I asked. I asked whether the Minister was taking any steps to avert the danger.
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not think there is any danger at all. I must leave these matters to the people on the National Coal Board.

    Cotton Mills Allocation
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether deliveries of coal will be able to be made to Lancashire cotton mills to conform with the present allocation of 75 per cent.
    Mr. Shinwell: Every effort will be made to ensure that deliveries of coal to Lancashire cotton mills are maintained at the amount allocated to them.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Minister hold out any hope when the allocation might be increased to 100 per cent.?
    Mr. Shinwell: I believe a statement will be made on the subject of allocations by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon.
    Mr. Drayson: Will the Minister give the same guarantee in regard to the textile industry in Yorkshire, and will he also assure me that they will not get any less favourable treatment than the cotton industry in Lancashire?
    Mr. Shinwell: The Question was about Lancashire and not Yorkshire.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the Minister state when it is expected that industry will receive the amount of coal required?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have already said that my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement on the subject this afternoon.

    Householders' Registration
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now in a position to allow domestic coal consumers to change their coal retailers, particularly in those cases where hardship can be proved.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 6th and 13th March to Questions on this subject from the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay).
    Mr. Chetwynd: Where the consumer can prove that he has been unfairly treated by a merchant, would my right hon. Friend consider allowing him to change his dealer?
    Mr. Shinwell: The aggrieved consumer can always apply to the local fuel overseer.
    Mr. John McKay: Is the Minister aware that there are about 500 householders in Newcastle who do not use coal, and is there any likelihood of any arrangement being made for them to be able to get heat to the same extent as coal consumers?
    Mr. Shinwell: This Question relates to a change of registration. It has nothing to do with heating in general.
    Mr. Prescott: There are very many cases where consumers are very badly treated by their merchants. The present procedure is not satisfactory, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider altering it?
    Mr. Shinwell: We do receive complaints from consumers about the attitude of coal merchants and we try to deal with those complaints to the best of our ability.
    Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction over this in the city of Birmingham and that in some cases people have been compelled to trade with coal merchants who live five miles away in preference to those living 10o yards away? There seems to be no sensible arrangement in this at all.
    Mr. Shinwell: If we are to have registration with coal merchants in order to provide the domestic consumer with coal, obviously some anomalies must emerge, but, as I say, the local fuel overseers are available to enable consumers to have these matters rectified.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Why is it that some dealers are able to supply the full allocation while a dealer supplying the person next door is only able to supply something like 5 cwts. less?
    Mr. Shinwell: That may depend on the circumstances of the household. If my hon. Friend is aggrieved about these matters, perhaps he might let me have detailed cases.

    Trade Union Dues (Collection)
    Major Robertsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the National Coal Board are asking their officials and colliery clerks to do work in the National Coal Board's time with regard to stoppages from men's pay on behalf of the contribution to the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers and, particularly, with regard to payments of the union political levy; and what steps he is taking to see that his political activity by the National Coal Board is stopped.
    Mr. Shinwell: Before nationalisation, it was the practice in some areas for trade union dues to be deducted from miners' pay. This was done under agreements entered into by the former owners of the mines. No doubt, the National Coal Board are continuing the practice. I do not think that any question of political activity arises.
    Major Roberts: The practice is continuing on a large scale. Is the Minister aware that the Coal Board is called the National Coal Board and that there are a large number of people in this nation who do not like to have anything to do with a Socialist political levy? Will he see either that it is the National Coal Board or else change it to the Socialist Coal Board?
    Mr. Shinwell: As I pointed out, this practice was in operation under private ownership. All that we have done is to continue the practice. So far as I know, the miners are not complaining and I do not see why the hon. and gallant Member should.
    Major Roberts: The taxpayers of this country are going to pay something like 200 million for these rights, and ought they not to have some say in the matter?
    Mr. Shinwell: The mineworkers are the only persons concerned in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The contributions are deducted from their pay and obviously they are the persons concerned. Ought it not to be left to them to state a grievance if they have one?
    Mr. George Wallace: Is the Minister aware that the taxpayer will benefit from contented miners?
    Mr. William Foster: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in these cases where trade union contributions are deducted through the colliery office, the miners themselves pay a percentage out of the contributions for the services rendered?
    Major Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the people who are objecting are the clerks of the National Coal Board who do not like to have to do this work?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the clerks have a complaint to make, they have a recognised trade union, and perhaps they would prefer to make their complaints through that union rather than through the hon. and gallant Member.

    Disabled Ex-Miners
    Mr. W. Fosterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will discuss with the National Coal Board the employment in the mining industry of unemployed exminers suffering from some slight physical disability, but fit and capable of performing useful work underground or on the surface, submitted by respective local employment exchanges for notified vacancies.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am informed by the National Coal Board that every consideration will be given to cases of disabled exminers who apply for employment, and an effort made to find work for them of a character suitable to their conditions.
    Mr. Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are thousands of ex-
    2154
    miners suffering from slight disability who are signing on at the employment exchange and who, in some cases, have been submitted to the local collieries for employment and have been rejected on medical grounds?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is considerable difficulty about this matter because, in the main, these persons are suitable only for work on the surface and, as we are not in need of more workpeople for surface work, it is not easy to re-employ them. The matter is under review and we are doing the best we can.
    Mr. Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these ex-miners who received their injuries at the collieries are unable to obtain employment in other industries because of their injuries and that work underground or on the surface is their only access to employment?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware of that, and I am fully in accord with my hon. Friend in trying to secure employment for these men. I understand that the National Coal Board are doing their best to absorb them.

    Standards of Quality
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will issue directions to the National Coal Board that, in all cases where non-combustible substances of mineral origin are supplied by that Board to coal merchants and by coal merchants to domestic consumers, such material shall be replaced by coal without further payment and without counting against fuel allocations.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. Replacement on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would be impracticable, but the National Coal Board are giving close attention to the improvement in standards of quality.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what possible justification there can be for selling as coal pieces of stone such as has been sold to my constituents?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not a question of justification; it is because of physical difficulties which for the moment are insurmountable. If private ownership found there were great difficulties before the transfer of the pits to national ownership, those difficulties still obtain, but the National Coal Board is doing its best.
    Mr. Jennings: Is there any chance of poor persons getting their money back after they have bought stones?

    "Coal"
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the object with which the publication "Coal" is being produced by the National Coal Board; and what is the anticipated circulation.
    Mr. Shinwell: I understand that the general object is to provide miners all over the country with a specialised organ of information which will enable them to keep abreast of developments in their industry under national ownership, and will also make such information available to the general public. I am informed that the circulation will be 100,000 copies.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: What is the relevance, in a journal devoted to coal, of an article on a gentleman called Wragg, who seems to have something to do with horses?
    Mr. Shinwell: I believe that there are even very refined cultural and intellectual organs that sometimes descend into the depths.

  CONSUMER FUEL RESTRICTIONS
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the names of the women's organisations with whom he has now had discussions on the subject of domestic fuel cuts.
  Mr. Shinwell: Discussions with women's organisations took place at a meeting in my Department at which 17 organisations were represented. As the list is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Invitations are being issued to a much larger number of organisations to attend a meeting next week.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman state in what capacity Miss Mary Sutherland, the chief woman officer of the Labour Party, was present, and whether similar invitations were issued to this lady's opposite numbers in the Conservative and Liberal Parties?
  Mr. Shinwell: I imagine that Miss Mary Sutherland would represent the Women's Co-operative Guild.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: No.
  Mr. Shinwell: She was present in consequence of her membership of the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations. As regards the other organisations, while I say nothing about them, I have no doubt that they have all got their political views.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the list excludes the Tory controlled British Housewives League?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: is the Minister aware that the organisation to which he referred—the Standing Joint Committee—consists only of representatives of the "Co-op.", the trade unions and the Labour Party?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware of that. Why should they not be permitted to represent them?
  Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the female of the species is more deadly than the male?
  Mr. Shinwell: If it is any satisfaction or consolation to the hon. Member, I can tell him that among the organisations which advised us was the Good- Housekeeping Institute.
  Sir W. Smithers: They are still more deadly.
  The following is the list:

  Association of Teachers of Domestic Subjects.

  Church Army Women's Section.

  Citizens' Advice Bureaux.

  Electrical Association for Women.

  Good Housekeeping Institute.

  National Council of Women.

  National Federation of Women's Institutions.

  National Union of Townswomen's Guilds.

  National Union of Women Teachers.

  Scottish Women's Rural Institutes.

  Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations.

  Women's Advisory Committee on Solid Fuel.

  Women's Advisory Housing Council.

  Women's Co-operative Guild.

  Women's Gas Council.

  Women's Group on Public Welfare.

  Women's Voluntary Services.

  (A number of other organisations were invited but did not send representatives to the meeting.)

  PETROL PUMPS (TRADE MARK SIGNS)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is by understanding with the Petroleum Board that petrol stations are removing pool petrol signs and replacing former trade-mark signs, such as B.P., etc.
  Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir, there is no such understanding. Dealers should continue to affix "Pool" labels on petrol pumps in use, as hitherto. The labels are however of paper, and liable to come off in wet weather.
  Mr. Piratin: Has not the Minister received such information from some of the workers employed at these stations, and has he not looked into the matter?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any such information being conveyed to me, but I will look into the matter.

  SUMMER FUEL RESTRICTIONS
  Mr. Carmichaelasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the names of the organisations and authorities consulted in Scotland prior to deciding that space-heating would not be permitted in industrial and commercial establishments during May to October, inclusive; and if he is aware that climatic conditions in Scotland are all against maximum production unless space-heating is permitted in October and that this was admitted during war years when, notwithstanding the full restrictions, space-heating was allowed in Scotland as from the end of September.
  Mr. Shinwell: As I explained in the statement which I made to the House on 24th April, we consulted representatives of the two sides of industry through the National Production Advisory Council on Industry, the membership of which includes the Chairman of all the Regional Boards for Industry. The employers' and workpeople's organisations concerned, namely, the British Employers' Confederation, the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress, are also representative of the country as a whole, including Scotland. I am well aware that parts of Scotland, and indeed of England and Wales, are liable to exceptionally severe climatic
  2158
  conditions, and not only during October. The Order makes it possible to deal with such conditions, if they arise, by the issue of licences.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he will except householders who have one or more children under the age of four years from the provisions of the Order dealing with the prohibition of the space-heating of residential premises;
  (2) if he will except householders who are 70 years of age or older from the provisions of the Order dealing with the prohibition of the space-heating of residential premises and
  (3) if he will state the meteorological evidence upon which he justifies the application of the Order prohibiting the space-heating of residential premises in Scotland without modification.
  Mr. Shinwell: A statement will be made in the course of the Debate this afternoon, which will cover the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member in these questions.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that under paragraph 5 of the Order a concession is made in the case of institutions for aged people, and can he not extend that concession to those living in their own homes?
  Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely one of the questions which will be dealt with in the course of the statement.

  POLICE

    Domestic Work, London
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many police constables of the Metropolitan Police Force are called upon to scrub floors, clean windows and other forms of domestic work at police stations; and, in view of the important and increasing duties that the police have to perform, if he will take steps to relieve them of such domestic work.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no constables of the Metropolitan Police

    2159
    Force are called upon to scrub floors, clean windows or carry out other domestic work at police stations.
    Mr. Freeman: Could my right hon. Friend inform the chief constables of all provincial stations accordingly so that all police officers throughout the country shall be relieved of these domestic duties?
    Mr. Ede: In answer to a Question some weeks ago, I intimated that it was against my wish that constables should be called on to perform any such duties, and if any hon. Member can give me further information as to cases where this duty is being required, I will look into the matter.

    Authorised Establishments
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an estimate of the establishment of the police forces of Great Britain in 1938 and 1946, and what increase or decrease is anticipated by 1st January, 1949.
    Mr. Ede: The authorised establishments of the police forces in England and Wales on 29th September, 1938, and 29th September, 1946, were 61,612 and 63,209 men, and 224 and 1,091 women respectively. I cannot forecast the level at which police establishments will stand on 1st January 1949, but, in view of the burdens falling on the police forces, the aggregate figure is likely to show some further increase.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Does the estimate of the future take into account the heavy burden which the Transport Bill will place upon the police, or are the Government going to have snoopers, like the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. Ede: I have not given any prophecy as to the size of the forces in the future. All relevant considerations will be taken into account.

  LENIN'S STATUE
  Mr. William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of policemen per 24 hours now engaged in guarding Lenin's statue in Holford Square, Finsbury; and why, and for how long, he intends to continue this service.
  Mr. Ede: The statue was removed on 18th April and the question of protection no longer arises.

  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSION
  Captain John Crowderasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.
  Mr. Ede: The Commission are now actively engaged on their task and their report will be submitted as soon as possible, but it is not yet possible to say when.

  CONTRACEPTIVES (SALE)
  Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the extent of the public sale of contraceptives, with a view to introducing legislation to make such sales to young persons under 18 years of age illegal.
  Mr. Ede: Proposals to prohibit the sale of contraceptives to young unmarried persons have been considered in the past but have been found impracticable, largely because of the difficulty of enforcement.
  Mr. Allighan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people of both sexes of the ages of 16 or 17 can go into chemists' shops and buy these contraceptives, and why is it not possible to adopt the same kind of restrictions on this kind of sale as is adopted in the case of young people going into public houses to buy liquor?
  Mr. Ede: I think the answer is that substances bought in public houses in a form ready for immediate consumption cannot be taken away and handed over to another person, whereas there is no such difficulty with these particular articles.

  NATIONALISED UNDER TAKINGS' STAFFS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
  Mr. Charles Smithasked the Prime Minister (1) whether any guidance has now been given by the Government to nationalised undertakings with regard to the political freedom of their staffs; and, in particular, to the right

  2161
  of their staff to hold office in a political party;
  (2) what restrictions are imposed on the staff of nationalised undertakings with regard to standing for election to local authorities or to Parliament; and whether any guidance has been given by the Government on this matter to nationalised undertakings.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Government have informed the boards of the general principles which in their view should govern the development of a code of practice in this matter. The broad effect of these is that the vast majority of those employed in our nationalised industries will be as free as those employed in other industries to participate without restriction in political activities, whether national or local. There is, however, one qualification affecting only a small number of employees which does not always apply in other industries. It is desirable that the senior staffs of the boards should establish a tradition of public service irrespective of party allegiances, and it follows that they must exercise a measure of discretion in political matters which will prevent them from engaging in the more controversial forms of political activity.
  Sir W. Smithers: In view of that statement, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that in all nationalised industries the policy of the closed shop shall be done away with?
  The Prime Minister: That has nothing whatever to do with this Question.

  ELECTRONIC CALCULATOR
  Mr. John Fosterasked the Lord President of the Council, whether, in view of the intricate calculations involved in modern planning and the difficulties of evaluating all the relevant factors, any giant electronic calculating machines are being constructed for use in Great Britain similar to the Mark I operating at Harvard University in the U.S.A. or the Mark II which is under construction for the U.S. Navy.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The two machines referred to are, in fact, not electronic, but are operated by relays, and no similar calculator is contemplated for this coun-
  2162
  try. An electronic calculator, which will operate at one thousand times the speed of these machines, is being planned now at the National Physical Laboratory. When completed, its services will be available to Government Departments, research establishments and industry for calculations to which it may suitably be applied.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Building Trainees
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour how many building ex-Service trainees are still receiving instruction, and how many are waiting to enter centres.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): On 8th April last, 20,702 ex-Servicemen were receiving training in the building trades, and 12,399 had been accepted and were awaiting allocation to training.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the Minister say when these 12,000-odd are likely to be accepted, and whether the position is improving, compared with what it was 12 months ago?
    Mr. Isaacs: The training has to be phased with the opportunity for employment when the training is completed. We are in consultation with the industry, and so can phase it up or down, as the industry may demand, at the time that the training ceases.
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour how many building ex-Service trainees were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Isaacs: This information is not readily available, and its extraction would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time, which would not be justified.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the serious situation in the building industry, will the Minister make an effort to get this information, because it is important that the House should have it?
    Mr. Isaacs: We could get the information, but it would mean searching the records of every individual ex-Serviceman who has been undergoing training, finding out where he has gone to work and whether he has left one job to go to another, and where he is now. Anything can be done by the Ministry of Labour,

    2163
    but this would take such a long time, and would involve so much labour, that we. do not think it would be practicable.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Without going to all that trouble, will the Minister say whether he or his Department has any idea of what the position is?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. We have no idea without making this exhaustive search.

    Prisoners of War (Civilian Status)
    Mr. Douglas Jayasked the Minister of Labour if arrangements are now in force for farmers to apply to county A.E.Cs. for German prisoners of war to remain in employment here with civilian status where they are willing to do so; and whether prisoners have been informed of this.
    Mr. Isaacs: I hope to bring the arrangements into force very shortly, when they will be communicated to all concerned.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the Minister's statement that anything can be done by the Ministry of Labour, with which I agree, does he not think that there is a case for extending this sensible arrangement to other essential industries, such as brickworks?
    Mr. Isaacs: I would not like to express an opinion apart from the actual industry with which we are dealing at the moment, but the possibility of extension is not ruled out.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Would the Minister say what arrangements are made for paying these people if they are allowed to stay, and whether they will still be restricted?
    Mr. Isaacs: If these people stay on as civilians, they will be employed at trade union rates, and will, I hope, take advantage of the opportunity to become trade union members.
    Mr. Robens: Will there be any provision in the scheme for allowing the wives and families of those who remain to join them subsequently?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not know whether that is one of the provisions in the scheme, but I can say quite definitely that we are most anxious, where a family has been parted
    2164

    for many years by the cruelty of the enemy, to give them the opportunity to be reunited here. If we can, we shall certainly do that.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Minister bear in mind the undesirability of the prisoners hearing of these arrangements by rumour, through the B.B.C. and the Press, rather than through the official announcements made to them by their commanding officers, which should be prompt and should be made before they hear this information in these other ways?
    Mr. Isaacs: The information must be complete before we can communicate it to them.
    Mr. Frank Byers: Will the Minister have a word with the Home Secretary who, at the present time, is separating mothers and children coming from Austria?
    Mr. Isaacs: Not in this connection. I stand by my answer that if we can reunite families by bringing them here to work. we shall do so.
    Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister ensure that, once the scheme comes into operation, if a man makes application to stay, he will not be sent back to Germany, and thus create the difficulty in bringing him back to this country which was experienced in the case of the Italians?
    Mr. Isaacs: It must be borne in mind that it is not a matter of application by the man concerned, but whether the farmer or the employer can guarantee him employment, and can find him suitable accommodation. It is not the need of the prisoner, but the need of the employer which is the deciding factor.

  NATIONAL SERVICE CALL-UP
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Labour how many military Service personnel were dealt with by his Department for the first three months of 1947; and what were the comparable figures for the first three months of 1940 and 1941.
  Mr. Isaacs: The number called up in the first three months of 1947 was 51,000. The corresponding figures for 1940 and 1941 were 180,000 and 195,000.
  Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say whether, in view of the figures he has

  2165
  given, he is taking steps to reduce the staff of his Ministry, which appears to be unduly large?
  Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The staffs engaged on this work have been reduced, but, of course, they have been absorbed by being transferred to other Departments, where men have stayed on after reaching the retiring age.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Imported Gifts (Purchase Tax)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in addition to Customs Duty, Purchase Tax is levied on the contents of parcels arriving in the United Kingdom as unsolicited gifts to the addressees from friends and relatives resident in other countries, having regard to the fact that the articles on which the tax is levied have not been purchased in the United Kingdom by the recipients; and whether he is aware that this demand is causing great dissatisfaction, both to the senders of these gifts and to those receiving them.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Purchase Tax is levied because the law so requires. As I have often explained, a general exemption from Purchase Tax for imported gifts would be open to grave abuse, and would be unfair as between individuals.

    Postwar Credits (Deceased Persons)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if postwar credits will be paid to dependants of deceased persons who were 65 years of age or over at the time of their death.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, except where the beneficiaries are themselves over the age of 65, if men, and 60, if women
    Mr. Lipson: Is it quite fair for the Treasury to take advantage of the fact that these persons have died, because, had they been alive, they would have had it, and their dependants would have benefited?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was made quite clear by my right hon. Friend when this concession was made, and when this section of the community came before the House, that it was being made in order
    2166
    to give old people a chance to enjoy the money before they died.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Should it not be regarded as part of the estate of the deceased persons who may wish to pass it on to someone dependent on them?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is so regarded; it goes into the estate of the person who dies, and is passed on to the beneficiary.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Is not the Financial Secretary wrong in the short statement he has made, and is not the position that, if the right has accrued before death, it passes to the beneficiary under the will?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The position is that, although the right might have accrued, unless the money has actually been paid over before death, it falls to whomsoever benefits under the will, and will go to that person as and when that person is reached at the time of the general distribution of postwar credits.
    Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that there is not a great deal of money involved, will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people will agree with him in the attitude he has taken up, and would regard it as highly inequitable that people of 20 or 30 years of age should enjoy spending postwar credits when people of 50and 60 years of age cannot do so?
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: If the dependant is over 65 years of age—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that we have discussed this matter long enough.

    Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the agreements for the convertibility of sterling now signed by His Majesty's Government had the prior agreement of all other members of the sterling area.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether other members of the sterling area are satisfied with the terms of this agreement?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does it matter in this case? I am answering the Question on

    2167
    the Order Paper, and I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has two other Questions down. It is for us, whose currency it is, to decide, and not for another country to interfere.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what arrangements have been made by His Majesty's Government for the convertibility of current balances of sterling acquired after 15th July, 1947, by countries outside the sterling area, other than those with whom His Majesty's Government has signed financial agreements;
    (2) if he will state the arrangements made by His Majesty's Government with countries, other than those with whom a funding agreement has been already made, for the convertibility of sterling balances acquired by the countries concerned before 15th July, 1947.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would not be desirable for me to go into details regarding the future arrangements now under discussion, or negotiation with various countries. My right hon. Friend is not yet able to make any additions to the list already given in his answer to the hon. and gallant Member on 24th April.

    Civil Servants, Armed Forces (Pay)
    Brigadier Lowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent civil servants and Government employees are being paid part or all of their salaries or wages whilst they are serving in the Armed Forces under the National Service Acts; how many are being so paid; what was the total cost of this during 1946–47; and what is the estimated cost for 1947–48.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As a wartime arrangement, established civil servants and un-established staffs, both industrial and non-industrial, with the necessary qualifying service, called up for service with H.M. Forces or allowed to serve therein on temporary arrangements, whose civil pay exceeds their service emoluments, are eligible to receive the balance of their civil pay to bring up their total emoluments, Service and civil, to the level of their civil pay. The question of terminating this arrangement is under consideration. Whilst no detailed record is held centrally, it is estimated that about 16,000 non-
    2168
    industrial civil servants were receiving balance of civil pay at 1st January, 1947. No information is readily available in the case of industrial staff. The total cost involved in 1946–47 was of the order of £2 million, whilst the corresponding cost for 1947–48 is estimated at approximately £400,000.
    Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement about the future when he has considered this matter?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any regulation governing this practice, or whether it is simply an arrangement?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is an arrangement of some long standing and, without notice, I could not commit myself to whether it is an arrangement within the Treasury or whether there is some Act of Parliament which deals with it. I will ascertain and communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  ESPIONAGE COMMISSION, CANADA (REPORT)
  Earl Wintertonasked the Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the demand for copies of the report of the Canadian Royal Commission on the Gouzenko case and the cost of purchasing copies, he will arrange for abridged copies of this report, provided that the consent of the Canadian Government be obtained, to be printed here and placed on sale to the public.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. I would add that additional copies are now on the way from Canada, and should be available shortly.
  Earl Winterton: In view of the great interest taken in this matter, and the fact that it involves a plot against a sister State of the Empire, in which a Member of Parliament of that country and members of the Soviet Embassy, one of whom is in this country, are concerned, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the widest possible circulation is given to this document, especially as there was nearly a similar case in this country in the case of Mr. Trebistch Lincoln, M.P.?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are, of course, anxious to meet the demand for copies of

  2169
  this book, but the Question asked whether the Government would issue an abridged edition. It is our view that it would be very difficult for the Government to issue a "potted" version of a publication issued by another Government. It is more for a private firm to undertake.
  Earl Winterton: Do I understand that there is to be a further distribution of copies of this highly important State document?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir.
  Brigadier Low: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the further distribution is likely to take place?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have ordered over 1,000 further copies. Seven hundred of them are now on the way. I do not like to commit the Stationery Office to an exact date, but it is our hope that they will be on sale and available within a fortnight.

  HOUSING

    Barnstaple
    Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider making an increase in the present allocation of 65 permanent houses for the current year in the Barnstaple rural district, an area of 130,000 acres with a population of 21,500, about 600 of whom are waiting for houses.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The programme of new construction in the rural district for the current year was for 144, and not 65, houses. This total represented a fair share of the building resources in the zone as estimated at the time of the zonal conference, and an increase now would only delay the completion of houses by the authority and their neighbours.
    Brigadier Peto: Is the Minister aware that the figure of 144 is not in accordance with a letter written to me by the council as a result of the zonal conference?
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that as there is a conflict of fact, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I had better have another meeting about it.

    Repair Notices, Manchester
    Mr. W. D. Griffithsasked the Minister of Health in how many cases has
    2170
    statutory notice to carry out essential repairs been served by the local authority on house-property-owning landlords in the city of Manchester during 1946 and the three months of 1947 ended 31st March; in how many cases has the notice been complied with; and in how many cases of non-compliance have legal proceedings been instituted.
    Mr. Bevan: The answers to the first two parts of the Question are, as I am informed, 8,064 and 5,618 respectively; legal proceedings were instituted in 177 cases; in the majority of the remaining cases of non-compliance warning letters were effective.

    Building Licences
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Health if local authorities have power to issue licences for new buildings before plans have been submitted to and approved by the appropriate interim development authority.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. But this does not absolve the applicant from the necessity of seeking and obtaining planning consent.
    Mr. Wallace: Surely my right hon. Friend must be aware that it is impossible to assess the value of a house unless the plans are settled? How can a local authority grant a licence until all details about the development of the property have been settled?
    Mr. Bevan: I quite agree, and that is the reason why I should have thought it was necessary to get the consent of the planning authority first.

    Birmingham
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is satisfied that the allocation of building materials as between materials required for building new houses and materials required for repair work in Birmingham give a sufficient quantity to repair work, in view of the large number of houses requiring repair in that city;
    (2) whether he is aware that much waste of labour results in the inability of builders in Birmingham to obtain a permit for plasterboards for repair work; and if he will allow permits for plasterboards for repair work, in view of the fact that stocks of plasterboards for new houses are accumulating and cannot immediately be used.
    Mr. Bevan: Production of many essential building materials, including plasterboard, has been much reduced by the exceptional winter conditions and, although I appreciate the volume of repair work outstanding in Birmingham and elsewhere, it is still necessary to conserve supplies for new houses and other priority work. I am not aware of any surplus of plasterboard over and above current requirements.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Health what is the number of houses in Birmingham at present requiring repair.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend take steps to obtain the information? I believe there is an exceptionally large number of houses requiring repair in various parts of the country.
    Mr. Bevan: It would be very difficult indeed to define what is meant by "house" and what is meant by "repair." It would depend upon the standard applied to the house. Collecting information of that sort all over the country would involve an enormous amount of investigation.

    1947 Programme
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state what effect the fuel crisis and the severe frosts and snow have had upon the production of building materials and the progress of the 1947 housing programme; and if he is satisfied that materials will be forthcoming in sufficient quantities this year to fulfil the provisions of the programme.
    Mr. Bevan: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the 1947 programme next week.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission, he is proposing to submit proposals for amending the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945.
  Mr. Bevan: The Report of the Commission is largely designed to focus discussion
  2172

  on certain main issues, and I should not propose legislation on these at this stage. The Commission also recommend one or two amendments of the machinery set up by the Act, and these are being examined.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report has drawn attention to loopholes in the Act which would make impossible various schemes for the reorganisation of local government which have been advanced by local authorities?
  Mr. Bevan: To a large extent, the powers of the Commission are confined to readjustment of boundaries and not of counties. They have, however, called attention to a number of interesting suggestions made by local authorities as to the alteration in structure of local government, and I hope hon. Members and members of local governing bodies will give early and serious consideration to it.
  Mr. Fletcher: In view of the Commission's recommendation that powers should be extended to enable them to perform their functions, will the Minister reconsider the desirability of introducing the necessary amending legislation recommended?
  Mr. Bevan: I would prefer the whole matter to be examined in a kind of national discussion and debate, because it may be necessary to alter the Commission's powers very widely indeed.

  DENTISTS (ARMED FORCES)
  Mr. Bairdasked the Minister of Health if he will set up a dental priority committee to inquire into the distribution of dentists in the Services on the lines of the Medical Priority Committees.
  Mr. Bevan: The object which my hon. Friend has in mind is, in my view, adequately met by the existing arrangements, which provide for consultation with the Service Departments, the dental organisations, and other interested parties.
  Mr. Baird: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the function of the medical priority committees to include dental officers?
  Mr. Bevan: I am prepared to consider giving the medical priority committees the function of considering dentists as well as doctors, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, only the newly qualified dentists are, in fact, called up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can make a statement on the Business for the coming week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir.
Monday, 5th May.—Third Reading of the Transport Bill.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, 6th, 7th and 8th May.—Committee stage of the National Service Bill.
Friday, 9th May.—Conclusion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Statistics of Trade Bill.
During the week we shall ask the House to take the Committee and Report stages of a new Financial Resolution which is required for the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Mr. Churchill: Under the Guillotine Motion of the House the Third Reading of the Transport Bill will be brought to an end at the comparatively early hour of 9.30 p.m. on Monday. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Committee stage was taken upstairs, thus excluding all but 50 Members of the House from taking any part in it, and large sections of the Bill—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has kept himself informed on this point—were totally undiscussed. The Report stage also failed to deal with a great many of the provisions of this very far-reaching Measure. In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to prolong the Third Reading Debate until 11 p.m.? If the right hon. Gentleman should be good enough to agree to this, he must not suppose that that by any means satisfies our discontent.
Mr. Morrison: I am broadly familiar with the progress of this Bill through its various stages, and with the attitude which has been adopted by both sides of the House through those stages. This should be a happy day, it being the first time I have dealt with the Business of the House for some months, and I think I ought to try to be well behaved. I
2174
think the right hon. Gentleman's request for Monday is a reasonable one. It would rather curtail the Third Reading Debate if it came to an end at 9.30 p.m., and the Government are agreeable to meeting the right hon. Gentleman's request by suspending the Rule on Monday until 11 o'Clock.
Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his additional contribution to the day's rejoicing, in giving us extra time for discussion of this important Measure on Monday night. I did not have any previous opportunity of welcoming the right hon. Gentleman back, though I gave him an informal wave across the Chamber. I should like, if I may, to say that we are all very glad to see that he has recovered from his serious illness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear." We earnestly hope that the strain of his duties in the House will not be more than he can sustain—speaking in a physical and not in a political sense. Would the right hon. Gentleman let us know what are the Government's views about a Debate on foreign affairs, after the most important mission for which the Foreign Secretary went to Moscow? We understood from an answer to a Question yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman was not unwilling to make a statement at some convenient date. I do not suggest that next week's Business should be disturbed, but would consideration be given to setting aside two days thereafter, and could this matter be discussed through the usual channels? I may say, as far as the Opposition are concerned, we are quite willing to contribute one of our Supply Days towards the general discussion.
Mr. Morrison: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kindly personal references to myself, which I very much appreciate, as indeed I do the kindness that has been extended to me this week by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am exceedingly grateful. With regard to any discussion on foreign affairs, it is not the case, of course, that every time my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary goes beyond, or returns from an area outside, the three-mile limit there should be a Parliamentary Debate. No doubt my right hon. Friend will—as, indeed, I understand he would wish to—report to the House in a statement. I understand the request of the right hon. Gentleman.

2175
I think the best way to deal with it will be to have it discussed through the usual channels, when we will seek to come to an amicable arrangement. However, I cannot commit myself as to the time or the period.
Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to give serious consideration to finding time for a Debate on that exceedingly important document the Report of the Gowers Committee on the closing hours of shops, which affects the whole of the population and about two million distributive workers?
Mr. Morrison: I will keep it in mind. I should have thought that perhaps some arrangement might be made for an Adjournment Debate at some time—although, of course, it involves legislation. It would be difficult to set aside a complete day for it, but we will see what we can do on an Adjournment.
Mr. Cocks: As this is to be a happy day, would the right hon. Gentleman consider postponing the Committee stage of the National Service Bill until after the Whitsun Recess?
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid we cannot do that. I should like to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, but I think we had better face our troubles boldly and quickly.
Mrs. Wills: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to consider the Motion on world federation, put down on 30th January:
[That in order to raise the standard of living of the peoples of the world and to maintain world peace, this House requests His Majesty's Government to, affirm Britain's readiness to federate with any other nations willing to do so on the basis of a federal constitution to be agreed by a representative constituent assembly.]
Could time be given for discussion of that Motion?
Mr. Morrison: To be quite frank, I have not had an opportunity of studying that Motion.

INDUSTRIAL COAL ALLOCATION
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Government have carefully considered what supplies of
2176
coal can be allocated to industry over the summer months from 1st June onwards. The full stock-building programme to power stations, gas works and other consumers as already announced will be carried out. While the manpower position in the mining industry has shown improvement since the statement I made during the Debate on the economic situation on 10th March, there is a clear risk in planning allocations to industry at a higher level than I then indicated, in view of the uncertainty which must remain concerning output during the summer. On the other hand, the Government cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that supplies at such a level would not only cause industrial dislocation during the summer, but would also create shortages of materials and components which must seriously prejudice the operation of industry throughout next winter.
Following consultation with both sides of industry, therefore, the Government have decided that supplies of coal to each industry between 1st June and 31st October shall be planned at a level equal to consumption during the summer of last year, subject to appropriate adjustments for factories newly started up, and for oil conversion, etc., In the case of the building materials industries, where there has been an exceptional expansion since last summer, an extra allocation will be made which will cover a proportion of the new production started since last summer. This extra allocation should enable these industries to obtain about 85 per cent. of their current solid fuel requirements. In general, this will mean that supplies to individual firms will be based on the same rate of consumption as last summer. It will be for firms to build up, from the deliveries they receive, a stock sufficient to meet three weeks' winter requirements by the end of October. If larger stocks are accumulated, these will not be taken into account in framing the winter allocations If firms fail to accumulate a three weeks' stock, the winter allocations will, nevertheless, be based on the assumption that such a stock is, in fact, held.
It must be appreciated that in estimating supplies for industry at this level a considerable risk is deliberately being taken, and that the success of this endeavour to avoid the grave results of cutting down industrial activity during the whole of the summer must depend both on

2177
the maintenance of a high rate of output of coal and upon the full co-operation of industrial undertakings in effecting all possible economies and in building up stocks for the winter. If we start next winter with insufficient stocks, we expose ourselves to even greater difficulties than we experienced last winter, and firms must make it their individual responsibility to lay aside for the winter a sufficient stock out of current deliveries.
Mr. Stanley Prescott: I take it that the announcement the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made applies equally to the textile industry in Lancashire? That being so, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question? He said that the allocation to industry was to be an amount equal to the consumption of last summer. What estimate has been made for the Lancashire textile industry? Is it a fact that the consumption last summer was considerably less than the 75 per cent. of the present allocation? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the textile industry in Lancashire is finding it impossible to build up any stocks for the winter? Unless some special provision can be made it will be impossible to build three weeks' stocks out of the allocation he has indicated.
Sir S. Cripps: One would not expect people to build up stocks before 1st May. That is the earliest date from which stocks are ever built up. As to the rest of the question, I cannot confirm or otherwise the figures the hon. Member has given, because I have not the exact figures before me now; but my impression is that if the textile industry gets the same quantity of coal as it got last summer, it will get 75 per cent. of what it is getting now.
Mr. M. F. Titterington: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether this includes the wool textile industry?
Sir S. Cripps: This statement covers all industries.
Mr. Martin Lindsay: What figure of stocks is it calculated we shall start the winter with, after the allocations, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred, have been made?
Sir S. Cripps: I said they would have three weeks' stock at the end of the summer.
Mr. M. Lindsay: On a national basis, as well as in factories?
Sir S. Cripps: On the national basis we gave the figure earlier, 15 million tons. This is allowing industry to use its discretion as to when it accumulates its stock.
Mr. Blackburn: In view of the great importance of allocations to factories, will the Minister indicate that where a firm does not agree with the allocation some form of appeal to the local committee will be allowed by the Minister?
Sir S. Cripps: Anybody can always protest against anything in this country, I think, and bring observations to the attention of the regional boards.
Major Haughton: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain a little further his remark about the making-up trades? I gather that he said that because of the increased output they would get an extra allocation; and then at the end, I think, he said that the allocation would be exactly the same as that in the summer of last year.
Sir S. Cripps: So far as the building material industries are concerned, there will be an extra allocation because of their very exceptional expansion since last summer, and we hope that that extra allocation will enable them to get 85 per cent. of their current requirements.
Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in assessing the allocation to be made, regard has been paid to the needs of those industries which have been called upon to make a larger contribution to our export trade than hitherto?
Sir S. Cripps: The figures are taken on the basis of what was consumed last summer.
Mr. Jennings: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that both sides of industry had been consulted in regard to this scheme. Have they expressed any view that these stocks can be accumulated out of the supplies allocated? Because it is of no use to expect accumulations out of insufficient supplies.
Sir S. Cripps: My impression was that they took the view that it was a good thing to leave it to industry to decide how to get these stocks, giving them a lump sum.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say there was a special allocation for new factories opened since last year in the development areas and elsewhere? Is there to be a special priority allocation for particularly important industries, such as those of wool and cotton spinning?
Sir S. Cripps: Wool will get the same allocation as last summer, when it had a special allocation. As regards the new factories, where it is necessary, adjustments will be made in order to enable them to work.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We are to debate the subject of fuel today on the Motion for the Adjournment. We are now merely wasting time.

PREROGATIVE OF MERCY
Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, ask, having regard to the doubts, difficulties and ambiguities which have arisen regarding Ministerial responsibility to Parliament in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy, whether you will expand and develop the Ruling which you were good enough to give the House on 10th March last? On 10th March last, at the beginning of your Ruling, you said that this was a complicated question of Order on which no direct guidance could be obtained from precedents. I hope, in view of that, that I may be allowed for a moment to point out the difficulties I had in mind when you gave your Ruling. In the course of your Ruling you said that the Minister was, of course, responsible to the House at some stage, but not until after he had given his advice; and in answer to a supplementary question you said he became responsible to the House only after a sentence had been, in fact, executed.
This does seem to substitute the right of censure for the right of control. But it would seem to involve other difficulties of a more serious nature, when it is remembered that the Prerogative of mercy applies to all cases, and not only to capital cases. If, therefore, one were to apply your Ruling literally to a case, say, of imprisonment for 20 or 30 years, and the Minister became responsible to the House,
2180
for a failure to advise in such a case, only after that sentence had been executed, it would, of course, render the right of the House of control completely nugatory, because after that time there would be nobody left in the House of Commons with any interest in the matter of any kind. If, in order to get out of that difficulty, one were to say that there was no need to wait until the end of the imprisonment, but that the sentence had, in fact, been executed, why a person, having been handed over to the governor of the prison, with instructions to imprison him for a stated period, we should be in the anomaly that the House would have a greater right to interfere in a minor case than, ex hypothesi, it has in a capital case.
The only other thing I should like to say is, that although there are very obvious dangers and embarrassments in mixing up the Prerogative of mercy with debate in this House, it is clear that such embarrassments and such dangers have to be run at some time; and since it is now clear that the Royal Prerogative of mercy is really only a constitutional fiction, and is no longer exercised by the Crown, but only by a responsible Minister, then it follows that, at some stage, this House must be in a position to exercise effective control. I have said so much only in order to point the difficulties which seem to be involved in rather doubtful and vague statements of the matter, and I think the House would be grateful, Sir, if you could expand the Ruling which you gave previously.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made a somewhat long statement, and I am afraid that I cannot answer it at such length myself. I would point out that in my Ruling of 10th March I was dealing with the particular case of persons under sentence of death on the Gold Coast. My remarks were, therefore, directed to the question of the Prerogative of mercy in the case of persons under sentence of death. It was the sentence of death that I had in mind when I said, by way of supplement to my Ruling, that the Home Secretary could not be challenged on the advice he had given to His Majesty until after the sentence had been executed. This rule, is, of course, not applicable to sentences of imprisonment. The practice of the House makes a complete distinction between capital sentences and other forms

2181
of punishment, so far as the Prerogative of mercy is concerned. Whereas the remission of a sentence of imprisonment, for example, can be urged upon a Minister at any time after its imposition, a capital sentence cannot be raised in Question or Debate while the sentence is pending. After it has been executed, the Minister responsible may be criticised on the relevant Vote in Supply, or on the Adjournment. I have stated that that is the practice of this House, and I cannot alter the practice of the House, and I do not propose to argue it in any way.
Mr. Silverman: Is it not a little anomalous that this House should have a very much wider power in the smaller case than in the bigger case; is it not also the fact that these Rulings are founded upon very old cases, which antedate the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal; and, in those circumstances, might it not be advisable that a small Committee of this House should review all these precedents and report to you, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is for me to justify the practice of the House of Commons in this matter. It is enough for me to observe that, for a long period, it has been enforced by my predecessors, with the general concurrence of the House. It seems to me to be founded upon strong reasons of expediency, while maintaining the responsibility of the Minister in the
2182
House. So far as concerns the Committee which, it has been suggested, should be set up, it is entirely a matter for the House.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Would it be proper to submit one other important point affecting this matter? That is, that this House has always claimed the inherent right to discuss any matter which derives its authority from this House, and that a reference back to the history of this Prerogative shows that it is derived from an Act passed by this House in 1535, and that right is expressly given by Section i of the Act of that year dealing with judicial prerogative. May I call attention to that matter, Mr. Speaker, because you will recollect that the Prerogative of mercy was originally an ecclesiastical power which was derived by His Majesty from His Holiness the Pope, and, by that Act, which was passed by this Parliament immediately after the Protestant Reformation, that power was vested in this House? In those circumstances, is it not desirable that, in this extremely difficult matter, a Committee should be appointed?
Mr. Speaker: It is no good hon. Members drawing my attention to this It is for me to obey the practice of the House which has been carried on for a very long time. If hon. Members want the practice of the House changed, they must put down a Motion to get it changed, but it is not within my power.

CONTROL OF FUEL (RESTRICTION OF HEATING) ORDER
3.52 p.m.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move,
"That the Control of Fuel (Restriction of Heating) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 765), dated 25th April, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 28th April, be annulled."
In rising to move the Prayer standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends, I am bound to confess that, owing to the Rules of Order, I am in some difficulty. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will cast a lenient eye on the early part, at all events, of the remarks which I want to make, because I conceive that this Order, against which we are praying, is a matter affecting every household in the country, and, therefore, it will be of some importance to the public at large, and also to hon. Members of this House, if I deal very briefly with the circumstances in which it arises. I do not intend to enter into details, because it would be out of Order to do so, but to sketch the background against which we have to consider this Order. I am not clear exactly, how the statement which the President of the Board of Trade made earlier today, will affect the necessity for this Order, but, no doubt, there will be an opportunity for discussing that at a later stage.
I suggest that the first question to be put to the Government is this: Is this Order necessary? The second is: Is there any reasonable alternative to it? If it is finally decided that something like a cut of this nature is required, the question arises: Is this the best way to do it, and are there any inherent defects in the Order? So far as the first question—the necessity or otherwise of the Order—is concerned, until today, when we heard what the President had to say, we understood that there was a prospective gap of 10 million tons between the amount of coal available, or expected to be available, this year, and the prospective demand, and it was suggested that 7,500,000 tons out of that 10 million tons could be made up by cuts in industry, 250,000 tons by the railways, and the remaining 2,250,000 tons by the domestic consumer.
All I have to say about that is that I do not think there is anybody who knows anything about the coalmining industry today, including, I believe, Members of the Government, members of the National
2184
Coal Board and most responsible leaders of the miners, who would not be prepared to admit, privately, if not publicly, that it is within the capacity of the existing numbers of miners to produce, not only the 200 million tons required, but to go above it. My opinion is that they could produce 220 million tons, and, probably, even get it up to 235 million tons, if the necessary enthusiasm were inspired and instilled into them. So that it is because the Government has failed to inspire the miners with the necessary enthusiasm that they are now saying that this cut is necessary. So much for the first question, as to whether it is necessary. I believe increased production could be got—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has been got"]—No, it has not been got, because, hitherto, we have been told—we may be told something else today—by the Prime Minister this year that domestic consumers must produce a saving of 2,500,000 tons this year. If hon. Members look at the Prime Minister's speech, they will see that for themselves.
Is there any alternative? Until this statement was made by the President of the Board of Trade today—and I do not profess to understand and appreciate it fully at the present time—industry has been expected to make a cut of 7,500,000 tons. I do not want to discuss that today, because a much wider and better opportunity will be afforded later of discussing whether it is possible for industry to make a bigger cut or not. At all events, there is one obvious alternative, which, again, I do not want to discuss in detail, but merely indicate in passing, by which a saving could be made, and that is miners' coal. The figures are so striking that I think that hon. Members, and, I am quite sure, the public outside, will be interested in them. I do not propose to go into the history of miners' coal beyond indicating these figures. In 1938, 782,000 miners or wage-earners on colliery books drew 88,000 tons of coal per week. In 1946, 697,000 wage-earners on colliery books drew 93,000 tons of coal—a reduction of nearly 100,000.miners and an increase of 5,000 tons of coal per week. Now let us look at what the domestic consumer did by comparison. In 1938, the domestic consumption of coal, including anthracite and boiler fuel, was 887,000 tons—
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): On a point of Order. This is

2185
all very interesting, and I make no complaint about it, but I would like your Ruling, Sir, on whether it is in Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the question of the amount of solid fuel consumed, whereas the Order before the House, which Members opposite are seeking to annul, relates only to restrictions on the use of gas and electricity. Later, we are to have a Debate of a general character, on the Motion for Adjournment. Is not the right hon. Gentleman now going into general matters?
Mr. Hudson: May I say, Sir, that if this Order is to be justified it must be based on necessity? I am not entering into details, hut I am saying that there is an obvious alternative to this Order, I think that what I was saying comes within the general conception of this Debate.
Mr. Speaker: Provided that the right hon. Gentleman does no more than sketch the background, I think he is in Order. As the Minister said, this Order relates to the limited subject of the supply of electricity and gas and, therefore, the background should not be too extensively filled in.
Major Lloyd George: May I point out, Sir, that in this Order there is an interpretation paragraph which says that "fuel" means coal, paraffin, and so forth?
Mr. Speaker: The Order applies only to restrictions on the use of electricity and gas for domestic purposes.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I respectfully invite your attention, Sir, to the third paragraph of the Order? This, you will observe, refers to "fuel"—which is subsequently defined—and to the use of fuel for heating non-residential premises? I submit that that introduces elements other than gas and electricity.
Mr. Speaker: It does not introduce the production of fuel; only restrictions on the use of fuel.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I appreciate the difficulty we are in, but it remains a fact that the object of this Order is to reduce the consumption of coal, that coal subsequently being translated into gas and electricity. I suggest that there is an alternative by which could be achieved a saving of 2,500,000 tons of coal. I do not
2186
wish to go into details, but I want to give the background of figures, and compare the hardships involved. I want to argue that this Order will inflict great hardship on housewives and people generally in the country, and to indicate how much that hardship could be reduced. I was saying that the domestic consumption of coal had dropped from 880,000 tons a week to 599,000 tons a week, while the consumption of miners' coal, for the same period, rose from 88,000 tons a week to 93,000 tons. It is clear that at present, miners as a whole are getting 5 million tons of coal a year, and that these same miners, if they used no more than the ordinary householder gets, would be using something less than 2 million tons a year. In that way alone, there could be made available for general use more than the 2½ million tons, which this Order is directed to save. I doubt whether the miners realise the situation. We have been reminded by Members opposite, particularly by the Minister of Food, of the Labour slogan, "Fair shares for all." We have been told that whereas before the war certain sections of the population ate a great deal more than others, and others ate less, we are now, more or less, all on the same level. If it is a good thing that there should be fair shares for all in food, I suggest that there should be fair shares for all in coal, so that the necessity for these present cuts would be avoided.
Mr. Tiffany: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the case of agricultural workers?
Mr. Hudson: That point will be dealt with.
Mr. Beswick: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that the prewar allocation was sufficient?
Mr. Hudson: I would point out to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) that the miners, at present, get approximately four times as much coal as the ordinary householder, and that if he applied that principle to agricultural workers, those workers would get four times as much food as an ordinary person.
Sir Arthur Salter: Should not my right hon. Friend have added one further fact to indicate the scope of this problem? He has shown that if miners got no more than other members of the community, there would

2187
be a saving of about 3 million tons of coal, which would be greater than that effected by the new sacrifices, now being imposed on the whole of the population. Is it not the case that miners and their families number only one-twentieth of the population?
Mr. Hudson: I could develop this point at considerable length, but I do not want to transgress the Rules of Order. Actually, there are 708,000 miners, as compared to a gainfully employed population of 18 million.
Mr. Beswick rose—
Mr. Hudson: I cannot give way to too many interruptions, because it might induce me to go still further outside the Rules of Order. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt get his chance to speak later in the Debate.
Let me turn to the scheme itself. Broadly speaking, it prohibits space heating, and when the Minister announced it, he said that in addition to the saving due to the prohibition of space heating, he hoped that housewives would succeed in making a voluntary overall saving of 25 per cent. this summer, including the saving to be made from space heating. In our view, the scheme is a good deal better than a rationing scheme, but we take no responsibility for it because it does not follow the advice we have given from this side, namely, that the proper way to deal with this problem is to tell the people of the country the facts, and ask them for a voluntary saving if it is necessary. This Order does not follow that advice. It mixes up compulsory and voluntary saving. Not only that, but I am sure that we shall be glad to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary whether the scheme follows the advice given to him by the industry itself. After all, the people in the industry know most about consumption, and the regulation of consumption, and I take leave to doubt whether they agree that this is the best scheme that could have been devised.
In any case, the scheme will cause very severe hardship. The domestic consumer has already been more severely cut in coal consumption than any other section of the population. I have just given the figures—a reduction from 880,000 tons a week to 599,000 tons. Let the House not forget that the domestic consumer is not
2188
certain of getting, today, the 34 cwt. or 50 cwt. to which he is normally entitled. In the course of the Debate the other day, the President of the Board of Trade took me to task for suggesting that there was to be another cut in domestic fuel. We are having a cut in domestic fuel now. A statement was issued as recently as 26th April by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, warning the people of the country that they were not necessarily to count on getting even their 30 cwt. or 50 cwt., and in addition, a further cut was announced in the supplies of coke. Not everyone uses coke for domestic consumption, but a great number of people eke out their supplies of coal with coke, and, therefore, within two months of making the promise that no cuts in domestic fuel would be made, the President of the Board of Trade and the Government have gone back on their word.
Mr. Shinwell Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.
Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he had better read HANSARD for 26th February, column 2190, and see what the President of the Board of Trade said. This is a statement from his own Ministry. Unhappily I have not with me an actual copy of what the Ministry issued
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I can clear that up straight away. There is a difference between the maximum permitted quantity and the actual allocations to different classes of domestic consumers. What we have done is to reduce the maximum which any one consumer may acquire in the form of coke for the year, but we have not touched the allocations.
Mr. Hudson: That seems to be a complicated way of telling the House that people are not going to get as much as they expected. The statement says that up to now no one may have more than 20 cwt., and it goes on to say that a reduction of 5 per cent. in the total is due, etc. Therefore, people instead of getting 20 cwt. are only to be allowed 20 cwt. minus 5 per cent., which is a reduction, whatever the hon. Gentleman likes to say. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot realise that people hitherto allowed 20 cwt. who are next year to be allowed 20 cwt. less 5 per cent. will in fact suffer a reduction.
Mr. Shinwell: They may get the same.
Mr. Hudson: They may get nothing. At all events, it is a reduction of the ration. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a ration."] The main point is that we shall all get less. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, we may get more."] To turn back to the Order itself, the people mainly affected by it will be the old people, the bedridden people, families with young children and, more particularly, families living in modern flatlets, and in certain types of "prefabs." The Order refers to space heating. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was speaking about this matter, defined "space heating" in his speech on 24th April, as:
"This means that gas and electric fires must not be used during this period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 1253.]
That is his definition of the prohibition of space heating. It was a recognised fact prewar, that the consumption of domestic coal went up, not so much when it was cold weather as when it was wet weather, and a great deal of the consumption of coal in domestic fires was used for drying purposes, rather than for the heating of rooms. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is going to prohibit by this space heating the use of fires, gas or electric, for drying purposes. In that case he has a different idea of what happens during an English summer from my idea. If he thinks that during the whole of the summer none of us will have wet cloths to dry as a result of being out of doors, I think he is making a singularly bad guess. It is perfectly obvious that the compulsory part of this Order will in fact be widely evaded. Does any hon. Member of this House, or anyone outside it, believe for a moment that when a mother sees her child come home from school, sopping wet, and she has an electric fire before which she can dry that child's clothing, she will not turn it on? Of course she will. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he can bring women like that before the courts, and that if he did, any court in this country would convict? Of course it would not. That is what the prohibition of space heating is worth, when you make it compulsory.
It is our view, on this side of the House, that it would have been far better if the Minister had relied entirely on the voluntary principle, and said to the
2190
people, "If you have to use a fire for a purpose like that, we would ask you to make the saving good by consuming less gas or electricity next day." By making is compulsory in this way, we are asking everyone to evade it, human nature being what it is. We believe that by this the Government will have the worst of both worlds. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman intends to persevere with this Order, he will make sure that the Minister of Health makes ample provision for additional accommodation in the hospitals, and I would not be surprised if the Home Secretary did not have to make additional accommodation in the prisons, because I am sure both will be needed.
The plea I make this afternoon is on behalf of the British housewife. I should say that she is rather like a pack-horse, so over-burdened that it can hardly struggle along the flat, and now she is being suddenly asked to climb a hill, the summit of which is not in sight. We have heard a lot from hon. Members opposite, about incentives to further production and incentives to further effort. What incentives are there for the housewife today? All that is offered her is more rationing, longer queues, higher prices, and a still further cut in the inadequate warmth which she requires in her home. That is not fair. If I had to sum up our position, I would say that we believe this fuel consumption cut is unnecessary. It is still within the capacity of the present number of coalminers to increase production to a point where this saving in this Order would not be necessary, and if the Government are unable to persuade the miners to make the necessary effort, there is the alternative available of the miners' coal. If the miners consume no more coal than the ordinary household, the coal thus released would be adequate to save this cut. If the Government admit that they are not in a position to do either of these things, and still say that some saving is necessary, then we say that this is a bad way of doing it. We say that this Order is a bad one because it mixes two incompatibles, namely, voluntary and compulsory saving. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends insist on carrying out this Order, my belief is that before long they will come to the House and say that it has failed and that they have not achieved the saving they require, and they will ask us to agree to some far more drastic scheme

2191
of rationing. If so, the fault will lie not with the people but with the Government. We believe that the Government could have got the saving by a purely voluntary scheme and that they will not get it by a mixture of compulsory and voluntary saving. We think that the Order is a thoroughly bad one, and that is why I move that it be annulled.
4.31 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I support the Motion which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) has just moved. The Debate on a Prayer of this kind must take a very narrow form; I perceive that we are limited to discussing the need for this Order, the effect it will have and whether it is a good Order or whether there is something wrong in the Order which is leading to some discrimination against one section of the public or another. Before turning to the Order, it is well to see what there is on which we can all agree. We all can agree that the economic situation of this country is serious and grim, and will continue to be so for some considerable time. We can all agree that this is, to a large extent, due to the shortage of the quantities of coal available. The stocks of coal have never been so dangerously low as they are at the moment, not only in the yards but also in the wholesalers, in business premises and in industrial premises. We can all agree that it is absolutely essential that stocks should be built up during the summer months, so that we can begin the winter with a reserve of no less than 15 million tons. We dare not face another winter with less than that reserve.
We are all agreed that there must be a greater production in coal. I cannot enter into that question on the Motion which is now before the House, but we are all agreed that there is quite an urgent need for more intense fuel-saving all members of the community. We know that industry and commerce have already made enormous sacrifices and they must continue to do so, as the President of the Board of Trade said this afternoon, even though the cost to the country as a whole and to any particular industry in itself is going to be very heavy. We also know that the domestic consumer, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has suffered a more severe cut than any other
2192
class in the community. In 1938–39 the domestic consumer consumed some 44 million tons of coal, and in this year that has been cut down to 29 million tons, a cut of 15 million tons on 44 million tons, so that they have already suffered this cut—
Mr. Julius Silverman: That is solid fuel only.
Mr. C. Davies: Fuel as a whole.
Mrs. Leah Manning: It does not include electricity.
Mr. C. Davies: The object of the Order is to prevent the use of electricity and gas for space heating in homes from 5th May to 30th September. Another object is to prevent the use of all fuel of all kinds for space heating in commercial and industrial premises from 5th May to 31st October. In both cases there are exceptions. For example, in the home there may be an exception if a medical certificate is given. In the case of industrial and business premises the use of fuel will be permitted for heating during night shifts from 10 at night until 8 o'clock the next morning. I should like to put this question to the Minister who will be replying: What is the estimated saving? We know what the estimated saving has been in the past, namely 2½ million tons on the whole of this year if it were carried into effect. On the figures of production for the past week which we are glad to see have been raised, the figure of 2½ million tons only represents three days' production, and the housewives are called upon to make this sacrifice in respect of three days saving out of the whole year.
I agree that we must consider every possible form of saving, and it is essential for the national welfare to deal not only with our present position but with our position next winter. It is for that reason that I think paragraph 3 of this Order is right, and that there should be a prohibition on the use of fuel for space heating in all business and industrial premises from 5th May to 31st October. I agree with the exceptions in paragraph 4 (a, b and c). I think those are unavoidable. But it is significant that an exception should also be made under paragraph 4 (d) in respect of night work in all premises whatever be the circumstances, whatever be the temperature, or whatever be the industry.

2193
It is right that we should have attention called to this. I should like to know if this exception is necessary and unavoidable. We know it can be cold at night, and many of us have worked at night not only during the summer months but also during the winter, and during the spring especially we have all suffered. If a sacrifice is to be put on every home, we ought to consider the implications involved in making a special exemption in respect of business premises and of industrial premises which are being used from 10 o'clock at night to 8 o'clock in the morning. One cannot help observing that this distinction has been drawn in cases where there could be organised effective protests, as against a class which, being the most important, is the least organised, namely, the housewives of this country. Those who will be working in industrial premises will be members of a trade union and will be highly organised. They will be able to make their protest effectively. What about the housewives, scattered as they are and not organised for any political or other purpose?
Assuming we strictly adhere only to paragraphs 3 and 4, what will be the saving of coal through increased stocks? Supposing one does grant this exemption in respect of night shifts, what is anticipated to be the amount saved? Then, assuming that one does away with the exemption in respect of nightshifts, one would like to know what would be the amount saved then. Every household will be called upon to make this sacrifice, and if that is so the sacrifice ought to be fair, equitable and just and there should be no discrimination. What one has to point out here is that under this part of the Order the sacrifice is not equitable throughout. There is a discrimination between one household and another because the prohibition is in respect of electricity and gas only. There is no prohibition with regard to the use of coal in the open grate—the most wasteful form of consuming coal that man ever had.
Mrs. Manning: Our allocation will not allow us to do that very much.
Mr. C. Davies: I do not blame the women, and I should like to make that perfectly clear to the hon. Lady. In fact, may I be permitted one digression to say that I think that things would be better if more of the hon. Lady's sex were interested in architecture and built houses in
2194
a manner more suitable for the housewife? Perhaps then we should not have these difficulties. We do realise that the amount of coal allocated to us has been cut down severely but if, perchance, a housewife has the old-fashioned grate she may use it. On the other hand, if she is in a modern flat or one of the new type of premises and has only electricity or gas—which provide, on the whole, a far more economical method either for warming the house, boiling the kettle or whatever it may be—she will be prohibited from using it for space heating. Let us consider what that means. As I have said, one cannot have a more uneconomic use of coal than the open grate, but what will happen? A woman has small babies who have to be bathed in the morning and again at night before they are put to bed.
Mr. Murray: Small babies and a big fireplace.
Mr. C. Davies: Yes, a big fireplace in which she will light a fire which may then last for two or three hours. That will be permitted without the need to obtain a doctor's certificate. Another young woman, very proud of having gone into a modern flat or one of those new houses where there is only electricity and gas, will also want to bath her baby. All she would need to do would be to put on the gas or electricity just a few minutes before she started to strip the child and as soon as the child was again in warm clothing and in its cot she would switch off. But the right hon. Gentleman will forbid her to do that.
Mrs. Manning Mrs. Manning indicated dissent.
Mr. C. Davies: I notice that the hon. Lady is shaking her head but I maintain that there is not a woman living who would not defy the law in order to protect her child. Nor is there a Government in the land who would dare prosecute her for so doing. But that is beside the point. She will be, in a sense, a criminal.
Mrs. Manning: No.
Mr. C. Davies: She will be contravening this section of the Order by raising the atmosphere of the room to the temperature which she thinks is necessary for her to strip her little child and bathe it. That is the meaning of this Order, and it is the kind of discrimination which is wholly unfair and certainly should not be introduced

2195
in an Order of this kind applying to the country as a whole. May I put one other point? The purpose of this Order is to build up stocks. We are told in speeches by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Fuel and Power and the President of the Board of Trade that what we want to do is to save 2,500,000 tons, so as to build up our stocks for the coming winter. But will that really eventuate from this Order? What will happen will be that power will not be used in the homes—either electricity or gas—but will it not immediately be used by the industries that are drawing upon the grid at that particular moment? It may be a very good thing that industry should have more during the summer months than it otherwise would have, but this will not achieve the object for which this Order has been brought forward—namely, to build up our reserves of coal.
I do not believe that the amount of saving will be very great. The housewife has always been the Chancellor of the Exchequer; thank Heaven she has been, or we men might have ruined ourselves. She has always kept a very close watch on the family income and how it is being spent, and especially is that true within the home. She will not switch on the electric fire or the gas fire unless she feels a grim necessity for it and considers that it is the right thing to do. She will exercise that economy throughout the summer months in any event and will not do anything wasteful. How much, therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman save on the economical housewife? I do not suppose that the saving will amount to a million tons, yet we are to put all these women to this great trouble, inconvenience and annoyance.
Now may I point out two other matters arising from this Order? Where one is drawing electric light or power from a generator which does not consume coal—that is, one which is running on water power—one can use that electricity for heating and lighting and there is nothing to stop one, although there are certain exceptions contained in the First Schedule to the Order. What is to happen in a case such as that of my own constituency? We draw from the North Wales Power Co. I do not know what the position is now because there have been many changes, but during the war the North Wales Power Co. obtained its electricity by the use of hydraulic power. Can we in North Wales
2196
warm our houses freely while those outside the North Wales area cannot, using the electric fire all day long and all night too if we so wish. And this in spite of the fact that the North Wales Power Co. is attached to the general grid so that when it is short itself can draw on England and, when it has a surplus, can pass it on to England. That may be drawing another discrimination which would be quite unfair.
Again, why is Northern Ireland exempt? I realise that they have their own Parliament there but they are dependent on this country for coal. Is it intended to see that Northern Ireland puts upon its housewives the same inconvenience and troubles as the Government are putting upon us here? Finally, I think there has been bad psychology on the part of the Minister and his advisers for this reason. In a speech last month the Minister said that he had not gone in for any long and elaborate educational campaign and that therefore what we wanted was a simple general Order which everybody could understand. He followed that by saying that he intended to appeal to housewives for an overall cut of 25 per cent. on their already reduced supplies, and stated that the Government intended to support this by a full publicity campaign. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. The saving in space heating is included in the 25 per cent.
Mr. C. Davies: I meant to say that the total, including the saving effected by this prohibition, will amount to a saving of 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman is telling the housewife that he is prohibiting her from using electricity and gas for space heating, and he is also appealing to her good nature, patriotism and desire to help, to make a further cut.
Mr. Shinwell: No. I have tried to point out that that is incorrect. The further appeal for saving which is of a voluntary nature, will embrace the saving effected on space heating, and is included in the 25 per cent. There is not an additional 25 per cent.
Mr. C. Davies: Including the amount saved by the prohibition, the Minister is still wanting an overall cut of 25 per cent.

2197
He is bringing the criminal law to beat to prohibit space heating by electricity and gas, and he is also appealing to housewives to save more electricity and gas if they possibly can. The housewife will not do it. She will say that the Minister has made a special Order forbidding her using gas and electricity, and that she will do that and no more. What is more, in times of difficulty she will break the Order. It is all very well to say that she can get a medical certificate, but she has not the time to go round to the doctor and ask him to give her a certificate, and in any case, why should she go to the expense of paying for a medical certificate? She does not want to be extravagant, but to get the room warm for her child. If the Minister makes a definite Order, she will adhere to it, but you cannot expect her to do anything else. This is an instance of bad psychology, and I warn the Minister that the scheme will break down. It is a bad Order, and he should think again on it.
4.45 P.m.
Mr. Yates: It is not surprising that those who have spoken this afternoon have not put any real alternative to the Government for consideration.
Mr. C. Davies: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that we would not be allowed to do so? We are strictly limited to what is contained in this Order.
Mr. Yates: I should have thought that if Members felt so strongly that the Order was wrong, there would have been some suggestion of an alternative.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I put forward two alternative suggestions.
Mr. Yates: I know that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned miners' coal.
Mr. Hudson: And output.
Mr. Yates: I will leave that question to those who are more conversant with that aspect. There is no question ever about the necessity to save fuel. I do not take the view which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) takes of the masses of the people. He seems to have rather a low view of the people, and believes that they will not co-operate. I think he went so far as to suggest that greater provision would have to be made
2198
in prisons. That is an insult to the general masses of the population.
I approach this matter with a certain amount of anxiety, because I represent a constituency which has special problems in this connection. I have toured my constituency asking for opinions. Last weekend I went into many homes to bud out the exact position. The special problem in my constituency is that we have almost 50 per cent. of houses of the back-to-back type. These houses are of the most unhealthy type. In the city of Birmingham no less than 29,182 houses are of the back-to-back type. That is the figure contained in the latest report by the medical officer of health, and those who have had responsibility of government in the past must face up to it. In the Division of Ladywood, which I have the honour to represent, there are 6,019 of these houses. I have consulted these people on this matter, and I find that in all cases there is a desire to do everything possible to co-operate in the saving of fuel.
There is, however, a particular problem. Many of the houses are damp and dilapidated as a result of the recent floods. Many of these houses are almost tumbling down. For instance, I had a most pitiful letter from a constituent whose attic roof had fallen through to the kitchen. These people have been faced with great difficulty in the drying-out process. I have put up to the President of the Board of Trade cases in which beds have been completely destroyed, and drawn his attention to the anxiety which parents feel on matters of this kind. These people have done everything to get alternative forms of heating for drying purposes, but in the main, they are thrown back on coal supplies. I ask the Minister to consider a fairer method of allocating the domestic coal ration. If he can do that, I am certain that this Order will stand a better chance of being successful.
I appreciate that there is nothing in the Order prohibiting the use of fuel for heating hospitals and institutions for the sick and infirm. In this connection I was informed only last Sunday that a fuel dealer in my constituency who has 500 registrations on his books had not been given a supply of coal sufficient to meet medical requirements for the last three months, and that I submit to the Minister is a very serious matter, when people are

2199
being asked to make further sacrifices. They are willing to do so, but they want to feel that they are being given a fair deal in the overall rationing of fuel. I would ask the Minister to give them that, and I would also ask if it is not possible for those dealers who wish to distribute their available supplies fairly to have greater supplies during the summer months and less in winter. In the summer the transport is available. During the recent cold spell we found that people in these back-to-back houses, or in long terraces where the coal merchants have to carry the coal long distances up back alleys, have suffered considerably because the merchants simply refused to deliver. The customers had to go for the coal and wait in long queues.
The Minister will no doubt have a good case in regard to the question of stocking, but if we are to appeal to the people to co-operate in the saving of fuel in this way we ought at the same time to give them some guarantee that they will have a fair allocation of fuel throughout the year. Many of them have not got gas and electric fires. In fact I find that there are 50 houses in my constituency without any gas or electricity at all, and there are 417 in the city of Birmingham without either gas or electricity. The people have to depend upon coal.
Mr. Hobson: On a point of Order. Am I to understand that the Debate on this Order can extend over the whole of the fuel situation? The hon. Member is dealing with the coal situation, to which the Order does not apply.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The position is that the question of coal does not arise, in so far as heating residential premises is concerned, but it does apply to premises which are not residential. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that because there was no electricity or gas, there ought to be coal.
Mr. Yates: I realised that I was going very near the mark, but I want to support this Order to the full because it is absolutely necessary to save fuel. The people are willing to do so; from what I have found in my constituency. I believe that the people will be quite willing to turn off electricity and gas all the time. But I hope the Minister will consider the other point I have mentioned, because it will
2200
be very difficult for them otherwise. If the Minister will look into these questions I am satisfied that the mass of the people will not be so low as to refuse to cooperate in saving. It is simply fantastic to suggest it. Nor do I accept the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who said that this is a bad approach from the psychological angle. I am quite sure) that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power would never be able to make a right approach according to right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
Mr. C. Davies: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting, may I say that he and I were in agreement. I was saying that people would co-operate voluntarily, but what the Minister is saying is, "The people will not co-operate and I have got to make an Order."
Mr. Yates: I was taking the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that the Minister had made a wrong psychological approach. I do not accept that view at all. I think the approach is right, and so long as these other safeguards are there I am perfectly certain that people in overcrowded areas such as the one to which I have referred will give their full co-operation and will submit to an Order of this nature. It is necessary that we should bring home to the people the urgency of the position. I can well imagine that any scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for rationing or limiting fuel, would be criticised from the Opposition benches, because according to them nothing he does is done from the right psychological point of view.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Quite right.
Mr. Yates: I do not accept that view, and I support this Order and the necessity for it, subject to the safeguards which I am sure the Minister will consider, because the people who are living in these very unhealthy and overcrowded areas are labouring under serious difficulties. They are, however, anxious to help, and I hope the Minister will be able to help them.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. Beechman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), in opening

2201

his observations, rightly said that in all parts of the House we realise that the times are critical. For my part I think the same can be said of the country at large. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said it is necessary to bring home to the country the urgency of the situation. I think the people know by now that we are living in most critical times, and they know that more severe conditions are likely to arise. I further agree that there is a great willingness to make sacrifices, remarkably so, but it is our duty not to abuse that willingness to make sacrifices. I say that in this Order there is an abuse of our people's willingness to make sacrifices because undue hardships and discomforts are sought to be imposed and because the Order itself shows, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that the Government are not willing to avail themselves of that willingness to sacrifice which has been so remarkably exemplified.
It is upon certain sections of the community, the old people and housewives, that the burden of this Order particularly falls. It has been amazing during the war, since the war and even after our victory to see how the women of the household have sustained continually increasing burdens. And here are more—and let us make no mistake—very severe burdens indeed, that endanger the homes of the people throughout the country for the sake of three days' output of coal. We cannot elaborate alternatives because of the Rules of Order, but I very much agree with what was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). Nobody grudges the coal miners their coal; I certainly do not, and we understand how natural it is that they should have it, but I for one do not believe that the coal miners of this country understand that if they gave up a substantial proportion of their free coal it would not be necessary to impose these burdens on the housewives of the country.
Mr. Blyton: Does the hon. Member appreciate that there is no free coal for miners; it is part of their wages?
Mr. Beechman: I will not elaborate it further. I do not grudge it to them We know that there are now more pit-baths and more drying facilities, and I suggest that the Minister should give this aspect of the matter his attention.
2202
We have heard what the housewife would do if she wanted to dry the clothes of a child who had come in wet from school. Let us get down to the realities of the position. If a child is ill is the housewife to run out to get the doctor for a certificate? Can she go out? Think of the circumstances in a rural area where the hardworked doctor may not arrive for a whole day. Would the housewife sit down and be content under this Order to see her child ill, suffering, cold, because she was not allowed to turn on the electric fire or the gas heater? The vice of such Orders as this is that they make criminals of us all. My right hon. Friend has said that our people would all be going to prison. It seems to me that they might do worse than go to prison because, I doubt whether, under the terms of this Order, prisons are residential premises, and people might be much better off there. In conclusion, let us remember that we hope to build up ourselves and our outlook on life during the summer months so as to be able the better to suffer the rigours of the winter. The Order will put an added tension into our lives and will take away from our cheer during the summer months. It will gravely imperil the power of resistance of this country for the time when people will have to face the terrible rigours of the coming winter.
5.3 p.m.
Mrs. Middleton: In making my contribution to this Debate I shall speak not so much as a Member of Parliament as a housewife. During the major part of the time that I have been in the House I have also been running a ten-roomed house of my own, mostly single-handed. I, therefore, know something of the difficulties in which the Order will involve the housewives of this country. I want to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have begged the Minister to withdraw the Order and to substitute something which will be equitable in its operation. I am opposed to the Order on two counts. I first suggest that it is impossible to apply the Order. Secondly, even if it were possible to apply the Order to some extent, I say that the Order would be inequitable in its operation.
I want to beg my right hon. Friend not to make the housewives of this country into a class of law breakers and law

2203
evaders, for that is what is likely to happen. I speak from my own experience. During the time when we were restricted in the use of electricity during the fuel crisis I found it impossible to run my home satisfactorily without to some extent evading the Orders which had been imposed upon us. I had to be here in the morning for a Standing Committee and throughout the day to do my duty in this House. I found that if I were to run my home as it ought to be run and to provide for the comfort of those who live there, and if the Order was not to be broken, I needed to stay up after I had left this House, until one o'clock, two o'clock or even three o'clock in the morning, in order to do the cooking, ironing and other things which needed to be done.
I suggest to the House that the Order which we are now discussing places upon women who, like myself, are doing another job, besides working in their homes, a burden it is impossible for them to bear. I would like the House also to remember the effect that evasions of the law have upon public morale. We have seen something of this effect in countries on the Continent of Europe during the resistance movements. Even though laws were broken in a right and just cause, it is now generally agreed that constant evasion of the law had a demoralising effect upon people who were constantly living a lie in the interests of liberty. I do not want to see that kind of thing happening to the housewives of this country. Housewives have borne a very heavy burden, both during the war and since. It is our task to see that further burdens are not placed upon them in the way in which a burden would be placed by this Order.
I suggest to the Minister that there are other things that could be done to bring about the economies he desires. If I am within the rules of Order I want to suggest one of the things which can be done. All kinds of new electrical equipment have been introduced into the houses on the new housing estates and into the prefabricated bungalows, but very little has been done to instruct the housewife in the proper use of it. As one who uses an electric cooker I know how difficult it is—indeed how almost impossible it is—for the uninitiated house-
2204
wife to avoid considerable wastage of electric current. She does not know just by instinct when to turn the oven off and when the heat will be sufficient to finish her cooking. Much help could be given to her which today is not given. My right hon. Friend would be doing a far greater service to the housewives in general and to the saving of fuel in particular if he paid some attention to instructing and assisting women who are using electrical gadgets for the first time.
I should like to give two illustrations from my own personal experience. I was told a few weeks ago by a woman who goes into these new homes on behalf of a certain gas company that, in a prefabricated bungalow, she found a woman using the refrigerator to air her husband's socks. That suggestion may seem ridiculous, but nevertheless it is true. It was a gas refrigerator. In the side of the refrigerator towards which the heat was drawn, in the process of referigeration, there was a warm patch. The housewife had discovered it and there she put her husband's socks to get them aired. She did not realise, because no one had told her, that by so doing she was actually hampering the process of refrigeration. Again, I went recently into a home where a young woman said, "I am in very great difficulty about my 'Ideal' boiler; either it roars away and the water boils, or I cannot get it to heat at all, or else my kitchen is filled with smoke; nobody has told me how to manage this stove." It so happens that I have an "Ideal" boiler at home, and I was able to go into the kitchen and, in a few moments, tell her how to work the dampers in the stove so as to get the desired result. I give those illustrations because I want the House and the Minister to realise that if there were more help given, particularly to young married women, in using equipment of this sort, there could be a very considerable saving made in the use of electricity, gas and solid fuel, and, moreover, the housewives themselves would very greatly appreciate it, because, particularly in working-class homes, it would help them to cut down their consumption very considerably.
I believe this Order will be impossible to carry through. The Government cannot compel people to obey the Order. If they cannot compel them to obey, is it not much better to get people voluntarily to co-operate, abandoning compulsion?

2205
The housewives of this country, who have done so much for the country during the last eight to ten years, who have carried burdens second to none and probably greater than all, will co-operate with the Minister because they realise the need for co-operation, but the Minister will get the maximum result if, instead of imposing penalties, he carries through a campaign of publicity and asks the housewives to co-operate with him in order to save the nation in this very difficult time in our history.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Raikes: This Order is the greatest confession of failure and lack of foresight that has yet been produced by the Minister of Fuel and Power. On this occasion, the Minister has contrived to show too much imagination in the wrong place and too little imagination in another place. If the Minister supposes that between 5th May and 30th September the majority of days and nights will be sufficiently warm and comfortable for the ordinary householder to do without electricity or gas for heating, he is not only past praying for, but his imagination has risen to heights—
Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of dwelling houses in Britain have neither electrical nor gas heating, and that even those that have also get an allocation of coal?
Mr. Raikes: Is the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) aware that, in the Government's housing programme, the majority of the houses that have been built during the last year for the brave new world have been prefabricated, and that practically all of them are entirely electrically heated, and have no other means of heating?
Mr. Hobson: That is entirely wrong.
Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member says I am entirely wrong, but the prefabricated houses that I have had an opportunity of going into in my own constituency are entirely so. It is also true that a very large number of flats and a certain number of houses rely wholly upon gas and electricity. I live in such a flat myself. It shows a curious degree of imagination to suppose that those flats and houses can have any reasonable heating from 5th May until the end of September if they are to he utterly precluded from making use of
2206
electrical or gas heating. I shall not say anything in regard to offices, except that both in May and September there will be many cold fingers and bodies in a number of offices to which the prohibition of space-heating applies.
I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, with whom I seldom agree, that on this occasion the Minister has shown extraordinarily bad psychology. Housewives are willing and anxious to co-operate with the Government as much as they can, but there will, I am afraid, be many cold nights between now and the end of September, to say nothing of cold days. In those homes where, when the Purchase Tax was taken off, people bought electrical equipment, imagining that they would be able to use it, does the Minister really think that on a cold night Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Smith will say to her little boy, "Billy, you have got a little bit of a cold corning on, we will let it rip, and then when you have a high temperature, I shall be able to call in the doctor and get a doctor's certificate, and then we will be able to have a fire; so cheer up, Billy, about 48 hours after the temperature goes up we shall have a permit from the fuel officer to get some heating"? Of course, that will not happen; what will happen, when the child, or even the husband, has a cold, is that the heating will be turned on. And when some people begin to switch on the heat because there may be illness in the house on a cold night, other people will follow suit, and there will be less and less saving of fuel and a greater contempt for the law.
Mr. Tiffany: Is the hon. Member referring to ordinary coal fires? If so, will he look at paragraph 6, Subsection (1) of the Order?
Mr. Raikes: I am discussing those houses where it is not possible to have a coal fire.
Mr. Hobson: They are a very small minority.
Mr. Raikes: A very dangerous view which has been taken by hon. Members opposite on a number of these Orders in recent months is that if it is a question of a small minority, it does not very much matter whether they get justice. Whether the number be small or large, it is only right and proper that all persons—
Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member aware that a small minority have a very great advantage over the vast majority in that they have electrical or gas heating over and above the basic maximum allowance of 34 cwt.?
Mr. R. S. Hudson: They do not get it.
Mr. Hobson: They have had 26 cwt. in London.
Mr. Raikes: The hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid my point, which is about those premises where it is not the least use having an allocation of solid fuel because there is no grate in which to put it. I said all along that I am dealing with those premises heated by gas or electricity, where there is no alternative. It is true that the person who has an allocation of coal and a grate in which to burn it will be all right; I am not suggesting otherwise, but I am saying that this differentiation operates most unfairly in a number of homes where there is only electrical or gas heating. If those homes are so few, surely the saving will be so small as not to be worth saving by compulsion. If those homes are so few, why was not a voluntary appeal made? I understand that the whole object of this Order, with regard both to households and to shops and various other industrial premises, will amount to a saving of 2,500,000 tons. But if its effect will be, as I Maintain, to bring the law into greater disrepute than it is in now, if this Government by their action increase law-breaking, they will have done something even worse than an ordinary bad Act of Parliament. The strength of our nation has always been that our people believe in the law and keep it, but if you make nonsense of the law, as this Order does, the effect inevitably will be bad, not only during the six months when the Order is in force, but for a long time afterwards insofar as the moral of this nation is concerned.
On those grounds I am delighted that this Prayer has been put down. I am delighted to be, for once in a way, in complete accord with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. I believe that this Order is unjust and unwise, that it cannot work, that it will bring the law into disrepute, and this Government into even greater disrepute than it is in already.
5.22 p.m.
Lady Grant: I will not go into the reasons or the necessity
2208
for having this Order at all, because, no doubt, measures for increasing fuel production will be debated later on the Adjournment. However, I would like to speak briefly on the Order from the consumer's point of view. When one first looks at this Order, there seem to be many anomalies which will make it entirely unworkable. In that respect I am in complete agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), who said that it would lead only to a great deal of evasion of the law by a normally law-abiding people who are only too anxious to cooperate. I do not agree with her, however, when she suggests that something else should be substituted, because the alternative to this Order is to appeal to the public for voluntary savings.
Mrs. Middleton: I am sorry I did not make myself clear, but that was the point of what I was saying. I appeal to the Minister to substitute voluntary co-operation for compulsion.
Lady Grant: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Lady, and I hope she will support us in the Lobby. Coming as I do from the far north of Scotland, this Order on the first view appears to me to be unpractical. It is unpractical legislation to suggest that between the months of May and September space heating in residential premises shall be prohibited all over the country. There are certain parts of the country not only in Scotland which suffer from a peculiarly cold, humid and unpredictable climate. Particularly in the north of Great Britain there are parts where there are very few days when the home can be without some form of heating, not only because of the cold but because of the chilly, damp atmosphere which breeds so many ills. In the North of Scotland we are in a rather unfortunate position because, as hon. Members know, our crops are at least three weeks behind those in the South of England. We have had the imposition of double summer time, which means that early rising makes it absolutely imperative to have some form of heating. Therefore, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Minister might consider whether it would not be possible to have some form of exemption in the more Northern parts of Great Britain.
Another point which needs clarification and inquiry in this Order is that of the

2209
provision made for elderly people. In paragraph 5 we are told that the Order does not prohibit the consumption of fuel in hospitals or institutions for the sick, infirm or aged. I and many of my hon. Friends on these benches have had letters from people all over the country putting forward the case of elderly people, not only those who live in houses heated only by gas or electricity, but from those who have alternative forms of fuel. Many elderly people, not having the vitality or energy to generate warmth, have made it the custom to turn on an electric or gas heater for a short while to heat the room, which is infinitely more economical than burning solid fuel for a much longer period. Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give us an indication of some measure of exemption for elderly people.
I am in entire agreement with everything said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies) in his very knowledgeable remarks regarding young children. May I endorse on behalf of those households where there are children of school age? I can speak from my own experience of a vigorous family aged 10 and 12, who are constantly going out, and coming in soaked to the skin, that it is very necessary to have some form of warmth for heating and drying their clothes. I do not find in paragraph 5, or anywhere else in the Order, any provision for heating day nurseries. As far as I can make out, they do not come within the terms of paragraph 5. Again, I would like to ask, in regard to paragraph 3, which deals with non-residential premises, what is to be the position of doctors and dentists and professional men? Are their premises to remain unheated? That would surely cause only further embarrassment to patients already waiting in chilly anticipation of what is to come. We are told in the last paragraph of the explanatory note that central heating is no longer to be prohibited. But what of those forms of central heating, to which most of the modern appliances conform, which are run on gas? Do they come within the terms of this Order, because that will affect many offices and institutions.
Lastly, I support the Motion for Annulment because I feel the Order will not serve the purpose for which it was introduced. It will, as has been pointed out
2210
already, cause great inequality. There are exemptions by which certain parts of the country served by hydro-electric schemes will be able to use as much gas or electricity as they like. It is unfortunate that great industrial cities should be at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the country, alhough I cannot help saying that we welcome the fact that this Order recognises that the Fort William scheme and similar schemes may use their own source of power. I support everything which has been said regarding the detrimental effect this Order will have on those who have the task of keeping house today. The housewives of the country have all along been only too willing to co-operate. One has to remember that an Order of this nature is striking at the very root of family life.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Hobson: They get their coal allocation.
Lady Grant: If hon. Members would only wait until I have finished my sentence. Husbands and others when they come back from work expect to have some little relaxation. Are they always expected to be in the best temper, when they find they are not able to have a little warmth? [An HON. MEMBER; "That is not true."] Hon. Members opposite are, no doubt, most abstemious in the home, but I suggest that this Order is not going to serve the purpose for which it is brought forward. It is going to lead to great inequalities and will be very difficult to enforce except by most unpleasant and totalitarian means and we do not want any more snoopers in this country. The country should be told the plain unvarnished facts, however grave, and should be asked to make a voluntary reduction. This country has always responded best, not when the people were being herded and driven, but when they were being inspired and led.
5.32 p.m.
Mrs. Florence Paton: It is always pleasant when one can agree with much that has been said on the Opposition benches, and I find myself in agreement with much of what has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant), especially in regard to the question of elderly people. I join my wishes with hers in that respect. If it is possible, in some

2211
way, to make a distinction in regard to elderly people, I think the Minister should try to find a way to assist them. I do not however agree with the hon. Lady when she speaks of family life. I have the feeling that she knows precious little about the life of the average working-class family. Any working-class family—and there were 12,500,000 before 1938 whose average income was less than £2 10s. a week—will tell her that one of their bitterest memories has been that of cold rooms in winter time all through the years before the war—
Lady Grant: When I referred to family life, I was not referring only to one section of the community. I was referring to every family in this nation.
Mr. Hobson: That is the answer to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Paton: I suggest that the noble Lady was referring to a portion of the community. I have referred to the fact that 12,500,000 families before the war had an average of less than £2 10S. a week with which to buy everything; how much coal, electricity and gas could working-class families buy in winter time, or summer time, to heat their houses? If it is a question of breaking up family life, there must have been a great deal of family life broken up before the war.
I wish to put a special point to the Minister in regard to the recent sufferings of people through the floods. In my Division of Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, there is a big area which not only had floods this year, but had almost equal floods last year. There are two particular areas, West Bridgford and Colwick, which had floods last year in which the water came up to the picture rail of the ground floor rooms of houses, and this year they have experienced the dreadful tragedy of having water up to the top bedroom window. The Minister will realise that in those houses the problem of drying out the rooms is going to be one not for one or two weeks, but perhaps for several months. People in my constituency tell me that it was months after last year's floods before they felt that their houses were really dried out.
Now that the experience has been repeated, they have the problem over again. They have not sufficient coal to heat all the rooms and dry them out. I ask the
2212
Minister if under paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1) it is possible to grant an extra licence to those people—they are known, and can be indicated almost to a person—whereby they can be treated as an exception, and can use gas or electric fires to heat the rooms and dry out their houses. This does not apply only to my own constituency, but to a large number of areas in the country. In my constituency there is a specific problem, because it is the second experience of flooding in two consecutive years and therefore something special ought to be done. I ask the Minister to take this point into consideration, and I hope some concession will be granted to these people.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Lipson: If argument really counted in this Debate, I think this Order by now would be dead. It would have been killed by the speeches of two hon. Ladys, one speaking on the Government side, and one from this side, of the House. They were the speeches of the hon. Members for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) and South Aberdeen (Lady Grant). An Order of this kind makes a person like myself, who is sympathetic to the Government and anxious that it should achieve its main purpose, despair. It shows a lack of knowledge of the psychology of the people. My own view, strongly held, is that a voluntary appeal to the public brings out the best in the British people—
Mr. Hobson rose—
Mr. Lipson: —if I may finish my sentence—whereas a compulsory Order brings out the worst, and that has been shown again and again in the history of this country.
Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member aware that when a voluntary appeal was made in February, the consumption of electrical energy for the month was 776 million units greater than before?
Mr. Lipson: When I talk about a voluntary appeal, an appeal for co-operation, I mean an appeal to every one concerned in the question of fuel—both of production and consumption. That appeal should be made, not only to the public who consume, but also to the miners who produce. In particular, I would like the example to be followed of what was done during the war in regard to National

2213
Savings. In every part of the country we had one week in which there was a special target. A special appeal was made and it was successful. I would like to see one week set aside in every mining area during which the miners should be asked to produce the additional amount of coal required to meet the coal needs in their area, so that this Order would no longer be necessary. I believe that a specific appeal of that kind to the miners, coupled with an appeal to the public not to use electric and gas fires unnecessarily during the summer, would have the desired effect.
Mr. Robens: The hon. Member must be aware that the miners have a target. Every pit has a target. If he would go round the mining areas he would find the flag fluttering at the top by the pit gear when that target is reached. What further target on top of the present one does he suggest?
Mr. Lipson: We have not been told how much saving it is expected can be brought about by this Order. The 2,500,000 tons which consumers have to save covers much more than space heating. I am concerned purely with domestic space heating. Two and a half million tons of coal is under three days' production. I am satisfied that the gap could be bridged by a combination of saving and increased production, the miners on the one hand making a special effort for one week—I am only asking for one week—and the public making an effort generally throughout the period, in order to avoid the need for this Order. I believe it could be done. I am sure that that is the right method of approach.
Mr. Hobson: We have tried it.
Mr. Lipson: Well, try it again. There is one argument which I have heard frequently from the Government benches during this Parliament which certainly cannot be used on this occasion. The Government cannot say that they have a mandate for this. There can be very few among those who voted for Government supporters in 1945, who expected that an Order of this kind would be introduced in 1947, after two years of Labour administration.
Mr. Hobson: Coal consumption, as well as production, has gone up.
Mr. Lipson: I think the Government owe something better than this Order to
2214
the people who put them in power. Therefore, I say that the Government ought to think again on this matter. In regard to the overall consumption of fuel, this Order probably would result in greater rather than smaller consumption. Whereas all that happens, or is likely to happen, under present conditions, is that on a cold or chilly morning or evening in the summer an electric or gas fire might be put on for half an hour and the discomfort removed, it may mean that there will be the consumption of coal on fires for two, three or four hours. A fire might be lit in the morning and kept burning throughout the day. Ultimately there is not likely to be any real saving of fuel. Nobody in these days—or, if so, only a minority that we can afford to ignore—puts on an electric or gas fire for heating purposes during the summer months unless it is absolutely necessary.
I wish particularly to stress the appeal made on behalf of elderly people. Old people living alone seem to be in a special position of hardship under this Order. One ought to remember that of all sections of the community probably they are the most hard hit by food rationing. In the case of old people living alone the rations do not go very far. If, at the same time, they are to be exposed to the rigours of our climate without the means of protection afforded by a gas or electric stove used for a short time, they will suffer unfair hardship. My view is that the Government have gone to the absolute limit already in the burden which they have put upon the domestic consumer. They ought not to go any further. The honest and conscientious will try to observe this Order, probably at a sacrifice of health and vitality which they ought not to be asked to make. Those who have no scruples will flout the Order and they will get away with it. It is impossible to prevent it.
The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) showed that in practice the Order is really unworkable because it is based on two wrong assumptions. One assumption is that all houses in this country are dry and that people are living in decent conditions. That is not true. We were told that in Birmingham there were a large number of back-to-back houses. I know of many people in my constituency who live in damp basements where before they go to bed it is necessary for them to put on an electric or gas fire if they

2215
are not to suffer serious consequences. This Order is too rigid. It makes no allowance for that kind of thing. It does not make any allowance for the climatic conditions of the country, and we know how very erratic they can be.
I ask the Government to reconsider this Order. I am sure that a voluntary appeal on the lines that I have suggested—if need be keeping this Order in reserve in the background—would have the desired effect. A rigid and inflexible Order of this kind is bound to inflict unnecessary and unreasonable hardships and is not likely to achieve the object which the Government have in mind. We are all as anxious as hon. Members opposite to try to help the country through the fuel crisis. Where we differ is on the methods to be employed. The very small saving which this Order can achieve does not justify the hardships it will inevitably cause.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. Asterley Jones: Appeals have been made from various parts of the House that another effort should be made to achieve the object which this Order seeks to gain by a system of voluntary co-operation. I think that we heard all these arguments last July during the Debate on bread rationing. Precisely similar arguments were put forward then. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people are voluntarily cutting down their consumption but there still remains a number of people—I do not say that there is a large number—who simply do not respond to appeals for voluntary saving. The effect is that inevitably those conscientious people, who are doing their best, see a neighbour along the road making no effort at all, and so they say, "Well, if so-and-so along the road does not bather, why should we?" It is for that reason that I have come to the conclusion that some form of Order is absolutely essential to enforce restriction upon those who are not responsive to an appeal for voluntary saving.
It is, of course, the easiest thing in the world for hon. Members to get up and make a heartfelt appeal on behalf of some particular section or other of the community, and with all those appeals one can of course agree, but the short point surely is, are we—taking ourselves as ordinary average inhabitants of this country—going to be perhaps just a little
2216
bit chilly from time to time during these coming summer months or are we going to be very cold rather more often during next winter? Surely that is a reasonable choice. It may very well be that we can achieve far more in the way of increased production and so on, but we have to be realistic about it. I would not say that I should be seriously inconvenienced by not using electric fires or gas fires for heating during the months of May to September, but—and here I have one criticism which I hope the Minister will be able to meet—electric and gas fires are not always used purely for heating a room. They are also used for drying clothes and other things.
Reference has already been made to the drying out of rooms which have been flooded, the drying out of rooms in which there have been leaks and the drying of clothes for children who come home wet from school, but I am astounded that no hon. Member has so far made reference to the drying of the enormous amount of washing which mothers of young babies have to do. I can see no real solution to this if the Order goes ahead as it stands. I must immediately, in accordance with the practice of this House, declare my interest in this matter. I have a young baby whose expenditure of the articles which are now generally called "nappies," I believe, is positively astronomical. The turnover of these articles is such that it is quite impossible to wait even in the best English summer for a fine day. We work normally on a 24-hour turnover. If it happens to be raining the accumulation either gets so great as to be quite impossible to deal with or else they have to be dried by artificial means. The Minister might suggest that we light a coal fire, but that would be far more wasteful than turning on an electric fire, as it may be in my case, or a gas fire as it may be in the case of other people. In other cases there will perhaps be one of these boiler fires that heat water before which these articles can be dried. Some people have got them and find them useful, but other people have not got them.
The upshot is that quite a considerable number of people in the country are faced with this large amount of washing for small children for which there is no other means of drying on wet days than turning on an electric or gas fire for an hour or

2217
so. Even when there is a fine day the vast majority of mothers will not use one of these articles, even though it has been drying in the scorching sun, before first holding it for a few minutes before a fire in order to make sure that it is absolutely dry.
The Minister has power in this Order to give a licence under paragraph 6 (1) and I hope that he will be very forthcoming on this matter. On 24th April he said that he had had this particular point in mind and that he thought that any such cases might come within the category of the relaxation and that they would have to be based on the production of a medical certificate. I wonder whether it is really necessary to have a medical certificate for these things. Surely we can take it that any home which has children or a child under the age of two is allowed to use these appliances for the purpose of drying washing? I hope that the Minister will be very amenable on this subject, as he always is when an appeal to reason is made, and that he will afford this relaxation.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton) used an argument of a nature which is somewhat frequently employed from the benches opposite. In referring to the hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant), the hon. Member for Rushcliffe indicated the line of argument that because a large number of homes had been cold before the war that was an argument for this Order making more homes cold now.
Mrs. Paton: I did not use that argument at all. The hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) said that this Order was likely to break up family life. My argument was that if family life was to be broken up by this Order, family life must have been broken up very much more before 1938 because so many families then had only about £2 10s. a week to buy everything.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly. The hon. Lady has almost in the same words repeated the argument to which I referred, and I am grateful to her for refreshing the memory of the House on the matter. The hon. Lady spoke in support of this Order. The only conceivable relevance to this Order of a refer-
2218
ence to homes being cold before the war was that because homes were cold before the war it did not matter if they were cold now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No.''] Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Messer: They do not want to. They are not lawyers.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Otherwise the hon. Lady's argument was quite irrelevant to this Order. I should not be so unchivalrous as to suggest that. But it is not a justification of this Order, which will undoubtedly make homes cold, to say that other homes were cold in other conditions. Hon. Members opposite are so prone to use just that type of argument to justify the various impositions which they are imposing on the long-suffering people of this country, but I do not think they should be allowed to get away with it.
Hon. Members opposite did not like it when the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) pointed out that they had no mandate for this, but that is perfectly true. Let hon. Members opposite speculate as to what their electoral fortunes would have been if there had been displayed at the General Election the statement, "Vote Labour and abolish domestic heating during the summer months; own the coal industry and have less warmth in your homes than you have ever had in history." If hon. Members had had the honesty to do it, let them speculate how many of them would then have been here, and let us discuss the Order, not as the hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe seemed to, as a kind of political tit-for-tat, but on the basis that it is a savage blow at the comfort of a great many homes and can only be justified if its necessity is abundantly and manifestly proved.
It is perfectly true that some of my hon. Friends have urged the right hon. Gentleman the Minister to make another public appeal. I think that appeal would fail. It would fail for the reason that such an appeal requires to be made by a Minister of Fuel and Power in whom the public have confidence. The public have no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power—
Mr. Hobson: Again?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —and that is why his appeal in the earlier part of the year,

2219
to which the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) referred in one of his numerous interventions, failed. I would therefore add as an addendum to the suggestion from this side of the House of a voluntary appeal that a necessary condition of that appeal is that it should be made by a Minister of Fuel and Power whom the public believe to have some tenderness for the consumer and not to be wholly interested in keeping in with the National Union of Mineworkers.
The right hon. Gentleman has decided to bolster up his failure to provide adequate fuel with the sanctions of the criminal law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] From that interruption, hon. Members opposite do not appear to understand that this Order does invoke the sanctions of the criminal courts. Any person who, without the Minister's licence, uses space heating during the summer months, commits a criminal offence for which, under the Defence Regulations, he can be sent to prison for three months. Therefore I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is doing that. How does he propose to enforce this Order? Is he suggesting a wholesale search of private houses to see whether somebody has turned on the gas, because, unless he is prepared to do that, he must know perfectly well that this Order is unenforceable. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterly Jones) referred quite rightly to a number of people who would be deaf to appeals. It is no use using compulsion against those people unless one can enforce it, because just as they would be deaf to appeals, so they would be deaf to any threat of the criminal law, unless it was manifestly clear that that law could be enforced. Therefore, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Parliamentary Secretary who he is putting up to reply for him, how it is proposed to enforce this Order. Is it seriously intended to be an enforceable Order, or is it just one of the right hon. Gentleman's aberrations?
I want to ask another question. As I understand it, Section i of the Order prohibits space heating and nothing else. Supposing an electric or a gas fire is used, both to dry the "nappies," to which the hon. Member for Hitchin referred, and, incidentally, to warm the room, is it an offence committed against this Order, or is it not? The people are entitled to be
2220
told whether, when they have decided to use this apparatus to dry clothes or for any other purpose, and, incidentally, to warm the room, they are committing an offence against the Order or not. If they are not, I suggest that this is what will happen. Hon. Members who before the war used to take refreshment late in the evening, particularly, I imagine Liberal Members, will recollect that, in order to obtain that refreshment, it was necessary to take the statutory sandwich. I foresee that under this Order the statutory "nappy" will take the place of the statutory sandwich, and that, provided one "nappy" is displayed in the Parliamentary Secretary's drawing room, he will be able to heat that no doubt elegant salon to the greatest possible extent.
Mr. John Paton: Would he have to supply a statutory baby also?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question is one which should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary; it is he who has to hold that particular baby. I am asking what the Government Order means. Whether the "nappy" is sufficient, or whether one would have to have the baby with it, is a matter for the Government to say. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) for adding that characteristically charming question to the, perhaps, not so charming question which I desire to put to the Parliamentary Secretary.
There is another matter of which the right hon. Gentleman has already had notice, because I raised it with him when he made his statement last week. It is the case of households where there are young children. The hon. Member for Hitchin referred to it, but I should like to refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory. On 24th April, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the following question:
"In framing the Order, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a relaxation of the ban on domestic space heating in the homes where there are very small children—say, under two years of age?"
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"I have had that in mind and I think such cases might come within the category of the relaxation which is to be based on the production of a medical certificate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 1257.]
I am not clear what that answer means. Toes it mean that. in every case where

2221
there are young children, it is necessary to obtain a medical certificate in order to demonstrate what must be known to everybody, that very young children require to be kept warm? Does it mean that every mother in the country has to go to the doctor to collect a medical certificate? That is what the right hon. Gentleman's answer appears to mean. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to elucidate that part of the Order. Will there be a general dispensation in the case of small children under any specified age, or will it be necessary, in every case, solemnly to go round to a doctor and obtain a medical certificate?
There is another question to which I would like an answer.. Many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, some hon. Members opposite, have raised the question of the effect of this Order on the health of the community. Has the Ministry of Health been consulted as to the expected effect of this restriction on the health of this nation during the summer? If it has, may the House be told what the answer was? If it has not, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he does not consider that this is a matter in which the Ministry of Health may well have a compelling interest?
Mr. Hobson: No.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Dundee who, apparently, regards himself as a greater expert on matters medical than the Minister of Health—indeed he may well be right—says "No." I am entitled to say that the effect upon the health of the community of the sudden cessation, for the first time in our history, of certain forms of heating during the summer months, is a matter which would entitle hon. Members of this House, in their duty to their constituents, to endeavour to ascertain whether the responsible department, so far as health is concerned, had been consulted, and what its opinion was. Therefore, obliged as I am to the hon. Member for Dundee for his expert—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I was advised that he was the hon. Member for Dundee; if he is not, I apologise to Dundee. He is the hon. Member who could, perhaps, be sufficiently identified as the one who has made a number of interventions this afternoon. I understand that he is the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson). Notwithstanding that, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to
2222
tell the House the answer to that question, which I think he has sufficiently apprehended.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer. Hon. Members on the Government Front bench were very indignant the other day at the suggestion that this would not be a country which would be very attractive to tourists this summer. They indicated that the Government put a great deal of value on the tourist trade. Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered what the effect of English hotels being extremely cold places this summer will be upon that tourist trade, particularly upon the American tourist trade? If it is necessary, and I have an open mind on this point, to stop heating hotels, surely it would be advisable to warn would-be tourists that they are coming to a very cold and uncomfortable country, and had better prepare for it. [Interruption.] To let people come here this summer without due warning, will inevitably have the consequence that they will never come again. For hon. Members opposite to become so very indignant at that observation of mine seems to reveal a strange state of mind.
The Parliamentary Secretary, as I apprehend it, knows well that when he goes to the Box he has to justify what is yet another blow at the long suffering housewife of this country. The hon. Lady the Member for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), I am glad to say, made it clear what a blow to the housewife this Order would be. I am very glad she did so, because some hon. Members opposite always seem to regard the championing of the housewife as a Tory plot of considerable ingenuity, whereas the hon. Lady nailed that lie tolerably effectively. The Parliamentary Secretary has to justify what is only the latest, and probably not the last, of a succession of blows which this Government have struck at the homes of this country. I do not know whether they can justify it, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary realises that it is up to him to try.
6.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): We have listened to a series of characteristically irresponsible speeches from quite a number of hon. Members on the opposite benches.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Including the hon. Gentleman's own supporters.
Mr. Gaitskell: Some of those speeches came from hon. Members whom normally I should have regarded as being very responsible in their attitude, and some came from those from whom I do not expect responsible opinions at all. The basic assumption, of course, on which this discussion proceeds, and on which this Order is framed, is that it is necessary to impose some restriction on the use of gas and electricity in domestic premises this summer, and that, so far as possible, general fuel economy measures should be carried a stage further in non-residential premises. I am not quite clear whether the Opposition really accept those premises or not. I appreciate their difficulty, on the grounds of Order, in making their position clear, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), speaking in this House on 26th February, appeared to accept the first of these premises. I do not think the second one has been challenged by anybody. He said on that occasion:
"There seems to be no reason to doubt that unless definite steps are taken by the Government, domestic consumption of those kinds of fuel"—
he was referring to gas and electricity—

"will continue to extend, to the detriment of supplies for industrial and other essential purposes.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 2098.]
There we agree. We think that is the essential background to this Debate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) gave us what, I think, was described by Mr. Speaker as sketching in the background of the position. He did it from his own particular background—a very sketchy one indeed. He told us, in effect, that if he were Minister of Fuel and Power he would say to the miners, "Come on, boys, just produce some more. Bring it up to 235 million tons"—I think that was the figure he used—"and, by the way, I am afraid you will have to give up your house coal as well." Some reference has been made in the Debate to the correct psychological approach. All I can say is that I think it is a very good thing that the right hon. Gentleman is not dictating our psychological approach to the miners.
2224
I propose, first of all, very briefly to remind the House of what this Order does, then to answer a number of detailed questions and points which have been raised, and finally, to argue the main case for the Order. This Order, first of all, abolishes certain restrictions which are now in force. It abolishes restrictions on the use of electricity during certain periods which have proved tiresome, though they were necessary at the time when they were imposed. I say at once that although those restrictions were necessary at the time, and fulfilled a very useful purpose, they are, in my opinion, quite unsuitable as a long period measure of restriction. Secondly, the Order also abolishes the simple central heating bans. It abolishes them because they are, for the most part, replaced by the general ban on non-residential premises in the Order. Having abolished those restrictions, it imposes what I think even opponents of the Order will agree is a very simple form of restriction. On the one hand, the use of gas and electricity in domestic or residential premises is prohibited during the Summer months, with certain exceptions. On the other hand, the use of any fuel in non-residential premises is prohibited also throughout the summer months and, indeed, for one month longer, again with certain exceptions.
I have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman, quite fairly, whether the electricity industry, who we consulted, were in favour of the first of these restrictions? No, Sir. They were opposed, they always have been, to any form of statutory restriction, but I think I am entitled to say that one does not usually find in those particular circles any great enthusiasm for cutting down the demand for electricity. [Interruption.] I say I do not think one usually finds there any particular enthusiasm. I do not think there is anything derogatory about that. It is very natural that people who, for years and years, have been concerned with pressing the sale of electricity, should not be very enthusiastic. However, the right hon. Gentleman asked me the question and I have given him the answer. We take the responsibility, for reasons which I will give in a moment, for making this ban statutory.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, really, the statement is, I think, grossly unfair.

2225
I do not know whether he was present or has seen the record of the conversations, but is it not a fact that the industry said that if a purely voluntary scheme, which they recommended, were adopted, they would do everything in their power to secure compliance, and that they thought by a voluntary scheme they would actually get the saving which will not be obtained by this Order?
Mr. Gaitskell: They were most bitterly opposed to various other suggestions which were made. I need not go into details about them now. There is nothing particularly confidential about them. They embodied other forms of rationing, and those whom we consulted were against any form of statutory control. As I have said, they always have been. They were in favour of voluntary methods. I am not saying for one moment that they were not prepared to operate a voluntary scheme, but I am saying they were always opposed to statutory restrictions of this kind. They were in 1942, as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt remembers. In case there is any misunderstanding, let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting they are refusing to cooperate in a voluntary campaign; certainly not. We have had every possible help from them in this connection.
Commander Galbraith: Was not the point this, that they did not consider these measures could be made effective? Is not that the reason they were against them?
Mr. Gaitskell: Not particularly. There were various reasons why they were against them. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked me some questions about what saving we thought we would achieve. We think we shall achieve a saving of 2,500,000 tons from these domestic restrictions, including the voluntary 25 per cent. cut. We think we shall also achieve perhaps another million tons of saving from the restrictions imposed on industry. I think the right hon. and learned Member was in favour of industrial restrictions. These figures are, of course, inevitably, very broad estimates; they cannot be more than that. Here, I think I may be able to anticipate the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We cannot say—and I will not attempt even a guess—how much saving would
2226
come from the ban on the use of gas and electricity for space heating alone. It is simply impossible. I would prefer to leave it there. It would be dishonest to say any more.
Mr. C. Davies: What does the Parliamentary Secretary estimate the night shift heating will cost?
Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice. I do not think, myself, that it is likely to be heavy. As the Order stands at the moment it is, of course, restricted to certain months—May, September and October. I am afraid I have not the figures with me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked me a question about North Wales, and I should like to make the position clear. In the Order as it stands certain statutory undertakers are mentioned in the First Schedule. They are mentioned because their electricity is generated wholly by water power, and they are not linked with the grid. Therefore, there can be no possible advantage in saying that the consumers of that particular type of electricity should be cut down. That is the point. Also in the Order, the non-statutory undertakers, who generate by means other than coal or oil—that is to say, again chiefly by water power, or in some cases by wind—are exempted. They are exempted because they also are not connected with the grid. But in the case of North Wales, which is connected with the grid and does not, I think, obtain all its electricity from water power in any case—the essential point is that it is connected with the grid—that is included in the Order. The right hon. and learned Member also asked about Northern Ireland. That is essentially a domestic matter. It is one of those things which Northern Ireland does for itself. In the past it has always cooperated very well in matters of this kind, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will in this also.
References were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) to the allocation of solid fuel. I could not, I think, go into that matter in detail without getting very much out of Order. I should like, if I may, to say just this in answer to my hon. Friend. The position is, that if there is a strong case on grounds of need, because of dampness—the particular case which I think my hon. Friend mentioned—it is, of course,

2227
within the discretion of the local fuel over-seer to grant an extra allocation. That is the present system. I cannot at this stage and on this occasion go into details about why we think this is the only workable system. I think I should probably have the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) with me on that. I ask my hon. Friend, if he would be so kind, to read the speech I made in the last Debate on fuel, at the beginning of April, when I dealt somewhat extensively with the subject.
Mr. Yates: What I am concerned about are the vast numbers of people who are not only not getting the maximum ration, but are not getting a reasonable ration. What guarantee can we give to them to make this Order more workable?
Mr. Gaitskell: Again, I cannot enter into all these points now. We can distribute only the amount of coal that is there; that is to say, the amount of coal that can be spared for domestic consumption. We can only ensure that it is fairly distributed. Within those limits I am prepared to discuss the figures, and perhaps my hon. Friend would have a further word with me about it. The hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) asked me a number of questions. Let me deal, first, with a relatively minor one. She asked about central heating by gas. If she looks at the Order—I think she referred to the Explanatory Note at the end—she will see that the change there relates purely to residential premises. Offices, of course, are covered by the general ban on all forms of space heating. I think that clears the position there. Perhaps I might explain at the same time—because some hon. Members may have been puzzled about the Explanatory Note—what precisely has happened. Under the old central heating ban all non-industrial and non-residential premises plus residential premises with more than 10 rooms were covered. Now we have made a new classification. In effect, we have said that, on the one hand, there are residential premises, which are covered by Article 1, and, on the other, there are non-residential premises which are covered by Article 3. What that means, in effect, is, that hotels and boarding houses which were previously covered by the central heating ban are now simply covered by the gas and electricity restrictions. It is
2228
some years since that original ban was introduced, and we think that now the control over the allocation of coke and coal supplies for these premises is quite sufficient to prevent wasteful heating of that kind in those premises.
I now turn to a number of what I might call pleas of various kinds for various classes of persons, of all ages. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) in his, if I may say so, admirable and most intelligent speech, seemed to me to have exactly the right perspective about the whole matter. [Interruption.] It was a very intelligent speech. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here he would have learned a lot from it. The part which entertained the House most was the reference to the babies' nappies. I am happy to say that while I, myself, am slightly past the stage in which he finds himself, I still have a great deal of sympathy with what he has to say. I freely admit that the problem of, on the one hand, drying clothes for young children, and, on the other, of providing heating for very young children is a serious one. We are in consultation with the various organisations concerned on points of this kind. We have, of course, power in the Order to license exceptional cases. I want to say only this in addition. We shall consider these points, and the others which have been referred to in the Debate—many useful points were made by hon. Members who have been back to their constituencies—we shall take them into account, and discuss the matter with the organisations concerned and with other Departments, and if we think it is possible, we shall make exceptions. But I do not want to mislead the House into thinking that we can make wholesale exceptions, or that we can always tackle these problems in any very simple manner. Indeed, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) indicated some of the kinds of difficulty against which one might run in trying to make exceptions for drying nappies. However, we will look into the matter and do our best to meet the really bad cases, in which one can reasonably say there would otherwise be hardship.
Sir Harold Webbe: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us which organisations he pro-

2229
poses to consult in regard to the airing of babies' nappies? Surely, the only organisation is every mother in the land?
Mr. Gaitskell: There are a number of organisations which represent women in this country. I do not know whether the hon. Member was here when my right hon. Friend answered a question this afternoon. If he looks up the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see a list of the organisations which can be consulted. Those are the organisations with which we are in touch. If he is really interested, I am sure he will find it all there.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will enter into consultation, and so on. But does he appreciate the urgency of this matter? This Order comes into force on Monday, and will make it a criminal offence to use heating, for example, for young children from Monday onwards. Can he give some indication that action will be taken over the weekend?
Mr. Gaitskell: I have said we are already in consultation with those organisations. I can assure the hon. Member that we do appreciate the urgency of this particular matter.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: There is one further point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have listened to pretty well every speech in this Debate. If, as a result of this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman is going to consult the organisations—
Mr. Shinwell: We are doing it already.
Mr. Lindsay: This is only to emphasise it. What will he do about the Order? Apparently, there is very strong feeling on it throughout the House. Will he amend the Order?
Mr. Gaitskell: There is adequate provision for licensing.
Mr. Lindsay: I know.
Mr. Gaitskell: In this way exceptions could be arranged. There is not the slightest difficulty about it.
May I turn to the major issues raised in the Debate? I think the two chief criticisms put forward by hon. Members have been, first, that the Order is unfair, and, secondly, that it is unenforceable. I intend to deal with both of these points.
2230
I claim at once that it is not more unfair than having no Order of this kind at all. Far too many hon. Members Opposite approach this whole problem from the point of view of electricity and gas consumers only; but the fact is that at the moment the system of fuel distribution and allocation is unfair because there is no control over the domestic consumption of gas and electricity. That is the point. So far, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery pointed out also, we have cut down the consumer of solid fuel. But all the time people with all-electric houses, with electric cookers, electric fires, electric water heaters—or people with gas appliances of the same kind—could use as much gas or electricity as they liked, until, of course, this last winter. All the time they have been completely free of restrictions.
I am bound to say that I cannot see that that is in the least fair. If we have to choose between asking domestic consumers of solid fuel to cut down still further and making those who consume gas and electricity make a contribution, surely it is the latter we must ask for it. In my own constituency, repeatedly, people have come up to me and said, "Why do you not do something to restrict the extravagant use of electricity?" They have come up and said, "We know that so-and-so has an electric fire on practically all day." We think that that is unfair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Snoopers."] Not official snoopers, but very naturally indignant neighbours. It is also a fact—and the House must take note of it—that, according to the last estimates we have had, the increase in the consumption of electricity by domestic consumers in 1940 over 1945 was a third—33⅓ per cent. increase. Practically the whole of the total increase, it is now evident, was on account of domestic consumption. [HON. MEMBERS: "The fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."] If that is the case, I do suggest that it is no great hardship to ask them to reduce consumption.
Mr. Harold Roberts: Was that not due to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made purchase of electrical outfits easier?
Mr. Gaitskell: No, I do not ascribe it to that at all. I ascribe it to the fact

2231
that the people of this country have had full employment and more money, and have taken the opportunity to buy electric fires and use them. The fact is that complete fairness in this field is practicable only, if at all, with a full scale rationing system. We have abandoned any idea of a scheme of that kind—at any rate, for the moment—for reasons which my right hon. Friend gave in great detail in the last Debate on fuel. I do not think I need go into them here. They are absolutely familiar to the House, and, by and large, accepted by the House. We know we cannot have a system of rationing of that kind without enormous administrative cost; and even then, as I say, it is very doubtful whether it would be fair or not.
Let me turn to the second major issue, enforcement. Of course, we agree that this Order is obviously not fully enforceable in the sense that everybody infringing it can be caught or will be caught. That is clearly out of the question. As the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who touched on this matter, knows perfectly well, we have not power to force an entry into private houses, and we do not intend to take that power. We have powers in the case of the business and commercial premises, and, sparingly and with discretion, they may have to be used. But in the case of the domestic premises we have no powers, and we shall not seek such powers. In my opinion, however, the fact that it is difficult to enforce does not mean that it is, therefore, of no value. I think, first, it is far better that people should know precisely where they stand in this matter. Of course, we can get search warrants, if necessary; information can be obtained, or may be forthcoming. We can deal with really flagrant cases.
I do ask hon. Members to believe that there is a lot of indignation in the country about people who are using electricity and gas extravagantly, and we must, in the last resort, be able to deal with them. I have even heard of cases of persons, not being friendly to the present Government, even deliberately, going to great expense to turn on electric fires. [Laughter.] I am glad to hear hon. Members laugh in their incredulity. I am bound to say it is a fact that I have heard cases of that kind reported to me. I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree that even they would not support actions of that kind. I believe that the general public

2232
understand the need for this Order. They know perfectly well that something must be done to restrict the consumption of gas and electricity. They know well—better than some of the hon. Members opposite who spoke today—that we still face, unquestionably, a very grave fuel situation. [HON. MEMBERS; "Hear, hear."]
Mr. R. S. Hudson: Production is not enough.
Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend will deal very adequately with the question of production in the next Debate. I should be out of Order were I to go into it now. But the fact is that we must ask for some restriction, and, in my opinion, it would be very wrong of the Government to abandon all attempt to restrict consumption of gas and electricity by domestic consumers. I also think it would be grossly unfair—more unfair, far more unfair—than the present Order. I have given reasons why we cannot go further than this. We cannot go in for a full scale rationing system. But this Order is simple, and that is a tremendous merit. I ask hon. Members to appreciate that. It is perfectly clear and simple and intelligible; and we must remember, incidentally, when we are considering whether we can let up here and there, that we cannot abandon essential simplicity, otherwise the whole thing will become confused and lose a great deal of its value.
I quite agree that this Order itself, as well as the 25 per cent. cut, is bound to depend, to a very large extent, on voluntary support and co-operation. I believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is quite wrong in his psychological approach to this matter. We have had purely voluntary appeals. My right hon. Friend has been criticised for going on making nothing but voluntary appeals. The time has come when we must stiffen those voluntary appeals by some statutory regulation. We think this is the easiest to understand. We believe it is not likely to cause hardship, except, as I have said, in a very limited number of cases. It will cause some discomfort—of course it will; but there is bound to be some discomfort if we are to get the necessary economy. In my opinion the country is prepared to stand for that, and I believe it prefers a definite move of this kind, rather than the

2233
irresponsible, ostrich like, attitude which the Opposition are adopting, and on those grounds I ask the House to support the Order.
Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison rose—
Hon. Members: Divide.
Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I want to ask a question arising out of an answer given earlier today. Can the hon. Gentleman state the reasons why he is applying this Order to Scotland without any modification? What is the meteorological evidence for doing that? The Minister did say that this was a point which would be dealt with during the Debate.
Mr. Gaitskell: I apologise. I know that the hon. Lady also asked me about that. We will consider it, but I must point out that the central heating ban has hitherto been applied from 8th May—and this is only applied from 5th May—until 30th October, throughout the whole country, but there have been relaxations earlier in Scotland and in England. There may be, equally, under this Order. I will not say more.
Question put,
"That the Control of Fuel (Restriction of Heating) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 765), dated 25th April, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 28th April, be annulled."
The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 227.

Division No. 180.]

AYES.

[6.40 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Aitken, Hon. Max

Houghton, S. G.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Amory, D. Heathcote

Head, Brig. A. H,

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Pickthorn, K.

Beechman, N. A.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Bennett, Sir P.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Boothby, R.

Hollis, M. C.

Prescott, Stanley

Bower, N.

Howard, Hon. A

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Raikes, H. V.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Renton, D.

Butler, Rt. Hon- R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Jennings, R.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Byers, Frank

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Challen, C

Keeling, E. H.

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Langford-Holt, J.

Scott, Lord W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Crowder, Capt. John E.

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

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Linstead, H. N.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lipson, D. L.

Spence, H. R.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Sutcliffe, H.

Eccles, D. M.

MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

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

Erroll, F. J.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Teeling, William

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Fox, Sir G.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

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

Gage, C.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Touche, G. C.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Vane, W. M. F.

Gammans, L. D.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Walker-Smith, D.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

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

Maude, J. C.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Medlicott, F.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Glyn, Sir R.

Mellor, Sir J.

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Grant, Lady

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gridley, Sir A.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Winterton, At. Hon. Earl.

Grimston, R. V.

Morrison Maj. J. C. (Salisbury)

York, C.

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)

Hare, Han, J. H. (Woodbridge)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Harris, H. Wilson

Nicholson, G.

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Allighan, Garry

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Alpass, J. H.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Attewell, H. C.

Barstow, P. G.

Battley, J. R.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Pryde, D. J.

Berry, H.

Hale, Leslie

Randall, H. E.

Bing, G. H. C.

Hardy, E. A.

Ranger, J.

Binns, J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Rankin, J.

Blackburn, A. R.

Herbison, Miss M.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Blenkinsop, A

Hewitson, Captain M.

Richards, R.

Blyton, W. R.

Hicks, G.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Boardman, H.

Hobson, C. R.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Bottomley, A. G.

Holman, P.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Royle, C.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

House, G.

Scollan, T.

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

Hoy, J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hubbard, T.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

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

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Brown, George (Belper)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Simmons, C. J.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Irving, W. J.

Skinnard, F. W.

Buchanan, G.

Jay, D. P. T.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Burden, T. W.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

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

Burke, W. A.

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

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

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

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Callaghan, James

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Sorensen, R. W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Key, C. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

King, E. M.

Stamford, W.

Cocks, F. S.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Steele, T.

Collindridge, F.

Kirkwood, D.

Stephen, C.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Lang, C.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Cook, T. F.

Lavers, S.

Summerskill, Dr, Edith

Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Swingler, S.

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

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Sylvester, C. O.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Cove, W. G.

McAdam, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Crawley, A.

McAllister, G.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Crossman, R. H. S

McEntee, V. La T.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Daines, P.

McGhee, H. G.

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

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

McGovern, J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

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

McKinlay, A. S.

Thurtle, Ernest

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Tiffany, S.

Delargy, H. J.

McLeavy, F.

Timmons, J.

Diamond, J.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Titterington, M. F.

Dobbie, W.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Tolley, L,

Donovan, T.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Marquand, H. A.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Marshall, F, (Brightside)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Mathers, G.

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Edelman, M.

Medland, H. M.

Viant, S. P.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Mellish, R. J.

Walker, G. H.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Mikardo, Ian

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

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Warbey, W. N.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mitchison, G. R.

Watson, W. M.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Monslow, W.

Weitzman, D.

Fairhurst, F.

Montague, F.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Farthing, W. J.

Moody, A. S.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Field, Capt. W. J.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

West, D. G.

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

Moyle, A.

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

Follick, M.

Murray, J- D.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Foot, M. M

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Wilkes, L.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

O'Brien, T.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Oldfield, W. H.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Williamson, T.

Gibbins, J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Willis, E.

Gilzean, A.

Parker, J.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Parkin, B. T.

Wyatt, W.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Yates, V. F.

Grenfell, D. R

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Grey, C. F.

Pearson, A.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Grierson, E.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Popplewell, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Mr. Hannan.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Pritt, D. N

FUEL SITUATION
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
6.50 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister of Fuel and Power,
2236
my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and I seem to be spending a good deal of our lives together these days. The Debate on the Adjournment, which now opens, enables us to review more widely the position of which the Order which has just been

2237
accepted is a symptom. That Order is one of the signs of the shortages which have become, and which, it is feared likely, will remain a governing feature of our daily lives. To deal with these shortages great powers have been put into the hands of Ministers, and the House is natually anxious to know what use the Ministers are making of them.
At Question time today the President of the Board of Trade indicated, so far as I understood him, that there is a prospect of a rather larger amount of fuel being forthcoming than has hitherto been estimated. That being so, we should like to have tonight a revised version of the coal budget. What is the coal budget now? On 2nd April, the Minister of Fuel said he hoped that after October we should be producing coal at the rate of more than four million tons a week. By a simple sum, that four million tons a week equals 208 million tons a year. If we knock off four million tons for holiday week, the holiday with pay, and another four million tons for what one might call the inevitable wastage of the year, we get a figure of 200 million tons. If we make the necessary deductions for dirt, miners' coal, and other things, it does not seem that we shall reach a figure of 200 million tons, even with the addition of, say, 12 million tons from open-cast mining. It is admitted that that 200 million tons will be insufficient. That has been admitted by both the Federation of British Industries and the T.U.C. and, therefore, we should like to know what provision the Minister can make, and on what he bases his new provision. Does he think that he will reach, and hold, four million tons a week, with 18 million tons to make up for the loss of Saturday mornings? Previously, according to the Minister's recent speech, the industry was working a disorganised five-day week, and the Minister hopes to turn it over to an organised five-day week. He went so far as to say that he had not been able to tell the House the facts of the situation in relation to previous years, but that the industry had really been working a tacit five-day week, and that it was on that account that production was so low as it was. He said that it was hoped to improve this position by recognising these facts, and working an official five-day week instead of an unofficial five-day week
2238
If that is so, there should now be no reduction of tonnage on account of the five-day week, but even an improvement. The figures we have seen per man shift indicate that that improvement would need to be of a very striking character to bring about an additional output of about 4 million tons on this basis, which is what I reckon will be required to implement the President of the Board of Trade's statement of today. We need not only to reach war figures but to surpass prewar figures. This seems a strong assumption to make. The Minister says, "I disclaim the power of accurate forecasting. I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet." That betrays a proper modesty on his part, but we must press him a little on this point. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), a former Minister of Fuel and Power, will confirm that in his day the coal budget had to be very accurately laid before the War Cabinet during the war, and indeed before my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), whose motto in all these things was "Hard on the tops"—Dur au grands. As he himself has said, the memoranda which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford wrote to his colleagues during the war were sufficient to make any of them his enemies for life. He never spared any of his colleagues who was not exact in his figures, or who did not hold to his figures later. He was a man who had small patience with excuses, even successful excuses. Today, the Minister of Fuel and Power must give more exact figures of what he hopes the out-turn of the coal year will be.
There is one encouraging feature which has shown itself lately, namely the increased movement of men into the mines. The Government have made a great effort in this matter, and have now accepted the position that a greater labour force in the mines is desirable, as against its previous estimates that it would be possible to carry out the work with the existing labour force. We must congratulate the Government on the success of their efforts in this direction, but, of course, recruitment alone is not sufficient. Not only must men be trained above ground for work, but also below ground, so that they will be capable of taking their place at the coal face as skilled men. Allowance has not always been made for

2239
that seriously limiting factor. A considerable effort, the recruitment of 30,000 adult men, has been made. But a great proportion of that labour force is "green labour," with which the mines previously did not have to deal. Mining is such a traditional, indeed, almost hereditary, occupation that normal recruitment for the industry has been from boys. Now, 30,000 men, all adults, and a considerable proportion of them "green labour," are coming in.
I wonder whether the Minister could make a further statement about the success of the training scheme. This question was raised in the last coal Debate, on 2nd April, but it was not then very exhaustively explored. We are informed by those closely acquainted with the matter, that for work underground during the training period before up-grading there must be supervisors at the rate of one to one. If we take a normal sized pit, producing 600,000 to 700,000 tons, with 300 men at the coal face—to up-grade something like 20 men per month—that means 60 men in training, which means 60 skilled miners supervising them. Clearly, in those circumstances, any attempt to have a greater throughput of new men in that pit might lead to actual diminution of output through the withdrawal of a larger number of skilled men to work as supervisors alongside that "green labour," where they could not produce anything like the same output as when they were working by themselves. Is that not so? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am asking for information. These things touch the lives of everyone of us. We must all, even non-technicians, take an interest in these matters of recruitment and training.
Mr. Murray: I understood that the right hon. and gallant Member had received the information from people closely associated with the industry.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I certainly did so but I do not deny that my information may be inaccurate. I am speaking as a layman, and we must rely upon the technical people to instruct us. It is on this question of 30,000 recruits that the great proportion of our expansion of output depends. Now that the affairs of the coal industry are likely to touch each individual household as closely as they touched them in the year just gone through, it will
2240
be necessary not only for those technically skilled but for those not technically skilled to discuss and put questions on the matter, because until the whole House understands it, it is impossible for those who are unskilled to do justice to these questions. I therefore ask the Minister, is the recruitment being absorbed and digested at a satisfactory rate, and would it be possible for it to be absorbed and digested more satisfactorily, if it were fed rather widely over a larger numbers of pits? My information is—I do not know whether it is completely accurate—that the present training schemes do not take into account all that has been learned since the training schemes began; and that other training schemes which have previously been in force have led to a more rapid or, at any rate, a smoother absorption of the labour?
For all that, for one reason or another the allocation of fuel is admittedly short for all classes of consumers. It is short for the domestic consumer and terribly short for the industrial consumer; and it is likely to lead to a considerable amount of under-employment from the fact that there is not enough raw material to employ the whole of the labour force of this country. That is to say that the bottleneck will not be one of manpower but a bottleneck of raw materials. The statement of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon on the allocation of solid fuel, was therefore of very great importance. He said, as far as I understand it, that they were about to make an allocation to industry which should be at a level equal to the consumption during the summer of last year, less a "clawback" for building up stocks which were to reach three weeks supply by the winter. The "clawback" was of three weeks out of 20 weeks or even of two weeks allowing that the factories are still one week in hand—and that is a very optimistic assumption in the case of some factories which have been scraping the bottom of the bunkers to get fuel enough to carry on with—means a 10 to 15 per cent. cut for this summer.
I should like to know from the Minister if I am correct in that estimation. A 10 per cent. cut over last summer, still more a 15 per cent. cut over last summer, means a substantial reduction in at least one of the key materials for British industry, namely, steel. We were all interested to read the observation of the chairman of the Iron and Steel Board when reviewing the first six months of

2241
the Board's work which was printed in ''The Times" of 29th April. He said there that the production of steel last year reached about 12,750,000 tons. If you make a cut of 10 per cent. that brings it down to 11,500,000 tons, and a 15 per cent. cut brings it down to about 10,750,000 tons. The estimate which he gave of the needs of industry was a demand for 15 million ingot tons; and he said that he was confident that British steel production this year would have exceeded 13 million tons, the raw material being available.
It is not necessary to do more than mention what we all know, that these shortages are reflecting themselves in industry in a hundred ways. One of the big Sunderland shipyard owners has just said that if the present rate of steel supplies continued, his yards would be cut to the extent of about half their normal capacity. His allocation for the first quarter of this year was 7,000 tons and for the second quarter only 3,900 tons. This would mean only about five ships a year instead of nine or 10, and his shipyard employing 3,500 men would have to pay off or put on half time about half that labour.
We have all had this morning protests from the cycle firms about the low allocations, and the result on the cycle industry of the low allocation of materials which has been made to them. The statement of the President of the Board of Trade will, no doubt, go some way to relieving this. We should like to know how much, and secondly from where does he draw the supplies from which he is to make these new allocations. He said that the situation had shown improvement since the statement he made during the Debate on the economic situation on 10th March. How much improvement? What is the figure of tonnage which he expects, and what diminution in the amount allotted to the build up of reserves? It would seem to me that it would require a figure of something like 4,500,000 new tons to enable him to do this. That is a lot under present conditions. From whence does he draw that 4,500,000? Does he draw it from a hopeful sense of increased output, or from the other aspect of his statement, which I was a little alarmed to hear, that owing to the fact that supplies at the level of the previous Cripps Plan, if I may so call it, would cause a great industrial dislocation, the Government had decided to take a risk.
2242
We want to be very sure when we are taking a risk that we are not running into another situation such as we have experienced with such bitterness this winter. The Cripps two-thirds plan is, no doubt, a hardship to industry, but anything is better than a three-thirds cut. We are therefore most anxious to find out from the Minister what is the revised coal budget with reference to the statement made today by the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with the fact that if we are to have a shut-down at all, it would obviously be better to have it in the middle of the winter rather than in the middle of the summer? If we have to take a risk, it is a good thing to take it in the summer.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would rather like to hear that from the Minister. I should have thought, if we were to have a shut-down, that a shut-down in the winter is not less injurious than a shutdown in the summer. I take it that the Minister approves the estimate of the President of the Board of Trade and that he is not gambling with the trade of this country. That would be a very serious gamble indeed. He is saying, I trust, in effect, "I am taking a risk which is what might be called a legitimate risk"; it is what the Minister of Fuel and Power said on another occasion, a risk with all things being equal and everything proceeding smoothly. We cannot see unforeseeable things, but I take it that the President of the Board of Trade at least is not saying, "If I am going to have a shut-down I would rather have it in mid-winter than in mid-summer."
Sir Arthur Salter: I think that the budget question is even more serious than has been indicated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I think that he mentioned a saving of 4,500,000 tons. Actual production up to the end of April has been 64 or 65 million tons and the President of the Board of Trade expects that in the next six months it will be 89 million tons. If the production in November and December is the same as hitherto we will find that we are more than 10 million tons short of the target of 200 million tons.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What I was saying was simply this, that the President of the Board of Trade had increased his draft upon our coal output by 4½ million tons. The other coal budget given still remains. I was asking the Minister of Fuel and Power how he would balance his budget before this new draft and then in particular how he would balance this extra draft of 4½ million which seems to be envisaged. It is also interesting to note that the whole of this extra 4½ million has gone to industry. Complaint was made tonight—and it was justifiable complaint—from all sides of the House about the hardship to domestic consumers in the saving of 2½ million tons on the previous coal budget. Now this windfall of 4½ million tons has come along. The whole of it is to be given to industry and no portion of it is to be allotted to relieving the position of the domestic consumer.
The position of all consumers in this country is admittedly very acute. The only hope is in greater supplies. On that various factors are moveable. The numbers are moveable by recruitment; production is moveable by incentives; and then there is the third moveable factor which was touched on—and which it is only fair to touch on again—the miners' coal. On that it may be said that these are small figures and that these are allotments which none of us would wish to diminish. However, in these days even small savings are very necessary indeed. The small saving of 250,000 tons, which is to be saved by the cutting down of the railway services, is to be adhered to even although it is a small saving. The amount of miners' coal last year was running at 93,000 tons a week. This year the figures so far are: January, 108,000 tons; February, 100,000 tons; March, 113,000 tons. It is steady at two or three times that of the other domestic consumers. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. T. J. Brooks) in an earlier Debate said that not 40 per cent. of the miners are getting the coal and that thousands of them have sold it back to the companies. If it is possible in some cases to do so, is it not possible in other cases also? No one suggests that the miners should be deprived of the coal. That is, after all, part of their wages, but it is not only part of their wages; it is a material of which the country stands in terrible need. Would it be possible for a greater proportion of
2244
that coal to be purchased or re-purchased from the miners? It seems to be an avenue which ought to be explored.
When that argument on miners' coal was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) it was discounted by one hon. Member on the other side of the House who suggested that it should be applied to the case of agricultural workers. But the agricultural worker gets only 630 calories extra on account of his employment, which allocation is also given to other heavy workers. The man producing the food, the man on whom everything rests, gets a 25 per cent. allocation over and above the rank and file of the domestic consumers in this contry. If it were suggested by anyone that they should get twice as much food or three times as much, then I think it would be said by everybody that that was a position which certainly ought to be explored and which could not be allowed to stand even if the workers concerned sold a good deal of the food back. Everybody would say in a time when food was desperately short that efforts should be made to secure as much return into the general pool as was possible. I do not say that with any hostility to the miners but I do think that it is a line which ought to be investigated.
Mr. Murray: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) would probably be interested to know that what he is advocating in regard to the miners has been in operation in Durham for a long time, and that the miners along with their employers have done exactly as he has suggested.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was merely quoting the hon. Member for Rothwell.
Mr. Murray: That is Yorkshire.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I know, but he said that in 40 per cent. of the cases the miners were not getting the coal, which means that 60 per cent. of the cases were still ripe for exploration. I am merely speaking as a layman in this matter, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman would contend that it was sold back in all cases. Is that the contention that he is making?
Mr. Murray: This is rather involved. The reference which was made by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Brooks) was in regard to one house when there

2245
were, say, four miners working. There would be the coal of four miners but the coal of only one was needed for that home. The coal of the other three would be sold back to the owners, and that was what my hon. Friend was referring to when he spoke of the thousands who are not getting their coal although it is part of their wages.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may be, but even that one household is drawing coal at a rate very much larger than any domestic householder in this country is drawing it. Of course the wet and dirty nature of the miners' work makes it absolutely essential that in many cases they should have extra coal. I am not denying that. I am trying to give an objective examination of this problem. But there are many cases amounting to perhaps 50 per cent. of the labour force where the pit-head baths deal with that problem. Hon. Members should recollect also that there are many other people with wet and dirty occupations. The agricultural workers are one class, and the people who are shepherding on the hills just now are in a dirty, wet, and extremely exposed occupation. The only extra there is for them is a 25 per cent. allowance over and above the normal rations. There is no extra fuel.
I think the Minister should let us know whether this question of the miners' coal can be further explored. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power, replying to our earlier Debate, waived this aside rather airily as one tends to do at the end of a Debate when a Division is coming on. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport had said, in effect, to the miners, "Come on, boys, let us all produce more coal though we cannot give you as much house coal as you got before." He said that that would be a poor psychological approach to the miners and that we would not get anything that way. But that is exactly what my right hon. Friend did in the case of the agricultural industry. He said, "Come on, boys, produce 50 or 60 per cent. more than before." He also had nothing in his hand in the way of extra rations to give them. But it worked. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot waive it aside like that because, after all, the appeal made to the industry of agriculture is one which could also be made to the miners.
Mr. Tiffany: Is it not a fact that in that particular case it was the subsidy to the farmers which worked?
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is telescoping the business a good deal. Does he really think that in any industry it is possible to produce goods without the workers?
Mr. Tiffany: Certainly not.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It was the workers who achieved the extra production and they did it on a wage which, even after the improvement following the subsidy, was not any greater than that now being paid to the coalminers. I hope that the hon. Member is satisfied.
Mr. Tiffany: I shall have my chance later on.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The difficulty in which we are placed just now is that by some means or other an increase of production or, at present, a diminution in consumption, has to be obtained. In today's Debate we have been concentrating very closely on the decrease in consumption, but again I would say that by the Order which we have passed this afternoon—which is now the law of the land and which everybody will have to try to the utmost to observe—we have not rid ourselves of the necessity for fuel. After all, to say that one atom of carbon unites with two of oxygen producing carbon di-oxide with release of heat is equally true of the carbo-hydrates as of the hydrocarbons. It does not matter whether the energy is generated outside the body in a fire or inside the body burning up food. In fact the hon. Lady the junior Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put it with much more force than I could in recommending the Electricity Bill to the House, when she said that the Bill presented
"… possibilities … of a sound basis for going forward with the electrification of the home, the setting free of vast resources of women power in this country, and the saving of human energy and prevention of ill health …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th February, 1947: Vol. 432, c. 1634.]
These are all the things which the Minister asks the housewives of the country to diminish by 25 per cent. in the Order which has just been put on the Statute Book. But that does not mean that we can get along without those things. As has been said by the hon. Member for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), they

2247
will still have to be done, but by hand instead of by horse-power, as will the other things about which the hon. Lady the junior Member for Blackburn spoke. She said:
"Electricity can be made to do a great many more things in the home than it has been allowed to do. Not only can it heat water and the rooms—"
that was on 4th February, but of course we have changed all that—
"but it can wash dashes and launder the clothes, peel the potatoes, clean the silver and do the hundred and one odd jobs which are the unavoidable necessity of female life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1631.]
Well, it can do 25 per cent. less of these things than it could do yesterday before the Order was made the law of the land. And in this the Minister is raiding a larder which has already been raided by his colleague the Minister of Food. After all, the food consumption of this country has already been reduced. The Minister of Food's own dietary figures show that the average intake in December, 1945, was 2,390 calories, and the average intake in December, 1946, 2,300, a cut of between 4 and 5 per cent. On this cut of internal energy is falling this additional reduction of outside energy—the strict rationing of the coal and coke, and the removal of space heating, that is to say, the body warming by means of a fire. All this, let it be noted, falls on a calory consumption which is already below what is given as normal for a householder in this country. The normal calory consumption is estimated at 2,550; in December, 1945, it was already down to 2,390, as I have said, and last December it had fallen still further to 2,330. On top of that falls this additional cut in domestic power which the Minister has put forward and defended today.
The Minister is fighting a campaign and he is entitled to support in so doing, but at present he is losing the campaign. He must expect criticism not only in this House but outside, in common with generals in other campaigns losing the battles to which they were sent. The present position is undoubtedly a gloomy one. A recent article in the American magazine "Life" drew a picture of Britain of almost unrelieved gloom, but it ended by saying, "You never can tell; these English are the damnedest people." They are, but they are working under great handicaps just now. They are worthy of
2248
leadership and, I think, more leadership than they are now getting. Until they get it we have to say and go on saying to the Minister, "It is not enough."
7.28 p.m.
Mr. Henry White: The impression we have gained from hon. Members opposite is that we cannot expect from them the inspiration for the mining industry which it is obtaining from the Minister at the present time. What do we get from hon. Members opposite? The appeal that we should inspire the mining industry to produce more coal. But right away the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) complains in an oblique manner about the way the miners receive household coal under their system, and suggests that the amount per person in the coal mining industry has increased. The responsibility for that is not ours. It lies with those people who have governed this industry over many years, and for this reason. The average age level of those employed in the industry is that of those who received the coal, and the number of young boys who have entered the industry has not been sufficient to increase the ratio to that of the higher age level of those who receive this coal and who are the largest age group in the industry. Furthermore, it is suggested that the miner should forfeit his coal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) suggested that this was a thing that should be investigated. In all honesty I think it is a thing that could be investigated, but those responsible would certainly not have an easy passage if the demand were made that the miner should forfeit his coal allowance and be reduced to the level of the ordinary household ration in this country.
I would remind hon. Members opposite that we have had some experience of arrangements whereby miners should forfeit their allowance. I remember that, in both the wars, when there were suggestions made that the allowance should be forfeited, the miners asked that some recognition should be given to them for handing back the coal. What did they find? Those who sat on wages and arbitration boards in our county, and those who were on the opposite side of the table when the owners were approached on many occasions to make

2249
some allowance for the coal our men were prepared to forfeit, will remember that in some cases companies were prepared to pay for the coal, but in other cases they refused. This happened, too, in the county of Derby. The companies calculated that over the years the miners on an average had received nine tons per year—they were due for 12 tons—but because they received only nine tons before there was any recognition, the men had to have only eight tons. The owners would not shift from that position.
It is regrettable that on occasions such as these, when there is a shortage of fuel, we should have these things thrown back at us by those who ought to be facing up to the position. I resent the inferred allegations contained in some of the things which are being said. We have had Questions from Members opposite regarding slag in coal, the inference being that the miner is responsible. He is not responsible, but the people who are in charge of cleansing operations.
Sir A. Salter: Is it quite fair to say that when we ask Questions or call attention to the proportion of dirt in coal we are seeking to criticise the miner? Is it not that we are anxious to know to what extent the calorific value of coal is less than in the past?
Mr. White: There may be people with a really honest approach to these matters, but these Questions, in conjunction with the statements that are made, have an oblique reference to the miners. This week a Member, who is not present, writing in the local Press in my area, referred to the fact that the secretary of the Miners' Union was holding the country up for ransom, and stated that no good would be done until he was removed. I would point out that the miners have duly elected that individual by a democratic ballot, and that he is a good man for the job. He will look after the interests of the miners and of the country to a greater extent than some Members opposite are prepared to do. I suggest that these statements are doing no good to the mining industry. It must be remembered that bitterness and suspicion has been embodied in our very soul; but these things are gradually being removed, and there is growing up within the industry a new atmosphere and a better feeling. It must be remembered that any suggestion that the five-day week should
2250
be put off for the time being only creates suspicion in the minds of the mining community, and if that is done we shall not get the production of coal as the days go by.
It is upsetting that these references should be made when there is such need for recruitment. It is regrettable that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities should show his lack of knowledge on how the position works in regard to trainees. If he had known the industry, he would have realised that supervision and training are two separate things. It takes one man to look after one trainee, and it is not until a man has been trained up to a certain point that he reaches the coalface.
I want to tell the Minister some of the things the mining community are talking about in regard to the National Coal Board and the nationalisation of the industry. There is a feeling that too many people who were investigation officers under the Ministry of Fuel and Power have been transferred to other posts in the new set up and they ought not to be there. I should like the Minister to examine that to see whether it is so or not. Another small point—and it is a very small point—is the reclamation of coal from the waste tips. I think it would give as much output per man as in the case of an ordinary pit. I do not know whether the House is aware of it or not, but up and down the country there are collieries where it is done, and if it were made universal—wherever it is possible and safe, and I make that reservation because there are certain places that are not safe—it would help, if only in small measure, to make up the shortage of coal. Would it not perhaps be possible to engage some of those people whom the industry cannot take on at the present time on the reclamation of coal from the tips? I know of at least two collieries where it is done, and if two men could average something like three tons each per day, spread over the country it would be worth while.
There is one other matter before I sit clown, and that is to urge upon the Minister the earnest desire of those who have suffered some disability, and may have been refused employment, to get back into the industry. Those of us who have worked in the industry almost all our lives are aware that many people suffer certain disabilities or small injuries, as a result

2251
of which they are eventually refused employment because they have in some degree received compensation. Some of them could be put on to jobs which would release others for coal face work. I urge the Minister to look at these two small points. I trust that he will refute any suggestion which may be made in any quarter that the shortening of the miners' working week should be postponed. That would have the effect of making the mining community of this country suspicious.
7.43 p.m.
Mr. Spearman: We discussed in an earlier Debate today the hardships that will fall upon the domestic consumer, and I sympathise very much with them, particularly with the older ones who find it more difficult to keep warm, and those who live in the North of England, where we pay for our healthier and more bracing air with a colder climate.
Mr. Scollan: What about Scotland?
Mr. Spearman: I am including Scotland. I suggest that these obvious and immediate inconveniences are as nothing to the hardships that this nation will suffer unless we can increase production so as to buy those vital raw materials and foods which we cannot produce ourselves. At the present time I do not believe that ordinary men in the street realise quite how serious the situation is, because after all most of them have at least as much money in their pocket, as they had before the war and are able to buy about as much. I do not think they realise that that is because we have at the moment a million slaves working for us, as it were; that is what we get from the American loan. Roughly speaking, I think we are spending abroad round about £1,500 million, and we are producing exports to the value of about £900 or £1,000 million. The gap is being filled by the loan from America, which will not last much more than, say, a year or 18 months. Quite suddenly, therefore, we shall find ourselves in a most drastically different position, when it will not be a question of inconvenience, but almost or quite of starvation. May I quote what was written six months ago by the former head of the Cabinet Economic Secretariat, who
2252
seemed to have grasped the calamity of the situation to a degree to which the Government unfortunately did not:
"The coal shortage dominates everything. There has been no threat to our economic position comparable to this danger since the worst days of the U-Boats. If we do not surmount it, we shall assuredly run into a colossal disaster."
The Government have talked about a target of 200 million tons, and the T.U.C. have said that it ought to be revised to 220 million tons. I am suggesting that that has unintentionally misled people into thinking, with some complacency, that we shall get at any rate about 200 million tons, which will be uncomfortable but not disastrous. I do not pretend to be an expert on coal production, but I have seen and heard no evidence to assure me that we shall very much exceed 180 million tons; we shall have disaster if that is to be the production, unless far more vigorous steps are taken; there will be an enormous falling-off in the amount of steel produced, and if we have inadequate steel, inadequate power and a shortage of coal there is no hope of expanding production, and without that we shall not be able to buy what we need to live.
The hon. Member for West Derby (Mi. C. White) commented, as hon. Members on that side sometimes do, on abuses in the mines in the past. That is as may be, but may I press this point upon them: after all, we here are not historians; our job is the present and the future. The Government have a very bad record in this respect. I am quite sure that when they came into office it was made very clear to them how desperately grave the coal situation was; and I want to ask what steps were taken to recruit for the mines. I give all credit for what has been done in the last few months, but why was it not done 18 months ago? What steps were taken to reduce consumption at that time? I believe that if even a year ago 100,000 workers had been brought in from abroad the situation might have been saved. That would have been a difficult decision to take from the point of view of the Government, but having failed to take it, if last September they had taken steps to allocate coal, to cut down supplies and to maintain stocks, the position would now have been less serious—though again that would have been very unpopular.

2253
I would like to stress the difference between their activities and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) when he was in charge during the war. Every sort of step was taken then to maintain stocks at 12 million tons; but I believe that last September the Government were so confident of an increase, in production in January that they overlooked the fact that no increase in production then would make possible proper distribution unless there were adequate stocks in October. I would like to suggest that coal should be bought from America. I have just been in the States and I am very impressed at how strongly they feel, in their own enlightened self-interest, that the economy of this country must be preserved—whatever they may have thought in the past. They feel that they do depend upon the preservation of Europe, and that we are the pivot of that. I believe they would go very far out of their way if it were made sufficiently clear to them how vital it was to our very existence. Just in order to preserve our comforts, I do not think that they are prepared to sacrifice their own coal, and we cannot ask them to cut off supplies to Europe, which is already suffering very much through our own failure to supply them. A very small percentage of coal consumed in America imported into this country would make all the difference to us. The Americans must be shown how vital the coal was, not so much for the saving of our comforts but for the saving of our economy; then, I believe, they would be ready to make sacrifices. I would make the concrete suggestion that the President of the Board of Trade, who is perhaps more acceptable in the United States than are some of his colleagues should go over there and put over, with all the force he can, how desperately we need coal for the preservation of our economy. Many pilgrimages have gone to America on subjects of less importance than this.
I would ask, secondly, that there should be a concentration of all the available coal to industries where the smallest amount of coal will produce the greatest amount of essential production for export or for consumption here. The Government have got us into such a mess that they have now to be ruthless. They have to give up all idea of being kind and fair. They have to concentrate all the coal there is, and it is much too little, where
2254
it will produce the most result. Is there any evidence that there is a planning mechanism which can scientifically weigh up the alternatives and can assess where coal will produce the most results, and which can plan between different Government Departments. We all know that every Government Department tries to get what it wants for itself, that the Department which shouts most loudly gets the most. We want a planning mechanism that will deal with that situation. We are suffering from a hit-or-miss policy. I imagine that the Government have had so many misses lately that they think that on the law of averages they must get a hit soon.
I have tried to put forward four points: That the situation is far more grave now than the country realises; that the worst service the Government can do us is to be complacent; that the Government should, at all costs, go out to find a supply of coal from abroad; and that they should concentrate the coal we have where it will produce the most results.
I read somewhere that during the time when Pitt was Prime Minister news was received in this House of a very great victory. His bitter enemy, Charles James Fox, got up and said that the victory conferred so much advantage to the nation that it was worth having, even at the price of improving the prestige of the Prime Minister. I would suggest that the converse is true today. The failure to plan conditions under which production can expand mean such suffering to our people that, even though it brings the collapse of the Socialist Government, that is a price that we cannot afford to pay.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Sylvester: In claiming the indulgence of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would tell hon. Members that as recently as February of this year I had been working underground for more than 35 years. I am probably the only representative of a mining constituency who has worked underground since the mines came into the ownership of the nation. Many observations have been made upon the subject of the shortage of manpower. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) said that we could not go back into the past. I entirely agree with him, but, nevertheless, we have long and bitter memories, and a long time will be taken

2255
to wipe them out. They are memories of the mismanagement of the mines, and of the promises past Governments made to us from the end of the 1914–18 war. Only with the advent of the present Labour Government did we who were then working in the mines fully realise that at last a Government was in power which would implement some of the promises which had been made to the miners of this country. One right hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned that recruits were now coming into the mines daily and said he was pleased that it was so. We are all pleased about it, but those recruits did not start to come into the mines until after January of this year. The recruits feel, especially the older men who had left the mine and have now returned, that there is now no longer that fear of unemployment which existed before and, worse than that, the victimisation which had been carried on for many years. Not until the mines became the property of the nation to be run by the National Coal Board did the older men decide to return to the mines.
Another subject to which reference has been made is the deterioration of machinery. It can truthfully be said that very little has been done to the machinery in the mines during the last 10 years. Before coming into this House I was a member of a pit production committee. We used to come out of the pit at about two o'clock, get a bath and then sit as a pit production committee until half-past four or five. Often we had a report that there had been a breakdown and that the men had to come out as there were no tubs. When we asked the deputy or the responsible official for the reason, we were often told that the engine had broken down. He would go so far as to say that the engine was done for and needed to be replaced. This kind of incident was not only typical of one pit but of many. During Question time an hon. Member referred to dirt in the coal. The same conditions apply there. I question whether many collieries have washing machinery. In the area where I live we have no washery plant in operation. These facts are illustrative of how the industry has been run.
Irrespective of what critics of the Minister of Fuel and Power may say about him, I am sure the miners are satisfied that at last someone is in charge of the Department who will give the miners a
2256
square deal. They are satisfied that the Minister will not go back on his word. As was said by one of my hon. Friends, it would have been one of the worst things that could have happened if we had gone away from the promise of the five-day week. I feel that, probably, in the first week or two after its introduction, there may be a slight reduction in output, but when the industry gets settled down to the five-day week, I am nearly confident that we shall get greater output. It will be possible in the weekends to do necessary repairs which it is not possible to do at present. With six shifts of work, it has not been possible to get repairs done. Conditions vary in every pit in every district. When one talks about mining, one is not talking about an industry such as bricklaying, where in the building of a house in London or Yorkshire similar things apply. In mining, conditions vary in every county, in every area, and even in every pit, from one side to the other. We have got to be cognisant of these things.
I want to make one or two helpful criticisms and suggestions. I suggest that the Minister makes an immediate survey with the idea of modernising methods of production. I suggest that because, even in 1947, I know of pits of three feet six seams where the method of production is throwing coal hack eight yards until there is a, heap, and then putting it into a tub. Every time a man fills a ton of coal, he has to handle two tons. Did ever anyone know of anything so ridiculous? It is a relic of the system that has been carried on for years, and it is a definite wastage of manpower. By modern mechanisation the collier's work would be lightened, and it would be possible to get two tons for every ton produced now. I suggest also that the Minister should ask the Department responsible to get an early priority for this machinery, and not leave it to some of the colliery managers to introduce these measures in a very leisurely fashion, as has been done in the past. If we can get modern improvements by the end of the autumn, we shall be on the high road, and we should be able to exceed the target of 200 million tons that has been set.
8.3 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I wish to offer to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Sylvester), on

2257
behalf of his colleagues and my colleagues, as well as myself, our warm congratulations on the very honest, sincere and well-informed speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member told us that he has lately transferred his services from the State to the people. I assure him that we are happy in that change, as we have him sitting on these Benches instead of enduring the many discomforts to which a miner's life is subjected. We hope to hear many more similarly well-informed speeches on a subject which he obviously knows so intimately. I would like also to refer to another speech of a similar character that was made by an hon. Member opposite, a speech that was very honest and well informed, and to say that any comment I may make will not be in criticism, because the first time I went down a pit I decided that I would give the miners anything that would make their lives happier, more contented, and sweeter. I hope the National Coal Board will succeed where the private owners failed.
A friend of mine told me the other day that he was offered 10 tons of coal out of a miner's allocation. I do not criticise the miner; he has every right to that coal, since, as one hon. Member has said, it is part of the miner's wages. The interesting thing is that my friend, who wanted to keep within the law, rang up the local fuel overseer and asked whether it would be all right, and the fuel overseer refused to permit the sale. If the coal is really part of the wages of a miner, why should the fuel overseer interfere with the disposition of the man's wages? I would like the Minister to answer that question.
I wish to deal not only with the ban that has been threatened by the Minister in the Order that we have recently discussed, but also with the under-production of coal which has led to the imposition of that ban, for obviously, if there were an adequate production of coal, no restrictions would be necessary. As to the ban, I find it very difficult to discover any arguments that have not already been used against this well-nigh inexplicable decision of the Minister. In studying the Order, I was reminded of two well-known and platitudinous proverbs. One was that those whom the gods intend to destroy, they first make mad. That is, obviously, the only explanation of this Order and
2258
the decision behind it. With regard to the other proverb, we are so often reminded of the last straw that breaks the camel's back that we cease to regard the straw as having any real significance. What I would like the Minister to understand—for I can only imagine that the Minister is solely responsible for this, as I cannot believe the Cabinet would be willing accessories to the well-nigh sadistic design that it discloses—is that this is certainly no lightweight straw that he is imposing, but an almost intolerable burden. One hon. Member after another has said that the burden will fall chiefly upon these wonderful women of ours. That is true, for it is not on the back of the camel, which is usually well covered, that it will fall, but on the worn, wasted, weary backs of the housewives.
Sometimes I think we do less than justice to these splendid women when we refer to them, though occasionally they are given a pompous pat on the back. Many hon. Members opposite, and many of my hon. Friends, were away from home so much during the war that they do not see what was obvious to others—the exacting, wearisome routine, day after day, of getting breakfast for the husband, getting breakfast for the children, getting the children to school, going out to do the shopping, with their heavy net bags and on tired feet, getting dinner in the middle of the day, and so on with the usual aching routine until the evening. The one comfort that these women had was that at the end of this devastating day they were able to come back to a warm home and to have a few minutes of warm relaxation before going to get a little bit of rest in bed. The war over, these people will be in the same old position, except that this time they will have this savage restriction imposed on their comfort, and will have nothing to look forward to at the end of the day—except, possibly, they have central heating—but the bitter cold, which is our usual summer in this country
Now I want to consider the reason which apparently justified the Minister imposing these restrictions. It has been stated, both by himself and by oher hon. Members, that he intends and expects to save 2,500,000 tons. That, of course, means five months of misery in the home, and six months of under-production in the factory.
Mr. John Lewis: The proposed saving of 2,500,000 tons is only in respect of domestic consumption, not industrial consumption.
Sir T. Moore: I accept the correction but when one sees the devastating effects of this Government, one is sometimes apt to make them even more devastating in one's argument, though I submit that my argument is effective enough without the reference to under-production in the factories. The figure has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, but in my analysis, this would represent just under four days' production of the estimated annual output of the mines of this country The Minister himself has said that the miners are doing magnificently. He also mentioned, or it was stated in the Press the other day, that new entrants to the industry are coming in at the rate of, approximately, 400 a week. If that is true why is there this difficulty of overcoming four days' production?
Then we are told that 9,000,000 tons of coal were exported last year. Admittedly, a. lot of that was bunker coal, and can be explained as such. Then, again, we are informed that we are now sending coal to Eire. That, of course, is probably in return for beef on the hoof. But I do not think that either of those excuses can possibly justify the infliction of the fantastic hardship which this year is going to be imposed on the people of this country. There is one question which the women of our country are specially asking. I have heard it asked half a dozen times a day during the past week. They ask, Why is it that before and during the war we had coal for export, coal for the factories producing goods for export, coal for gas, coal for our generating plants, and coal to burn, even recklessly, at times? Why is it that today we are in the position which has been described by so many hon. Members that we have none of any of these things? All I ask is, as I said a second ago, if the miners are doing so magnificently—and no doubt they are; I have many miner friends, and have a great respect for them—and if there are all these entrants trooping to the pits, how is it, when all our war factories have been transferred, or are in process of being transferred, to civilian use, we are in the position of being short of this commodity vital to our national economy?
Mr. J. Lewis: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman ever heard of the process known as "training"?
Sir T. Moore: I have. That is why I am wondering why the Minister has not accepted the help of the many trained Polish miners who are at our disposal, and who would be delighted to work in our mines.
Mr. J. Lewis: Haw many?
Sir T. Moore: That is for the Minister, and not for me to say. I am told that there are 30,000 or 40,000 of them.
There are two further points on which I should like to get an answer from the Minister. The first is, How is it that he can promise that there will be no snoopers to ensure that the law-abiding people observe his ban? If there are to be no snoopers, how is the Minister going to find out the law-breakers? The only solution to that question that I can find is that the officials of local authorities will be mobilised to examine the gas meters, and that they, in turn, will report to the Minister. They, of course, will be simply snoopers, and very undesirable snoopers, under another guise. Then, of course, I cannot understand why these honest, law-abiding people, who, at the 'Minister's own request, gave up their coal fires over a year ago and installed electric fires at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave a direct encouragement to that end by taking off the Purchase Tax, are now to be deprived of any heat whatever. It seems to me to be a very poor return for the genuine effort made by them to help the country, when, according to the Minister and other national spokesmen, the country was in grave danger.
I only wish to ask one more question. How can the Minister justify asking the housewife to make a voluntary cut of 25 per cent. in her consumption of last year? It simply means that the housekeeper who was genuinely endeavouring to assist the country by cutting down her consumption, is now to be penalised again, whereas the thriftless and the thoughtless are to be let off. The whole attitude of the Minister in this scheme, promoted by him and pronounced by him, sounds to me like "a tale told by an idiot." I would warn the Government that the country will not tolerate being governed by idiots for very much longer.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. McAllister: I was interested to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) thought that this story was "a tale told by an idiot." I can only assure him that his speech sounded to me like the rest of that quotation:
"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
In spite of that, I would like to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Sylvester) on his maiden speech. I wish, too, that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs had taken his cue from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who delivered a speech which was moderate, constructive and helpful. He said that the people in America were willing to help this country in its fuel difficulties because they believed in Great Britain, and because they believed, whatever they thought of our Government, that this country was a country worth saving. I would have thought that that would have been the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and of his hon. Friends. I would also have thought that it was the view of British and Scottish industrialists.
Sir T. Moore: The question, "Why cannot we import that one per cent. of our requirements," has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). That is why I did not refer to it.
Mr. McAllister: I do not want to go into the particular argument put forward by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby because that is for the Minister to answer and not for me. What I was trying to get at was the spirit in which the hon. Member for Scarborough put forward the suggestion. I thought it was put forward in the right spirit and in the right way. Industrialists might very well show the same attitude.
I have intervened in this Debate because a substantial group of Scottish industrialists are not showing any such similar attitude. Scottish iron and steel trade employers have issued an intimation that all Scottish steelworks will be closed down next week, and the reason they give for this lockout—because that is what it is, a lockout unprecedented in the whole history of the Scottish steel industry—is that the
2262
miners of Scotland are to enjoy two days' statutory holiday on Monday and-Tuesday of next week and that, consequently, fuel will not be available for the steel industry. But these statutory holidays apply not only to Scotland, but to England and Wales as well. Scotland represents one-eighth of the steel industry of the United Kingdom. If there were anything in the argument put forward by the Scottish steel owners, surely the other seven-eighths would be closing down as well? On the contrary, nothing of the sort. The English and Welsh steel works will be working all the time next week, but the Scottish steel works are to be closed down because this group of industrialists, who place their political interest before the interest of the whole nation, are trying to sabotage not only the Labour Government but the whole economic future of this country, and are attempting to strike a paralysing blow, for propaganda purposes, at the people of the United Kingdom.
Scotland, I think the Minister will agree, exports coal. We are probably the only coal exporting country in Europe today. We export coal to England and Wales. In spite of the fact that we produce more coal than we need for our own purposes, the Scottish steel owners have the audacity to say that there is not enough coal for them to carry on because the miners have, by statute, the right to two days' spring holiday. We have had a good deal of comment in the Press and, not unnaturally, chiefly in the Scottish Press, on the conduct of a group of Scottish dockers in the last few weeks. There have been suggestions that they have not been playing fair with the nation. I would be the last to deny that unofficial strikes and stoppages of any kind are not helpful to the national recovery at the present time. But these Scottish iron and steel owners are endeavouring to sabotage the nation on a scale which no section of the working class has ever threatened or contemplated putting into effect.
Mr. Martin Lindsay: What about the general strike? I am not saying whose fault it was, but what about it?
Mr. McAllister: I do not intend to pursue that matter, except to say that if the hon. Member can remember anything about the general strike, he will remember that it arose because this nation was not doing' its duty by the British miners. I am glad

2263
to see the Secretary of State for Scotland is in his place, because this affects the whole life of Scotland. It affects the future of the housing policy of Scotland and the shipping industry. There is not an industry in Scotland which will not feel repercussions as a result of this monstrous conduct on the part of the Scottish steel owners. I appeal to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to get in touch with the Minister of Supply, and immediately carry out a thoroughgoing investigation into the conduct of the Scottish steel industry. I want them to look into the coal stocks position, because I know that at this moment in the Lanarkshire steel works there are enormous stocks of coal, and there is not a vestige of justification or excuse for this threat to the life of Scotland and to the economic recovery of Great Britain.
8.26 p.m.
Major Lloyd George: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), except to comment very briefly on one or two things he said. I was surprised to hear him say that Scotland is a coal exporting country to Wales, among other places. I had an idea that we in Wales had done a great deal, especially during the war, to transfer out of the country what used to be an export trade, and send it into England in very large tonnages. The other point on which I want to comment is his reference to enormous stocks of coal in, some of the steel works in Lanark. If that is so, it points to an extraordinary piece of maldistribution of stocks, because the stocks in the country as a whole do not warrant any particular industry having enormous stocks. Steelworks do not carry large stocks anyway and, therefore, I assume that it must mean maldistribution of some sort.
Mr. McAllister: I hate to disturb any Celtic amity between Wales and Scotland, and I withdraw my remarks about the export of coal from Scotland to Wales. With regard to coal stocks, I cart assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in Lanarkshire there are at present 2,000 tons of coal, which represents a large enough margin to keep them going without any reference to the miners 'two days' holiday.
Major Lloyd George: I wondered what the hon. Gentleman meant by "enor-
2264
mous." If the stocks are enormous, it must mean maldistribution.
I do not propose to detain the House very long, because we have not a great deal of time. What I have to say will be said very briefly. This is one of many Debates we have had on coal, not unnaturally, in the last few months, and I want to express the hope that, as a result of this discussion tonight, we shall know where we are, because nobody can say that the average person in this country has a very clear picture of what the position is as regards coal. That is largely due to the contradictory statements which have been made, and actions which have been taken, from time to time, by Members of His Majesty's Government. They are still continuing. We were told by the Minister himself not so long ago, which was quite true, that the situation was a very grave one. With that we all agree. We then read and hear that output is improving. We see in the Press references to targets having been exceeded. One day a ban is imposed on central heating, and in a few days it is removed. It is not surprising, therefore, that the people of this country are in some doubt as to the actual position. We have heard from the President of the Board of Trade of an increased allocation to industry. Naturally, the sooner industry gets back to its full allocation the better. That statement was made before the end of the coal winter, before the time when stocks normally begin to accumulate, and before anybody knows what the effect of the five-day week will be. I suggest those three things which I have mentioned have a great bearing upon the coal position. We cannot possibly tell at this juncture how the stocking is going—not normally, at any rate. It is very difficult to say what will be the effect of the five-day week.
In the last Debate we had it was quite obvious from the estimate put forward by, I think, the President of the Board of Trade, that the Government did anticipate a certain drop in output. Obviously, it is impossible for the Minister to give any exact indication what the drop or the increase will be, because only actual experience will show. But it does seem to me to show a complete lack of appreciation of the position when, knowing none of those things to which I have referred, it is stated that the allocation to certain industries is to be increased.

2265
There is another aspect in regard to allocation which must not be lost sight of. The Parliamentary Secretary said they hoped to save 2½ million tons this summer from coal utilised in gas and electricity for domestic consumption. What calculation, if any, has been made as to the increased electricity consumed as a result of a greater allocation of coal to industry? We all know of cases where very considerable increases in electrical consumption took place with a very small increase in the allocation of coal. The 2½ million tons which is to be saved is, I think I am right in saying, the biggest item of the lot; the figure for the railways is half a million, and so on. That is to be taken from the domestic consumer. Let us look at how that is to be taken. As far as I can understand the Order, the saving is to be confined to space heating with gas and electricity.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Plus the 25 per cent. voluntary cut.
Major Lloyd George: Oh, yes. But the actual amount consumed in space heating in normal summer months is not a very heavy item in our consumption. Only fires are specified in the Order. Cooking, water heating and washing—all fairly substantial items—are not to be touched, and, obviously, could not be touched. We have an Order which many hon. Members have said is incapable, or at least extremely difficult, of enforcement. I think that is right. I am sorry that today the Parliamentary Secretary made a remark which, quite frankly, I think is a little unworthy of him, when he suggested that there were people opposed to this Government who were deliberately wasting fuel in order to upset the whole of the economic situation. There may he some of that type about, but I would put this to the Parliamentary Secretary. He made the statement that he had heard that. Why did not he take action and prosecute? Has the Waste of Fuel Order been repealed? I understand it is still an offence—it certainly was an offence—to waste fuel. Instead of making that statement here this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman would have been far better advised to take some action, which he is entitled to take, under Orders which are still in existence.
2266
Reference was also made to certain appliances. True, many people have electric fires and gas fires as opposed to those who use only solid fuel. But the Government themselves have encouraged that unfairness. Everybody knew, long before the war finished, that there was a shortage of generating plant for electricity, and that there was a shortage of generating plant for gas. Yet I believe something like four times the number of electrical appliances have been made since the end of the war. Why, therefore, should it be unfair? Surely, people who, thinking they were doing a service to the country by installing in their houses the most efficient of fuel burning appliances, are not to be criticised on that account? The most inefficient form of heating is the open fire. Housing estates are being put up today, in regard to which the more economical use of fuel appliances has been studied. The Ministry has set up committees to look into these things. Why, therefore, should it be regarded as unfair because somebody has had the intelligence to have a labour saving fuel appliance installed in his house? I doubt, myself, whether the saving of the domestic consumer will be anything approaching 2½ million tons.
What is the alternative, leaving out the question of production, on which I do not propose to touch this afternoon? One alternative, I suggest, is that the Minister should make the position clear. The position is not clear today to the ordinary domestic consumer. How many people are there in the country today amongst the domestic consumers who really believe that the Order issued in February is still in existence? After 7th February we had an Order which prohibited the use of electricity between 9 a.m. and 12 noon, and 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. How many domestic consumers still think that Order is still in operation? How can they be blamed when we get an Order saying that the ban on space heating is to be relaxed, having been banned before? I think the Minister owes 'it to the country to make perfectly clear to the domestic consumer, once more, the position with regard to fuel burning in his house, because he does not know it at the present time. Where is the publicity today? Where is the appeal to the domestic consumer? Where is it?
Mr. Hobson: On the hoardings.
Major Lloyd George: When we had a similar position, not as serious but at any rate as big a gap in production consumption in 1942, the B.B.C. was brought in—
Mr. Hobson: It is now.
Major Lloyd George: But nothing like to the same extent. I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe me—and I am not talking without knowledge of this matter—there are vast numbers of people in this country today who do not know what the position is with regard to cutting off and switching on. A tremendous campaign was waged in 1942; exhibitions were held; demonstrations were given to the housewife how to make less go a little further. Has that been dropped altogether? It certainly has not caught the public eye. There is another matter, which has not been mentioned by any speaker today. What about industrial economies? Tremendous economies could be made in industry today. During the war bodies known as fuel efficiency committees were set up in every region of this country: 650 highly skilled engineers volunteered their services, and formed themselves into panels. Under the instructions of experts from my Ministry at that time they visited 11,000 factories. Those 11,000 factories consumed, between them, 29 million tons of coal a year. Within a year of the new Ministry of Fuel being formed three million tons had been saved in those 11,000 factories. Of course, they had to be followed up. The Minister seems to find that amusing.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I find it very amusing.
Major Lloyd George: What is being done today?
Mr. Shinwell: I will tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Major Lloyd George: That is what the Minister is here for, and that is what I am here td ask. I see very little evidence of a campaign on the domestic side. I can read the papers as well as anybody else, and there is no real campaign for domestic economy going on in this country today. Half the people do not know what the Orders are. As far as industrial efficiency is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is in a far better position now than we were during the war; he can at least get the instruments to a greater
2268
extent, without which real efficiency is not possible. I ask the Minister this straight question: What has happened to the fuel efficiency committees that were set up during the war? What are they doing in the way of visiting factories and encouraging the better use of fuel? What are they doing now in the way of following that up? Visiting a factory is one thing, but it is even more important that those visits should be followed by others to see whether the advice given is carried out. Voluntary saving as a result of one campaign in 1942 resulted in a saving of ix million tons of fuel. That was entirely done by voluntary appeal—but it was done as if we meant it; and whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, there is no sign that I can see that they are really getting down to the campaign of trying to persuade people to do it voluntarily—although they have this Order, which, however, as everybody knows, cannot be enforced.
One word about miners' coal. A lot has been said about it already. The average amount of miners' coal today, including that sold back, is about seven tons per head—not per family, but seven tons per annum per head. There are 700,000 miners and that means 4,900,000 tons of coal. Has the Minister made, or does he intend to make, a further appeal on miners' coal? It is one that he could make perfectly well, because he is making severe demands on other sections of the community, and there is no reason why, at a time when there are fewer miners, they should be getting more coal than before the war. They are actually getting more coal than they did before the war.
I am not happy about the position at the present time. I am not happy about the announcement made today. I want the Government of this country to face the facts as they are now. The first priority for coal in this country today is stock building. To get the stocks up to the minimum, which the Minister has said is 15 million tons—and it is the minimum, believe me—we have to put about 10 million tons into stock this summer. That is a rate vastly in excess of anything this country has ever done before—vastly in excess: very nearly double.
I suggest to the Minister that it would be better for this country to stay as we were at the end of the crisis, everybody knowing where we are, despite the loss it

2269
would entail, than to take any risk of a repetition next winter of the same thing that we suffered this last winter. Despite all the difficulties, despite the loss, which would be grievous, I think it would be better to face the fact that we have not got the coal. I am not going into the reason for that; we have done it before and will do it again. But it would be better to face the fact that the coal is not there. We have cut our economy to suit that position. If stock building is the big thing for next winter, as I believe it to be, everything should be- concentrated on that. The result of that would be, I suggest, that when winter starts the industrialists of this country would not be living from week to week as they are now. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, as fuel goes up or down, so they get greater or lesser allocations. How anyone plans industry on that basis I have yet to learn. But they would, at least, have stocks at the beginning giving a reasonable margin of safety. Industrialists could then plan. In the long run it would be to the great advantage of this country. I do ask the Government, in conclusion, to do this: I beg of them to make up their mind what they are really going to do, and, having produced a plan, for heaven's sake, let them stick to it.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Timmons: I do not intend to deal with the saving side but with the production side of the problem. In response to the oration of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), and since he referred to the fuel deficiencies and the savings he tried to effect, I will tell him that the serious allegations that have been made about deliberate waste are true. I know of a big industrial concern which kept a fuel officer whose job it was to save fuel throughout the works. But when the fuel crisis came they dismissed the officer and, throughout every department, used coal indiscriminately. That is an example of the efforts of people to sabotage the fuel saving campaign and to embarrass the Minister. A stranger coming from another land into this place and listening to the attacks made on the Government about this fuel position would think it was something which had just arisen. But it has not. This is a heritage that has been handed on. It was only
2270
in January this year that the National Coal Board took over the industry. Before that, the Government had no power to reorganise the industry.
I want to put in a word for my own county of Lanarkshire, in which my right hon. Friend said sometime ago the coalfield was dying. But there are vast resources of coal in Lanarkshire—vast resources which are still to be extracted. I want to put this word to my right hon. Friend the Minister. There is coal lying under water which can easily be worked. Schemes for that can be prepared. I can produce a scheme for him. We have vast areas of coal which can be dewatered, and not at the cost of 2S. 6d. a ton. I can show him areas where it was contemplated to put down new pits. There are still ample opportunities for extracting coal in Lanarkshire. There is this point, most important of all—that Lanarkshire made a big contribution to the mining industry in the way of manpower. We find that since 1940 some 15,000 miners left the industry and went to other industries inside Lanarkshire alone. These men are between the ages of 35 and 45.
What is happening? When the recruiting campaign was set a-going I was rather interested in the appeal that was made to these men to go back to the industry. The Lanarkshire men were willing to go back to the industry. An employment exchange manager told me they have more men than they can place. That is the situation inside Lanarkshire, and it is still the biggest coal producing area in the whole of Scotland. We cannot uproot the miners in Lanarkshire to send them to Fife or the Lothians. Quite a number of the younger men who went to Fife or the Lothians to work had to come back because there is not housing accommodation for them there. In the long-term policy I think that the Regional Coal Board, the National Coal Board and the Minister ought to pay more serious attention to future developments inside Lanarkshire, not only to avoid losing manpower, but in order to make new sinkings.
There is another problem we have in Lanarkshire. I want to draw the Minister's attention to this. There are many small mines, particularly in my own Division. These small mines are not working to capacity. They are working under licence, but they are not

2271
conforming to the conditions that prevail in the industry. They are not developing to the extent of producing the amount of coal which they could produce. I know, in my own area, of a number of small mines which could develop and employ far more men than they do employ at present, but they simply refuse to do that. At the same time, I see men going and coming from employment exchanges who cannot get an opportunity of finding work in the mines. I ask the Minister if he will pay attention to this matter and ensure that these small mines which are working under licence conform to the conditions that prevail in the mining industry in the much larger pits.
Another question with which I am concerned is that of the five-day working week. As one who spent many years working a five-day week in the mining industry, I can say that there was a period when, in Scotland, every county had its own working week. Lanarkshire, however, maintained a five-day week, while Fife and Stirlingshire worked 11 days a fortnight, and Ayrshire 12 days a fortnight. During the whole of that period, wages and conditions were determined by the amount of production. The most remarkable thing was. that during that period, output per man-shift was much higher, and the aggregate far higher, for weekly production than in any other part of the coalfields. As one who knows the practical and technical difficulties and problems of mining, I say that I have no doubt that we shall lose nothing by the acceptance of the five-day week. What we get at the moment is a six-day disorganised week. Under the conditions imposed in the five-day week, the country is safeguarded to this extent—that we shall get an organised five-day working week in which we shall get full production throughout the whole week. I know that there are adjustments that can be made, and the miners Members in this House know that, by means of certain adjustments over a period of five days, it is possible to compensate for the loss of the Saturday. I have no doubt that the five-day working week will work out very satisfactorily.
We are told that there is a new spirit manifesting itself in the industry at the present time. I have said here in this House, during the last Debate we had on
2272
this subject, that I had faith in the miners, and I still have faith in the miners. Certain adjustments require to be made and these will be made as time goes on. We cannot expect the miners to produce a psychological change overnight. The time will come along when they will not allow anything to stand in the way of production. An hon. Member said to me tonight that the miners would never get the coal. He was offering me a £100 bet that the miners would never get the 200 million tons of coal this year. I offered to take him on, and then he wanted odds. Nevertheless, I am quite confident that the miners will get that 200 million tons of coal this year.
There is just one other point i want to make. I must refer to the position to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister). It concerns the development areas. New industries are being built up in these areas. They cannot start production, because they cannot get steel. The steel firms say that they cannot produce the steel because they cannot get coal. We cannot afford to carry 80,000 to 100,000 unemployed in Scotland because we are sending coal to England for her factories. I do not know to what extent our coal is being exported from Scotland to England but I want to say to the Government, and particularly to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that it must be stopped. We must ensure that we have the coal with which to build up a policy of full employment in Scotland.
8.56 p.m.
Major Peter Roberts: I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I wish to put a few points to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I want to refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who spoke of the difficulties we should have in future because of the lesser output of industry through the shortage of coal. There is an answer to this problem, a short-term answer, and it is that we should get coal from abroad. The Minister said, in our last Debate, that there was no hope of receiving direct supplies from Europe, that there were other claims in Europe no less pressing than our own. The impression he gave was that there are countries on the Continent who needed coal more than we did, and that we could not,

2273
therefore, enter the lists to try to get any coal for ourselves.
That is not the position, and I want to give the House a few figures produced by the European Coal Organisation, which will repay study. Poland has available an export surplus of 15 million tons of coal. Half of that goes to Europe, and the other half, which is not specified, probably goes to Russia, although I am not sure. At any rate, they have an exportable surplus of 15 million tons, and I should have thought that it was not impossible to get some of that to this country. We have had Polish coal before, and I am sure that we can get it again. France, at the moment, is recovering her coal position rapidly. She is only 12 million tons short of her 1935–38 average, whereas we are 52 million tons short. Czechoslovakia produced 14 million tons before the war, and is now producing 15 million tons. I say this to emphasise that there are countries in Europe which have surplus coal; and I hope that when the Minister himself returns to the Debate—he has not been here so much as he ought to have been—he will not say that he has not heard any constructive suggestions from this side.
I would like to put a few suggestions to him. First, let us take the figures of coal exported. We are now sending from the Ruhr to Berlin 1,500,000 tons of coal a year. Previously, Berlin got coal from what is now the Russian zone, particularly Silesia, and I can see no reason why the whole of this 1,500,000 tons should go across Germany to Berlin from the Ruhr. Marshal Stalin himself suggested, the other day, that we should consider the Ruhr as a place where we could get some coal for this country. Here is a good example of how we might take him at his word.
The second point is on the question of raising the efficiency of coal production in the Ruhr. Ruhr output in the British zone at present shows an efficiency of only 45 per cent. compared with prewar. The French zone not far away has already attained 61 per cent, of prewar. Cannot we somehow raise ours to what has been reached in the French zone? Cannot we use their experience? If wo could do that we should increase Ruhr output by 20 million tons by increasing from 45 per cent. to 61 per cent. Half could go to help Germany and the other half could
2274
come here. This would give us 10 million tons.
I now wish to turn to South Africa. I had the honour of calling on the High Commissioner for South Africa yesterday and he told me the position which in turn I wish to put clearly to the House. At the present moment there are collieries in South Africa which could increase their production by 10 per cent. if it were not for transport shortages. They could, if they had the transport, deliver to this country 2,500,000 tons of coal a year. What do they want for it? They want 1,000 wagons. The Board of Trade, I notice, exported last year 20,000 wagons. Is it impossible to get only 1,000 wagons to South Africa? In the last three months the Board of Trade exported 5,000 wagons to India. Is it impossible to make over one thousand of those wagons to South Africa to get 2,500,000 tons of coal? This would avoid the cuts we have been told of this afternoon. I would like to support the argument as regards America, which were made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Would it not be possible for the Minister to go or to send some responsible Minister to America. The amount of coal which America exports is something like 50 million tons a year. Could we not ask for 10 per cent. of that?
During, the war we made great sacrifices; would it not be possible to ask America, who sends her exports all over the world, to send some to this country? These are constructive proposals which the Minister should consider. If this sort of administration had been going on during the war, in say, 1940, I think we should have been in a very bad position. We have a great deal for which to thank the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George). He did not let this sort of position develop. I am glad to see that the Minister has returned, because I am now coming to this point, and I would much rather say it to him when he is here—I consider that if a managing director of a big concern had had charge of the administration of the coal industry of this country as the Minister has had, he would have been dismissed long ago. I honestly mean that. He has not seriously tried, for instance, with regard to South Africa to get this extra coal. With regard to the European Coal Organisation, he has not tried to find out if something could really be done.

2275
He could have called an extraordinary meeting, for instance. To sum up in figures the instances I have given, there are 20 million tons of coal available which could come to this country if the Minister got on with the job. However, I do not think he is capable of doing it. Is there no one on the Government benches who is capable of taking over this vital task and deal with the coal situation in a statesmanlike way, who can come forward and save this country from what otherwise will be disastrous ruin?
9.4 p.m.
Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I think that every Member of this House realises clearly the profound gravity of the situation we are debating today. The economy of our nation is poised on the brink of absolute calamity. When it comes to a question of sharing the blame for the situation I do not think that there is a single Member of any party who could find it in his heart to exult or rejoice at the present failures. The issue is far too serious. The economic White Paper that we had the other day told us that the 1947 industrial problem is fundamentally a problem of coal. I am afraid if we do not look out the industrial problem of 1948 will be the same. We started this Debate by talking about certain aspects of domestic summer consumption. Our housewives who have borne colossal burdens in the last seven years have to have a further burden laid on their shoulders and that is very tragic. We know our British summer and we know the restrictions proposed will involve further hardships particularly to the very old and the very young. I hope that the medical certificates provision will be sympathetically administered. I am glad anyway the solid fuel allowance is not to be reduced, and I hope that the Government will see that is fully honoured in the next 12 months and that domestic stocking up takes place in time. I trust also that the coal supplied will be of the combustible, hydro-carbon variety.
I received a heavy and interesting looking parcel the other day that, in a moment of unwarranted optimism, I thought was a delayed Christmas present. On opening it I was confronted with an enormous piece of rock and a letter from a constituent asking me to project it with the greatest possible velocity in the direction
2276
of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power. I declined this dangerous mission, but I did think of sending it to the former Minister of Food as a suitable non-combustible material for the repair of Himley Hall.
When we hear hon. Members opposite who have spent many years of honourable service in the mines speak on the subject we are debating today, we treat their speeches with great respect. Therefore, I certainly do not wish to contradict them unnecessarily, but I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Derby (Mr. H. White) did interpret wrongly certain remarks that were made by some of my hon. Friends earlier today on the miners' coal allowance and the dirt in coal. My hon. Friends certainly did not wish to shoot at the individual miners on either point but I think that the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) are so significant as to require some further investigation—since 1938 the number of miners down by 85,000, the miners' coal up by 5,000 tons a week, and domestic coal consumption down by 282,000 tons a week. I hope a further investigation will take place, but as far as this coal allowance is part of the wages it must, of course, be honoured and any voluntary surrender of coal must obviously be made good in money.
In the few brief remarks I intend to make I am going to deal mainly with the industrial aspect. Whether we are individually directly involved in industry or not we know that in the long run it is that aspect of the problem which affects us most deeply. The present output of British industry is alarmingly low and costs of production are steadily rising. What would happen if the present sellers' market came suddenly to an end one shudders to think. What is the reason for this low output? Obviously there are many factors, but I think that without any doubt the greatest is the irregularity in the supply of raw materials and components and, in particular, of this raw material which we are discussing today—coal. The two points I should like to make in that connection are these. First of all, every possible priority must be used to make sure that the basic industries are able to

2277
work at full production and do not go short—the iron and steel trade particularly, perhaps, because on its production all other industries obviously depend.
The second point is, I hope that those responsible for making allocations to other industries wil follow critically the implications of the quotas they give to ensure that the results are not in some cases nullified. As one hon. Member on the other side of the House pointed out the other day, industry is really a series of interdependent processes. Coal means steel, steel means machinery, machinery means textiles, textiles mean exports, and exports mean raw materials and food. One bottleneck half way up ruins the whole thing. I wonder whether the Government realise the appalling difficulties caused today to those responsible for managing industry by the contradictory and last minute allocations of coal which have been made during this last winter. Large works have not been able to plan their production for two or three days ahead. Modern industry cannot be run in circumstances like that. There is more and more a tendency to go for continuous and semi-continuous processes and they cannot be stopped without the most appalling waste. Industry is scraping along by using up odd stocks, but even with the greatest resource it will not be possible to keep the wheels going from now onwards unless regular and timely supplies of coal are received. No further cushions are left to absorb the shocks from sudden fuel cuts.
We must know what we are going to get. The information which the President of the Board of Trade gave us this afternoon in regard to the allocation of coal for industry for the summer months, as far as it goes, will be very welcome. I assume that the three weeks' stocks which industry has got to make up itself is part of the 15 million tons stock which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power referred to as a national target at the beginning of the winter. The officials who deal with these allocations are nearly always courteous and helpful, but I think their jobs have been sometimes made almost impossible by changes and contradictory instructions from above. It is as if two bowlers were bowling alternate balls from opposite ends. Sometimes we recognise the style of the President of the Board of Trade. He usually keeps a fair length with a loose one occasionally. Then
2278
the next one comes down from the Minister of Fuel and Power, whose style is a little erratic and impulsive. He puts down a fair proportion of long hops, full tosses, no balls and wides. When he is bowling nobody is safe, not even the umpire.
While I am talking about these coal allocations, I should like to put in a word for the small business man. It is not so easy for these small men. They have not the staff or the contacts to watch up their allocation and see that they get it. They merit the greatest possible consideration and help from those concerned As regards industry as a whole, in spite of the information we have been given recently I cannot see how the next 12 months are going to be got through without very considerable under-employment. It does seem to me that this is going to have most unpleasant effects on the 140 per cent. target which we have to secure by the end of the year. We have been told recently that there is a gap of about ten millions between summer production and consumption. I understand that seven or eight millions of this is going to fall on industry. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was hoped to save about one million of this by the Order we were discussing this afternoon. Can we be told how the remainder of the gap is going to be filled?
The core of the problem is really, of course, production of coal. Until we get substantially more than the 200 million tons mentioned in the White Paper, we are bound to have a continuation of underproduction and under-employment. There seems to be only two other possible ways of getting round the difficulty. One is to accelerate the conversion to oil programme and that may be difficult, and the other is to import coal. I urge the Government to let nothing stand in their way in getting coal from overseas. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is half-hearted about it. I think his flesh has been made to creep by the trades unions. He said he did not consider that it should be necessary to import foreign coal, but later he made a statement which was very guarded, when he said that "the Government were not unmindful of the possibility of other arrangements being made," and there were "new developments." I hope he will tell us now what they are. I ask him to pay attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member

2279
for Ecclesall (Major Roberts). I believe that the Americans in their present frame of mind will gladly help us over the next 12 months and send some supplies without reducing their deliveries to Europe. They know we have lots of coal under our ground and it will help them to help us if we can convince them that we are doing everything to help ourselves.
First and foremost our salvation depends on home production. How much are we going to get? We have been told that the recruiting figures are better, and this is excellent news, and long may it continue. But what about the Poles? How is their training getting on? Is it the case that whatever number of suitable Poles volunteer they will be taken on, or are only a limited number to be accepted? In our present predicament, I do not think increased numbers alone are going to help us quickly enough. There is even the danger that this good news may mask the increasing output per head. If only we could get that even to the 1941 output, how 'many of our difficulties would go. Is that going to happen, and if so, when? I hope the Minister will give us the "late final" estimates tonight of what the prospects are. Will the five-day week eliminate voluntary absenteeism and deliver the coal? The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he did not know. Perhaps he will be able to tell us something this evening; but if it does not, it will be a crushing disappointment to the nation, and will show conclusively that there is something wrong in the leadership of the mining industry. Mr. Lawther said recently that "recent events placed the British miner in the best position of any in the world." That is where the nation wants him to be. The miner has now got everything for which he asked—nationalisation, the Coal Board, the five-day week, more food and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness or in health until the next Election do them part. Let the nation see what the miners are going to do in the depth of their gratitude.
We now have nationalisation. I, personally, do not believe that nationalisation is an efficient way of running industry, but if it will give us the coal we want quickly, and of a decent quality and not at an excessive price, then good luck to it We have got the Coal Board, and
2280
already one hears of incipient ossification; which some of my hon. Friends foresaw when the Coal Nationalisation Bill was being discussed. One hears of bureaucratic methods, delays, preoccupation with details of administration and remoteness. If this is true, it is very disturbing. I only want to say this on the five-day week. That issue has been settled, and we must now await its result.
I have been down a coalmine only once. [Laughter.] Yes, and I regret that it is so. It was only for a few hours. When I came to the surface again, greatly to my relief, I did so with feelings of real respect for the work that was done below ground. If the five-day week is justifiable for any section of workers in our present precarious position it is justifiable for those who work underground, and I am sure that the nation will not grudge it to them, if the miners will give to the nation the coal that we need, before we lose any more of our industrial strength.
Hon. Members will have noted a rather significant passage printed in the stop press news of one of our evening papers today. It is a reported statement by Mr. Davies, president of the South Wales Miners' Federation. He is reported to have said:
"We are concerned that reconstruction and mechanisation of coal industry shall be tackled with speed and not in spirit of leisurely experiment. It is time to call on Premier to reorganise his Government so that correct policies may be carried through, and new, fresh forces, from ranks of Labour movement promoted to key positions of responsibility and trust."
"New, fresh forces." Knowing where power resides today we must hasten to offer our sincere condolences to the Ministers concerned.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) referred to the action of certain Scottish industrialists. I cannot honestly believe that men in that position would voluntarily close down their works for two days purely because of political pique.
Mr. Scollan: For a week, not two days.
Mr. Amory: It is a fantastic idea. One other thing we ask of the mining industry, to return at the earliest possible moment to its prewar standards of quality and choice of grades. Today we are getting much coal unsuited to the purpose for which it is required. Some of it is really frightful stuff. We do not hear much

2281
about the price of coal today, but looking forward a year or two, let us remember that the cumulative effect of the price of coal comes to a substantial element in manufacturing costs. And coal has to be sold in the markets of the world competitively. Today we are paying stiff prices for coal which is not of the average calorific quality which we were getting before the war.
The importance of exports should be stressed whenever we talk about coal in this House. It will be a disaster if the notion takes root that never again is this country going in for exports of coal. The Minister of Fuel and Power has said that a united effort is necessary to solve the fuel problem. I believe that he is right, but that kind of effort must be inspired. The right hon. Gentleman is in a position where the example which he sets is of the very first importance. The right hon. Gentleman has estimated production this summer at six million tons less than the figure of last year. That simply will not do. Industry is profoundly disturbed, not only about what it is to get this summer, but what it is to get next winter, because industry has to plan, whether the Government do it or not, at least six months ahead. Arc the Government at last going to apply foresight and forward planning, or are they going to hope again for the best and for a mild winter? It all comes down to a question of leadership.
"When the trumpet gives forth an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?"
The nation wants leadership in which it can feel confident. I feel that, too often, the kind of leadership we are getting is like the rapidly cooling exudation from the top of a moribund volcano caused by spasmodic eruptions and internal strains and stresses. The nation has given the miners what they wanted; it now asks the miners to give a fair return—enough coal to keep the wheels of industry going faster than ever before, enough to keep the houses of the people warm and dry, and to do the washing and cooking, and enough to provide exports to buy those vital imports that nothing except coal will buy today.
Have the Government courage to set such a task? Something more than 200 million tons is needed this year and a good deal more than that next year. If that is achieved, the nation will have its feet set firmly on the road to economic
2282
recovery; if not, then there lies ahead an endless vista of stoppages, dislocations, shortages, under-employment, and uneconomic working. These things will cause an indefinite postponement of the day when this nation once more pays its way, an indefinite postponement of the day when the shops are filled with things the people want to buy, and a progressive paralysis of our whole economy for which history will lay a large measure of the blame with the present Government. I trust that, this evening, the Minister of Fuel and Power will convince us that the Government are equal to this crisis which is of such desperate import for our future destiny.
9.28 p.m.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The House has listened with its usual courtesy to a most interesting essay, which bore the mark of careful preparation. Undoubtedly, the composition was impeccable, though I am bound to say that the content was infantile. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap."] It does not lie with hon. Members opposite to complain when they get a Roland for their Oliver. I gathered during the course of the Debate that I am cordially disliked by hon. Members opposite. They must not complain if there is a ready and willing response.
This Debate has, in one respect, been a curious one. It began with consideration of an Order designed to impose certain restrictions on the use of gas and electricity by various classes of consumers, and during the course of that Debate hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite referred to the subject of production, distribution, miners' coal, and so forth; but when they came to the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, we discovered that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to revert to the earlier Debate, and references have been made to the undesirability, to put it mildly, of promoting an Order which seeks to impose restrictions.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had made a very able reply to the Debate on the subject of domestic restrictions. Ordinarily, I would have said no more on the subject, but, in the circumstances arising out of the latter part of the Debate, I feel this must be said. None of us on these benches, certainly

2283
nobody in the Government, has the least liking for restrictions of any sort or kind. We are as concerned for the wellbeing of the housewives of this country as anybody on the Opposition benches, and we shall seek, as we have always done, to safeguard their interests. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have got a record in this matter. I should not be at all surprised if millions of housewives in this country recalled the many sordid episodes that occurred in the lifetime of Tory Governments. They will not forget.
If I do not present the argument as carefully and as concisely as the right hon. and intellectual. Gentleman opposite, it must be put down to lack of education. But, at any rate, there is no doubt about my reasoning. I repeat that we are as much concerned about the housewives of this country in the matter of domestic fuel restrictions as anybody on the other side. But we are equally concerned about the position of industry in this country. When the fuel crisis occurred, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite said that we should have exercised more foresight last year; we should not have wasted our substance, by which they meant that we ought not to have wasted coal. We ought to have saved it up, we ought to have resorted to more stocking. At whose expense? At the expense of consumers. As to industrial consumers, if we had resorted to stocking at the expense of consumption, it would inevitably have led to short time and excessive unemployment in the country.
Mr. Henry Strauss: As it did.
Mr. Shinwell: On the other hand, had we resorted to rationing last year, of the use of gas and electricity, there would have been violent and vehement complaints from the Opposition benches. At any rate, I understood that hon. Members opposite thought that rationing would not be a bad idea. It is very difficult to understand what they mean when they suggest that alternative measures, other than those which we have suggested, could be adopted. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) spoke about a voluntary appeal for more co-operation. We had innumerable appeals last year, and if I was criticised for one thing, it was on the ground that I resorted to appeals for voluntary co-operation.
2284

We do not mind being criticised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because we know them for what they are. At the Fuel Efficiency Conference on 8th October last year, I made an appeal for a 10 per cent. cut. Three weeks afterwards it was obvious that that appeal had failed. It was necessary then to consider the preparation of a scheme of rationing, and we did so. That has been discussed in the House, and it will be within the recollection of hon. Members. Now when, in order to assist in conserving fuel supplies, to enable industry to work at as high a pressure as possible, and to prevent short time and unemployment, we ask domestic consumers and non-industrial consumers to suffer some inconvenience so that industry shall continue, we are told by hon. Members opposite that we ought to have sought alternative measures. The fact of the matter is—and we had better understand it—nothing that this Government will do, whether it is right or wrong, will 'ever satisfy the Opposition. As for the silly, futile, vapid and infantile attacks which are launched against me from time to time from these remarkable geniuses on the Opposition benches, including the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) who, in his pontifical speech this evening, indicated that all was well when he was at the Ministry of Fuel and Power and everything went wrong when he left it, if it was not that I know right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because of my lengthy experience in this House, I would probably take them at their word and be a little worried about what they have said. As it is, I am amused and nothing more. If it comes to a war of words, I can assure them that I will be willing to accept their challenge at any moment.
What does it boil down to? It boils down to production. Of course, it does. Who has repeated that more often than myself? I have said it all over the country. I dislike restrictions. I detest prohibitions in the use of this, that or the other commodity—of course I do. So do others on these benches. Indeed, so do we all. But, in the circumstances, it is inevitable. I hope it will be temporary in its duration, and, in so far as it is necessary to adopt modifications, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, we are prepared to consider any reasonable proposal that is made to us. I repeat, at bottom it is a

2285
matter of production. We cannot solve this fuel problem unless we get more coal. [HON. MEMBERS; "Hear, hear."] These modern Columbuses on the opposite benches have made a discovery. We happen to have known it for a long time, precisely because we understand that production alone can solve this problem, however much one cares to promote fuel efficiency, which, of course, is very desirable. I can tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke in parenthesis, that we are doing far more in respect of fuel efficiency than ever he did when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, no matter what he has done. [Interruption.] Of course, I know hon. Members opposite do not like what I am saying. That is precisely why I am saying it. No matter what one does in respect of fuel efficiency, no matter what may be done in the way of imposing restrictions on consumers, it is production we want, and it is production we must seek.
We have tried to increase production, but, obviously, it is not the Ministry of Fuel and Power that increases fuel production. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is certainly not hon. Members opposite who will increase production; and, if I may be permitted to say so—because I want to be fair in this matter—nobody in this House can increase production. It is the men in the pits who will increase production. We must depend on them. What has happened? In the three months preceding the end of last year the trend of production was accelerated. There is no dispute about that. What has happened since? Hon. Members are well aware of what occurred when the severe weather set in. Many pits were inaccessible; there were considerable transport difficulties, and, in consequence production was impeded. That had nothing to do with the Ministry, and nothing to do with hon. Members. The miners were not to blame. There were the facts. It was due to the severe weather. But, in spite of the severe weather conditions, in spite of insuperable transport difficulties such as this country has not encountered for a very long time, the miners succeeded in producing about 3½ million tons more coal in the first four months of this year than they did in the corresponding period of last year.
Mr. H. Strauss: Much less than 1941.
Mr. Shinwell: If hon. Members imagine I regard that as adequate for our purpose, I can assure them I do not. We want more. In those difficult circumstances the men did a fine job of work, and I admire them for it. Of course, I understand what hon. Members opposite are trying to do. If they could drive a wedge between my- self and the National Union of Mineworkers and the miners generally, what an achievement that would be for them. Therefore, they come along, in that mealy-mouthed fashion, and ask about miners' coal. They have known all about miners' coal for years. The right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke knows all about miners' coal. He endeavoured to reduce the amount of miners' coal—by a process of negotiation, I do not deny that, conducted quite reasonably, as one might expect—but he only succeeded up to a point, and it was a minor point. These negotiations have been going on ever since, and the National Coal Board—just as the private owners did under the supervision, or direction, or with the consent of the Ministry of Fuel and Power—will continue those negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers in order to secure a larger amount of miners' coal being made available for the ordinary consumer.
However, I must say to hon. Members that this is a very complicated affair, and not until a new wage structure is negotiated will it be possible to deal with this matter effectively. We do not want to throw a spanner into the machinery at this moment, although I understand that before long a new wage structure will be negotiated. I prefer to leave this matter—whether hon. Members opposite like it or not—to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Never a word is said about fishermen, and fishermen are a very hardy and fine type of men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I know more about them than hon. Members opposite. I have mixed with them, and I understand them. I have not looked down on them from afar, with a superior and condescending attitude. But fishermen always get a share of the catch. Does anyone complain about that? Does anyone say to fishermen returning from fishing in the Faroe Islands, or wherever it may be, "You must not use the fish for yourselves. The poor domestic consumers are going short of fish, and you must share it with them"? The fact of the matter is, that when hon. Members

2287
opposite talk in that fashion they are just humbugs, and it is as well that the country should know it.
I turn to the question of recruitment. If there is one achievement to the credit of the Government it is that we have succeeded—and I hope hon. Members will note the facts of the situation—in securing a net recruitment of about 18,000 men and boys since the beginning of this year. The gross recruitment is 30,000, but there is an element of wastage. I suggest that a net recruitment of 18,000 in the first four months is pretty good going. What does it indicate? It indicates that, at long last, there is a feeling of satisfaction with the present set up in the mining industry; and that there is a response to the goodwill that emanates from the National Coal Board; and there is no doubt about that I know that hon. Members opposite would like the Coal Board to have a row with the National Union of Mineworkers. How they would gloat over it. And, indeed, they do gloat over our miseries, and we know it.
Of course, one can recruit a large number of men and boys, particularly boys, under 18 or over 18, whether ready to be trained for face work or not ready to be trained. It takes some time before boys, even if they are over 18, can be upgraded to the coal face. We have to remember that a large number of the coal faces, the "runs" as they are called, were allowed to fall into disuse under private ownership. They had to be reopened under the Coal Board, and it takes time, and it takes a lot of work, and we have got to take men away from other production points for that job. All these difficulties are well known to people in the industry, though it is quite possible that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), who has just addressed us in an interesting fashion, and has been down a pit only once, and was glad to get out of it, may not be aware of these important facts.
I come now to the question of imports, of which we have heard a great deal from the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts). I do hope and beg and pray that one of these days I shall hear him say something having sense.
Mr. Pritt: Do not be too optimistic.
Mr. Shinwell: He says, "Why do we not get coal from all over the world, even from France?"
Major Roberts: I did not suggest getting any coal from France, although they did export 300,000 tons to Switzerland last year.
Mr. Shinwell: If I have made a mistake, I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member, but I was advised that, in his demand for the importation of coal in large quantities, we should seek to get some from France. I assure him there are extraordinary complexities in that regard. What about South Africa? Hon. Members opposite say that I am lighthearted about this question of imports. I met the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Waterson, when he was here. We discussed their transport difficulties. We had discussions about the possibility of importing coal from South Africa to this country, or, as an alternative, that they should export coal for bunkers and, to that extent, relieve us from the need of supplying bunkers in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. But, I am afraid it has not yet so far resulted in any tangible imports, whether for bunkering or for other purposes. It is not our fault. Neither is it the fault of the Union of South Africa. There are physical difficulties. Their pits are 200 or 250 miles from the coast. They want more wagons, and those wagons are not easily available.
There are wagon difficulties in the United States of America, as the United States authorities have informed us. When it comes to the United States of America, I beg hon. Members to understand that we have exhausted every possibility in order to secure coal from the United States. The matter is not yet ended. But in the next quarter we may get none. We may in the following quarter get some, but that depends on the allocation provided by the United States authorities for the European countries. I must say on this matter that I am surprised at hon. Members opposite when they make the suggestion that we made no effort to do this. It is not entirely in my hands. It is a matter for the Government as a whole. [Interruption.] Certainly. Have right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite never heard about the doctrine of collective effort and responsibility? There are lots of things they have not heard about, and there are many that they have heard about

2289
that they have not understood. This is a matter for the Government as a whole. My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister himself have made superhuman efforts to have this matter attended to. So far we have not succeeded, not because we have not made the effort, but because there are physical difficulties.
I come now to two points referred to by my hon. Friends, and, in particular, the startling statement—I am bound to use that expression—by the hon. Member for Ruthergien (Mr. McAllister), fortified by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons), about the prospective closing of steelworks in Lanarkshire on account of the miners in Scotland taking their two days' statutory holidays next week. As regards these statutory holidays which the miners are taking next week—
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentlemen turn more this way, so that we might hear what he says?
Mr. Shinwell: I am extremely sorry, but I was speaking to my hon. Friends behind me. The Scottish miners are entitled to these statutory holidays. As it happens, they are telescoping two of their holidays, to which they are entitled, and, of course, it will obviously have a depressing effect on Scottish production next week, which I regret, but, on the other hand, they will not take the holidays later on, so that what we lose on the swings in the first week of May we gain on the roundabouts sometime in July or August. I cannot imagine that steelworks owners in Lanarkshire should use this as their alibi in order to close down their steelworks, and we shall make inquiries into the matter. This I must say—if ever there was a justification for taking over iron and steel under public, ownership, it is their action here. It is the sort of thing we would expect from private enterprise, and, no doubt, this illustration will be used on frequent occasions.
And now a word about the five-day week. I have made speeches outside on this subject, and, because I am apprehensive, I speak out honestly to hon. Members. I am apprehensive about this experiment as to its effect on production, but I must say that I am wholly in favour of the five-day week. I believe that the
2290
mine workers underground, if they work a five-day week, are doing a real job of work. I do not ask them to do more, but I ask them to do no less than that, and what I have said to hon. Members I have said to the miners themselves all over the country, and I will go on saying it. Naturally, it is an experiment, and it is impossible to say at this juncture, apart from speculation and conjecture, which is never of value in these matters, what the actual result will be in terms of production. I am hoping for the best. I know the miners are anxious to co-operate, and that is something to go on with and is a very valuable asset
It may well be that we shall get a higher production than is estimated, but I prefer to wait for a few weeks, and certainly until the end of May, before making up my mind as to the effects of the five-day week on production. I will tell the House quite frankly that, if we should find that the five-day week does not work out, even with a better atmosphere, in terms of production, we shall have to come to the House and say so, after, of course, having our conversations with the National Coal Board and with the mineworkers. I am satisfied that the leaders of the mineworkers, some of whom have been referred to in this Debate, are as anxious to promote the highest production as we are in this House, and there the matter must stand.
There is another reason why we must have the five-day week sooner or later, and I think it would be better sooner than later. The five-day week will have a beneficial effect on the minds of the men working in the pits, and that is our purpose. On the other hand, suppose we had said to the mineworkers, "You cannot have the five-day week." What would have been the result? We should have had disputes all over the place.
I believe that it is far better to promote this desirable reform now, because we believe in it, and because the miners want it, than to take the risk of precipitating an industrial stoppage which would impose serious hardship on the whole community. If Members opposite had been in power we should have had stoppages all over the country, some of which they would have precipitated by their own folly, and some of which would have happened, inevitably, because there was a Tory Government. No doubt they would

2291
be delighted if we had a large number of disputes in the mining industry. They have referred to unofficial disputes elsewhere, which we deplore as much as they. They have gloated over these matters, and the miseries to which the country may be subjected.
Mr. Jennings: Where is the Dunkirk spirit?
Mr. Shinwell: It does not consist of letting right hon. and hon. Members opposite castigate us, lambast us, and knock us about all over the place while we adopt a yellow attitude in reply. I see my old friend the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) opposite. He is still as "old lace" as ever. He has spoken about politeness; in fact, he has written books on politeness. What he does not know about politeness is not worth learning, yet he complains about me after the lessons in courtesy which I have given him in the past.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in one of the best speeches I have/ever heard him make, a restrained speech, without a word of criticism of myself, for which I shall be eternally grateful, asked me to present a revised coal budget. I cannot do that, and I will tell him why. Not so long ago my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade presented a budget to the House and, indeed, came to the House today to tell us that he proposed to provide for industry, during the summer, an amount of coal not less than that which he provided for industry in the corresponding period of last year. The question, naturally, emerges: Where is that coal coming from, and ought we not to have a revised budget? The fact is that we have been luckier than we expected. We thought we would have only five million tons at the end of the winter. As it happens, we have rather more, nearly six million tons. The other week we stepped up the quantities of coal for certain industries, and now it is possible to step them up still further, because we are in a more fortunate position. That is all the better for us, and for the country. We also believe that the additional manpower—we have now 711,000 persons in the industry—and the fine atmosphere that is being evoked in the industry will enable us to produce more coal in the summer.
2292
We therefore feel that now is the time to give industries a chance of working at the highest possible pressure, even if it means taking a risk. In these circumstances, I must be excused from presenting a budget.
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of St. Helens, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Hertford, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Mansfield, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

WAR PENSIONS (COST OF LIVING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
10.2 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: May I first express the feelings, which I know will be shared by Members in all parts of the House and by ex-Servicemen and other organisations throughout the country, of appreciation of the services rendered by the present Postmaster-General who occupied the post of Minister of Pensions and before that of Parliamentary Secretary for so long, and may I say a word of welcome to the new Minister, this being, I think, his first Debate?

2293
The Government have decided to throw over the cost-of-living index under which we have worked for a very long time and it is indeed time they did, because it is out of date and misleading. The British Legion and Members of the House have been pointing out to one Government after another for the past 25 years that this index was not related to the reality of the life of our people. That is not surprising when you consider it was devised upon tables prepared in 1904, and it left out many commodities and services which, far from being luxuries, have become ordinary day to day expenses of ordinary families. In the old cost-of-living schedule it was presumed that a workman and his family never eat any vegetables except potatoes, and no less than 22 per cent. of the services and goods which are known by recent surveys to be commonly used in all houses in the country were left out of the old index altogether.
The passing of the old index is a matter on which we must congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it raises certain questions which I want to put to the Minister. Why is the old index being thrown over? Because it is out of date partly, but also presumably because the Government expect a rise to take place in the new cost of living and it would embarrass them. It would affect the lives of three to four million people and the pensions of three quarters of a million more pensioners. Are the obligations which now exist such as to lay upon the Government the need to raise the basic rate of pension, notwithstanding the change of index, assuming that the obligation is shown to exist by the figures?
The reason for asking is this. If hon. Members think in terms of a company balance sheet, the form of which is changed in a particular year, they will appreciate that one cannot readily compare that year with the previous year. One has not a common standard for the two years. If we enter upon conditions in which a new index comes into force we do want to be assured that some factor which will relate it to the obligations which already exist will be brought forward, and that it will be a fair one. The Chancellor said that consultations were going on between the Ministry of Labour and both sides of industry by which, of course, he meant the trade unions and the employers. Are consultations going on between the
2294
Government and the representatives of ex-Servicemen? Are consultations going on between the Government and the British Legion? No, they are not, and since there are 750,000 people to whom the State owes an obligation in this matter, the second question that I have to ask the Minister is whether he will call ex-Servicemen's representatives and the British Legion into consultation so that they may have as fair a chance as the two sides of industry of asking how this new cost-of-living index is to be constructed and how it will operate in relation to the men in whom they are interested.
Now with regard to the cost of living itself. The luxury—if you like—of 40 years ago has become the commonplace of today, and I want in the few minutes available to me to explain why I think that a rise in the basic rate of pension is already due. In 1919 the 100 per cent. disabled man was given £2 a week as a flat rate pension. He has since been raised to £2 5s. to assimilate his rate to that which is to be paid under the Social Insurance Act for disability. In addition to that he receives a marriage allowance for a wife whenever he marries her—that is a recent innovation, but he gets it now—he gets children's allowances, as he always did, but he gets them for all his children, and if he is unemployable he draws £1 a week un-employability allowane. Moreover, if he is unemployable his wife's allowance is 16s. instead of 10s.
I do not want to worry the House with figures but I should like to take a case to show what this means. A man who is disabled in the highest degree receives £2 5s. for himself, plus £1 if he is unemployable, plus 16s. for his wife, making £4 is. in all. He may be a veteran of the first war, and he is keeping himself and his wife on that money. His daughter, who may be 19 and may be working for the Minister of Pensions in his office, will get £4 plus if she is an unskilled typist or messenger girl, and or more if she is a shorthand typist. Is £4 1s. enough for that man? If he has lost both his eyes, both his hands and is terribly disabled in that sort of way he will receive big attendance allowances. They go some way towards putting him in a fairly good position, and I am not making any complaint for him. There are 30,000 men disabled in the highest degree. I think that only a very few of them receive attendant

2295
allowances, and only a handful get the big attendant allowances. I think that there is, therefore, a case for raising the basic rate for the man who does not qualify for those allowances.
Out of the whole body of pensioners, who number 750,000, 450,000 belong to this recent war. Of those, some 60,000 receive pensions above 50 per cent. and the balance, nearly four-fifths of the whole number, receive 50 per cent. or less. Let us look at them. A man has lost one leg or one arm. In 1919 and throughout the years between he got £1 and no more unless he was married. That was 50 per cent. of the average rate. He now gets 22s. 6d. and he is not qualified for the attendance allowance and he does not need it. A great mass of people of this sort have got jobs and the argument may be used that because he has got a job he has gained the advantage of any rise that has taken place in the wages for his job. It remains a fact that between 1919 and the present time he has only got 2s. 6d. more than he used to get. He is 25 years older and his disability is a seven days' one and not five days. Moreover, he has been handicapped in the race of life and is not as free as other men to choose his job.
The great mass of these people are not in highly paid jobs and are paid less than the average man, so that it cannot be argued that, because he has got a job, his pension should stay where it is. My contention is that the pound is not worth as much today as it was in 1919, whatever the cost-of-living figure may be. I do not want to be sentimental about the beer and cigarettes, but I would ask the House to realise this that if a disabled sailor, soldier or airman has 10 cigarettes a day and one pint of beer a day it will cost him 19s. 3d. a week. If he has a Guinness on Sunday it will be over the pound. Is he to abstain, or is he to be given a pension which will enable him to have some of these small amenities of life which I think that a grateful people in 1919 meant him to have?
I would draw to a close by making these requests to the Minister. First, will he consult the representatives of the ex-Servicemen as he is consulting the representatives of industry? Second, will he look into the question now and see whether a rise in the basic rate of the 100 per cent. and all the other percentages is not already
2296
due? Third, I want to say one word to the ordinary man in the street. There is only a limited amount of goods available for all of us. If we raise everybody's wages and incomes to meet the increased cost of living, which I am sure is coming as a result of the economic stress and strain of the bad winter, of the coal shortage and of all the rest of it, then proportionately the pensioner will not get any more actually. We are simply going to have another bit of inflation. Is it not perhaps time when we might say to the trade unions so strongly organised and so powerful, "You have your rise, good luck to you, but is it not time now to stand back just a little and let the 750,000 disabled men throughout the country have their rise"? I make a plea to the Government and to a wider sphere to consider whether the time has not come to take into account this coming rise in the cost of living and to bring about this measure of justice which I feel is more than overdue.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I feel bound to associate myself, for a very few moments only, with the case put forward so sympathetically by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who spoke with such authority and such eloquence on this subject. As he has shown, the disabled ex-Serviceman has received very little advancement to help keep pace with the controlled inflation with which this country is faced today. The 5s. rise, to which he has referred, is a small thing when compared with the rise in the cost of living. I feel, as my hon. Friend has said, that the time has come, more particularly in view of the approaching revision of the cost of living index, when the needs and the position of these men, who have deserved so well of the community, should be taken into account. I reinforce his plea to the Government to lose no time in making whatever investigations they can to see how they can help these men, so that they do not suffer further from the rise in the cost of living.
10.16 p.m.
The Minister of Pensions (Mr. John Hynd): I should first of all like to thank the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) for the welcome he gave me in my capacity as Minister of Pensions. I, too, echo the well-merited tribute he paid to my predecessor. I fully appreciate that

2297
my task tonight might have been very difficult had I not the good fortune to follow a Minister of Pensions who had done such fine work on behalf of our disabled ex-Servicemen, and on behalf of the civilian casualties of the last war. The hon. Member opened his remarks by suggesting—and I think it is the first time I have heard it suggested—that the Government are considering examining the cost of living index because we are expecting a heavy rise in the cost of living, and we would not wish this to be reflected in increased wages. It is a new suggestion to me, and contrary to the facts.
This is a measure pressed for by all sections of the community, particularly by the trade unions, for a long time, and it is a matter of getting the cost-of-living index on a practical basis. What the hon. Member suggested, among other things, is that the Government, in abandoning the old cost-of-living figure, should now give undertakings that they will carry out the policy and the pledges in regard to the adjustment of wages and people's earnings, despite all that may be shown as a result of this examination into the cost of living figure. The hon. Member knows better than anyone else that so far as war pensions are concerned, they are not related to any cost-of-living figure. I do not think he will dispute that, because it is generally accepted.
Sir I. Fraser: I do challenge that most definitely. I have the statements of successive Ministers, made over the last 25 years, proving—and I have chapter and verse, but not the time to give it—that the flat rate is, in fact, related to the cost of living.
Mr. Hynd: I, too, have not the time to recite the history, but, in brief, if I may refresh the hon. Member's mind, it was a fact that the original 1914–18 pensions were related to the cost-of-living index, and an assurance given that the pensions would be adjusted according to the rise and fall in the cost-of-living index figure over a margin of 5 per cent., but, as was implied by subsequent statements of Ministers not of this Government, the Minister of Pensions, in 1928, made a very clear statement that while there would be no reduction in the pension rate as a result of the fall in the cost-of-living index figures, there might be an increase, assuming that the cost of living rose over 215, which was the level in 1919—that was provided there was no substantial change
2298
in the pension range by the addition of new classes of beneficiaries. There have been substantial alterations by the additions of new classes as a result of the new classes brought in during the 1939–45 war.
Pension rates in 1919 were related to the cost-of-living figure of 215, and they were placed at 40s. In spite of considerable decreases in the cost-of-living figure since then, there have been no reductions in the pensions. In 1943, the new war pensions were established, in relation to the cost-of-living figure at that time, at 32s. 6d., in comparison with the 1919 rate of dos. In August, 1943, it was decided to assimilate the basic pension rates for the two wars at the rate of 40s. The hon. Member knows that in December, 1945, the pension was increased to 45s. but not because of a rise in the cost of living. In fact, the cost-of-living figure was still considerably below that of 1919. Had the formula of 1919 been applied, the pension might then have been reduced. It was, in fact, increased from 40s. to 45s.
That, as the hon. Member says, was due to the fact that we were recognising a new factor, namely, the relationship—the desirable relationship—between the war pensioned and the victims of industrial injury. Indeed, it was said by an hon. Member on that occasion that this change was desirable. He said that he, and other hon. Members of the party now sitting opposite, regarded the change as of vital importance because those who had suffered in the war in the service of their country ought not to receive disability pensions lower than those granted to the casualties of industry. I believe that view has been generally accepted by the House.
What the hon. Member for Lonsdale has said, of course, is that the relationship the industrial injuries scheme—I do not think that the hon. Member has any objection to that principle, broadly—is not enough, in the present situation. His remarks infer that he was not concerned only with the war pensioner but also with the industrially injured and with other classes who have fixed incomes, and that he was not so concerned with the working trade unionists or with the ordinary worker. Although war pension rates were then related to the Industrial Injuries Act, the war injured still had considerable advantages. The wife and family allowances continued' to be paid to the war

2299
injured although not to the industrially injured; the child allowances for men under treatment applied to all the children of the war injured but not to the industrially injured; similarly, widows' pensions were higher. The widow also received benefit for all her children.
The hon. Member again referred—when I say "again" I have in mind the previous occasion on which he raised this point in the House and on which occasion he said what I thought he repeated tonight—to the fact that he was not dissatisfied with the rates applicable to the most seriously injured class. That is the class with not only 100 per cent. disablement but who are unemployable and to whom the unemployable supplement, attendance allowances, and so on, apply. The hon. Member emphasised his dissatisfaction with the rates applicable to those who are on the bare 100 per cent. and are not unemployable, and those who are on still lower rates. I do not know whether it is really necessary to point out again that 45s. is not a rate applicable to many of the recipients of war pensions. The case quoted by the hon. Member was a 5o per cent. disability case. That is precisely the kind of case where a man is in a position to earn more money at his work.
When one compares the position of the completely unemployable pensioner and that of the employable pensioner, the employable pensioner is not in a very much worse position. If we take a comparison, we will find that the unemployable pensioner has 45s., he has his wife's allowance of 16s., he has his children's allowances amounting to 7s. 6d. per child, with 5s. family allowance added for every child after the first, he has his unemployability allowance, and he has his attendance allowance; but although he has his attendance allowance, it has also to be noted that that allowance is given for attendance, and that man, therefore, is not necessarily a net gainer to the amount of the attendance allowance. The employable pensioner has 45s. and he, too, can have a wife and children, and if he has, he has 10s. additional for his wife, which makes 55s., he has 7s. 6d. for the first child, which makes 62s. 6d., if he has another child he gets 7s. 6d., which makes 70s., plus family allowance at 5s., which makes 75s., and he gets another
2300
12s. 6d. if there is another child, making 87s. 6d. over and above his earnings. Therefore, I feel that a comparison of the two cases does not always redound to the advantage of the completely unemployable pensioner.
Sir I. Fraser: The point is that if the basic rate is raised, it will, of course, be raised for both.
Mr. Hynd: That is true, but it is also true that it was generally accepted, I think, by the House, and in the country, that it was preferable to pay attention to the most needy cases and to adjust such sums as were available for war pensions purposes on that basis to ensure that the most needy cases had the most benefit. Therefore, it follows that if we were to increase the basic pension, we would not only increase the pensions for the unemployable and the employable pro rata, but we would also probably have to review the supplementations which were made as the alternative to a higher basic pension. I do not think the hon. Member or the House generally would prefer to depart from the principle which has been generally accepted that it is better, with the money available, to pay the most attention to the most needy cases rather than to lay down arbitrarily a higher basic rate without having the means or opportunities to supplement the more needy cases. That is very well borne out by a report in the journal of one of the ex-Serviceman's associations which makes direct reference to the point in regard to one of their members who suffered amputation of one leg and one arm as a result of service in the 1914–1918 war. The reference continues:
"His pension was 40s. per week. He married after disablement and received no allowances for his wife and the children which came to them. In 1943, the Ministry of Pensions introduced the unemployability supplement, and an application for our member resulted in award, so that his income from pension and allowances was then increased from 40s. to 92s. 6d. for himself, wife and three children. Applications for an attendance allowance were persistently rejected. The allowance for a wife in such cases was later increased by 6s. per week, and from January, 1947, our member is automatically entitled to 10s. per week attendance allowance, and 5s. weekly increase in disability pension. He is also entitled to family allowances of 5s. per week for two of his children, so that the total income for this badly disabled member and his family is now £6 3s. 6d. per week compared with 40s. weekly from 1918 to 1943."

2301
The point about this comment in the ex-Servicemen's journal is that they say:
"The future policy of ex-Service organisations in regard to flat rate pensions for 100 per cent. disablement and special supplementary allowances for extreme forms of disablement, unemployability, attendance, treatment, temporary incapacity, etc., requires very careful consideration. General opinion is veering to the view that adequate supplementary allowances for those who need or deserve special provision is of greater importance than a high flat rate for all disability pensioners."
That is the opinion of the B.L.E.S.M.A. organisation. I would like to refer to one further point. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would consult the British Legion and other ex-Servicemen's organisations on the implication of the cost-of-living index figure. The implications of whatever may be the new cost-of-living index figure are very much wider than their implication in relation to ex-Servicemen's pensions, and it is not for me to commit the Government an any interpretation they may make of these cost-of-living figures and their application in various quarters, but I am prepared constantly to consider the whole field of war
2302
service pensions, particularly in consultation with my Advisory Committee, of which the hon. Member is by no means a silent or useless member.
I am sure that with the advantage of consultation with him and his colleagues we will be able to examine the whole of the repercussions of present-day conditions, including any changes that may be made in the cost of living or any other factor in relation to the existing pensions. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has taken this early opportunity to raise the question, and if it were not for the fact that the outcome of the present discussions in regard to the cost of living were so hypothetical at this time, I would have preferred to have been able to give him a direct reply.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13 th November.
Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES
  Bankside Power Station (Oil Firing)
  Bankside Power Station (Oil Firing)
  SUMMER FUEL RESTRICTIONS (METER RENTS)
  SUMMER FUEL RESTRICTIONS (METER RENTS)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Organisation
  Organisation
  Statutory Order (Explanatory Note)
  Statutory Order (Explanatory Note)
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  PETROL ALLOWANCE (PRIVATE MOTOR BOATS)
  PETROL ALLOWANCE (PRIVATE MOTOR BOATS)
  BORSTAL INMATES, WANDSWORTH PRISON
  BORSTAL INMATES, WANDSWORTH PRISON
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Residence Permits
  Residence Permits
  Postal Censorship
  Postal Censorship
  POSTAL VOTING
  POSTAL VOTING
  ALIENS (PERSONAL CASES)
  ALIENS (PERSONAL CASES)
  CUP FINAL TICKETS (RESALE)
  CUP FINAL TICKETS (RESALE)
  DOG COLLARS (OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS)
  DOG COLLARS (OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Coalminers
  Coalminers
  Disabled Persons' Factory, Cleator Moor
  Disabled Persons' Factory, Cleator Moor
  Double-Shift System (Middlesex)
  Double-Shift System (Middlesex)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Increased Petrol Ration (Dollar Expenditure)
  Increased Petrol Ration (Dollar Expenditure)
  Film Rentals (Tax Exemption)
  Film Rentals (Tax Exemption)
  Civilian Employees, Palestine (Gratuities)
  Civilian Employees, Palestine (Gratuities)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (RETIRED PENSIONERS' AWARDS)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (RETIRED PENSIONERS' AWARDS)
HOUSING
  Forms
  Forms
  Local Authority Houses (Rents)
  Local Authority Houses (Rents)
  Wigan
  Wigan
  Building Licences
  Building Licences
  Local Authorities' Building Costs
  Local Authorities' Building Costs
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Sewage Scheme, Lleyn Rural District
  Sewage Scheme, Lleyn Rural District
  Copthorne Military Hospital
  Copthorne Military Hospital
EDUCATION
  Text Books
  Text Books
  Exercise Books, Kent
  Exercise Books, Kent
  Emergency Trained Teachers
  Emergency Trained Teachers
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Granite Production
  Granite Production
  German Textiles
  German Textiles
  Shop Premises (Tenure)
  Shop Premises (Tenure)
  Newsprint (Provincial Weeklies)
  Newsprint (Provincial Weeklies)
  Quality Control
  Quality Control
  German Timber Arrivals (Scotland)
  German Timber Arrivals (Scotland)
  Plastic Garments (Quality)
  Plastic Garments (Quality)
  Perambulators
  Perambulators
  Greek Tobacco
  Greek Tobacco
  Sheffield Steel Industries (Coal)
  Sheffield Steel Industries (Coal)
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Fishermen (Unemployment Insurance)
  Fishermen (Unemployment Insurance)
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Housing Managers' Accounts
  Housing Managers' Accounts
  Ordnance Factories (Civilian Goods)
  Ordnance Factories (Civilian Goods)
  COAL BUNKERS (DOLLAR PURCHASES)
  COAL BUNKERS (DOLLAR PURCHASES)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Mobile Labour Force
  Mobile Labour Force
  New Factory Schemes
  New Factory Schemes
  STREET LIGHTING (FUEL SAVING)
  STREET LIGHTING (FUEL SAVING)
RAILWAYS
  Kettering—London Service
  Kettering—London Service
  Coal Traffic
  Coal Traffic
AGRICULTURE
  Students
  Students
  W.L.A. (Administration Expenses)
  W.L.A. (Administration Expenses)
  R.M. 2nd LIEUTENANTS (PAY)
  R.M. 2nd LIEUTENANTS (PAY)
GERMANY
  Crime Suspects (Investigation)
  Crime Suspects (Investigation)
  B.A.O.R. Unit (Conditions)
  B.A.O.R. Unit (Conditions)
  SPAIN (TRIAL)
  SPAIN (TRIAL)
  FRUIT SUPPLIES, SCOTLAND
  FRUIT SUPPLIES, SCOTLAND
  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT
  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  4.5 P.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has kindly informed me that, owing to the heavy demands on the time of the judicial Committee of the Privy Council, after the present week there will be no judicial sittings of your Lordships' House, in the afternoon at any rate, until after the Whitsuntide recess, and that till then, therefore, the Chamber will be available at 2.30 p.m. for the sittings of the House for public business on Mondays and Thursdays, in the same way as it now is on Tuesday and Wednesday. I felt sure that your Lordships would be glad to take this opportunity of earlier sittings on these days, and I am arranging, therefore, with the agreement of the usual channels, that between now and the Whit-sun recess all sittings of your Lordships' House for public business shall begin at 2.30 in the afternoon unless special notice to the contrary is given.
  I should add that we do not propose to sit next Monday, May 5, but that we shall be sitting on the following Monday, May 12, when we shall hope to take the Committee stage of the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill whose Second Reading we are debating to-day. Will noble Lords from Scotland, in particular, please make special note, therefore, that the business that afternoon will begin at 2.30 p.m. and not at the usual Monday hour of 4 o'clock?

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  CITY OF BATH ORDER,
  COUNTY BOROUGH OF EASTBOURNE ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF BOSTON ORDER,
  BOROUGH OF RYDE ORDER.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  4.7 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, last autumn there came before your Lordships the National Health Service Bill to establish a new and comprehensive health service in England and Wales. To-day it falls to me to move the Second Reading of a Bill providing for the establishment of a similar service in Scotland. In that connexion I am happy to see on the front Opposition Bench the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, former Secretary of State for Scotland, because it gives me an opportunity of congratulating him upon a welcome success near Cambridge University this afternoon.
  In another place one of the right honourable gentlemen from Scotland who spoke for the Opposition said:
  "I think there is general agreement … that the time has come for a great expansion of the health services of Scotland."
  So do I, and most of the discussion on the present Bill therefore revolves around the ways of achieving an objective about which itself there is little or no dispute—a comprehensive health service making every kind of health provision available for every member of the community. In the discussions that took place on the English Bill much light was thrown upon the deficiencies in the existing health services of this country. I do not propose to-day, therefore, to take up your Lordships' time with any extensive review of the existing services. The case for an overhaul of Scotland's health services is very similar to the case in England. Indeed, the inquiries of the Scottish Health Services Committee which reported in 1936 brought out, perhaps more fully and more clearly than any comparable English inquiry, the gaps in the health provision of that time. The existing facilities, indeed, consist of a number of separate services, each developed at different times

  301
  to meet what appeared to be the pressing need of the moment, without much attention being paid to fitting them into their proper place in a comprehensive system.
  The original formulation of the Government's national health service proposals was undertaken, not in 'relation to England alone or to Scotland alone, but on a United Kingdom basis. The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland worked together in this matter and had joint consultations with representatives of the medical profession and of other important interests affected. I say this because I do not wish your Lordships to think that the present Bill originated as a transcript of a bill devised for England and Wales with some minor changes here and there. The position is that the two Bills have a common origin, which accounts for their many similarities, and it is a mere matter of Parliamentary and legislative convenience that the Scottish Bill comes second in point of time.
  The divergences between the two Bills reflect important differences between conditions south of the Border and conditions in Scotland. Scotland has her own legal system, her own traditions and her own machinery of local government; and the geographical distribution of her population is different. It is necessary, therefore, to adjust the application of general principles so as to suit Scotland's particular circumstances and needs. It is to these points in the present Bill that I shall devote most, of my time to-day. The patient in search of advice and care in health matters normally turns first to his own family doctor. Yet at the present time less than half our population can seek the aid of a general practitioner under any organized arrangements without first having to stop and count the cost. For the rest, and this includes the vast majority of wives and children, the family doctor's services are a matter of private arrangement, for which the patient has to pay.
  Under this Bill everyone will be entitled to the services of a; family doctor of his own choosing, without any question of payment by the patient otherwise than through the rates, taxes and insurance contributions he normally pays. That is, of course, the financial basis of the whole of the new service; not merely of the family doctor part. As the family doctor service is to be available for everybody,
  302
  and in all parts of the country there must be a means for securing that the distribution of doctors is not so uneven that some areas get a much poorer service than is generally provided. The Bill does this by abolishing the system of sale and purchase of medical practices, and setting up instead a mainly medical body—the Scottish Medical Practices Committee—with power to forbid a doctor to enter practice in the public service in an area where there are already sufficient doctors. And the system of remuneration proposed by the Government is to include a basic salary element which can be varied so as to attract doctors to areas where their services are most needed.
  Such an arrangement closely resembles the system that has been in operation in the Highlands and islands of Scotland for the last thirty years, under which grants of varying amounts are paid directly from State funds to general practitioners who would not otherwise be able to obtain a reasonable income owing to the sparsely populated nature of the area and the relative poverty of most of its inhabitants. The Government believe, therefore, that the proposals in this Bill will make it possible to provide the service that is promised—and to do this without conferring any power to direct individual doctors to work in particular localities or particular jobs.
  In the past the family doctor has had to provide out of his own resources the premises and equipment needed for his work. There is general agreement today that, if the family doctor is to do the best work of which he is capable, the conditions under which he works will have to be radically improved. In the last generation or so there has been a trend away from the individual doctor working in isolation towards the partnership system, where two, three or more doctors work in a loosely organized kind of team, helping one another in various ways. It is along these lines that the Government seek to foster the development of general practice. Not only will doctors be encouraged to work in groups, but they will be provided with premises designed for the purpose, with all the equipment and ancillary staff necessary to enable them to carry on their work under the most favourable conditions. These premises are the health centres of the future, to the development of which

  303
  the Government attach very great importance.
  It is here that we find the first important difference between the Scottish and the English proposals. In England the function of providing health centres is entrusted to the local authorities, working subject to the approval of the Minister of Health. In Scotland the Bill places the responsibility for providing health centres directly upon the Secretary of State. While at the same time it authorizes him to delegate his functions in this respect to local authorities, he has made it clear that he does not intend to do so in the early and experimental years of the new service. In Scotland, where conditions in different local authority areas vary so widely, and the country as a whole is not unmanageable as a single unit of administration, the Secretary of State thinks that the lessons of the early years in the development of health centres can best be learned and generally applied if he retains the task in his own hands, at least for that period. The Scottish local authorities have not intimated any serious objection to this course, and the medical profession in Scotland, I understand, prefer that it should be so.
  Alongside the family doctor service of the future there are arrangements for dental care. In the past the number of dentists available has been pretty well sufficient for the treatment of all who sought dental attention. As was emphasized, however, by the Committee which recently considered the subject, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, it by no means follows that there are enough dentists to give all the dental treatment that people require—if they can be persuaded to seek it! The Government, however, have accepted the course urged upon them by that Committee, to make a free dental service generally available, in the expectation that demand for dental treatment and recruitment to the dental profession will proceed hand-in-hand. At the same time, supplementary measures—to which I shall refer in a moment—are proposed to secure that those sections of the community in special need of dental care do not have to go without it as a result of any shortage of dentists that may arise.
  Responsibility for the local administration of the family doctor service and the general dental service, with the necessary
  304
  arrangements for providing drugs and medicines, will be entrusted to executive councils, composed as to one half of professional representatives, nominated by the professions in the locality, and, as to the other half, of non-professional members, of whom two-thirds will be nominated by the local authorities in the area and the remaining third appointed directly by the Secretary of State.
  The second main division in which the new service is organized includes the maternity and child welfare clinics, and other local services which can suitably be administered by the major local authorities—the councils of counties and large burghs. In carrying out part of these duties the local authorities will provide dental attention, supplementary to the general dental service, for expectant and nursing mothers. The school health service, run by the local authorities in their capacity as education authorities, will provide dental as well as other forms of health care for the children, including all up to the age of eighteen in attendance at junior colleges under the 1945 Scottish Education Act. Thus we complete our implementation of the Teviot Committee's recommendations on dentistry.
  It is true that the transfer of hospitals from the local authority field will diminish the direct interest of local authorities and their medical officers of health in the treatment of disease. The most important health function of the authorities in future, however, lies in the social and preventive side of health work. Responsible already for watching over the incidence of disease, especially infectious disease, in their areas, the authorities will find that the new powers and duties entrusted to them open up the way for great advances in the expanding field devoted to the prevention of disease and the promotion of health in community life.
  I turn next to the future organization of the hospital and specialist services. Before going any further may I add my tribute to the splendid work which the voluntary hospitals in Scotland, as elsewhere, have done in the past? Voluntary effort in this, as in so many other fields, has blazed the trail and paved the way to progress. But costs in all directions have greatly increased and are still increasing. With any form of national health service the hospitals would have to be paid for their treatment of patients

  305
  coming within the service. These payments would bulk increasingly large in the revenue of the voluntary hospitals, and the State could not go on handing over such large sums without having a very large measure of control over their spending.
  The Scottish local authorities too, especially some of the larger ones, have an excellent record in the hospital field. Almost all the hospital accommodation for infectious disease is at present administered by these authorities, as also is the bulk of accommodation for tuberculosis and for mental illness. But the time has passed when this division of responsibility for hospital services among a multiplicity of agencies can be contemplated with equanimity. In Scotland to-day there are about 250 hospitals belonging to the fifty-five local authorities; and about another 220 voluntary hospitals, nearly every one of which has a separate governing body. Thus there are more than 250 hospital authorities all with their own interests and ideas, leading to overlapping, unnecessary competition and, worst of all, to gaps in the service provided for the patient.
  For the future, we start with general agreement that the individual hospitals of to-day need to be welded together into a single hospital service, organized on a regional basis. Instead of having several hospitals in the same district attempting to provide the same kinds of specialized treatment, we must arrange that the provision for any particular kind of specialized treatment is concentrated at a relatively small number of units in each region. Only thus can we secure that the best use is made of complicated and expensive equipment and—what is more important—of the limited number of experts fully trained and experienced in each particular field, and that all patients needing a particular kind of specialized treatment get that treatment in the hospital best staffed and equipped to give it.
  It is clear that existing local authorities could not be entrusted with responsibility for running the new hospital service, for their areas are not nearly big enough for this purpose. Joint boards are generally an unsatisfactory device. The provision of a directly elected body, operating over a wider area, is not a step that could be taken without prejudicing any reorganization of local government that may become necessary. The remaining alternative, if
  306
  the new hospital service is to fit into our democratic scheme of government, is that the duty of providing it should be placed upon a Minister responsible to Parliament. In Scotland the obvious Minister is the Secretary of State, who is already very much concerned with health matters. The Government's proposal, therefore, is that all existing hospitals, both local authority and voluntary, should be transferred to the Secretary of State.
  The administration of the new service is not, however, to be centralized in a Government office in Edinburgh. Instead, administration is to be entrusted to a specially created local and regional organization. Regional Hospital Boards are to be established to act as agents of the Secretary of State, undertaking on his behalf the general administration of the hospital service in their regions. In turn, to act as agents of the Regional Board for the control and management of particular hospitals or groups of hospitals, boards of management are to be set up. It is the Secretary of State's firm intention that these Regional Boards and boards of management, each in their own sphere, should have the maximum possible freedom in the carrying out of their work, consistent with his overall responsibility to Parliament for the service. On these Regional Boards and boards of management members with all appropriate kinds of experience and local knowledge will find a place.
  The Secretary of State contemplates that five Regional Boards will be set up in Scotland. Each Board will be based on one of the five main centres—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness. The precise boundaries of the areas covered by each Board are not determined by the Bill itself but will be settled by subsequent Orders, subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, made after consultation with the local authorities, and other interests concerned in Scotland. Preliminary consultations to this end are already under way. The grouping of hospitals under boards of management will be settled by the Regional Boards themselves, in schemes which they will submit for the approval of the Secretary of State. While it will usually be found an advantage to group two or more existing hospitals under single board of management, this cannot be done at the expense of losing local interest by setting up a board to run a number of hospitals

  307
  which do not form a geographically convenient unit.
  There are three important points in which the hospital organization proposed for Scotland in the present Bill differs from the form adopted in the English Bill. The first point is that in Scotland the ambulance service—like the hospital service, in association with which it will be run—is made a responsibility of the Secretary of State, and not of the local authorities (as in England and Wales). On the average, local authorities in Scotland have smaller areas than in England and Wales, and a very large number of ambulance journeys would involve crossing local authority boundaries. The next main difference concerns the provision of clinical teaching facilities in hospitals. Your Lordships will recall that in England certain hospitals are to be designated by the Minister of Health as teaching hospitals, and that special boards of governors for these teaching hospitals are to be appointed, responsible directly to the Minister. While these boards of governors will include members nominated by the Regional Board for the area, the teaching hospitals for which they are responsible do not come directly within the hospital service administered by the Regional Board.
  In Scotland, on the other hand, we propose that all the hospitals should come within the field of the Regional Board, but that the special position of hospitals in which clinical teaching is carried on should be recognized by the inclusion on their boards of management of members nominated by the university concerned, and by the teaching staff. The fundamental reason for this difference is that, although the, number of hospital beds in Scotland is only about one-tenth of the total for the United Kingdom, Scotland is training about one-third of the total number of medical students. We are proud in Scotland of our standing in the field of medical education. If our standards are to be maintained, student and teacher must in future have access to an ever-wider range of practical experience and demonstration in the hospitals. This cannot be achieved if the bulk of the clinical teaching facilities are confined to a few hospitals. On the other hand, if even the main teaching hospitals were to be excluded from the scope of the Regional Boards in Scotland, these Boards would
  308
  be left with quite inadequate provision at their disposal to enable them to organize a regional system. Indeed, the core of the hospital service would have gone.
  The Scottish Bill places a specific duty on the Secretary of State to provide facilities in the hospital service for the teaching of medicine. Responsibility for the conduct of teaching will, of course, continue to rest with the universities, who for this reason are given a very special position in the proposed hospital organization. In settling the grouping of hospitals for the purpose of constituting boards of management, the Regional Board are required to consult the university concerned. As already mentioned, the universities nominate members to the boards of management responsible for running any hospitals in which teaching facilities are provided. In addition, they nominate members to a medical education committee, which is set up in each region for the purpose of advising the Regional Board on the administration of the hospital service so far as relates to the provision of teaching facilities. The Regional Boards themselves are to include members appointed by the Secretary of State after consulting the university concerned. Provision is also to be made, in regulations governing the appointment of members of hospital staffs, for the universities to play an appropriate part in the selection of doctors who are to participate in teaching work.
  These proposals were worked out by the Secretary of State in consultaion with representatives of the Scottish universities, and he thinks the universities are reasonably confident that the provisions of the Bill will enable them to discharge their teaching responsibilities. It is also interesting to observe that while in another place the critics of this Bill objected at first to its proposals for teaching hospitals, after a full discussion on the Committee stage, no Amendments on this issue were put down for consideration on Report, nor was it mentioned in the reasoned Amendment for rejection of the Bill on Third Reading.
  There is one more important difference between the hospital service proposals in Scotland and those in England. I refer to the treatment of voluntary hospital endowments. In both countries the fundamental principle is the same. Endowment assets, subject perhaps to the discharge out of them of certain existing liabi-

  309
  lities, are to be made available for application by the regional and local bodies, at their discretion, for purposes connected with the hospital service. This money will, therefore, represent additional resources over and above the money provided from the Treasury, and its spending will not be subject to ministerial control. The method of allocating existing endowments to the new governing bodies, however, is entirely different in the two countries. In England the endowments of hospitals designated as teaching hospitals pass to the new boards of governors appointed by the Minister. The endowments of all other voluntary hospitals are put into a single. national pool and re-distributed by the Minister, on a, basis to be fixed in later regulations, among the Regional Boards and hospital management committees.
  In Scotland the Secretary of State has preferred to follow the plan adopted not long ago for educational endowments, when the extension of publicly provided services to wider fields made it necessary to review the purposes to which these endowments could be put under their existing trusts—as will be the position exactly, when the new hospital service is in operation, of endowments left in the past for hospital purposes. The Bill proposes a Hospital Endowments Commission, which will be charged with the duty of reviewing all existing endowments and deciding how and by which Regional Boards or boards of management they can most appropriately be applied in future. In carrying out their work the Commission are required by the Bill to have regard first of all to the spirit of the intention of the founder; so that they will have to address themselves to the question of how the founder might have been expected to allocate his benefaction had he foreseen the organization of the hospital service in the future.
  The powers of the Endowments Commission do not extend to two classes of endowments. The first class is endowments given after the appointed day, which Regional Boards and boards of management are authorized by the Bill to accept and hold on trust for purposes connected with their functions. The second is certain endowments of a capital nature given between November 5, 1946 —the date on which the Bill was introduced into Parliament—and the appointed day; these endowments will be transferred under the Bill to the board of
  310
  management set up for the hospital to which they have been given, and will remain permanently with that Board. All other endowments, I should mention, will be transferred on the appointed day to the new boards of management of the hospitals to which they are at present attached, and will remain with these boards for use subject to the provisions of any existing trusts until such time as the Endowments Commission are able to undertake their review of these particular endowments.
  I cannot conclude without a brief reference to the central administrative machinery proposed. It is to be the duty of the Secretary of State—I quote Clause I of the Bill—
  "to promote the establishment in Scotland of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of Scotland and the prevention, diagnosis And treatment of illness, and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services in accordance with the following provisions of this Act."
  In his discharge of this duty the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament in the usual way. The Bill sets up a Scottish Health Services Council, and enables standing advisory committees on particular services also to be constituted. These bodies will include among them persons with all the necessary knowledge and experience to provide the Secretary of State with the expert advice on every aspect of the health services of which he will stand in need, and they will be empowered to proffer that advice on their own initiative as well as at his request.
  My Lords, I hope I have not wearied you in this account of the Bill now before the House. It is, however, a major Bill of great importance to Scotland and her people, and while I have not attempted to cover every aspect of the subject I have tried to touch upon the main points likely to be of interest to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  4.35 p.m.
  THE EAEL OF ROSEEERY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for the clear way in which he has expounded this Bill. I observed at the start of his speech that he said that it was quite fortuitous that the English Bill came before the Scottish Bill.

  311
  It may be quite fortuitous, but that has now become almost a habit. I do not think it would be a bad plan if occasionally we had before the House a Scottish Bill before the English Bill, because we would not be told what we are so often told—namely, that we cannot alter a particular clause because it has been agreed in the English Bill. If we could persuade Parliament to alter a clause in a Scottish Bill, possibly, as a result of listening to or reading our debates, English members would accept that Amendment. At any rate, we would have the Amendment considered with an open mind, knowing that the whole thing had not been pre-judged in London before it had ever been thought of in Scotland.
  As I see it, there are at least five principal differences between the Scottish and English Bills. First of all, endowments of voluntary hospitals in Scotland will at first remain with the hospitals and will be reviewed later and, if necessary, re-allocated by the Hospital Endowments Commission. Secondly, teaching hospitals are not to be separated from the rest of the hospital services as they are south of the border. I will, if I may, deal with those two matters later. Thirdly, in Scotland the responsibility for the health centre development is placed directly in the hands of the Secretary of State. He has power to delegate, although we are told it is most improbable that he will. In other words, he will keep that power and make substantial use of it.
  I do not see—and a number of people in Scotland do not see—why the local authorities should have this power taken away from them and put under the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This Government have been far too fond of diverting all power and authority from the local authorities and taking it to St. Andrew's House. Indeed we are lucky if it only stops there, because most of the power is now going from St. Andrew's House to London. I think that under this Bill the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking on himself far more power than is necessary. He is now responsible for the ambulance services. There may be a case argued for that, but the ambulance services have heretofore been conducted quite well by the local authorities. I am not talking of the air ambulance service, responsibility for which I think has always been vested in the Secretary
  312
  of State and which, of course, is a different scheme from any other.
  There is one difference between Scotland and England about which I am glad —namely, that there will be no ex officio officers of the Scottish Health Services Council. I do not care for ex officio officers on those Councils, and I am glad that the Government have agreed that in Scotland we are not to have them. I should like to call attention to the change that is being made with regard to teaching hospitals. These hospitals are now to be taken under the ægis of the Secretary 'of State. We think that this Bill goes a long way (and out of its way) to destroy not only their independence but also their prestige. In dealing with the English Bill, Mr. Bevan said:
  "The transfer of the hospitals to the Ministry will not make St. Thomas's Hospital any less St. Thomas's; 'Bart's. any less Bart's. or Guy's any less Guy's."
  He allowed each of them to appoint their own doctors, nurses and other staff. That staff belongs to the hospital and is appointed by the hospital, and there is naturally, if I may say so, that esprit de corps which we know so well exists in the various hospitals in London.
  But in Scotland the staffs are to be nominated by the Regional Board. It is the Regional Board who nominate the staff, and the staffs are, as I understand it, responsible to the Regional Board. I think that is, I would almost say, an un-necessary degradation, of the governors of those hospitals. It is, of course, the way they are going to administer the other hospitals, but it seems to me clearly ridiculous that our great teaching hospitals in Scotland should be administered in exactly the same way as a small cottage hospital in the outlying Highlands. In England, as I understand it, the board of governors are in direct contact with the Minister, and directly responsible to him. In Scotland the board of management are to be appointed by the Regional Board, and will be answerable to them. I think I am correct in saying that. In England, as I said before, the teaching hospitals settle the conditions of their servants as well as appointing them; but in Scotland these conditions also will be entirely settled by the Regional Board. I hope the noble Lord will relent in some way, so that the staffs may be directly under the hospital management and not under the Regional Board.

  313
  Let me now say a few words on the question of endowments, which are dealt with in Clause 8. In England, as your Lordships know, the endowments are left to the control of the teaching hospitals, and grants are given directly by the Minister. In Scotland these endowments may be re-allocated anywhere else. I would ask noble Lords to realize why these endowments are given to particular hospitals. They are given by someone who lives in the particular locality, to ensure that that hospital will be properly maintained for himself, for his relatives and for his friends. There is another reason why endowments are given or left to hospitals —namely, that someone has had a serious illness and has been well nursed in that hospital; or that his dear ones who have been taken ill have been nursed, perhaps to health, or may be until the final end. In gratitude to that hospital, and to the doctors and nurses who have looked after those patients, he has given or bequeathed a certain sum of money.
  If the donors are still alive, what can their feelings be when they realize that the money which they have given to a, hospital in some district, say in the Lothians, is to be taken away at the whim or wish of the Secretary of State for Scotland to support some pet scheme of his in the Highlands or elsewhere? When people have endowed teaching hospitals, the endowments should be allowed to stay with those hospitals. It does seem, on the face of it, that the real reason why the secretary of State has gathered these teaching hospitals into his maw is to' get a grasp on the endowments which go to them so that he can put them elsewhere. If the Government want more money for some of the smaller hospitals they should give a grant out of Government funds, and leave the endowments where they are.
  I would ask your Lordships to turn now to Clause 35, which deals with the distribution of medical practitioners. The noble Lord told us that one of the objects of this Bill is to introduce clauses which will help in regard to legal matters where those matters differ in Scotland as compared with England. In my view, this is a clause which is necessary only in the case of England; it is totally unnecessary in, regard to Scotland and should never be
  in the Scottish Whatever the case may be for direction (or "negative control," as Mr. Bevan termed it) in England
  314
  and Wales, there is no such case in Scotland. In England and Wales the ratio of doctors to population is I to 971, and in Scotland it is I to 902. In general practitioners only, in England and Wales it is I to 2,296, and in Scotland I to 2,032. I have seen—no doubt the noble Lord has them in his possession—the details for the whole of Scotland and, so far as I can make out, there is only one place in Scotland which might be called a "black spot," and that is Greenock. Surely we do not want a whole clause for Greenock, which has, I believe, a ratio of about to 3,000, or just over.
  In England there are, I know, a number of places where the ratio is very high. It goes up to I in over 4,000 in South Shields. If it is necessary for this clause to be in the English Bill to get the proper distribution, I have nothing to say against that; but I do say it is entirely unnecessary to have it in this Scottish Bill. In actual fact, if you make the service free, it will surely attract doctors to the heavy centres of population, because so long as their remuneration is mainly by way of capitation fee the highest rewards will obviously follow the largest practices. I hope the noble Lord Will listen to me with a sympathetic ear on this clause, because it is not necessary in the case of Scotland, and there is no need to have it.
  I want to mention Clause 36, to which I may say I take great exception. It is a complicated clause, and its aim is to prohibit the sale of goodwill by any medical practitioner whose name is on the list as having entered the public service either on the appointed day or any time thereafter. He is liable to a criminal charge, for which the penalty can be three months' imprisonment, if he does any of the things mentioned in this clause. There are subsections in the clause dealing with the sale of premises, partnership, assistantship transactions, and other matters, under which in certain circumstances a doctor is- deemed to be making a sale of goodwill to another doctor. He may be doing this in quite an innocent manner, but find that he has contravened this clause and become liable to be sentenced to prison. We know very well that there are thousands upon thousands of things nowadays which people can do without knowing that they are doing wrong, because no one in Great Britain has any idea what most of these regulations are—not all of them, at any rate. I see no reason why

  315
  a clause should be put in to make a further one which is totally unnecessary.
  I would particularly emphasize the outrageousness of the restriction on the sale of his house by a doctor to another doctor. It is impossible for anybody to know if the price is excessive, as it is always a matter of opinion what premises are worth; and it would be quite impossible for a doctor to sell his house in safety by auction, as he would not then be able to go to the Scottish Medical Practices Committee for a certificate, as is required under subsection (9) of this clause. The clause as drafted is practically unintelligible to the ordinary layman, yet it imposes new crimes on doctors who will not have, what I believe is called the mens rea—that is, the guilty mind—which, according to our law, is necessary to convict in nearly every conceivable crime on our Statute Book.
  I will not go any further into this complicated clause, but there are certainly half a dozen ways in which an innocent medical practitioner may find that, in the opinion of the court, he has committed a breach of one of the subsections of this clause. Of course, the clause is intended to prevent evasion, but may catch perfectly innocent people, as' a doctor may be held to be selling goodwill by some more or less unintelligible subsection, and thus, although he may not have dreamt of selling his practice, he may be deemed to have done so. I hope the noble Lord opposite will go once more into this clause and see if he cannot in some way alter it to make it fairer to the medical practitioner.
  Then there is Clause 43, by which an executive council, or any other person, can report to a tribunal that they consider that the name of a doctor, dentist, chemist, ophthalmic surgeon or optician should not be retained on the lists prepared under this Bill. The first stage is the complaint and the decision of the tribunal, and that tribunal is of a quasi-judicial character, the composition of which, on the whole, is satisfactory. If the tribunal has not acquitted the person before then, as the Bill stands at present, he may appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We do not think it fair that the appeal should be to the Secretary of State for Scotland in a matter which intimately concerns his own official responsibility. I would like
  316
  to see substituted for "The Secretary of State for Scotland" the words "The Court of Session," which would be a much fairer procedure than taking the matter up direct to the Secretary of State.
  I will turn to the general dental services of Clause 45. We very much desire that there should be a possibility of a system of grant-in-aid for better dentistry. As the Bill stands, there is provision for only a uniform standard of dentistry, and dentists feel (to quote one of their own publications) that this will result in "utility" dentistry throughout the scheme. In France, which I think has a Socialist Government strongly in power, they have a scheme of this kind, and I understand that it works very well. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I believe they do.
  LORD MORRISON: I did not want the noble Earl to think that I accepted the belief that they had a strong Socialist Government.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Perhaps it has not a strong Government at all, but whatever it is I think it is Socialist, although I may be quite wrong. However, if we cannot learn from France we can at least pay attention to what the dentists feel so strongly.
  LORD CALVERLEY: We feel it more than the dentists.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: We think it would be for the benefit of the people, and also of the dentists. If they are to have only the same standard of work the people who would benefit would be the least conscientious type of dentist. There will be nothing to induce the better dentist to provide better accommodation and even more recent copies of Punch, because if he does that sort of thing he will be losing money, since his remuneration will be no more than that of a "utility" dentist who works in shabby surroundings, without any papers for the people who are waiting. This principle of bringing professional men down to a low average standard runs right through the Bill, and is one of the reasons why we think it should be amended so much. It has been said repeatedly elsewhere that there are not enough dentists in this country to work the scheme; but that I do not believe. Estimates have been made of the numbers available who do little more

  317
  than provide treatment for such priority classes as nursing and expectant mothers, and so on. The idea seems to be that it you make dentistry cheaper you will have more people going to the dentist. Who has ever heard of anybody going to the dentists, even in Scotland, because they found it was cheaper to do so than before? People go to the dentist because they have toothache, and the number of people who are going to have toothache because it is cheaper will not be increased, even north of the border. That is why I believe we have a sufficient number of dentists under this scheme. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for this length of time but, as the noble Lord has said, this is a most important Bill, and I personally dissent strongly from some of the principal clauses of it.
  4.58 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for his very clear exposition of the Bill and to say how much I enjoyed listening to him. I am speaking to-day in this House not as an expert, on the subject but as one who must necessarily be interested in a Bill which covers so many aspects of every man's life. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say he is satisfied that this Bill, although it had a common origin somewhere in London, is none the less a Bill to solve Scots' problems and that it is not the application of an English Bill to Scotland. I am glad he agrees with that, because otherwise I should have said that the Scottish Office were becoming Anglicized. It is a great pity that a big, bold, grandiose measure, supported by lavish expenditure such as this, affecting so many people, should not have been welcomed wholeheartedly by those immediately concerned. It has not been welcomed wholeheartedly by the medical profession, and it has not been welcomed by the local authorities or by a great many of the boards of governors of hospitals. I will give you the figures of the voting which took place in Scotland on this subject. Among those who voted—and rather over 8o per cent. voted,—55 per cent. voted against coming into the scheme, and 45 per cent. were in favour of it. I cannot help feeling that in so big and so wide a scheme it should have been possible in the beginning to have en-
  318
  listed the enthusiastic support of the great body of people who arc immediately concerned with operating the scheme.
  This Bill contains Imo elements Which are fairly common to a great many of the Bills which have come before us. The first is the creation of new crimes, and the second is the centralization of power in one point. About a century ago there were a number of reformers, such as Mackintosh and Romilly, who took great pride in taking crimes off the Statute Book, but to-day our reformers seem more proud of putting them on. In this year of 1947 I wonder how many new crimes have been created which, ten or twenty years ago, we would have thought quite impossible. I will go further, and ask how many of your Lordships could put your hand on your heart and say that in this year you have committed no crime? I think very few of us. The effect of this Bill is to create crimes among the most deserving of people in our community, to whom we all owe a very great deal indeed.
  I will mention one thing about the particular crime which is created here, the crime of selling your practice. It is set up with the intention of making it easy for new men to get going at an early date—a purpose which I am sure will receive great sympathy in all quarters. But are the Government quite sure that that will be the object it achieves? In this respect I will ask one question only and will be glad to have a specific reply. As the Bill is at present drafted is it or is it not legal for the widow of a general practitioner to sell her late husband's house by public roup? The practitioner puts his house up to auction, he sees the price getting higher and higher and recognizes that as the price goes higher so will his fine get larger and larger and his period in prison longer and longer. You can imagine the anxiety that he feels about it. It really is a most unreasonable burden. The second point is the centralization at power. We must, I think, recognize the courage of the Secretary of State in accepting such heavy responsibilities as he does. He has to set up something like fifty boards and committees and appoint a chairman of each and a varying number of its members, amounting in all to at least 300 appointments. Now that, is a formidable task for anyone; but for one whose plate is already overflowing it is an impossible task.

  319
  I wonder whether it is fully realized that the Secretary of State for Scotland's duties are in fact more difficult, by reason of their variety, than those of the Minister of Health for England. During the Second Reading of the English Bill the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, made a comment on the powers which had to be exercised by the Minister of Health and he doubted whether housing and health could be dealt with by one Minister. He said:
  "Can any one man be expected without imminent danger of collapse or undue procrastination to give vitally necessary decisions on both these great subjects?"
  If I may, I will read a passage from the Report of the Committee on Scottish Administration dated 1937, describing the duties of the Secretary of State. It states:
  "Broadly speaking, he exercises so far as Scotland is concerned, all the functions which in England and Wales are discharged by the Home Secretary, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and by the Minister of Health, some by the Minister of Labour and the Lord Chancellor."
  to which of course must be added the Minister of Town and Country Planning. And it goes on to say:
  "Even apart from his multifarious duties there is a wide undefined area in which he is expected to be a mouthpiece of Scottish opinion in the Cabinet and elsewhere."
  I could only say that it appears to me that the added duties are such as he cannot personally carry out and that the duty of appointment is not one which can ever be satisfactorily carried out by delegation. That is why I suggest that the system of centralized appointment, of Regional Boards, executive committees and the other multifarious organizations which have to be raised is wrong in principle. I would add that we have recently had many notable examples of the effect which increasing power has on the character and, in that well known phrase, of its corrupting influence. One cannot help wondering how the great genius of the people can find its true expression when almost the only avenue to the responsibility lies in getting known to the Scottish office. Supposing the Secretary of State did not believe in orthodox medicine. Supposing he belonged to that body—for whom I have the greatest personal respect—the Christian Scientists. What then? Are we to have a new form of test to ensure that the Secretary of State is orthodox in his
  320
  methods, or is he going to be allowed to choose as he pleases?
  I admit there have been weaknesses. There were too few beds, and not enough co-ordination. So far as beds are concerned, I would much rather have seen the £7,500,000 which is to be paid in compensation expended with a view to building new hospitals. So far as co-ordination is concerned, there was never any reluctance on the part of voluntary hospitals who had, in fact, requested it.
  Turning for one moment to local authorities, I may point out that they have had their hospitals for very nearly twenty years. It seems very unsatisfactory that the better they did their job the worse they were paid for it. In other words, if they did a lot they got very little, and if they did very little they got a lot. If a local authority spent its rates on building a hospital it is now being taken over, without compensation, by the central Government. If, on the other hand, the authority did not spend its rates on building a hospital the ratepayers are so much better off. It is clear that the less money they spent, the better they arc treated by the central authority; and the more money they expended on social services, the worse off the ratepayers will be. This necessarily undermines the independence of the local authorities, who are, in fact, pawns in the game.
  This new system is not based on the report of any authoritative Committee; indeed, the reverse is the case, for just ten years ago the Scottish Health Services Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, referred, gave as the second of its main conclusions and recommendations the following:
  "It is in the interest of the State to foster the voluntary hospital system, but it would be unwise to endeavour to induce the voluntary hospitals to extend their financial commitments much further than at present."
  In the bare space of ten years the Secretary of State has gone through a complete 180 degrees turn, and he now wants to terminate absolutely the voluntary hospital service. I feel we require some explanation of this complete change of view.
  I should like now to say a word about endowments. Although the system which has been adopted in Scotland is greatly superior to that in England, it is a pity to spoil the ship for what is no more than a penn'orth of tar. The Govern-

  321
  ment have set up a system which could be excellent, but they have spoilt it by subordinating the whole organization to the alteration and change of the Secretary of State, and in any case anticipate its termination within five years. Thereafter the endowment falls to the sole discretion of the Secretary of State. I found a happy comparison of this arrangement made in another place by a keen supporter of this Bill. It was so good that I would like to repeat it. Dr. Morgan compared it to the despoliation of the monasteries by King Henry VIII— a most admirable comparison. But I suppose there are few historians who do not agree that this was one of the greatest lost opportunities in the history of this country.
  At the same time, the Secretary of State is, I think very ingenuously, asking for further endowments and promising that he will not do this sort of thing again. Unless we can strengthen and safeguard the re-allocation of endowments there is not a hope that any further endowments for health services remotely connected with State service will ever be provided.
  Now I have a further point that I wish to make in support of what the noble Earl has said, and that is with regard to the teaching hospitals. I can only say that in my view the position in this respect is profoundly unsatisfactory. It is generally recognized. I think, that a regional system of hospitalization in Scotland is inevitable, but you could not have a regional scheme, for instance, particularly for the South-East, without including the Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, the largest voluntary hospital in the British Isles. It is vitally important that the position of the teaching staffs should be safeguarded, and at the present time it is not. To me, it seemed that the noble Lord used very half-hearted phraseology in this respect. He said that the Secretary of State was reasonably confident that the universities were satisfied. I should say that the universities are profoundly anxious about the situation as a whole. They see no chance of ensuring that they will be able to appoint the teaching personnel which are necessary on their staff. They do not even know if they can appoint their own professors of surgery. We have a great tradition in teaching in Scotland and that must be maintained.
  Now I want to turn to the General Board of Control. The noble Lord did not mention them, but as they affect
  322
  something like 25,000 people who are inmates of these hospitals I think the omission was regrettable. The part of the Bill which deals with this matter is most unnecessarily abbreviated. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to disclose a comprehensive service. It tells one practically nothing. I want to know what is going to be the future position of the Board of Control. Are its members to continue to hold Royal Commissions? What is their position going to be in relation to the Department of Health? Are they going to retain independent status and will they retain their powers with respect to the liberty of the subject? Will the reports of the Commissioners be available not only for the General Board but also for the hospital boards and the Regional Boards to see? One further question which I wish to put relates to the boarding out of defectives. According to the terms of the Bill it appears that when a defective is boarded out the charge moves from the Exchequer to the local authority. Does that mean that in deciding whether a defective should be boarded out or not financial considerations will have weight? Will they enter into consideration in this regard? Is the boarding out to be done entirely on medical grounds or will financial reasons influence the decision?
  I would now like briefly to refer to the matter of dentists, particularly with the object of ascertaining what the future of the dental profession in Scotland is to be. I understand that the dentist will have the right to sell his practice, but he gets no compensation. What is his future to be? Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government that dentists should be full-time salaried civil servants, with fixed fees for different tasks and regulated methods of treatment? If that is the case, it is quite useless to expect first-class men to enter the dental profession in the future. In due course, no doubt, the health centres will come into existence and treatment by dentists will, at some time, he included in their scope. But by that time there will not be in the profession the able men who might otherwise have been attracted to it by the prospect of a successful professional career. The best men, under those conditions, will not enter the profession.
  Finally, I would say that this Bill contains in a blue print what can be a

  323
  magnificent service, but it has a number of weaknesses which cause grave anxiety. The greatest of its weaknesses, to my mind, is that throughout there appears to be an underlying desire to move to-wards standardization. I think that the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee: "We have to accept a standard." Once you have a standard, then you are moving against the principle of evolution which, for its development, depends on infinite variation. This variation will and can only come through the initiative and ideas of individuals acting in a sphere unfettered by any consideration but improvement of scientific method. It is only by infinite variation on this basis that you will get progress and development. The success or otherwise of this system will depend entirely on whoever works it. I should like to feel that the Secretary of State had a little more confidence in those who will run it for him. If he had shown more confidence, I feel that this Bill, embodying as it does projects of such a grandiose nature, would have received a warmer welcome from those best qualified to form a judgment.
  5.16 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House. I do not propose to travel over the same ground of criticism which has been so ably covered by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. But I have little doubt that when this Bill goes into the Committee stage, as political lapidaries we shall be able to put a little polish on what is, so to speak, a rough pebble at the moment. There is one thing about the Bill that distresses me. I listened very carefully to the full explanatory statement which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that, having regard to the speech he made, the Bill was shown to be a first-class example of a comprehensive national effort to produce a measure of this kind.
  I believe that I heard the noble Lord mention in detail the work that was intended to be done for various afflictions. I think I heard him speak of blind people, of dentistry, of pharmaceutical services,
  324
  and so forth, but I did not-hear one single word about deafness. It is always the same old story, when services to deal with the afflictions of the people are considered —the deaf are by-passed and completely forgotten. The matters which I have just mentioned are referred to in many places in the Bill. If you take the supplementary services dealt with in Clauses 39 to 43, you find that blindness has 55 lines devoted to it, dentistry has 35 lines and pharmaceutical services get 46 lines. But in the whole Bill—not merely in those few clauses—deafness is referred to only once, and that in half a line. Can anybody call that fair? If you can deal with all the eyes which need treatment, the bad teeth, and the bad tummies in the country, you ought to be able to do something for bad ears. You ought to be able to put some service in this connexion fully and definitely into the Bill.
  When the Bill relating to England was before this House my noble friend, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, who I regret is not in his place to-day, made the very same complaint which I have just made and tried to move some Amendment to meet the lack of reference of deafness. He was moving it in Part IV of the Bill, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who spoke for the Government, expressed great sympathy for the object the noble Viscount had in mind and assured him that the Bill would cover the affliction of deafness. The noble Earl further said, however, that it would have been much better if the Amendment had been moved in Part II of the Bill—that was the proper place for it. As this Bill which we are now considering is based fundamentally on the English Bill, I propose when it goes into Committee to take the noble Earl's advice, and in Part II of the Bill I shall bring up an Amendment very like the one put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil.
  I know what will happen. I shall be given full sympathy for the deaf, sympathy for which I shall be very grateful, and then I shall be given full assurances that this Bill will cover the deaf, even though they are not mentioned. There is a good old Scottish saying:
  "The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley."
  They do "gang aft agley," and assurances are not always fulfilled. Just before I came into the House, I heard a Minister of the Government make a

  325
  speech, and he referred to assurances. I will not mention his name because I do not wish to inconvenience all my noble friends opposite, but he is what we call in the Service a "V.I.P." This is what he said:
  "I endorse the view that no one should depend on a Minister's statement when we are dealing with a Bill that will become an Act of Parliament. I have listened to assurances for many years, and I now take no notice of them."
  That was said by a V.I.P. on the Government benches.
  We deaf people do not want to be included in the Bill because of sympathy or because of assurances. We want to be in the Bill by the same legislative right that has been given to blind people, people with bad teeth, and people with bad insides. We want to be in this Bill in black and white; we want to see it printed here. I am speaking not for myself, but for the deaf people who feel they have been very seriously slighted, and we want to get rid of that feeling. We want to have clinics set up in different parts of the country where deaf people can be treated.
  What happens to-day? First of all, I should say that most of the deaf people are working people. A far greater proportion of working people than the rich are deaf. They suffer and then they go to a doctor because the preservation of their hearing enables them to keep their jobs. If they lose their hearing, they may lose their jobs, and their homes, so it is vitally important to them. The doctor looks at the patient and says, "Yes, you want an aural aid; it will save your health and if will save your hearing. It will also prevent you from worrying." The patient then asks the doctor, "What sort of aid, and where can I get one?" The doctor tells him, "I cannot tell you because I am not an expert in aids, but there is a man down the street who will sell you one." So the wretched working man goes down the street to the man who sells the aid. The man puts him up against a wall, fits him with an aid, steps back three or four paces, and says, "One, two, three, four. Do you hear me? "The wretched man says he does, so the deaf aid man goes back another three or four steps and repeats the performance. If the patient says "Yes," the deaf aid man goes still further back, and finally says, "Well, there you are.
  326
  There is the aid for you. You hear perfectly, and I was speaking with my ordinary voice all the time." But the man was shouting. When the wretched working man patient goes back to his home (after paying twenty-five to thirty guineas for his aid) he finds he cannot hear anything. He cannot take the aid on trial, and he has to pay for it. That is the way these poor deaf people are exploited, and I have received hundreds of letters emphasizing that point.
  There are 400,000 deaf people registered as being deaf, and most of them are anxious to preserve their livings and their homes. I implore the Government to put in a proper clause dealing with the deaf, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will seriously consider it. I do not know why the Secretary of State should be annoyed with me for my persistence in this matter. I am not asking the Government to alter a single principle in the Bill. I am trying to help the Secretary of State to make it a good Bill by bringing in 400,000 people to support it. I ask the noble Lord to consider this matter carefully between now and the Report stage, because if he does, and if these people are included, it will make the Bill much more popular with a very large circle of people.
  5.25 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for his brief but very clear explanation of this Bill. He quoted some words from Clause 1 of the Bill, that it was
  "designed to secure an improvement in the mental and physical health of the people of Scotland."
  That is an aim with which we can identify ourselves unreservedly, but we on this side wonder whether this measure is the instrument to bring it about. We have doubts, because good intentions and good results are not necessarily co-extensive, and very often a great gulf exists between them. The noble Lord assured us that the Scottish Bill was not merely an amended copy of the English Bill, but rather one that has been built from its foundation to cater for the needs of Scotland. Of course, conditions in England and Scotland are very different on many vital points, but there is a remarkable similarity between the two Bills in almost every important principle.

  327
  This Bill is, I think, a sincere attempt at the improvement of the medical services of Scotland. It is a ponderous document of eighty clauses, and eleven schedules, involving a large expenditure of public money, and a prodigious expenditure of the time of those concerned. It would have been appropriate had Scotland's medical service been a notable and deplorable failure, but, on the contrary, the medical services of Scotland can stand comparison with the medical services of any country in the world. It is our duty to seek to improve when we can, but, at the same time, it is important to remember that one is liable in one's enthusiasm to lose the substance for the form.
  In the minute or so I have left I will address myself to Clause 35. It is a clause with which the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, dealt at some length. It deals with the distribution of medical practitioners. The principal argument for the English Bill was that there were too few medical practitioners in ratio to the numbers of the public, and, few as they were, they were unevenly distributed. My noble friend the Earl of Selkirk pointed out that the same problem does not arise in Scotland at all. There are, of course, isolated examples, one of which he quoted —the town of Greenock—but the problems of these few isolated examples could have been solved without invoking the force and ponderous strength of this particular clause. This is using a steam hammer to crack a nut, which is the most expensive, most ponderous and most inept way you can do it. There are eighty clauses in this Bill, and I cannot find a definition of "a proper distribution of doctors" anywhere. The Scottish Medical Practices Committees will have to accept or refuse doctors to practise in a certain area, but the criterion of whether or not adequate numbers already exist there is not included in this clause or, indeed, in this Bill.
  In another place it was argued, rather heatedly, that there were a large number of areas which were over-doctored or under-doctored. That must have had reference to some standard, and I would have thought that the place for a precise definition of the standard was in this clause, where in fact it is wholly omitted. Those same committees will be employment agencies, or Labour Exchanges, with no criterion as to the ratio of labour between supply and demand. While I
  328
  am quite sure this ponderous document of some eighty clauses represents a most honest attempt on the part of its authors to assist Scotland in the way of medical services, it has all the attendant trappings of centralization and the introduction of even further restrictions, which we on this side of the House deplore. In sitting down I would say that although I am entirely at one with the wording of Clause 1, which talks of an improvement being desired, I cannot applaud the Bill in its present form.
  5.31 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, if, by your Lordships' leave, I may be permitted to speak again, I would say that this has been a very interesting discussion, and the reception given to the Bill of which I moved the Second Reading has been greatly beyond my expectations. There is one remark that I would make with regard to the discussion generally, and that is that with respect to most of the charges of the unfairness of this Bill to doctors, local authorities, dentists, those who left endowments, and so on, we must be careful not to lose sight of the fact that this Bill is not a Bill to improve the position of any of those people or authorities, but primarily to improve the health services of the people of Scotland. That is the main object of the Bill. No one who took part in the discussion emphasized the fact that that is its real purpose, and the success or otherwise of the Bill will stand or fall on whether it results in an improvement in the health of the people of Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, summed up in one sentence what I want to say, when he said that this Bill contained in a blue print what can be a magnificent service. In the light of that statement—which I think is generally endorsed by all the Scottish members of the House—the Government can go forward at least to the next stage of the Bill with some confidence, in the knowledge that the advantages of the Bill considerably outweigh any disadvantages.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that a blue print never improved anybody's health.
  LORD MORRISON: I will perhaps come to that presently. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, asked why local authorities should have their powers taken from them. Under this Bill no power is being

  329
  taken away from local authorities. They have never had any duties at all outside the Poor Law arid the field of general practice. With regard to the ambulance services, those services are not at present under the local authorities, as the noble Earl pointed out, except incidentally in connexion with the hospitals. The noble Earl—as I expected he would—and other noble Lords, also, raised the general point that their objection to the Bill is that the Secretary of State under this measure is taking too much power unto himself. I think that sums up the position fairly accurately. That brings me to a problem in respect of which I frankly do not know the answer. If any noble Lord can give me the answer I should be very grateful. In connexion with this subject—as with all manner of subjects—it has been asked over and over again whether it is possible to devise any system under which those who do not pay the piper will still be enabled to call the tune. If somebody would be good enough at some time to answer that problem I should be very grateful. If the Secretary of State (who is to be responsible for this service as representing all the ratepayers in the whole of Scotland) is not to be responsible, are we to give the responsibility to someone who will have no responsibility at all with regard to the finances of the scheme?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The people who endowed the hospitals are certainly not going to be allowed to call the tune.
  LORD MORRISON: A good many of the people who endowed the hospitals are dead, which raises quite another problem.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that the local authorities paid for the municipal hospitals which exist and have nothing whatever to do with Poor Law. For the last twenty years that has been the case.
  LORD MORRISON: I do not want to take advantage of this opportunity of saying the last word in the discussion of the Bill in order to provoke a lengthy argument, because I realize that many of the points that have been raised during today's discussion will come up again at another stage of the Bill, on which occasion they can be discussed in detail, and because my friend, Lord Amulree, is patiently awaiting the discussion of another Motion. I am not proposing—or
  330
  at least I hope that I am not—to be provocatively argumentative in my remarks, but I merely want to deal with one or two matters by way of short reply —not final reply by any means—to some of the points which have been raised in the discussion. Less than 5 per cent. of the cost of the services to be provided under the Bill will be met from local rates. Nearly 20 per cent. will come from national insurance contributions, and the rest directly from the Exchequer. In a service which is centrally financed to this extent—over 90 per cent. of the total—it is essential that there should not be areas where the standard of the service provided is much below the general level. In that event, the inhabitants of those areas who are paying taxes and insurance contributions on the standard scale would not be getting value for their money.
  With regard to the point which the noble Earl made about teaching hospitals, although I do not claim to have a very close knowledge of them I should not have thought that there was an exact analogy between the teaching hospitals in Scotland and hospitals such as Guy's and other teaching hospitals in London, where there is a concentration of medical students. The only teaching hospital in Scotland of which I have any reasonably close acquaintance is Forrester Hill in Aberdeen. It is not only a teaching hospital but one of the largest—probably the largest—general hospitals in the north of Scotland, covering a very large and wide area. But I do not know of any hospital, analogous to the Forrester Hill Hospital in Aberdeen, which would be classified in Scotland as a teaching hospital, to be compared to hospitals like Guy's or St. Thomas's. The noble Earl said that he was concerned about the staff of the hospitals. I am advised that, while the staff will have their contracts with the Regional Board, all but the senior members of the staff will be appointed by the board of management of the hospital, and the board of management will have a big say in those senior appointments, subject to central negotiation with regard to remuneration, and so on. The board of management will also deal with the conditions of service. The question of the dental services was raised.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I asked specifically: Can the noble Lord state whether the universities will be able to

  331
  appoint their own professors of surgery and other professors on their teaching staff, or has this to go through the machinery of the Bill?
  LORD MORRISON: So far as my opinion goes, I can scarcely add to what I have said with regard to the general staff—namely, that the board of management will be able to appoint them, with the exception of the senior appointments. I am advised that they will have a big say in the senior appointments. Subject to central negotiations—that is, with the Secretary of State—on the matter of remuneration, the board of management will also deal with the conditions of service. The board of management, as I am advised, will deal with all the staff with the exception of the people at the top.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: They are the most important people, are they not?
  LORD MORRISON: That is why perhaps it is essential that the Secretary of State should deal with them on a national basis rather than on a local basis. The request of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, for a grant in aid of dentists would mean that some people would get a better service by paying for it out of their own pockets. I should have thought that other ways could be found of getting better remuneration for the better dentists by giving them hospitals or specialist appointments. However, perhaps this matter can be left to the Committee stage a little later on.
  With regard to hospital endowments, the Commission will be able to put an endowment with the hospital that provides the services, and so fulfil, and not violate, the spirit of the founders. This question of endowments is not by any means an easy problem. People who left endowments many years ago could not possibly conceive the new circumstances that would arise. I can give your Lordships one example, not taken from Scotland in particular, but probably applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. Many years ago it was quite usual for people in a position to leave money on their death to make large bequests to homes for blind children. That seemed to appeal to them. Generally it was circumscribed that the bequest should be for blind children from a certain town or from a certain county. The result is that to-day there are more homes for blind children than there are blind
  332
  children to occupy them. With the homes endowed and established, what is to be done with them? The trustees of those homes are unable to make any move, in order, for instance, to meet the case put forward so ably by the noble Duke of Montrose in regard to deaf children. They are unable to move. The Endowments Commission to be set up will have to consider all these matters and, so far as possible, carry out the intentions of the donors, qualified by the altered circumstances of the present day.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord agree that when the purpose of a trust is exhausted there is a perfectly normal action at law which can apply the trust to other purposes, without going to the point of an Act of Parliament and an Endowments Commission?
  LORD MORRISON: I think it would be much more satisfactory to have an Endowments Commission that will be able to look at the picture and, so far as possible, carry out the intentions of the founders, even though it may be somewhat difficult to do so. They can, at any rate, make the effort and start on that basis. I was asked a question as to whether it would be possible for a doctor to have his house sold by auction. The sale by auction of a doctor's house was dealt with in the Report stage in another place, when the Lord Advocate said that a genuine auction sale could not possibly lead to a prosecution. The doctors in the United Kingdom are to have £66,000,000 compensation for the loss of value of their practices. Therefore steps are necessary to make sure that a black market does not arise. The answer to the question is that no auction sale could possibly lead to a prosecution.
  The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned Christian Science. This Bill is based on medical practice by practitioners registered under the Medical Acts. The question of including unregistered practitioners would need an amendment to those Acts. But registered practitioners are not restricted in their methods of treatment; for example, homœopathic doctors will be free to practise as such. Private arrangements with unregistered practitioners are, of course, not affected by the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, deplored the fact that I had not made any reference to the question of the Board of Control in relation to mental diseases.

  333
  Part V of the Bill deals with this subject, as the noble Earl said. Briefly, the general principle is to assimilate the mental health services with the rest of the national health service. The supervisory functions hitherto exercised by the Board in relation to mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions are extinguished, for the responsibility of providing and running these institutions will in future rest with the Secretary of State. In performing his functions relating to mental illness or mental deficiency the Secretary of State is required to consult the General Board of Control.
  The Board will continue to exercise all its existing functions relating to the liberty of the subject and the interests of the patient as an individual. It will also continue to exercise supervisory functions relating to private mental institutions not taken over into the new hospital service. In practice a system of dual appointments is envisaged whereby the medical commissioners—that is, the medical members of the General Board of Control—and also the medical officers employed by the Board will, at the same time, hold appointments as officers of the Department of Health. This will ensure that both the Board and the Department—that is, the Secretary of State—will discharge their respective functions with full appreciation of the whole position before them; for example, reports by the medical commissioners on their visits to particular institutions will cover the interests both of the Secretary of State and of the Board, and will be made available to both bodies.
  I would like to make a reply to the noble Duke of Montrose who, not for the first time in this House during my short membership, has made a magnificent plea on behalf of a class of very deserving people. I agree with every word the noble Duke said in regard to the exploitation of the deaf. I think one of the scandals in this country has been the way, not only in which "quack" hearing aids have been foisted upon the deaf at extraordinarily high prices, but also the fraud that has taken place in connexion with them. I have myself had evidence only recently of a lady who had sacrificed all the money she could possibly afford only to get a deaf aid that would not work. She took it back to the makers. Never mind how the information came to me, but someone took it into the workshop, where
  334
  a pin was stuck through the diaphragm; it was then brought back and shown to the lady, who was told that the reason why it would not work was because the diaphragm had been punctured, and it would cost five guineas to put in a new diaphragm. That sort of thing has been going on for a long time. My difficulty is that the noble Duke has issued an ultimatum that he will accept no assurances.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Can the noble Lord tell us in what way this Bill is designed to prevent people from playing on the unsuspecting deaf? The noble Duke does not want an assurance, but some prevention.
  LORD MORRISON: I was about to say that as the noble Duke had in advance said that he would not accept any assurances, it was unnecessary for me to give them. I would rather leave this matter until the Committee stage, when we must see whether we can explore it further. The way in which it may be met is that under this scheme it will be possible for deaf people not only to be treated for deafness, but to be supplied with hearing aids as a State service, The noble Duke knows perfectly well that the Government have been for some time experimenting with a deaf aid apparatus, which I think he agrees will probably be better than anything on the market when it is ready. It is not yet ready, and I cannot give the noble Duke any information about that.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is a fact that there is mention of deaf aids or clinics in the Bill, and that is making all the deaf people very much doubt: the assurances. If the noble Lord could see his way to include a clause about clinics and deaf aid, I am sure it would give great satisfaction.
  LORD MORRISON: I know that that is the attitude the noble Duke takes up, and the answer to that—whether it is satisfactory or not—is of a somewhat technical character, and I was not going to give it. I will say merely in one sentence that I understand the objection to having this matter specifically put into the Bill is the fact that in regard to other services, such as the service of the eyes, there are certain definite medical standards, medical qualifications, for the people who treat the eyes, which do not

  335
  exist in regard to hearing troubles. That is the technical difficulty. But the noble Duke has, I know, given notice that he will raise this on Committee, and perhaps we may have a further opportunity of dealing with it then. Before I conclude, may I congratulate the noble Duke, as I understand this is his birthday? I hope that the speech he has delivered will be a forerunner to success in the campaign which he has been carrying on for so long and so well.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, agreed with what I think is the general opinion, that whether this Bill is of Scottish origin, or a copy of an English Bill, or a combination of both, that, so far as it has gone, the Scottish Bill is better than the English Bill. I think that is the generally accepted opinion of Scottish noble Lords. The noble Lord Lord Tweedsmuir, said that medical services in Scotland compare favourably with any part of the world; I agree with him But that is not the complete picture. The health of the people of Scotland does not compare more favourably with people all over the world, and this is an attempt to create a better and more comprehensive medical service in which the outstanding medical attainments of the Scottish doctors —known all over the world, and renowned all over the world—may be applied in an organized way in their own country, in order to produce what we all desire, a better standard of health among the people of Scotland.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  FOREIGN MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  5.53 P.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bill: That the Lords following be named of the Committee:
  336

  E. Selkirk,

  L. Saltoun,

  L. Amulree,

  L. Tweedsmuir,

  L. Morrison,

  L. Shepherd.

  That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to; ordered that a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

  PLIGHT OF OLD PEOPLE.
  5.54 P.m.
  LORD AMULREErose to call attention to the plight of the old people in this country; to inquire whether the Government intend to carry out any of the recommendations of the Nuffield Report; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when, in the year 1943, the Nuffield Foundation appointed a Survey Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, to inquire into the aged, I think it was the first time that any serious attempt had been made to find out whether there were any particular problems which applied to old people in general; and if there were, what were those problems and what could be done to help them? The Committee should be encouraged in their work, because the number of old people has increased enormously in this country during the past forty years. I do not at the present time want to take up a lot of your Lordships' time, but I want to give you one or two figures to make my point clear.
  In the year 1900 there were about 1,000,000 people whom we should call old people; that is, people who have reached pensionable age, 65 for men and 6o for women. By the year 1947, that figure had increased to about 5,000,000 —it may be a little more than 5,000,000 now—and people reckon that if the present trend continues, by about 1980 that figure will be in the neighbourhood of 9,000,000 people. I think that was the point which made the Foundation feel it worth while making this inquiry. The Report was published in January of this

  337
  year, and it disclosed rather an unfortunate state of affairs. There was one really important point: the Committee discovered that with the various systems of pensions the problem of real poverty was not now a very bad one for old people. They could, if they took advantage of the various pensions, provide themselves with a competence, adequate but austere, and not fear real poverty.
  The real problem which confronts the old people now is something rather more dreadful; it is the general difficulty of living and carrying on their normal way of life. It is the difficulty of shopping, housekeeping, cooking and cleaning, and taking care of themselves. Those are difficulties which are affecting people in all walks of life, the rich and the poor. It is now quite impossible to find nurses to take care of people in their homes, and it is not possible for many people to live with their familes as they did, since the bulk of the younger people have to go out for themselves. and therefore cannot give up a great deal of their time. That was the general view about it.
  The number of people who are getting into the ranks of what one calls the medically destitute—not financially destitute—is increasing, largely because old people cannot take care of themselves and get along by themselves. One of the great difficulties is that a very large number of people are suffering to a greater or lesser degree from under-feeding. I do not think it is that they are not getting enough rations, because I think the rations are as adequate for old people as they are for the middle-aged or young. The old people find it very difficult to shop, because they cannot stand in queues and carry home large bundles. The Nuffield Report, in paragraphs 135 and 136, refers to the fact that when they surveyed a large part of Cambridgeshire they found a great many old people were living on their meat, bread, butter, tea and jam ration, and nothing else. It was not surprising, therefore, that a great deal of ill-health was found. When these people were admitted to a home for old people, and were given a normal adequate diet, their mental and physical health improved enormously.
  That was brought home to me in rather a different way during the winter when I was presiding over a conference, organized by the London Council of Social
  338
  Service and attended by representatives of hospitals, local authorities, and voluntary bodies, to inquire into diets for old people. They all said that many old people needed to be admitted to hospital because they had not enough food. Once they got into bed and were taken care of, and properly fed on an ordinary diet, they improved quickly and could be sent back to their homes again. It is extremely expensive to maintain a patient in hospital. There are not a great number of nurses and the cost of keeping a patient in hospital is rising rapidly, ranging from four to six guineas a week. There are various means which could be employed to see that they did get a certain amount of extra food—not rationed food but extra food. It should be possible to assist these people by extensions of such schemes as the service run by the Red Cross in many towns, such as the "Meals cm Wheels" service, or the Invalid Kitchens of London. If it were possible for local authorities, under the Civic Restaurants Act, to supply meals from their restaurants to clubs for old people, their value would be increased enormously. I think that would be extremely helpful.
  Another thing which I think could help in certain areas is an extension of the clubs which have been founded already in some districts, where the old people can go for so many hours a day. These clubs were begun from a rather sentimental reason, but that does not matter. It is pleasant for the old people. But if some extension of the Civic Restaurants principle could be applied to clubs for old people, so that they can get more than they do now—at present they cannot get much more than a cup of tea—it would be extremely helpful. It is not a very costly thing. It is not very easy to find accommodation for clubs, but there are all sorts of things to be done, ranging from taking a small house to finding accommodation in some local hall for four or five hours a day—that is all that is really necessary. The provision of more homes for old people is another method which I think is worth encouragement. A certain number have been opened by voluntary bodies and local authorities and have had considerable success, but most of them have very long waiting lists; indeed the demand for admission is such that waiting lists have become meaningless.

  339
  Most of these places for old people are very well and adequately run, but some of the voluntary homes which are not nursing homes are purely homes for healthy people. The Nuffield Report refers to some, of the more scandalous of these. Quite recently I came across two homes myself, one in London and one in the suburbs, where the people were charged seven guineas a week, and for that they shared a room containing four beds in a private house. My informant went to visit a relative in one of these homes and wanted to talk to her privately, and it was necessary to take her down to his car and sit there; there was otherwise no accommodation at all. That seemed to me not a very satisfactory state of affairs. The Nuffield Report suggests that these places should be open for inspection. That is going to be difficult, because it is not very easy to decide when a home is a home and not a boarding house or hotel; but I do not think the problem is insoluble. It would be better if these homes were brought under some kind of clause for inspection, even though it might mean that a few hotels might be involved. If an old person makes a complaint he is told that there are plenty of people wanting to come in and he can go elsewhere; so these old people keep their mouths closed.
  The only accommodation that most local authorities can offer now to old people is the public assistance institution. According to the Report, only about 5 per cent. of the aged are in these institutions and anyone who has visited these places will understand why; they are large, grim masses of buildings, with ill-decorated wards, and often built about the time of the Poor Law Commission—1834 to 1840. The people are stifled under a mass of regulations and rules. Doors are locked at certain times and visitors are allowed at only infrequent intervals. There is no encouragement for the people to work or to take any active part in things, and they just sit round the walls of the institutions with nothing at all to do. One or two local authorities have been extremely good. I should like to mention two, because I know them. Excellent homes have been opened by the Surrey County Council and by the Glasgow Corporation. These homes are modern and up to date. They have single and double rooms, and the people are treated as if they were normal human beings.
  340
  The Ministry of Health have just issued a circular, No. 4947, in which attention is drawn to the necessity of providing reasonable homes for old people. They suggest that the ideal would be small homes for thirty to thirty-five persons where they could enjoy complete freedom with frequent visiting hours. They would have some kind of place for locking things up—a locker or just a drawer—and if possible they should be able to bring some of their personal belongings. I think that is an extremely encouraging circular and I hope it will be widely taken up by as many local authorities as possible. It is not a very costly thing; it can be done very largely by acquiring existing premises and would therefore go some way towards helping in a solution of the housing problem. There is great need for housing of this sort for people who can afford to pay something. A series of homes in North London keeps quite solvent by making a charge of two guineas a week. It does not make any profit, and does not want to. So, the expense, I suggest, would not be very great and would indeed be far cheaper than any kind of hospital provision.
  I think local authorities might be encouraged—as indeed I understand in certain instances they have been—to build special accommodation for old people in their new housing estates or blocks of flats. But it is a great mistake to think that old people like to be segregated. They want to have accommodation near shops, churches, cinemas and other places of amusements, and, in a certain sense, they like to be mixed up with their younger contemporaries. And, be it remembered, provided they are not too much mixed up with them, they can contribute a lot to the lives of their younger contemporaries. Old people, for instance, can take care of children while their parents go out. One knows that when the father and the mother go out, children are liable to get into all sorts of trouble if there is no older person to look after them. Therefore some provision of this sort would be a good move from that point of view.
  With regard to the liking old people have for company, I must say that two things struck me forcibly during the war. The Infirmary of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea was evacuated to a large house in Buckinghamshire. Here there was complete peace, beautiful gardens and a large park about two miles from the nearest

  341
  small town. But the old men were absolutely miserable; they felt lost and cut off from their friends, and it seemed to them that they had already started upon their last road to the tomb. The matron told me that in London the most popular ward in the Infirmary had been one that faced, I think, Royal Hospital Road, and from those windows the tops of buses could just be seen. Even that meant a lot to these old people, and they were just longing to get back from the country to London again.
  I remember, too, being told by a friend of mine who is interested in housing that during the war she visited a housing estate on the outskirts of a Midland town. While waiting for a bus to take her back to the town one day, she got into conversation with an old woman who lived on the estate and asked her how she liked her house. "Oh, it's fine," the old lady replied, "I have never had such a nice house, warm, comfortable and easy to manage." "Good," said my friend, "then I suppose you will be staying here for the rest of your life?" "Oh, no," said the old lady, "as soon as the war is over I'm going right back to the middle of the town. I know the little house I am going to get; it has been condemned, it is true, but I don't suppose they will pull it down in my time. "Now, that is the attitude of a lot of old people. They do not want to be parked out in the country—even though on beautiful estates—and cut off from the town.
  It has been objected that it is not economic to build small houses for old people at the present time, but I have read that in Hornsey a close of thirty-four one-bedroomed houses for old people has recently been built by the borough council at a fairly cheap cost—I think it was £27,000. These houses are let to old people at an economic rent of 12s. 6d. a week, and old people have been pleased to move into them, thereby freeing much larger houses with many more rooms. Many old persons would be delighted to move into smaller houses. Their families have grown up and left them, and often they find the houses in which they are living much too large for their needs. But the new houses must be modern in design, well found and fitted.
  Now a word about almshouses. There are many almshouses in the country, but more than 50 per cent. of them are old
  342
  fashioned, having been built in the middle of the 19th Century. They are in many cases quite unsuitable for the aged, as they have steep, narrow, dark stairs, outside sanitation and perhaps no running water, and no coal cellars. Now many of the charities which founded these alms-houses provided money to supply a small pension to the occupants, but left no adequate funds for repairs and modernizing. This is a matter perhaps for the Charity Commissioners, but it does seem to me that this would be an appropriate course to follow. With the scheme for national pensions about to take effect, it would be sensible to attempt to divert this money from paving pensions—which will not only not be necessary but, if they exceed 7s. 6d. a week, lead to a corresponding reduction in the national pension—to work on these houses which is very necessary. As I say, this is probably a matter for the Charity Commissioners, but I hope that whoever is responsible will take the view that the desires of the pious founders will be better met in care of the buildings than in subsidizing the State, which was surely not their intention.
  I have one more point. When people grow older, the distinction between health and disease becomes narrow and very difficult to define, and there must be great care taken to ensure that all old people, particularly those who live communally, can receive adequate expert medical attention when they are ill. In the past, there has been a tendency to consider chronic sickness as an almost inseparable feature of old age, and that all that was needed was careful nursing and attention. Any attempt to remedy a chronic condition in an old person was not attempted because it was thought to be impossible. The attitude to which I have just referred has caused a tremendous dislocation of the hospital services. It has led to a great slowing up of the stream of patients through the chronic wards of any hospital and to long waiting lists. Also, as a consequence, great discomfort has been occasioned to many. But there are hopes of a change. During the last few years a certain number of doctors have shown that old persons with their chronic diseases respond well to treatment, and that a large number of them—40 per cent, or more—who are admitted to chronic sick wards can be discharged either to their own homes or to a Home. The knowledge

  343
  that this can be done will bring about an enormous revolution in the treatment of the elderly.
  I should like to see all old persons who need hospital treatment, no matter what their disability, admitted for investigation and diagnosis into an acute general hospital. Her suitable treatment can be planned, and even if this has to be carried out in some separate building, it should be undertaken under the general supervision of the expert staff of the acute hospital. Any home for old people may well need some kind of a small sick bay where the occupants can be put for a day or two with minor ailments, but it is necessary that great care should be taken in this matter, otherwise these places may well develop into a new version of the old poor law infirmary, and you will get long lists of people waiting for beds. These sick wards or bays should be looked after by at least a general practitioner, and there should be a very firm link indeed between them and the local hospital. It is important that there should be no obstacle to patients' prompt admission when necessary, and to their equally prompt discharge when they are ready to go out. It would be necessary to have a certain number of homes available for, those who cannot quite get back to their normal condition, but who are not so bad that they need to be kept in hospital.
  The last point I wish to make is this. We have a population that is rapidly growing older, and it is reckoned that in a comparatively short time—by 1971 I believe—what I may call the middle or productive group of the population will be smaller than the young and old groups together. That will mean that a small group will have to support two large groups. This will remain true of the older group if you continue to enforce a retiring age of sixty-five. But, I submit, it is important that old people, within the limits of my definition, should be encouraged to work for as long as they are capable to contribute to the nation's wealth. Persons should not be compelled to retire when they are still sound and fit for work and desire to continue. The Nuffield surveyors found that many employers said that a large number of their elderly workmen gave satisfactory work when well over the normal age for retirement. This is important. Clearly, every
  344
  incentive should be given to those who are fit to work, to do so.
  Some financial adjustment must be made. The surveyors recommend that certain financial rewards should be given to those who remain at work after pensionable age. It is, of course, imperative that no one should be compelled to work who wishes to retire, and that no employer should be forced to employ a man who has reached pensionable age, with whose work he is not satisfied. Many an elderly person would respond to an offer to remain at work, with advantage to himself and the country, and I think all reasonable inducement should be offered to him to do so. I submit that the suggestions that I have put forward would, if carried out, contribute to providing a reasonable service for old people. They do not require much labour or material, and they are not costly.
  6.20 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend, Lord Amulree, has brought this subject before your Lordships' House, and he has done so, if I may say so, out of a large store of knowledge, and with great sympathy and understanding. The number of urgent problems before the country at the present time is so great that they are in danger of crowding one another out. The problem of the accommodation and the care of old people, which is growing steadily more urgent, is certainly in danger of being crowded out, or at least of being pushed into the background. At the present time only a small proportion of the local authorities in England and Wales realize the need for small dwellings for old persons. But surely it is obvious that to build small houses for the old will release larger houses for the young, and it should be made compulsory for all local authorities to include a suitable proportion of small-sized dwellings in every scheme. In addition to cottages and bungalows, a few "plus granny" flats should be provided—annexe flats adjoining dwellings for families, so that an elderly relative can lead an independent life as a householder and yet be within reach of help should need arise. It is greatly to be hoped that the Government will bring pressure to bear on local authorities to provide more of these types of accommodation for the elderly.
  Of course, accommodation is not the only problem. If old people are to be

  345
  able to live in their own homes, various auxiliary services are needed. The Red Cross are now expanding their most valuable work of visiting elderly people in their homes, and they find urgent need of such services as home help can give. Schemes of home help have been organized in some districts, though as yet they are but few. They should be made general throughout the country. Further, a number of elderly people become unfit to live on their own. As a rule they are reluctant to enter an institution; often they choose to remain at home until their condition becomes truly pitiable. For these people homely hostels are the right solution. A beginning at supplying such hostels has been made in a few places, but only a beginning.
  In the county of Cornwall we have two hostels run by the local authority, and one by a voluntary body. Another "eventide home" is being opened at Bude this month by the local Old People's Welfare Committee. The county authority have also acquired another house in Penzance which should accommodate about twenty elderly persons, and that authority has been trying for eighteen months to get permits for making the necessary adaptations to the building. Why is it that permits are so notoriously difficult to obtain? is it always because there is a great shortage of so many materials, or are these most trying delays sometimes due to some inefficiency in administration? The result, at all events, is very unsatisfactory. Cannot the Government do something to expedite the grant of permits in cases of this kind? As will be evident from what I have said, the provision for elderly people in Cornwall is entirely inadequate. And if I am rightly informed, the position in neighbouring counties is hardly better. Could not the Government take the initiative and give some stimulus and practical encouragement? Wise programmes of extension should be drawn up all over the country and they should have their due share of public attention and effort.
  The Report of the Nuffield Survey Committee contains several practical suggestions which might be put into operation without delay. One of them is concerned with almshouses. There are a large number of almshouses in the country which could make a valuable contribution to the housing problem if they were put into better condition. Surely it would
  346
  often be more economical to give grants to charities for the improvement of their almshouses (as regards water supply and sanitation, for example) than to build entirely new dwellings. Reputable charities in areas where there is an urgent demand for houses might well receive help from the Government. And, as my noble friend has already suggested, in many instances actual grants would not be necessary—simply some power of modifying their trust deeds.
  I should like to underline two other paragraphs in the Nuffield Report. The first, paragraph 269, refers to a class of the community which is scarcely catered for at all—namely, old persons who have some private means and are able to pay somewhat more than the sums usually charged in existing voluntary homes, but less than the fees of a nursing home. Many of these elderly people are amongst the most thrifty and deserving of His Majesty's subjects. It seems to me that the present tendency is to do far too little to encourage thrift and to reward merit. The Council of Social Service for Cornwall have been receiving numerous applications from the old people of the county, and the large majority of these applications are from persons of this kind, with small savings of their own. In some instances, voluntary bodies or private benefactors are giving welcome and valuable help. Mr. C. C. Morley, for example, has recently most generously handed over his house, the ancestral home of the Trelawny family, with a benefaction, to be a hostel for aged retired clergy and their wives. The possibility of a somewhat similar scheme is being explored in connexion with Cotehele House, one of the best preserved of the ancient historic houses of England, through the kindness of the Earl of Mount-Edgecumbe and the National Trust. If I may say so, the clergy are a good example of aged people relinquishing official residences, often with nowhere to go. Any effort on the part of individual benefactors or voluntary bodies to make provision for such homeless elderly persons should receive every possible encouragement.
  The other paragraph of the Nuffield Report to which I should like to call special attention is paragraph 272. This suggests the setting up of an experimental centre for demonstration and training in methods of caring for the infirm and the

  347
  aged. The establishment of such a centre would kill two birds with one stone. The centre would take charge of a certain number of elderly people, and at the same time would give a much-needed training to persons wishing to specialize in the care of the aged. One of the last recommendations of the Report emphasizes the need for continued and systematic inquiry into all matters affecting the aged. Very good. "Let knowledge grow from more to more." But let there be no waiting for the result of further inquiry before doing something practical. One of the major industries of this nation at the present time seems to be the making of inquiries—inquiries here, there, and everywhere; masses of inquiries, with but meagre results. As to the aged, we have plenty of knowledge to be going on with. And now, as the Nuffield Report itself concludes:
  "Above all there is need for energetic action to secure enough suitable dwellings for the aged, and much more and better communal accommodation for those unable to continue independent lives."
  6.30 p.m.
  LORD HOLDEN: My Lords, I usually trespass on your Lordships' time with a few observations about the very young, sometimes when they are very good and sometimes when they are very bad. I want to make a few observations (I promise your Lordships that they will not be very long) on the Motion moved by the noble Lord opposite, and I want to make them for two reasons. First, I think that the young and the very old have this in common, that they are quite powerless to look after themselves, particularly if they are impoverished and deprived of a home. Secondly—and this is more a personal reason—like many of your Lordships now in the middle years of life I still have a recollection of the frivolities of my youth but I am sufficiently advanced in years to have to face up to the prospect of old age in the not distant future.
  I should like, if I may, to mention three types of institutions, some of which have been mentioned by my noble friend opposite: first, Public Assistance institutions; secondly, homes run by bodies of a religious character; and, thirdly, homes run purely for private profit. Many of your Lordships will know what a Public Assistance institution looks like. From
  348
  the outside it can look very pleasant. Architecturally it is sometimes attractive. In many cases it was built in the early years of the 19th Century. As you approach the spacious door you might rather envy the lot of those inside but, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, your feelings are very different when you get inside. You will find a ward, or a series of wards, sometimes with as many as too beds, separated from each other by only two feet. You will also find that the only furniture a resident has is one chair, although I am aware that lockers are now being more freely installed in those institutions. You then pass into the day room, which is equally dreary. There is no carpet covering the floor boards. You will find those—to me —unattractive Windsor chairs all round the walls. Naturally, in such a place, apathy must exist. There is no doubt that the people in those institutions have nothing whatever to do except to wait for the next meal or for bedtime. The Nuffield Report contains a recommendation, which is rather vague—though in the circumstances it could not be more positive—to urge local authorities to try to build homes for thirty or thirty-five people to take the place of these institutions. I think it can be said that it is homes rather than institutions in which we should like our old people to live.
  May I now say something about homes run by religious bodies, or rather bodies of a religious nature? There are about 100 of those homes. (I am talking only of those for poor people.) Eighty per cent. are run by the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Sisters of Nazareth or the Salvation Army. I should like to pay a tribute to all those organizations—certainly to the first two of which, as a Roman Catholic, I have some knowledge—for the devoted service they have given. And indeed that also applies to the Salvation Army. I have, however, two criticisms which I must make, although not of the people who run the homes. It is perhaps the organization that is responsible. All are run by a headquarters organization. In consequence, up to a point their rules are bound to be stereotyped. Too little regard is paid in the individual home for individual tastes and requirements. The second criticism which I wish to make (indeed it is hardly a criticism because I know how difficult the position is) is that they are very understaffed. They have

  349
  on an average, one member of the staff for ten residents. That is not enough. It is, of course, easy to criticize but it is difficult to get the people. We have to be thankful for the valuable services which the people in those institutions of a religious character give for no payment whatever.
  Before referring to the recommendation made in the Report, I should like to say a few words about homes run purely for private profit, because the recommendation in the Report is the same for both types of home. Here, as regards staff and residents, we have a ratio of roughly one to fifteen. I think that it is obvious, in such circumstances, that poor people are bound to be neglected, particularly when they have no relative or friend to look after them. The noble Lord opposite referred to what the Nuffield Report said, (and, the, examples it gave, of the disgraceful conditions of neglect and exploitation in such homes. As he did not read them out, perhaps your Lordships would allow me to read two short extracts. They are extremely shocking, but I am not suggesting that in every case this applies. These extracts which I am about to give relate to homes run for private profit:
  "Miss X runs a home for thirty old people. … The registration of the home as a nursing home was cancelled some years ago after a patient had been reported to the Medical Officer of Health as verminous and uncared for. Miss X was recently fined for drawing an old age pension after a pensioner's death. … The patients seen by the Committee's investigator were frightened of Miss X and unhappy."
  Here is another short extract:
  "Miss Y ran a small Home for six or eight old women. Miss Y's manner to visitors was always strange, and her reply to an inquiry about residents' health was invariably the formula She is very well; she had a lovely dinner yesterday of duck and green peas.' Residents visited were not infrequently found naked in bed and often crying. Miss Y eventually had a breakdown and was diagnosed as a dipsomaniac."
  To read of those things hurt us deeply. I am sure it is, or should be, a shock to the conscience of anybody who is aware of them.
  In conclusion, I should like to make a reference to the recommendation, to which my noble friend opposite has referred, with regard to the voluntary homes; that they should have periodical statutory inspection. I certainly think that is essential. I know the difficulties. My noble
  350
  friend opposite referred to them. One obvious instance was the possibility of a home being able to call itself a boarding house, and therefore being able to escape very necessary inspection. I believe that such difficulties can be overcome. I also feel that all good homes, properly run, should welcome inspection, and should not object to it in any way. The second recommendation made in the Nuffield Report—which is a general one (it is only tentative; and I would like to think that one day it might be possible of achievement) was that there should be created a co-ordinating committee charged with looking after the welfare of the aged people of this country, and that it should also attempt to improve and co-ordinate all the different organizations which look after them. That is perhaps a more remote objective, but I feel that inspection of voluntary homes is important; it is urgent and is practicable. If we can do this, I feel sure that the last years of many of our ageing fellow citizens will be spent in conditions of greater happiness and security.
  6.40 p.m.
  LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I am sure that all members of your Lordships' House will feel they owe a debt of gratitude to the Nuffield Foundation for instituting, and to Mr. Rowntree and his colleagues for making, the inquiry which has resulted in the issue of the Report which is the subject of to-day's discussion. I think your Lordships will also feel a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for bringing this matter before us to-day, because this problem of the old people (and I would take old people as meaning old people of pensionable age, men over sixty-five and women over sixty) is one of the major problems facing all of us. It is major in numbers. We all know that, roughly speaking, one in five or six of the people of the country will be of that age. In the presence of the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, I hesitate to refer to an inquiry which I made into social insurance a few years ago, but in the course of that inquiry it was vividly brought home to me how enormous was the problem of the old, and how big a difference every shilling that was added to the pension made to them. That particular-difficulty has been overcome, and we have faced the problem of finding adequate

  351
  pensions, or subsistence pensions, for these old people.
  Perhaps on that question I may just refer to one thing which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, which might have given the idea that there was a possibility that the middle section of the population—those between the age of childhood, under fifteen, and those of pensionable age—might be less than the other two together. I do not think that is a possibility. There are various estimates made by different people, but they all come down to this: that of every 100 people about twenty, twenty or a little under will be children under fifteen; about twenty or a little under will be people over pensionable age; and the other sixty will be people in the middle group. But it must be remembered that half of that sixty will not be engaged as workers; they are the housewives bringing up families. So it is true that a minority will have to do the paid work. Those are, roughly, the figures. The problem of old age is a major problem, not because of its numerical size, but because of its quality. Although we have now in this country provided pensions which are within sight of being adequate for subsistence for everybody, that does not solve the problem of old age, but only raises the question of how we are to deal with the additional human needs which cannot be met merely by guaranteeing a minimum income. That is really the subject of this debate.
  Most of the points have already been dealt with, so I can speak very shortly about them. I want to say only a word or two upon the most important points. There is, of course, the question of housing. I believe that one of the most valuable points made in this Report of the Nuffield Foundation is in paragraph 268, in their condemnation of the accommodation provided in most homes and institutions for the old. I would like to read the following:
  "The visits by members of the Committee to a number of institutions have confirmed the widely held view that, in the majority of them, the structure, equipment and regulations are unsuited to the needs of most old people."
  From that the Committee draw the conclusion—and I do not think it can be escaped—that it is necessary to contemplate building a very large number of additional homes—they put it at some-
  352
  thing like 1,000—for the old people who cannot live ordinary, completely independent lives in private houses, either alone or with their families. The Committee point out that the great majority of old people will go on living independent lives; that is to say, they will go on living in ordinary houses. Perhaps 95 per cent. of them now do. I think we ought also to realize that probably a certain number of them ought not to, and if there were reasonable homes they would go to those homes. Let us bear in mind the judgment of the Committee on that point.
  The Committee also emphasize that the provision of houses suitable for the old should be regarded as an essential part of our building programme. I hope that what they have said will help to do what they say needs doing, in the way of correcting the widespread view which they found among individuals and local authorities, that in the present acute shortage of houses of all types precedence in the use of labour and building should be given to the family house, and should exclude any provision for the old. I suggest that that is a wrong. and wicked thing to do, and that the judgment of the Committee, that some percentage of all houses should be designed specially for these older people, and as part of the general housing scheme, should be accepted. I need not go over again what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and others, as to not segregating the old. Apart from housing, what the old need, of course, is home help. I think the only point on which I feel some disagreement with the Committee's report is where they rather suggest that the home help for the old is needed only if they are sick, and while they are sick. Actually a number of old people are not sick, but they are unable to do for themselves the ordinary domestic work; they are not able to do for themselves the shopping, as it now has to be conducted, in queues. The provision of younger people who will come in and do these things for the old people, where they have not got families of their own to do them, is an essential that should be provided, not only for the sick but for the old as such. Then, of course, what many old people need is companionship—not to be lonely. That is a question of organizing visits to them, and of organizing recreations and clubs for them.

  353
  Finally, I am perhaps in an ever better position than the noble Lord who spoke first to say that what is really needed for the old people of pensionable age, like myself, is employment, if they are still able to be employed—but not compulsory employment. I hope the Government will act on the recommendation of the Nuffield Report, and look very carefully into the working of the present provisions, which are designed to encourage the continuance of the older people at work. If the incentives now given are not adequate, those incentives should be increased. Those things—housing, home help, employment and companionship—are additional needs which, from the point of view of the old, are not met by money. The thing one has to consider is: What is the best kind of agency to meet these needs? I hope that in considering agencies the Government will not think at once that I mean a Government Department, or a local authority. After all, this whole Report has come to us from a voluntary agency, an agency not stimulated by any Government Department but by voluntary charity, and undertaken by voluntary people. The question is, what kind of agencies can best meet these various needs?
  I want to refer shortly to one more point, which has already been made, about the existing endowed charities. I hope the Government will adopt the proposal of the Report that there should be an inquiry. I hope the right reverend Prelate will not object to an inquiry into the existing endowed charities. I do not suggest that with a view to recasting, but to see how they can be made more useful in the quite changed circumstances. I believe there is something like £5,000,000 a year in endowed charities that are now available for the old. That does not go very far in pensions, but it might go an enormous distance in recreation clubs, specialized buildings, and things of that sort. Then there is another type of agency which I hope the Government will not forget in this matter, and that is what I may call the mutual aid agency—the agency represented by the friendly society, or the trade unions on their friendly side —by which, in the past, before the State came into this, people attempted to provide for old people.
  I do not believe the day of that has passed. First of all, a great many people will feel that they desire more money than
  354
  they are getting from the compulsory State pensions, and I hope the societies will continue to insure them, and that it will be easy for them to do so. But I am not sure that some of these agencies might not consider whether they could not organize themselves to provide, in return for contributions, a guarantee of home help in old age, or even suitable houses. I admit that it might be rather difficult to calculate the right premium for this insurance, but I am sure we should be very much happier—at least I should—if we felt that when we got to be old, instead of being only of a pensionable age, we could be sure of home help coming into our houses. At the moment we are not at all sure. I hope these voluntary agencies will examine carefully what they can do to meet the needs which still remain, and that they will be helped by the Government to do so.
  Then, of course, there are many voluntary organizations, not actuated by any idea of pecuniary gain, which give scope to the social conscience motive—people who desire to devote their leisure time to helping the lives of their fellows. In that way, I believe, you really have great scope for providing for the unsatisfied needs of the old people.
  I want to refer to one last point, and that is paragraph 279 of the Nuffield Report, where the Committee discuss whether there should be any single central agency for examining this matter. The Committee (it says) examined
  "very seriously the desirability of recommending that a new and central body be set up, to study the changing conditions and needs of the aged; to undertake or stimulate research … "
  I am sure we do not need a new Government Department for this purpose. I am not one of those who think there ought never to be new Government Departments, but I do not think we need one for this purpose. I believe there is perhaps need for something which would make itself the adviser of the Government on what could be clone in this major problem of the old. Possibly some kind of advisory council could be, set up, attached to the National Insurance Ministry, which would, I think, be the right agency for that. That advisory council could help the Government to see that all the additional needs which are not met out of the pensions of the old are met. And in a way they are more important for human happiness than

  355
  a mere provision of a guaranteed minimum income.
  6.54 p.m.
  LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for having introduced this Motion, and I propose at this hour to touch, as briefly as I can on only two or three aspects of it. I believe that a Christian national life, such as is our aim at the present time, is best founded on happy homes and providing a separate dwelling house for each family as a unit. That is a most necessary step in that direction. The provision of a small house or flat, with modern, convenient fittings, and of a size and at a rental that the aged can quite conveniently manage, would enable them to continue for longer, if not for the whole of their lives, as independent members of the community, instead of adding to the number of inmates of institutions which are already overcrowded and which are certainly terribly understaffed, or of adding to the waiting list of those hospitals to which allusion has already been made. I think, also, that this would help greatly in the housing and happiness of others.
  During the war, many cases occurred when at least three generations were sharing one home, especially when the young folk married during the war and the husband was serving. As has already been realized this creates many domestic problems. Every woman wants a home to manage by herself and to do her own housekeeping. The mother and the grandmother are so apt to have very widely divergent views upon the bringing up of the children, while the old may find that the natural noisiness of the children in the house is extremely trying and very irritating to them. It is therefore most necessary that these young couples, now re-united, should be able to start and create a family and bring it up in a home and family life of their own. This is done most easily by the older generation moving into small houses, which it has been found they are usually ready to do.
  The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has already quoted the example of the Hornsey Borough Council. In the Nuffield Report at the end of paragraph 94 the Committee say:
  " Where this willingness to move exists, the building of small houses for old people becomes
  356
  a cheap, speedy and effective contribution to the whole problem of rehousing the population by releasing houses for larger families."
  It would seem to me that by the expenditure of about two-thirds of the amount of labour and material required for a three-bedroomed house, and about two-thirds of the site, we could provide two convenient and happy homes, instead of overcrowding three generations into one inadequate house with all the consequent inconvenience and friction.
  May I say a word about the proportion of houses for the aged? The Nuffield Report says, in paragraph 102:
  "We are inclined to suggest, with great reserve, that on the average 5 per cent. of the houses in any community should be such as are suited to the needs of old people."
  They add that this is a national estimate, and that precise housing needs must vary according to many local factors, The Amersham Rural District Council in my own county of Buckinghamshire, who have been building houses for old people on their housing estates for over fifteen years, are now having 15 per cent, of the total of those houses suited to the aged people, and they have found that in a rural area that is the correct proportion. Of the four great London trusts, the Peabody Trust has no less than 51 per cent. of its buildings of small size. The Guinness Trust has 60 per cent., the Sutton Trust about 48 per cent., and the Lewis Trust about 33 per cent., so that when you get to cities it seems that they should build up to 30 per cent. of small-sized dwellings.
  With regard to the size, taking Amersham again, they have built some under the 1924 Act with one bedroom, one living room, a kitchen and a bathroom, at a standard rent of about 2S., with rates at Is. 2d. Under the 1936 and 1938 Acts they have built them with two bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, bathroom and hot water, at a rental of 5s. 8d. plus rates. They are now planning to build flats on two floors, which seems to be a very convenient way of providing for these old people houses with two bedrooms, a sitting room, a large kitchen and bathroom and hot water, and they plan to be able to let them at 9s. 6d. plus rates. Some of these houses might be convenient for homes for newly married couples, for small families or for families with children of one sex only. It is entirely optional at present whether local authorities include

  357
  any proportion at all of houses for their old people in their schemes. It has been shown that the very large majority are building three-bedroomed houses only. I therefore support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, that all local authorities should build an adequate number of small houses for these aged people, scattered over their various housing estates.
  As to the question of siting, they should be scattered, and conveniently situated near the houses of other people and of their relatives, and not too far from the main road, so that the occupants can see the tops of the buses and so that they can get easily to the shops and other places. I would ask the, noble Lord who is to reply whether he can see that the Ministry procure this, either by persuasion, by regulation, or even, if necessary, by a short Bill. All the housing plans of local authorities are submitted to the Ministry, and I should have thought it would have been quite practicable for the Ministry to acquire a proportion of these small dwellings in substitution for some of those that they may have acquired—sometimes by drastic alterations to the housing schemes put up to them. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred to circular No. 4947, and I would like to congratulate the Ministry on its reception. It outlines what your Lordships have heard as to the aged in public institutions. We were quite ready to accept suggestions as to modifications of the rules regarding visits, going out, times of closing, and so on, and I do not think they will provide any great difficulty; but I would like to ask whether the Ministry would readily issue the permits for lockers—such lockers as are either of well-seasoned wood or mild steel. I am advised that some of these three-ply lockers buckle up in the dry atmosphere which prevails in these places.
  These needs of the aged do provide, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has pointed out, scope and opportunity for those social services which were so splendidly run throughout the country through a variety of bodies during the war. This again has already been very well started in some cases. Buckinghamshire has a very efficient Old Folks Welfare Committee. They have already started at least two very satisfactory hostels for old people, and the Public Assistance Com-
  358
  mittee are just now acquiring one. The small town near which I live has an old folks club. So, generally, welfare for the aged will depend very largely on the way in which all these rules are administered, and on the spirit with which those who look after them carry out their duties. I believe that spirit must depend on our Christian faith and on our love of our fellow men which, in its turn, depends upon our belief in the Fatherhood of God.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there has been a very pleasant unanimity among noble Lords who have spoken, and I am well pleased, because almost everybody I meet who is really interested in the care. of the aged has a different solution. I believe there is one African tribe which solves the problem of the aged by keeping a convenient pool in a nearby river, with sacred crocodiles. I have met some intellectual supporters of noble Lords opposite who hold very much the same views, but I do not believe they hold those views themselves save possibly only in the case of company directors. But other views are held: some people prefer institutional treatment, some prefer homes for the old; and there are other ideas. There are problems in this connexion; one knows of the senile and impotent hate that sometimes arises when eighty-three and seven weeks takes a chair which eighty-three and eight weeks thinks properly belongs to him. They are not always as happy as one thinks. Then there is the almshouse system, which I think is very good, with one exception—namely, that it keeps the old people together. We must not run away with the idea that all almshouses are bad; some of them are very good indeed.
  Then there are special houses or flats for the old; and finally there are those who maintain the old in their own homes. It is with this type of old person that my own experience has chiefly lain. In some cases it would be cruelty to take them from their own houses. But where so many earnest people have different views, it is likely, I think, that they are all right and that each system has a place in the care of the old.
  I am quite satisfied, from reports that I get from all over the country, from the general population and from doctors, that old people in this country are not being properly looked after. That is a very

  359
  serious statement to make, but I make it conscientiously and soberly, and I want to say, quite definitely, that I do not attribute any blame in the matter to the Assistance Board. As your Lordships know, there has been a very great extension of the duties of the Assistance Boards and they are extremely understaffed. They have had to reduce their staffs and it is difficult to get over the ground. This is an important matter because, with the old, visiting—frequent visiting—is absolutely essential. The Assistance Board is frequently five miles and sometimes forty miles from places where they have to undertake the care of old people.
  One of the most moving passages in this Report is, I think, contained in pages 52 and 53. The passage speaks of the loneliness of old people and of the extreme value, which they put on visits that are paid to them. The need is for people who will make periodic visits to the aged perhaps once a week, at least once a fortnight. A person who performs that sort of service hears about their family affairs, and gets to know the people intimately. He notes indications of failing health—and changes of health occur very suddenly in old people, quite apart from any question of incidental disease—he knows their family circumstances and he understands exactly how best they can be helped. In fact, one of the very few points in this Report that I would criticize—and perhaps my criticism is unfair—is the matter which is dealt with, I think, on page 171 —the questionnaire. While the questionnaire contains almost all the questions one would wish to have answered, it does omit one extremely important question. That question I suggest is: "What family have you living away from home, and where are they? "That is a most necessary question, because the information which it is designed to elicit is of such importance. Not only is it the fact that members of the family are probably the best advisers, but, very often, in the case of those who can manage to do something for their aged relatives there is a duty upon them.
  His Majesty's Government recently, in matters of education, have, I think, been stressing what I have always felt to be one of the most important matters in connexion with education— that is, the influence of the home. If the influence of the home is called into play to assist in the educa-
  360
  tion of the young, it imposes on the young a special duty towards the persons who have made the home; and whatever theory of social life an individual may hold, I maintain that that duty must always exist. The duty lies on children to look after their elders, or at any rate to assist in their care. The information to which I have just referred ought to be known to the person whose task it is to visit the old people.
  I have one other point. You cannot possibly know who is in need unless you have local people steadily paying visits. This question of visiting has remained uppermost in my mind since reading the Report, and I emphasize it because hitherto in this debate only one noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has stressed it. And in this connexion I make a practical suggestion, and it is one which does not call for any inquiry or even for a Bill. It is that the staff of the Assistance Board should be so far extended and increased as to permit of an experienced man being appointed in every parish—or, if not in the parish in every case, at any rate, in such areas as may be deemed reasonable to cover—whose duty it will be to visit the old people regularly, and look after them. That, to my mind, is one of the most essential needs in respect of the care of the old. Many people who are interested in this matter differ in the various schemes which they would like to see applied—I believe I am right in thinking that there is merit in all of them—and it is only people who know the conditions under which the old people are living, their family circumstances and all about them generally, who can really say whether they are best left in their own dwellings, or established in a home or institution, or fitted into some other scheme of life which may be most suitable for them. Having expressed my view in those few words, I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for the extremely able and interesting way in which he opened this debate, and to express the hope that what he said has won favour with the noble Lord opposite, and that we shall have a happy reply on behalf of the Government.
  7.15 P.M.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we all welcome this Motion as drawing attention to an aspect of social service which is of the greatest importance, and I wish

  361
  to join in the expression of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for the sympathetic and very clear way in which he has discussed the problem. The importance of the subject will have been realized from the figures which both the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, quoted to illustrate the general population trend. The inference is startling. The figures show that the numbers of persons of pensionable age have doubled since the beginning of this century, and in another twenty-five years they will represent approximately one in five of the population. Clearly, the needs of so large a section of the community must be kept in the forefront in the moulding of our social attitudes and the development of our plans of social security and welfare.
  Much is already being done in this direction. As your Lordships are aware, the financial needs of the aged have been dealt with by the National Insurance Act, and noble Lords have rightly drawn attention to the conclusion of the Nuffield Report that real poverty need no longer be one of the fears of old age. This is an important social change of which we can justly be proud. The increased old age pensions which are now being paid have at last brought real security to the great majority of our old people. Whilst on the question of money, I would add that the Government have made people of pensionable age the first to be given facilities for cashing their post-war credits. The health needs of old people will be met by arrangements under the National Health Service Act. We agree, as has been urged, that the present provisions for the chronic or, rather, long-term sick are inadequate—indeed, it is not unfair to say that in some cases they are lamentable, both in quantity and quality. As has also been said, there is much that can be done by way of treatment to restore at least an appreciable proportion of these patients to better health, to prevent their becoming bedridden, and to enable them to be discharged from hospital to live in their own homes or in an old people's home or hostel.
  We welcome, therefore, the noble Lord's suggestion that more treatment should be afforded to the aged long-term sick, and I am, glad to be able to say that, only a week or two ago, the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health
  362
  wrote to this effect to the medical officers of health of counties and county boroughs. More particularly we welcome the suggestion that hospitals for the long term sick should be much more closely linked up than they are at present with acute general hospitals. Such a link will undoubtedly make easier and more fruitful the continuous treatment from which many of them could benefit. We may well come in time to an arrangement by which many of the chronic sick hospitals cease to exist as such, and long-term patients are admitted to special wards of general hospitals. All this will become a possibility when the new national health service comes into being. As your Lordships know, the Regional Hospitals Boards, which are very shortly now to be appointed, will have among their early duties the re-planning of the hospital services; and the problem of the long-term sick, so many of whom are old people, will be among those to which my right honourable friend, the Minister of Health, will be asking them to direct their attention.
  Apart from the hospital and specialist services, the national health service will, we hope, bring many advantages to old people. Such things as spectacles, artificial teeth and hearing aids, which many old people are now without because they cannot afford them, will be available to them without charge. And the general practitioner family doctor services will be available to the old as to everybody else—specially important, perhaps, to old people, because of the economic factor. Again, there will be services provided by the local health authorities — domestic or home help when the labour position becomes easier, and a service of care and after care, which will be of special value to old people. Preparations are going ahead, and all these parts of the new service will, we hope, be available to a greater or lesser extent from the outset. The question raised by the right reverend Prelate of providing more adequate nursing service will certainly fall to be dealt with as part of the new health service. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that the recommendation of the Nuffield Report regarding the experimental centre for the training of nurses will be borne carefully in mind.
  Noble Lords have rightly given prominence to the provision of special housing accommodation for the aged. This

  363
  service must have a high place in our housing programme. Too many old people are living in accommodation which is unsuitable for them. Theirs is a very special housing need which requires a sympathetic and understanding approach. There is, I think, general agreement about the principle on which these dwellings should be planned and sited. The most important of them is this—that the old people should be enabled to lead normal lives in normal surroundings. They want to remain in contact with their friends and with the life of the community. Their dwellings should be close to churches and shops and centres of entertainments and community life, and should be sited amongst the homes in which younger generations are living and growing up. The exact type of accommodation required must, of course, vary according to the age and the vigour of the old people for whom it is intended. But whatever the type, it should have three qualities before all others: it should be small, warm, and convenient. The able-bodied aged are well suited in one or two storey cottages or cottage flats or on the lower floors of blocks of flats. For those who are not wholly able to look after themselves, accommodation can be provided in self-contained dwellings with certain communal quarters, and quarters for a nurse or warden. There is clearly scope for much variation in schemes of the latter kind—that is, in the combination of communal and private living—and scope, too, for experiment of considerable social interest and value.
  I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships that housing authorities are very much alive to the importance of this work and are giving much careful thought to the planning of the right sort of accommodation. More than 10,000 one-bedroom dwellings, a large proportion of which are designed for old people, are now in tenders approved by the Minister of Health. That represents about 4 per cent. of the total houses which local authorities now have in contract. We would not claim that this number was adequate to meet the need. The task must be viewed in relation to the general housing programme on which we are now engaged. But we can claim to have made a beginning. It must not be forgotten that over 90,000 two-bedroom temporary houses have been erected, apart from the one-bedroom permanent dwell-
  364
  ings to which I have referred. Although I have no figures, I am quite sure that a proportion of that total has gone to the aged people about whom we are speaking.
  There remains the problem of the care of those old persons who are not ill or infirm in the sense that they need treatment in hospital, but who, nevertheless, require accommodation of a special kind. It is clear from the Nuffield Survey that probably more than 95 per cent. of old people live more or less normal lives in private dwellings, some in homes of their own, some with relatives or friends. Many, however, for one reason or another, are really unfit to live in this way. They need accommodation in homes and hostels that are small enough to avoid the atmosphere of an institution, and equipped and staffed to provide the care and attention which the infirmity of old age requires. This is a need which is fully appreciated by the Minister of Health, and he has advised local authorities to use their Poor Law powers, whenever possible, to acquire and adapt premises which would be suitable for the purpose. A number of authorities have in fact already done so. The right reverend Prelate raised a particular case where he said there had been a difficulty about the licence. I have not the details of the case, and, naturally, am not able to deal with it. But now it has been raised by the right reverend Prelate it will be on the records of the House and I will see that it is brought to the attention of the proper authorities.
  It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation in due course to break up the Poor Law and to institute a comprehensive system of national assistance in its place. Under this plan, the responsibility for providing residential care for those of the old who are unable fully to look after themselves is likely to continue to rest with the larger local authorities, the county and county borough councils; but while new legislation is being prepared we are not neglecting possibilities of improving the local authorities' existing services for old people. Much can be done also to brighten conditions in the institutions in which, unsuitable though many of these buildings are for the purpose, many old people still have to be cared for. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the recent circular of the Minister of Health which offers many practical suggestions to local

  365
  authorities for improving the accommodation and atmosphere of their homes and institutions.
  It is, as has been said, most unfortunate that many of the old workhouse buildings have still to be used for the old people, and it is not surprising that the Nuffield surveyors, in suggesting plans for the future, have declared that most of these old buildings are probably unsuitable, even for the classified institutions which the surveyors recommend for specially difficult classes. But I do not need to remind your Lordships that there is a great shortage of accommodation of all kinds and a great shortage also of the labour and materials to build more. We have no alternative but to make the best use we can of such accommodation as we have until new and more suitable accommodation can be provided.
  The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly stressed the need in these institutes for furniture such as well constructed seat lockers. I am glad to tell him that the Minister regards the provision of lockers as the least that can be made. In the recent circular to which I have referred, the need for comfortable chairs of a type suitable for old people is pointed out. It is also recommended that each resident should have a wardrobe, chest of drawers, or at least a locker with keys where personal clothes and private possessions may be kept in safety. The circular went on to state that in providing improved accommodation, where the local authorities can supply or find the necessary labour to carry out this kind of work, a scheme should be submitted to the Minister who will give it sympathetic consideration even though priorities may be involved.
  The Minister of Health's recent circular also encourages local authorities to support the development of old folks' clubs to which the noble Lord referred. He rightly emphasized the importance of clubs as a means of alleviating the loneliness of old age. He stressed the value of having facilities for serving meals in the clubs, and I understand that an old age pensioners' club may be licensed for catering purposes if it is sponsored by the local authority or by a pensioners' committee working through a local authority. The noble Lord was a little doubtful about the facilities provided by Civic Restaurants being available, or advantage being taken of them, and he suggested that perhaps many
  366
  local authorities were not aware of the fact that through these Civic Restaurants there was power to provide meals "off the premises," to use a well-understood phrase. I will have that point looked into at the Ministry of Health, and if it is necessary I am sure that the Minister will not hesitate to bring this matter to the attention of the local authorities.
  The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the payment of subscriptions to these clubs. I understand that the organizations running such clubs may apply to the county or county borough council who, if they wish to make a subscription, will apply to the Minister of Health for his consent under Section 67 Of the Poor Law Act. I am quite sure that the Minister will give favourable consideration to any such applications. Reference was also made by noble Lords to the almshouses and pension schemes which were founded by the ancient charities, and to the desirability of revising the terms of the trusts. This issue was raised recently in another place, and the Minister of Health stated in reply that the matter was under discussion with the Charity Commissioners. The problem is extremely complex, and bristles with legal difficulties which will require close examination. That examination is in progress. and I do not think I can add anything more at this moment.
  As regards the question of continued employment—which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord. Amulree, and other noble Lords—the case has been stated for the continued employment of the aged worker after he has reached a pensionable age. With our population trend, and particularly in these days of labour shortages and production needs, we are all bound to agree with the general principle that all who can— and who wish to— should be allowed to carry on with their work. This would be both in the national interest and in the interest of the able-bodied elderly persons themselves—as has been suggested. But I should like to add one comment. One man may find the continuation of his lifetime's employment as the most effective means of maintaining his interest and challenging advancing years. Another will be eager to make a change, or will feel in need of at least a temporary rest. Retirement may, in fact, be desirable rather as a change of occupation than as the end of

  367
  working life. Many, I feel sure, could take a new lease of life by making a change and following some interest which they have longed to take up during their lifetime and have never had the time or opportunity to pursue. The important thing, I suggest, is for the pensioner to find an occupation within his capacity. I think I have now covered practically every point that has been raised.
  LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Lord sits down, while I do not press him for a reply, I would ask him if, with regard to the question of some means of procuring constant visiting, that matter will have attention?
  LORD HENDERSON: It will certainly be brought to the attention of the proper quarter. I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships that the Government are not only keenly aware of, but also deeply interested in, the needs of old people and that, in the face of shortages of every kind, we are doing what we can to meet those needs. Information is being gathered together; experiments are being made by local authorities and voluntary organizations in all parts of the country. An increasing amount of interest is being taken in the valuable work of the old people's welfare committees of the National Council of Social Service; and, in short, the ground is being well prepared for the day when—building, labour and staffing difficulties having been overcome —we may go ahead confidently with the plans which have been outlined to-day.
  In this preparatory stage, the Nuffield Survey will serve a great purpose. It combines a sober survey of existing facts with comprehensive recommendations for a long-term programme, and both will be of considerable service. We are grateful, as I have said, to the noble Lord who moved this Motion and to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, for their sympathetic comments and the several helpful suggestions which have been made and which I shall bring to the personal attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord who replied for the Government for his very encouraging and helpful observations. He has gone a very long way to meet most of the points which I raised and most of the
  368
  points which were raised by other noble Lords. In those circumstances, I would ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CITY OF LONDON (TITHES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned this day and pray leave to stand adjourned sine die for the convenience of parties: Read, and leave given accordingly.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION].
  Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders: Referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Act to the

  City of Exeter;

  Borough of Longborough;

  Urban District of Urmston;

  Rural District of Faringdon:

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FORESTRY COMMISSION'S PLANTING COSTS.
  FORESTRY COMMISSION'S PLANTING COSTS.
  INCOME TAX RETURNS.
  INCOME TAX RETURNS.
  DESTRUCTION OF FOXES.
  DESTRUCTION OF FOXES.
  FORESTRY COMMISSION COTTAGES.
  FORESTRY COMMISSION COTTAGES.